Wiz, good luck

Again, thanks VET. I will lump them all together...it will be extensive. I am an experienced administrator, with 20+ years in Civil Law. Ill do my best.

Wiz, lump them all. When you compile cases together, you have a better shot of proving the discrimination, etc... took place. I mean hell if you compile 10 allegation's, one of them has to fly right? The board will determine what section your allegation was violated. Let them do the work. I warn you again, on the phone affidavits. Read the affidavit when you get it over and over again. They have a way of twisting word's that will catch you off guard. Oh and remember to initial every page also. When you lump all your cases, be prepared for an extensive phone affidavit. The agency will coordinate back and forth between the po and yourself. Make sure all time lines are accurate and then like the thread below, it's all about patience and how bad you want to get them.

VET...Thanks for the info...I will keep you up on what's happening. When it comes down to it, should I file for each violation of Sect/Art 8, or lump them all in one?

Wiz, with NLRB you not only need good documentation, but actual proof. Statements obtained are good. Now when you file they will take down your phone affidavit. Beware they will twist word's around and when you receive your affidavit be sure to read each and every line. If you do not agree cross out the portion and initial the part crossed out or modified. Next, be sure to initial each page, they love dropping cases for this. When you get more call's from them they will probably say your case need's credibility. They will set up a time and date where they will have a field agent meet you. After your meeting, you will receive either case sustained and they found an unfair labor practice or deny. If they deny your claim, appeal it. They will ask you if you want the long version of your denial or short. Request short. When you appeal to ecab online, you will generally wait a month or two for a response. The board will conduct a hearing and if the favor is on your side, your foot's in the door. The agency will keep you updated as to what had been done and what document's were signed off by the law department representing the agency. If your claim on your appeal was denied they will ask if you want the long version or short. Take the short, trust me. Then the regional will have to overlook each and every aspect of your claim. It's a matter of time again. Not long though. A decision will be based and then distributed amongst the agency and yourself. Hopefully your duck's are lined before you call. I dont want to use this as a scare tactic, I simply want you informed that they will do justice if you have a solid case. Hope you find this informing, as I found out it was exhausting. I went through numerous, claims and have had most of the them susutained.

Good luck on that other site and with your future.

Maintenance in aisle 9! /m194 - Once again, I appreciate your particpation here at our forum and we wish you well with your endeavors.

However, flaming posts will be deleted if I see them or they are brought to my attention. I apolgize for this, but that is the way it will be.

Rick Owens
PEN
.

you know...we are not necessarily against you...even though you seem to have taken the stand. We actually appreciate some of what you said, would appreciate Rick's clear instructions followed, and be nicer to the poor Union folks here. Man, do they ever have the battle of a lifetime going on now, with the cut-backs, clear contract violations, and the like. I appreciate the guys that post here MORE than ever, as it is their expertise that may overturn this situation. I pay my dues most proudly.

Maintenance in aisle 9! /m190 Although your posts are educational...but lengthy... I take great offense of the noted post. I am a NALC Steward and Formal A representative. By refering to me as a "maggot" or in bed with management, sickens me. Before providing a blanket definition of Union officials, you should have the courtesy of investigating every one of us, just to make sure your allegations are correct.

I work hard at my job, and harder as the Steward/Formal A Representative in my facility. I work 30 hours a week on Union work...without pay. I protect the rights of all my carriers, and defend them at all costs. As the Steward, I have a giant target on my back, and get all kinds of special attention...because I do such a good job.

Referring to me as a maggot will get you nowhere.

EEOC Case # 4b-140-0062-06 (sandra mcconnell v. usps)

EEOC Class Action Pending For Postal Employees Placed Under USPS National Reassessment Process

A class action complaint for injured on duty postal employees was certified by an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) on May 30,2008.

In the case of Sandra McConnell, et al. v. United States Postal Service an AJ decision certified the following class:

All permanent rehabilitation employees and limited duty employees at the U.S. Postal Service who have been subjected to the National Reassessment Process (NRP) from May 5, 2006 to present, allegedly in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

The AJ certification decision recited evidence that the goal of NRP was to assign work to employees who had an approved compensable injury as determined by the Department of Labor. According to the decision, Phase 1 of NRP consisted largely of reviewing the files and medical records of all these employees; where needed requesting updated medical documentation from the employee; and verifying that current work actually being performed matched the current job offer. According to the decision, Phase 2 consisted largely of canvassing facilities to identify work necessary for operations and functions, attempting to match the employee with the necessary work, and if none is found, notifying the employee that no work was available.

The Postal Service filed an appeal from the certification decision, which is pending as of February 13, 2009.

Edited by author 05-01-2009 07:22 PM
The following message is another reason why the USPS denies reasonnable accommodations, so that they can continue to remove functions of the employees job, until they can ultimately force the employee into a "Dead end job" thus attempting to make the employee look more incapacitated than the employee really is at work,

so...

that they can follow them around with their inspectors and snap shots of them while they are at home, and then later say:

"Look Judge, Johnny got caught on camera mowing the yard!" (they always seem to so convieniently forget to include that it was a self-propelled lawn mower that Johnny used, and the neighborhood home owners association was about to take johnny's house if he didn't mow his yard...)

"You see Judge! Johnny is a liar! At work he says he can only sit at a desk for 8 hours cutting paper dolls!" (When it was really management who said that Johnny could only sit at the desk cutting paper dolls!) Go figure...


Message from: postal employee advocate

I’ve been receiving an unusually high number of contacts recently regarding photographic and video-tape “evidence” presented by the Postal Service in several administrative forums (OWCP, EEO, MSPB). The video-tape usually contains snippets of the employee’s activities, over an extended period of time, while away from work (at home, at the grocery store, etc.). Of course the intent is to show that the employee is either committing workers’ comp fraud, or that the work restrictions imposed by a physician, are not complied with during everyday life activities. The Postal Service will show these snippets (or photographs) to the employee’s doctor; to an administrative judge or a mediator; and of course to OWCP.
When presented to the employee’s doctor, it’s usually done by a Postal Inspector, with the intended purpose of intimidating the doctor. A threat of confiscation of all medical records, office files and computers due to fraud, is an effective way to extort cooperation (or at least cause the doctor to drop you as a patient). Any employee who has some type of work restriction, whether job-related or not, should advise their doctors up front that this is one of the tactics used by the Postal Service to harass employees and intentionally adversely affect the doctor-patient relationship. Doctors should be reminded that the release of any records, files, or medical evidence, absent a signed medical release from the patient, is verboten. Just like any law enforcement agency, the Postal Inspection Service must present a warrant, signed by a judge, in order to confiscate records or documents for which the patient has not signed a release. Employees should talk to their doctors specifically about whether the restrictions that s/he imposes is a “work restriction” or a “life restriction”. For example, does a 10 lb. lifting restrictions mean – don’t lift anything more than 10 lbs at work, or don’t lift more than 10 lbs ever? Does a driving restriction limiting an employee to only two hours per day mean only two hours a day while at work? What about the time it takes to drive to and from work? Is that included? What if you use up all of the two hours at work, are you allowed to drive any more than that when you are away from work? These may be simplified examples, but it’s important that employees have this communication with their doctors. It also protects the doctors when they can justify the difference between work restrictions and life restrictions.
Any offer of video-tape “evidence” (including still photos) should be challenged right away. First, how is the video or photos relevant to the issues before the judge, arbitrator or OWCP? If it’s not relevant, why is it being presented or offered as evidence? Who took the video-tape or photos, and over what period of time? How many hours of tape was made, or photos taken in order to acquire the few photos, or snippets that were edited from all of the entirety of the video or photos? Was the videographer a law enforcement official or other contract investigator? Was the photographer or videographer an expert, or otherwise adequately trained to obtain photo or video evidence? What is/are the name(s) and contact information for the photographers/videographers so that they can be cross-examined as to the “evidence” they obtained? Under whose authority, direction, or request was this type of evidence obtained? What was the stated purpose for this clandestine method of acquiring evidence?
Keep in mind that, if this “evidence” is related to an EEO complaint, you should also ask the Postal Service to articulate a legitimate non-discriminatory reason why evidence in this manner, was acquired or obtained. Does the Postal Service similarly clandestinely photograph or video-tape other employees who aren’t in the same protected group or class, when they are away from work? If so, who? When? Where? Does the Postal Service only video-tape employees who are disabled?
In my experience, the Postal Service is usually so excited and giddy to engage in a “gotcha” moment that they seldom establish the necessary FOUNDATION to submit photographs and/or video-tape as evidence. But even if their Gestapo tactics fail directly, indirectly they have already caused damage by implying that the employee has committed fraud. That’s an adverse impression that can prejudice the opinion of the judge; even the employee’s doctor. (Doctor’s don’t like being taken advantage of, and any notation to that effect in your medical records can follow you to other health care providers.)
Remember the Golden Rule of Paranoia – Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean that they’re not watching you.
Please disseminate this information to as many Postal Employees and unions as possible.
J.R. Pritchett
postalemployeeadvocate@juno.com

"The general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government."


Written by one of our Founding Fathers,
Alexander Hamilton
Mandated in Federalist Papers #28




"I proceed to inquire whether the federal government or the State governments will have the advantage with regard to the predilection and support of the people.

The federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes. The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other."

"Is the aggregate power of the general government greater than ought to have been vested in it? This is the FIRST question.

It cannot have escaped those who have attended with candor to the arguments employed against the extensive powers of the government, that the authors of them have very little considered how far these powers were necessary means of attaining a necessary end. They have chosen rather to dwell on the inconveniences which must be unavoidably blended with all political advantages; and on the possible abuses which must be incident to every power or trust, of which a beneficial use can be made. This method of handling the subject cannot impose on the good sense of the people of America. It may display the subtlety of the writer; it may open a boundless field for rhetoric and declamation; it may inflame the passions of the unthinking, and may confirm the prejudices of the misthinking: but cool and candid people will at once reflect, that the purest of human blessings must have a portion of alloy in them; that the choice must always be made, if not of the lesser evil, at least of the GREATER, not the PERFECT, good; and that in every political institution, a power to advance the public happiness involves a discretion which may be misapplied and abused. They will see, therefore, that in all cases where power is to be conferred, the point first to be decided is, whether such a power be necessary to the public good; as the next will be, in case of an affirmative decision, to guard as effectually as possible against a perversion of the power to the public detriment."

Written by one of our founding Fathers,
James Madison -Father of the Bill of Rights
Mandated in Federalalist Papers #41 & #46