1

Running header: CASE #13.2 DISCHARGE OF POSTAL LETTER CARRIER FOR OFF-DUTY CONDUCT

Case13.2, Discharge of Postal Letter Carrier for Off-Duty Conduct Employee and Labor Relations- HRM 534 September 2, 2011

CASE #13.2 DISCHARGE OF POSTAL LETTER CARRIER FOR OFF-DUTY CONDUCT Abstract

Management has the power to discipline for misconduct directly related to employment. However discipline is the action taken by HR management against an individual or group who has failed to follow the established rules and procedures within an organization. This paper will discuss the principle of Nexus and how it applies in this case of off-duty misconduct. Secondly, we will distinguish between arrests, indictments, and convictions. Thirdly, discuss Mr. Allen is a public sector employee and how does this differentiate the case from the private sector. Lastly, as the arbitrator, who has weighed the evidence, considered the necessary levels of proof, and which party bears eh burden of proof; render your decision. Explain the reasoning behind your decision.

CASE #13.2 DISCHARGE OF POSTAL LETTER CARRIER FOR OFF-DUTY CONDUCT According to Mathis (2010) arbitrators have been reluctant to sustain discipline for off-duty misconduct unless the is some nexus or connection to the job. Nexus is the key work. This is the

traditional rule: While generally the employees conduct away from the place of business is viewed as none of eh employers business, there is a significant when it is established that the employees misconduct off-the premises has a detrimental effect on the employers reputation or product or when the off-duty misconduct leads to the refusal or reluctance or inability of other employees to work with the employee on the job. Explain the principle of Nexus and how it applies in this case of off-duty misconduct. Nexus is the connection between off-duty misconduct and how it affects employment (Holley, Jennings, Wolters, Mathis, & Jackson, 2010). In determining whether or not there is a connection between the misconduct and employment, a number of questions must be answered. The arbitrator must decide whether or not the behavior will harm the employers reputation, if the behavior will prevent the employee from completing his/her job duties, if the behavior will directly affect products and/or production, and whether or not other employees will refuse or have difficulty working with the accused employee. In this case of off-duty misconduct, the arbitrator must determine if the alleged crimes of arson and burglary affected the employees ability to perform his job, if the crimes will have a detrimental effect on USPS service and reputation, and if the other employees refuse to work with the employee in question. The criteria traditionally considered by arbitrators belong in four categories: damage to the employers business or reputation, impact of the grievant reinstatement on fellow employees, who refuse to work with or be exposed to danger by the off-duty offender, unavailability of the

CASE #13.2 DISCHARGE OF POSTAL LETTER CARRIER FOR OFF-DUTY CONDUCT employee incarceration, the unsuitability of continued employment in light of the misconduct. Distinguish between arrests, indictments, and convictions.

An arrest occurs when a person has been apprehended and is taken into custody by the police or other legal authority. After an arrest, a prosecutor presents the case and related evidence to a judge or grand jury. If there is sufficient evidence against the accused person, an indictment (a formal written statement) is presented to the accused person by the grand jury demonstrating there is enough evidence against the accused person to be prosecuted in court. A final judgment is handed down after all the court proceedings and deliberations have been completed. A final judgment of guilty against a person in a case is a conviction, and the criminal is handed the imposed punishment for the crime. Mr. Allen is a public sector employee. How does this differentiate the case from the private sector? In both the private and public sectors, employers can discipline or discharge employees for off-duty misconduct. Employers typically must prove if and how the off-duty conduct affects the business, productivity, and working relationships with other employees. Public employers, however, are more critical of off-duty misconduct, especially from those who come in direct contact with the public every day, such as teachers, police officers, and firefighters. Public sector employers are more likely to discipline their employees for the misconduct than their private sector counterparts for the same offense. As the arbitrator, who has weighed the evidence, considered the necessary levels of proof, and which party bears the burden of proof; render your decision. Explain the reasoning

CASE #13.2 DISCHARGE OF POSTAL LETTER CARRIER FOR OFF-DUTY CONDUCT behind your decision.

As arbitrator for the Postal Service and Mr. Allen, I find in favor of Mr. Allen and grant his requested grievance. In Article 16 of the Agreement, it states, When there is reasonable cause to believe an employee is guilty of a crime for which a sentence of imprisonment can be imposed, the advance notice requirement shall not apply and such an employee may be immediately removed from a pay status (Holley, et. al, 2010, p. 613). Mr. Allen was indicted on charges that can carry up to 220 years imprisonment. Based on this alone, the Postal Service has the right to remove Mr. Allen from a pay status, but not terminate his employment. Although Mr. Allen has not been convicted of a crime, any reasonable person would believe Mr. Allen is guilty due to the fact he agreed to rebuild the cabin that was burned down. However, the owners have agreed to accept the replacement of the hunting cabin as restitution for burning it down. The owner of the cabin did not press charges against Mr. Allen, and she believed that he should not lose his job. The Postal Service agreed that if the indictment is dropped or Allen is acquitted, he would be returned to work immediately. Mr. Allen has worked effectively and he has not affected the work performance of his coworkers in the ten months prior to the indictment. In the months after the indictment, the Postal Service was unable to show how Mr. Allens actions had a negative effect on the Postal Services operations or reputation. Mr. Allens immediate supervisor testified he would not have terminated Allens employment if given the choice. There

CASE #13.2 DISCHARGE OF POSTAL LETTER CARRIER FOR OFF-DUTY CONDUCT

was no evidence of his coworkers not wanting to work with him, and there was community support for Mr. Allen to continue with his mail route. Even the Mayor of the town wanted to see Mr. Allen return to his duties. Based on all the information presented in the case, I recommend Mr. Allen be reinstated to his position and be compensated for all lost wages and benefits retroactive to the date of termination.

13.2 DISCHARGE OF POSTAL LETTER CARRIER FOR OFF-DUTY CONDUCT

References Holley, W. H., Jackson, J. H., Jennings, K. M., Mathis, R. L. & Wolters, R. S. (2010). The labor relations: 2010 custom edition. Mason, OH. Mathis, R. J. (2010) Employment and labor relations. Ohio: Cengage Learning.