Tom Giron NALC Organizer, Branch 111
The three member committee, appointed at last month's meeting, will likely
report on all six charges. If past precedent serves as any model, the members
will take turns, a turn per charge, and re-read an individual charge and then
report its findings per that charge; then another committee member will step up
and do the same with the next charge; etc. until each charge has been reported.
The committee is suppose to report to the membership the "facts" as they found
them.
The committee is not to do is provide a recommended action.
After the report is complete, the committee is immediately disbanded to take seats in the audience. At this time the 'chair' will invite the party being charged to say any words in his or her own defense that he/she wishes to say.
At this point the floor is invited to make a motion to either charge specific guilt or to dismiss one or all charges. There is no debate. Those that levied the charges are not permitted to reinforce their positions because all reinforcement is to be conclusive within the written charges themselves.
The members will act (or not act) on a motion that pleases them. (This (a simple majority) is usually on a voice vote, but can be done on a secret vote if moved/passed.) In the event one or more charges are sustained by the membership then a penalty phase begins. (In the event all charges are dismissed then there is no more discussion; it's as if the charges were never levied.) In the penalty phase, all voting is accomplished via secret ballot. The punishment, put forth by motion, escalates in this order: simple reprimand, fine, suspension, removal from office, expulsion from the Union. Note that removal from office and expulsion require a two-thirds majority, while the other penalties require a simple majority. Once the punishment is affixed, the accused has appeal rights via first the E-Board, then National, then Convention. During appeal the accused serves the punishment.
PLEASE NOTE: It's this web site's policy not to divulge the name(s) of persons who have had charges made against them, as the charges may or may not be upheld. The above paragraphs are purposely non-specific for that reason. Published charges on the 'Web', even if later removed, would be accessible via search engine archives, possibly for years. This policy is that of webmaster Franklin Glenn and reflects no input from anyone on either side of this issue. email: webmaster@branch111.com
Almost daily, I hear other carriers complain about the conditions we work under. About the scrutiny we seem to be under. About the silly rules we are made to follow. About DOIS. About our vehicles (especially in the summer) and about each other. With all this complaining, why is it that you rarely see carriers quitting? Why aren't more of us looking for better jobs? Why do we stay in an environment that makes us so unhappy?
The blame for this seeming contradiction is the Union. That's right, our own National Association of Letter Carriers deserves the blame. If it weren't for the union, we would all be making such a lower wage, many more of us would look elsewhere, searching for that elusive ideal job that we presently only dream about. Instead of wishing our lives away, wishing for that date that we begin pulling a pension, many of us would be pursuing our dreams, the ones that currently sit forever on the back burner of our minds.
Sure, I guess we could utilize some of those 26 days of annual we now enjoy to find another job. We could even combine them with one of the many holidays we get, and travel around looking for something exciting and challenging. A few of us may even land that dream job and live happily ever after. Most of the rest of us, unfortunately, would find something quite a bit different. We would find a job that pays 20% or 30% less. A job that gets fewer vacation days, less holidays and little benefits. An employer who would expect you to work long hours without overtime during those “crunch” times when a project had to be done that night. Sure, you'd probably get free pizza in exchange for the time away from your family, a fair trade-off for many.
My son-in-law just got laid off from American Express. His whole department was shut down. Employees in other departments, some with less service, still have jobs. He does not. How could this be? How could a company like American Express do this to dedicated employees? Because they do not have a union. Nobody is there to intervene on these employees' behalf, to stand up for their rights. Without a union, you better hope you work for a benevolent employer. You better hope you know the owner (or are related to the owner) or have a skill that the employer desperately needs.
So now the NALC is asking you to give back a little bit with a twice-monthly donation to COLCPE. It sickens me that we have to “pay off” the politicians in order to save our jobs. It seems so unethical that an elected Congressman would vote in a certain manner primarily because of the contributions he/she received from political action groups. But whether I like it or not, I don't think this reality is going to change any time soon. I think it is a necessary evil that we need to donate money to help keep our jobs. We are being hugely out-spent by our competitors, and money talks, and it talks loudly.
So what's it going to be? Are we going to support COLCPE, so that we can keep these jobs that seem to drive us all nuts from time to time? Or will we be stingy with our spare change, which will lead to many of us being given the opportunity to pursue our dream jobs out of necessity. I wonder if American Express has any openings?
If you don't contribute to COLCPE, you shouldn't be allowed to complain about anything adverse that happens to our future jobs. This isn't a rule, it just seems like a good idea.
April 1, 2004
United States Postal Chief Operating Officer and Executive Vice President Patrick R. Donahoe and the National Association of Letter Carriers president William H. Young, have announced that the parties have reached agreement to place a nationwide moratorium on all route inspections from April 3, 2004, through August 31, 2004. This moratorium will not include those route inspections that begin prior to April 3, 2004.
In addition, the parties have agreed on a process to verify cased mail volume for a period of time beginning on April 5, 2004, where possible, but in all delivery units no later than April 12, and concluding on May 28, 2004. During this time frame, letter carriers will have an opportunity on a daily basis to agree upon the cased mail volume that is being recorded into the DOIS system. Any disputes regarding the amount of cased mail volume to be recorded will be resolved by a supervisor and a union representative designated by the local branch president. The union’s representative will be provided a copy of the DOIS worksheet with the cased mail volume totals for each route at the end of each workday.
The national parties are continuing their discussions regarding a comprehensive approach to the issues related to delivery services and letter carriers as agreed to in our transformation memorandum.”
(signed) Patrick R. Donahoe (signed) William H. Young Friday, April 2, 2004 @ 19:23:45
The hiring has started again. It’s still easy to get the new hires with the war stories of the post office, but the big problem is still with the carriers that are already working. What I have noticed in the various offices I have worked in or visited is the bashing of the shop stewards when a member doesn’t get what he wants out of a grievance or vacation sign-ups. When a non-member sees union members fighting amongst themselves he probably thinks why would I join a group like that. The steward is there to protect the contract and the members against contract violations. He is not there as a crutch for members to get what they want when they want. During orientations I stress the brotherhood of the union and the way union members stick together. So imagine what a new PTF thinks when they see the one person I tell them to go to getting hammered by other members. (What have I gotten myself into?) All situations are not the same, so because you didn’t happen to get what someone else got, don’t get mad at the steward thinking that he did something wrong or he did it personally to you. He is doing it according to and for the contract, nothing else. With new stewards being elected or already elected bear this in mind. If you didn’t run for the position, support the people who did or are willing to fight for the contract. Remember your stewards and leadership have put this union and branch with all the good training and hard work over the past 8 ½ years in the position of beating most violations and discipline in the post office. Please don’t abuse their knowledge and stand behind them knowing they will do every thing in their power to protect the contract and the membership. Hopefully this will produce a trickle down effect, and some of the non-members will see the real picture of the union. Again, SOLIDARITY is our strongest asset.
Tom Giron NALC Organizer, Branch 111
Most of you are aware that charges were made at the April meeting. For those
of you interested, Here is a one page synopsis of the charges.
Sept 9, 2004
Under new business at today's branch meeting, was a charge filed against
President Miller by Steve McNees. The charge involves a letter sent to OWCP by
Miller regarding a claim by McNees . This is the seventh charge filed by McNees
since being removed as Formal A Representative for Sandy in early March (six
were filed together on 03-29-04 prior to this charge-03-29-04
Charges Details). Kirk McLaughlin appointed the following committee to
investigate the charges: Phyllis Polster, chairperson; Ron Frasier and Jim
Graham committee members.
On September 27th, Franklin Glenn replaced Jim Graham on the investigating
committee
Click here to view the charge in PDF format
At long last, the House Government Reform Committee approved a bill this week to overhaul the U.S. Postal Service.
The first major bill to head to the House in three decades, it was steered through the committee by Chairman Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.). The bill, approved by the committee 40 to 0, was authored chiefly by Rep. John M. McHugh (R-N.Y.), who has worked diligently to bridge differences among mailers, postal unions and the post office.
The letter carrier's union, the NALC, applauds the bill's retention of collective bargaining rights including no wage restrictions. Also lauded by the union are recommendations to continue a six-day delivery week and to maintain universal service.
There is a long way to go before these committee bills become law, however. They must survive the requisite house and senate debate and may very likely be opposed by the Bush administration.
According to committee chairman Davis, major provisions of the House bill would revise the process of setting postal rates, keeping them in line with the consumer price index and increase the oversight of the Postal Rate Commission.
The Senate draft bill includes a proposal to reduce disability payments provided to postal workers who are injured and will not likely return to work. This item is not appreciated by the postal unions.
Currently, injured employees with a dependent can receive 75 percent of their salary tax-free. Employees may elect to continue receiving disability pay after they are eligible for retirement.
The Senate bill would seem to be an attempt to push older, disabled workers towards retirement. The bill would cut disability payments to 50 percent of salary for any workers injured on or after Sept. 30, 2004 if they otherwise qualify for retirement benefits.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Denver, issued its decision
today regarding Steve McNees' DFR (duty of fair representation) charge against
Branch 111. The charge involves a letter that president Mike Miller sent to OWCP
regarding an incident that occurred on the workroom floor in Sandy, Utah on
March 11, 2004. (
click here to read the decision )
The charges were dismissed with two reasons detailed for the dismissal:
During old business at today's branch meeting was the committee report and
vote on the charge filed last month against President Miller by Steve McNees. (
read charge
) ( read committee report
) ( read Mike's
response )
Old business at tonight's meeting included the two charges (
click here to read ) filed against Steve McNees at the previous branch
meeting. David Hemingway and Jim Graham presented the investigating committee's
report on both charges, followed by a short statement of defense (also for both
charges) by Steve McNees. The first charge covered a myriad of topics, charging McNees with trying to
cause harm to the branch and to Mike Miller. The body voted handily to sustain
this charge. The surprise came during the penalty phase when one of the makers
of the charges, Mike Wahlquist, spoke against any serious penalty against
McNees; instead making a motion for a simple reprimand. Discussion on the motion
was spirited and filled with emotion but never got out of hand. Mike Madsen,
another signer of the charges, also spoke to the logic of a minor penalty for
Steve. McNees, on the other hand, rejected the idea of a reprimand, or any
penalty, since he felt he wasn't guilty of anything. Although those who spoke
were technically discussing the first charge, several alluded to the fact that
voting to sustain the second charge would result in Steve's immediate expulsion;
a pretty extreme penalty for a union brother who's fought to defend our rights
for years. They also warned that defending an expulsion in court could easily
cost the branch a great deal of money. In the end, the reprimand easily carried
a majority of the members. The second charge was more serious, the charge of perfidy (definition:
Deliberate breach of faith; calculated violation of trust; treachery), a
charge which carries expulsion from the union upon conviction. As Steve had
already presented his defense of this charge, the vote was taken almost
immediately following the vote for the reprimand. The vote of the body this time
failed to sustain the charge, ruling Steve McNees not guilty of perfidy.
March 22, 2005 This charge, brought against Mike Miller as the Utah State Worker's
Compensation Specialist for the NALC, was essentially the same charge as that
filed with the branch on 08-17-2004 against Miller as the Branch President. In
that matter, the branch determined the charge had no merit. Apparently, two
separate charges were filed since Miller was deemed to have been acting both as
branch President and as the Utah State Compensation Specialist when he wrote the
letter to OWCP. Charges against State officers are brought directly to the NALC
Executive Council. Click here to read the
decision letter in PDF format April 19, 2005 Click here to read the
decision letter in PDF format. Click here for details on
the original charge.
The 3 person committee investigating charges against
president Mike Miller dated March 29, 2004 found no merit to any of the
charges
The charges failed by subsequent vote of the body, by a 4 to
1 margin against the charges.
click here for details
1-The charge was made after the six month statute of limitations for DFR
charges.
2-There was insufficient evidence of any DFR violation as the Miller letter was
written at management's request and Miller was not acting in any official
capacity.
Oct 14, 2004
The vote cleared Miller of the charge by a large margin.
Updated Dec 10, 2004
Not Guilty for Charge 2
In letter form today, the NALC Executive Council dealt with the national charge
that resulted from the 03-15-04 letter written by Mike Miller to OWCP. The
Executive Council's decision simply stated that " a substantial charge was not
presented...." " ...no further action will be taken in the matter "
In letter form today, the NALC Committee on appeals dealt with Steve McNees'
appeal of the branch decision of 10-14-2004 where the branch voted 78 to 6
against charges brought against Mike Miller by McNees. The appeal was denied,
saying the appeal lacked merit.