DISCIPLINE WAS NOT PROGRESSIVE NOR CORRECTIVE

Management has issued this 14-dsay suspension to City Carrier …. with him having no live discipline on his record. Mr. … has been employed with the Postal Service since July 21, 2013 and has had an exemplary record for all those years. Management acknowledges as much in the letter of charges, where they state the following:
"based on the totality of the investigation and although you have no prior disciplinary action...

Management's actions here are in violation of numerous provisions of the JCAM and M-39 Handbook.
On page 16-1of the JCAM, both parties have agreed to the following language:
16.1Section 1. Principles

In the administration of this Article, a basic principle shall be that discipline should be corrective in nature.
On page 16-2 of the JCAM, both parties have agreed to the following language:
Corrective Rather than Punitive

The requirement that discipline be "corrective" rather than "punitive" is an essential element of the "just cause" principle. In short, it means that for most offenses' management must issue discipline in a "progressive" fashion, issuing lesser discipline (e.g., a letter of warning) for a first offense and a pattern of increasingly severe discipline for succeeding offenses (e.g., short suspension, long suspension, discharge). The basis of this principle of "corrective" or "progressive" discipline is that it is issued for the purpose of correcting or improving employee behavior and not as punishment or retribution.
On page 16-3 of the JCAM, both parties have agreed to the following language:
Examples of Behavior.

Article 16.1 states several examples of misconduct which may constitute just cause for discipline. Some managers have mistakenly believed that because these behaviors are specifically listed in the contract, any discipline of employees for such behaviors is "automatically" for just cause. The parties agree these behaviors are intended as examples only. Management must still meet the requisite burden of proof, e.g., prove that the behavior took place, that it was intentional, that the degree of discipline Imposed was corrective rather than punitive, and so forth. Principles of just cause apply to these specific examples of misconduct as well as to any other conduct for which management issues discipline. (emphasis added)

Section 115.1 of the M-39 Handbook, reads as follows:
115.1Basic Principle

In the administration of discipline, a basic principle must be that discipline should be corrective in nature, rather than punitive.
The Union contends that both parties have explained in great detail, going so far as to be repetitive, as to their position that discipline must be corrective and cannot be punitive. The very first sentence of Article 16, which deals with the discipline procedure, and the very first sentence of Section 115 of the M-39 Handbook are almost identical in their instructions to Management on how discipline must be handled.
16.1Section 1. Principles

In the administration of this Article, a basic principle shall be  that discipline should be corrective in nature.
115.1Basic Principle
In the administration of discipline, a basic principle must be that discipline should be corrective in nature, rather than punitive.

The dictionary defines 'shall' as follows:
Expressing a strong assertion or intention

The dictionary defines 'must' as follows:
Be commanded to: ought by all means
The Union contends that these directives are not a suggestion but a mandate.
In the case file is OIC …. statement of facts, and they read in relevant part as follows:
I believe that the level of correction requested is warranted based on the offense in question which makes this request corrective rather than punitive.
In case # C1C-4F-D 31565, dated December 4, 1984, Arbitrator Gerald Cohen opined the following:
Grievant's supervisor was asked if he had considered a lesser penalty. He replied that he had and had decided against it on the ground that he felt It would "have no impact". The action of the supervisor in this regard is a violation of Article 16, Section 1, of the National Agreement. The first sentence of this Article states:

"In the administration of this Article, a basic principle shall be that discipline should be corrective in nature, rather than punitive."
It has been held many times by other arbitrators that, for discipline to be corrective, it must be progressive. This directive from the National Agreement is mandatory. It is not discretionary. Management does not have the choice as to whether it will issue corrective discipline or not. It must attempt to make discipline corrective.
Here, Grievant's supervisor decided for reasons which appeared to him to be valid that corrective discipline would be useless. He does not, however, have that discretion. He must attempt to issue corrective discipline even though he believes that it will be of no use.

WAS A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION COMPLETED

Just Cause Principle
The principle that any discipline must be for "just cause" establishes a standard that must apply to any discipline or discharge of an employee. Simply put, the "just cause" provision requires a fair and provable justification for discipline. "Just cause" is a "term of art" created by labor arbitrators. It has no precise definition. It contains no rigid rules that apply in the same way in each case of discipline or discharge. However, arbitrators frequently divide the question of just cause into six sub-questions and often apply the following criteria to determine whether the action was for just cause. These criteria are the basic considerations that the supervisor must use before initiating disciplinary action.
Was a thorough investigation completed?

Before administering the discipline, management must make an investigation to determine whether the employee committed the offense. Management must ensure that Its investigation is thorough and objective. This is the employee's day in court privilege. Employees have the right to know with reason able detail what the charges are and to be given a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves before the discipline is initiated.
The dictionary defines 'thorough 'as follows:
Complete with regard to every detail; not superficial or partial

The dictionary defines 'objective' as follows:
Expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.
The Union contends that Management's investigation, as it pertains to the 14-
day, was neither thorough nor objective.
In the case file is the Notice of Fourteen (14) day suspension. It reads in relevant part as follows:
SPECIFICATION 1: OIG and Management investigation found that you engaged in serious misconduct when on November 4, 2020, you were absent from duty based on an approved PS3971 requesting Union LWOP to attend an arbitration hearing, but instead were attending to personal affairs unrelated to the arbitrations you were approved for. You were originally scheduled to attend arbitration (not advocating) but the hearing was canceled. Rather than notify management of the cancelation and report for duty, you took your family to ….
…. When originally questioned regarding this date you withheld relevant information, only admitting to taking your family to ….. under follow-up questioning that included potential evidence that you were in …...

The Union contends that this charge is misleading and blatantly false. In every investigation, where Mr. …. was questioned about this date, he maintained that he called his supervisor, …., and informed him that the arbitration  was cancelled and asked that he change his Union LWOP 084 to LWOP 060. The TACS clock rings show Supervisor …. EIN on the day in question inputting LWOP 060.
Mr. …. told Management and the OIG the same thing about Supervisor ….. The documentation provided by Management, through my request for information, and the report from the OIG shows that neither party ever questioned Supervisor …… to see if this was true. In the OIG investigation I encouraged the OIG to question Management, because the OIG had so many questions about the LWOP, however, they never did.
The Union contends that Mr. …. informed Management during the initial II on February 19 that he was in ….., on the day in question, and that he had called Supervisor ….. to ask that he change his Union LWOP 084 to LWOP 060 beforehand, which he did.
The Union would also like to point out that Management conveniently left out, in their II notes, where Mr. …. informed them about Supervisor …..
Fortunately for him his Union rep at the time, Mr…., took very good notes and was able to show where he did in fact tell them about Supervisor …..
In the OIG investigation I had to explain the difference between 084 and 060. Once Mr. ….was inputted for LWOP 060 he could do whatever he wanted to  do. He could take his family wherever he wanted.
The Notice of 14-day Suspension goes on to read:
When questioned regarding these incidents, you first admitted that the only time you took leave improperly was on January 12, 2021. Then under further questioning, you also admitted to November 4, 2020 taking your family to ….. The responses you provided during questioning admitted to the charges above and failed to justify your actions.
The Union contends that this statement is misleading and blatantly false. Mr. ….. never admitted any wrongdoing on the November 4, 2020 date. He has

maintained from the beginning that the January 12, 2020 date was a mistake and he continually apologized for that.
In the initial II on February 19 Mr. …. states the following:
Yes. Apologizes again. Only the 1 day I was untruthful. If a date got cancelled and I took off, it was to work on local stuff. I usually come in here. I thought Union LWOP was just that. I know … is an advocate. It's a thrill. I wouldn't do anything to diminish that. Once again …, I am sorry.
Once again, the Union contends that Management's investigation was shoddy at best and with the number of falsehoods in their disciplinary action it is quite obvious their investigation was not objective.

The severity of the discipline was not reasonably related to the infraction itself and in line with that usually administered, as well as to the seriousness of the employee's past record?

Just Cause Principle The principle that any discipline must be for "just cause" establishes a standard that must apply to any discipline or discharge of an employee. Simply put, the "just cause" provision requires a fair and provable justification for discipline. "Just cause" is a "term of art'' created by labor arbitrators. It has no precise definition. It contains no rigid rules that apply in the same way in each case of discipline or discharge. However, arbitrators frequently divide the question of just cause into six sub-questions and often apply the following criteria to determine whether the action was for just cause. These criteria are the basic considerations that the supervisor must use before initiating disciplinary action.

Was the severity of the discipline reasonably related to the infraction itself and in line with that usually administered, as well as to the seriousness of the employee's past record?
The Union contends that Management violated the above sub-question on two
fronts.
1.	Mr. ….has an impeccable record. He has been an exemplary employee for going on 8 years. He made one error in judgment, which he acknowledged and apologized for on numerous occasions, and Management puts him at the doorstep of a removal.
2.	Four members of Management were caught falsifying city carrier clock rings for months and months. They never apologized. They never admitted it. They initially refused to get the training mandated for them to do. Their actions ultimately cost the service over a quarter of a million dollars. They were never disciplined nor admonished for their actions in anyway by Management.
1.	

The documentation provided by Management shows that Supervisor …. received a proposed Letter of Warning, not for falsifying clock rings; but for not complying with a signed grievance settlement. Not only that, but he received this
proposed Letter of Warning for his continued non-compliance with signed grievance settlements. The proposed Letter of Warning is riddled with accusations of a blatant history of non-compliance by Supervisor ….. It also speaks of an employee that refuses to be held accountable for his actions, as he did not respond to the notice of proposed letter of warning.
Here is a perfect case of 'rules for thee, but not for me.' Mr. …. admitted wrong doing. He apologized, on numerous occasions, to all involved. He has an impeccable record. His action did not cost the Postal Service any monetary loss, yet, he was issued a 14-day suspension.
The Union contends that Management violated the above sub-question of just cause

OFFICIAL DISCUSSION

On page 16-4 of the JCAM, both parties have agreed to the following language:
16.2 Section 2. Discussion

For minor offenses by an employee, management has a responsibility to discuss such matters with the employee. Discussions of this type shall be held in private between the employee and the supervisor. Such discussions are not considered discipline and are not grievable. Following such discussions, there is no prohibition against the supervisor and/or the employee making a personal notation of the date and subject matter for their own personal record(s). However, no notation or other information pertaining to such discussion shall be included in the employee's personnel folder. While such discussions may not be cited as an element of prior adverse record in any subsequent disciplinary action against an employee, they may be, where relevant and timely, relied upon to establish that employees have been made aware of their obligations and responsibilities.
Although included in Article 16, a "discussion" is non-disciplinary and thus is not grievable. Discussions are conducted in private between a supervisor and an employee. Both the supervisor and the employee may keep a record of the discussion for personal use; however, these are not to be considered official Postal Service records. They may not be included in the employee's personnel folder, nor may they be passed to another supervisor. Discussions cannot be cited as elements of an employee's past record in any future disciplinary action. Discussions may be used (when they are relevant and timely) only to establish, that an employee has been made aware of some particular obligation or responsibility.

The Union contends that Management has defeated their own position, as it pertains to the severity of this discipline, in their request for appropriate action. In Management's Request for Appropriate Action, it states quite clearly the following:

(B} Prior Discussion(s)? Yes _x_	No 	

Discussion date(s)

Management could not have given Mr. …. a "prior discussion" concerning his 'Conduct' due to the fact he has never been in trouble before.
There is no date cited for this "Prior Discussion'.
However, if Management wants to now state that they did in fact give Mr. …. an official discussion, for some mystery conduct issue he never had, then they contradict their own narrative.

Management cannot state that his actions warranted a fourteen-day suspension on the first occurrence yet state that he has been given an official discussion for his prior conduct. This means that Management, in accordance with Article 16.2, has determined that such actions, previously, warranted an official discussion, due to it being a minor offense. They cannot have it both ways. They either falsely claim a prior discussion in an attempt to justify this 14-day, or they did in fact give
him a prior discussion, which means that his prior conduct was seen as a minor
offense.

Management failed in showing a fair and provable justification for discipline.

Just Cause Principle The principle that any discipline must be for "just cause" establishes a standard that must apply to any discipline or discharge of an employee. Simply put, the ''just cause” provision requires a fair and provable Justification for discipline. "Just cause" is a "term of art" created by labor arbitrators. It has no precise definition. It contains no rigid rules that apply in the same way in each case of discipline or discharge. However, arbitrators frequently divide the question of just cause into six sub-questions and often apply the following criteria to determine whether the action was for just cause. These criteria are the basic considerations that the supervisor must use before initiating disciplinary action.
The dictionary defines 'requires' as follows:
To make something necessary, to have as a prerequisite, demand

The Union contends that Management's charge, as it pertains to Specification 1, was neither fair nor provable.
•	Management's charge here is based off assumption and conjecture.
•	Management's charge is misleading.
•	Management's charge speaks in only half truths
•	Management's conclusion was not based on evidence and reasoning

•	See Union's handwritten notes on actual 14-day suspension
•	

WAS THE RULE CONSISTENTLY AND EQUITABLY ENFORCED

Just Cause Principle
The principle that any discipline must be for "just cause" establishes a standard that must apply to any discipline or discharge of an employee. Simply put, the "just cause" provision requires a fair and provable justification for discipline. "Just cause" is a "term of art" created by labor arbitrators. It has no precise definition. It contains no rigid rules that apply in the same way in each case of discipline or discharge. However, arbitrators frequently divide the question of just cause into six sub-questions and often apply the following criteria to determine whether the action was for just cause. These criteria are the basic considerations that the supervisor must use before initiating disciplinary action.
Is the rule consistently and equitably enforced?

A rule must be applied fairly and without discrimination. Consistent and equitably enforcement is a critical factor. Consistently overlooking employee infractions and then disciplining without warning is improper. If employees are consistently allowed to smoke in areas designated as No Smoking areas, it is not appropriate suddenly to start disciplining them for this violation. In such cases, management loses its right to discipline for that infraction, in effect, unless it first puts employees (and the unions) on notice of its intent to enforce that regulation again. Singling out employees for discipline is usually improper. If several similarly situated employees commit an offense, it would not be equitable to discipline only one.
The rule cited on the 14-day suspension is as follows:
665.16 Behavior and Personal Habits
Employees are expected to conduct themselves during and outside of working hours In a manner that reflects favorably upon the Postal Service Although it is not the policy of the Postal Service to interfere with the private lives of employees, 1t does require that postal employees be honest. reliable. trustworthy. courteous. and of good character and reputation. The Federal Standards of Ethical Conduct referenced in 662.1 also contain regulations governing the off-duty behavior of postal employees. Employees must not engage in criminal. dishonest. notoriously disgraceful. immoral. or other conduct prejudicial to the Postal Service Conviction for a violation of any criminal statute may be grounds for disciplinary action against an employee, including removal of the employee, in addition to any other penalty imposed pursuant to statute

In case # Cl6N-4C-C 19079250, dated August 30, 2019, Arbitrator Lawrence Roberts issued his award for a grievance out of the ….. Installation. It reads  in part as follows:

It is the contention of the Union that the evidence will show this grievance is the fourth grievance filed by the Union which initially involved Management falsifying clock rings in the Main ….. Installation.
According to the Union the last three grievances were filed due to Management's non­ compliance of the initial settlement.
The Union mentions that on June 6, 2018, the Dispute Resolution Team issued their decision for Grievance 11-MDMK4-18, which was the initial grievance, and wrote in part that "The Step B Team agrees Management will cease and desist this practice and that all Management in the ….Post Office will be retrained on the use of TACS immediately upon receipt of this decision."
On August 7th of 2018, the Union submits the local Formal A Parties, NALC Representative …… and USPS Representative …., agreed to the following remedy: ''The Parties agree that ….will complete the TACS user training no later than 8/31/18 and provide the Union certification of completion."
The above case dealt with Management at the …. Installation flagrantly and repetitively falsifying clock rings, of city letter carriers, for months at a time. Unlike Mr. …. 14-day suspension, which cost the postal service no money, the decision to falsify clock rings cost the Postal service well over a quarter of a million dollars in awards to the letter carriers.
At no time, after the falsification of clock rings came to light, did anyone from Management call the OIG. Even Mr. …., who was the TA for the above cited arbitration, somehow managed to not call the OIG voicing his concern, as he rushed to do when he learned of Mr. …..taking a questionable day of LWOP.
The Union requested the discipline issued to the following members of Management, who were involved in the massive falsification of clock rings case, that led to such an enormous monetary loss to the Service.

•	Supervisor ….
•	Supervisor ….

none issued. none issued.

•	Supervisor ….	none issued.
•	Postmaster ….	none issued
In the case file is the 14-day suspension, issued to Mr. …, and it reads in relevant part as follows:
Based on the totality of the investigation and although you have no prior disciplinary action, there is no question that each specification alone involves serious misconduct and supports this

action. The level of this action issued is directly related to the gravity of the offense. Your conduct is unacceptable and shows a lack of integrity and honesty required of all Postal employees. This has damaged my confidence in your ability to conduct yourself in a responsible manner. Neither your tenure with the USPS nor your position of Local NALC Branch President mitigates the seriousness of your actions.
The Union contends that the above referenced statement is nothing more than hypocritical, self-righteousness. Mr. …. was honest and forthcoming in his Investigative interview. He was overly apologetic to everyone that investigated him. He has never had any issues with his integrity and acknowledges that his actions were out of character and would not be repeated. His action cost the Postal Service no monetary loss. Yet Management placed him one step away from losing his job.
On the flip side of that coin, Management had four of their own get caught intentionally falsifying months and months of city carrier clock rings. They never admit to anything, unlike Mr. ….. They then refused to do the TACS training that was demanded of them. That case goes to Arbitration and the Service loses almost $300,000.00 in awards.
If I was to take names and titles out of the above two cases, which one would you think got the 14-day?
The Union contends that Management violated the above cited sub-question, as the rule was obviously not consistently and equitably enforced.

DISCIPLINE IS NOT ISSUED IN A TIMELY MANNER.

16.1	Section 1. Principles

In the administration of this Article, a basic principle shall be that discipline should be corrective in nature, rather than punitive. No employee may be disciplined or discharged except for just cause such as, but not limited to, insubordination, pilferage, intoxication (drugs or alcohol), incompetence, failure to perform work as requested, violation of the terms of this Agreement, or failure to observe
safety rules and regulations. Any such discipline or discharge shall be subject to the grievance-arbitration procedure provided for in this Agreement, which could result in reinstatement and restitution, including back pay.
Just Cause Principle
The principle that any discipline must be for "just cause" establishes a standard that must apply to any discipline or discharge of an employee. Simply put, the "just cause" provision requires a fair and provable justification for discipline. "Just cause" is a "term of art" created by labor arbitrators. It has no precise definition. It contains no rigid rules that apply in the same way in each case of discipline or discharge. However, arbitrators frequently divide the question of just cause into six sub-questions and often apply the following criteria to determine whether the action was for just cause. These criteria are the basic considerations that the supervisor must use before initiating disciplinary action.

Was the disciplinary action taken in a timely manner? Disciplinary actions should be taken as promptly as possible after the offense has been committed.
The Union contends that Management's 14-day suspension was not issued in a timely manner. This discipline was issued eighty-two (82) days after their initial investigative interview. This is a clear due process violation. The Union contends that Management relied solely off information obtained during their February 19 investigation. The OIG investigation was initiated by area labor specialist ….. The OIG asked the same questions in their investigation as Management did in theirs. Any investigation performed after February 19 was just window

dressing. They obtained no new information and asked the same questions only in a different manner. The Union feels this was an attempt on Management's part to keep the discipline timely. At the second management Investigative interview dated April 13, 2021, I asked OIC …. if he contacted the OIG or did the OIG contact him initially. He stated he couldn't remember. That was fifty-three (53) days after the initial II. Now I, as the shop steward, must conduct my investigation 82 days after the initial II, over something that occurred almost 100 days ago.
In case S1N-3W-D dated June 3, 1982, Arbitrator Edmund Schedler opined the following:
In the usual grievance a delay in presenting charges can mean the loss of evidence to an aggrieved. Memories fade with the passage of time, witnesses become difficult to locate so as to reconstruct the events in question, a photograph of the scene taken weeks later may be inaccurate as to the conditions that prevailed on the date of occurrence. In my opinion a delay of 47 days in presenting a letter of charges is too long and I find that the Employer has violated Article 16 of the National Agreement by delaying the delivery of the letter of charges. I have no disagreement with the Employer in delaying the serving of the suspension pending the outcome of the fitness-for-duty examination, but a delay in presenting charges damages an employee's right to prepare to defend himself against the charges and that is where I disagree with the procedures the Employer followed.
In the above-mentioned case, the service delayed the letter of charges pending the results of a fitness for duty. The Arbitrator didn't buy it. In the present case Management will undoubtedly say that the letter of charges was delayed due to an OIG investigation. The OIG investigation was a guise, perpetuated by area labor, to give the appearance of a thorough investigation.

DISCIPLINE LACKED PROPER CONCURRENCE
On page 16-9 of the JCAM both parties agreed to the following language:
16.8 Section 8. Review of Discipline In no case may a supervisor impose suspension or discharge upon an employee unless the proposed disciplinary action by the supervisor has first been reviewed and concurred in by the installation head or designee. In post offices of twenty (20) or less employees, or where there is no higher-level supervisor than the supervisor who proposes to initiate suspension or discharge, the proposed disciplinary action shall first be reviewed and concurred in by a higher authority outside such installation or post office before any proposed disciplinary action is taken.
Concurrence is a specific contract requirement to the issuance of a sus pension or a discharge. It is normally the responsibility of the immediate supervisor to initiate disciplinary action. Before a suspension or removal may be imposed, however, the discipline must be reviewed and concurred In by a manager who is a higher level than the initiating, or issuing, supervisor. This act of review and concurrence must take place prior to the issuance of the discipline. While there is no contractual requirement that there be a written record of concurrence, management should be prepared to identify the manager who concurred with a disciplinary action so he/she may be questioned if there is a concern that appropriate concurrence did not take place.
In the case file is Management's request for appropriate action. It shows the requesting official as OIC ….. What it does not show is the concurring official. This means that the discipline was requested and sent to labor without the information, that Management relied upon to request this discipline, being looked at and properly concurred on.
In case# S1N-3W-D 45373 & 45383, C-05164 A&B dated Sept 19, 1985 Arbitrator William LeWinter opined the following:
The removal is subject to the same defect. Here, there is no Form 278E testified to or presented at the hearing. The issuing supervisor, Mr. Almand, gave no testimony that he requested any concurrence. Mr. 6olby testified that he "concurred" with the removal. At no time, however, did Mr. Golby testify that he was requested to give the formal concurrence as required by the contract. Mr. Golby's testimony is no more effective than if he testified that he agreed with the removal as a general theory. There is no link of the Golby "concurrence" with the discipline Issued.
Concurrence is a specific and formal contract requirement to the issuance of a suspension or a discharge. It must occur before the issuance of the discipline and not afterwards. The requirement is not met merely because a superior agrees with the discipline. It must be demonstrated that he was requested to concur, and that he reviewed the matter in light of all the current information at the time of concurrence, and that he then gave his consent to the issuance of the discipline. While the contract does not require a writing to accomplish this, it is

the Employer's burden to demonstrate it occurred. Without a writing, it needs substantially more evidence than was presented at this hearing.
In this case, as in the cited case above, there is only a name on the letter of charges. Management has failed to show that there was a proper concurrence of the information relied upon to issue the discipline.

DISCIPLINE WAS ORDERED BY HIGHER MANAGEMENT, RATHER THAN BY THE GRIEVANT'S IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR.
The decision whether to impose discipline, and the decision as to the degree of discipline to be imposed, should be made by the letter carrier's immediate supervisor. While higher authority may advise, if asked, it is improper for officials above the immediate supervisor to initiate discipline or to override the immediate supervisor's recommendation.
The case file will show that OIC …. removed his supervisors from every aspect of this disciplinary process. He, as well as area labor specialist …., conducted the Investigative interviews. He, as well as area labor specialist …., communicated with the OIG. He requested the discipline. He issued the discipline.
The ….. Installation has three supervisors and two 204bs.
The contract is quite clear on who it is that should handle such things.
On page 16-1 of the JCAM it reads in relevant part:
"Just cause" is a "term of art" created by labor arbitrators. It has no precise definition. It contains no rigid rules that apply in the same way in each case of discipline or discharge. However, arbitrators frequently divide the question of just cause into six sub-questions and often apply the following criteria to determine whether the action was for just cause. These criteria are the basic considerations that the supervisor must use before initiating disciplinary action.
On page 16-4 of the JCAM it reads in part:
Although included in Article 16, a "discussion is non-disciplinary and thus is not grievable. Discussions are conducted in private between a supervisor and an employee.
Both the supervisor and the employee may keep a record of the discussion for personal use; however, these are not to be considered official Postal Service records. They may not be included in the employee's personnel folder, nor may they be passed to another supervisor.
Discussions cannot be cited as elements of an employee's past record in any future disciplinary action. Discussions may be used (when they are relevant and timely) only to establish, that an employee has been made aware of some particular obligation or responsibility.

On page 16-9 of the JCAM it reads in part:
16.8 Section 8. Review of Discipline

In no case may a supervisor impose suspension or discharge upon an employee unless the proposed disciplinary action by the supervisor has first been reviewed and concurred in by the installation head or designee. In post offices of twenty (20) or less employees, or where there is
no higher-level supervisor than the supervisor who proposes to initiate suspension or discharge,
the proposed disciplinary action shall first be reviewed and concurred in by a higher authority outside such installation or post office before any proposed disciplinary action is taken.
Concurrence is a specific contract requirement to the issuance of a suspension or a discharge. It is normally the responsibility of the Immediate supervisor to Initiate disciplinary action. Before a suspension or removal may be imposed, however, the discipline must be reviewed and concurred in by a manager who is a higher level than the initiating, or issuing, supervisor. This act of review and concurrence must take place prior to the issuance of the discipline. While there is no contractual requirement that there be a written record of concurrence, management
should be prepared to identify the manager who concurred with a disciplinary action so he/she may be questioned if there is a concern that appropriate concurrence did not take place.
The Dictionary defines 'normally' as follows:
As a rule; in the usual way

In the case file is a statement from City Carrier …... It brings into question whether the requesting and issuing Manager,OIC …., had any authority whatsoever when it came to the severity of discipline he could issue.
The statement reads in part:
"The next week, …. brought me into the office to ask how I was doing. During this talk I told him I was pissed off that labor was involved with the investigation and that I felt as though this was retaliation. He stated that this was an internal investigation only but then proceeded to tell me that he didn't know what "they" were going to push for as far as discipline goes. He literally told me that it was an investigation In this office only but then that labor was making the decisions on how to discipline me."
"..After the interview with the OIG, OIC ….. spoke with me alone and stated that he did not know what labor wanted to do with this but if it were up to him he was not going to remove me and stated that it should be up to him however labor may go in another direction.
The Union contends that this unquestionably violates Mr. …. right to due process. The case file fully supports the things stated by Mr. ….. Area Labor specialist ….. has immersed himself into this investigation. For what reason I can only speculate. He sat in on and participated in the initial Investigative Interview. He was the one who contacted the OIG. He emailed

Business Agent …. looking for information against Mr. …. He called me as well as Business Agent …. looking for information against Mr.
…. His actions here are truly bizarre and reeks of retribution. Mr. ….has been a thorn in labor's side for some time. A month prior to the Investigative interview, Mr. …. signed off on a substantial Pre-Arb for the …. Installation. He was also the TA for the non-compliance grievance that spawned from the Falsification of clock rings case

Left blank

44

LEFT BLANK

45

Right to confront witness and anonymous sources
In the case file is the Statement of facts from OIC….. It reads in relevant part as follows:

"During this time, I was sitting in my office and a city letter carrier (who request to remain anonymous) came to me and asked where ….. was. I responded that he was on union business for the week. The employee told me that he personally knew that …. was In the …-Gatlinburg area on that day. He stated that he didn't think that it was right that Shawn was turning in union time and going on vacation.

The Union contends that I cannot cross examine 'Anonymous'. I don't believe for a second that this happened. I believe that ….. initiated this entire ordeal, and this was nothing more than a guise to act as a trigger for this investigation. I find it hard to believe that any letter carrier, regardless of upbringing, is going to snitch on another carrier.

The written rule of law agrees with the Union in this matter.
The Sixth Amendment provides that a person accused of a crime has the right to confront
a witness against him or her in a criminal action. This includes the right to be present at the trial (which is guaranteed by the E .<1 rn.l Rules of Criminal Procedure Rl:!l 4_ ). As well as the right
to cross examine the prosecution's witnesses.

Constitutional Basis and Purpose

The Confrontation Clause found in the Sixth Amendment provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to be confronted with the witnesses against him." The Clause was intended to prevent the conviction of a defendant upon
written evidence (such as depositions or ex parte affidavits) without that defendant having an opportunity to face his or her accusers and to put their honesty and truthfulness to test before the i!![y.
In Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237 (1895}, the Supreme Court enunciated the three fundamental purposes that the Confrontation Clause was meant to serve:

1.	To ensure that witnesses would testify under oath and understand the serious nature of the trial process;
2.	To allow the accused to cross-examine witnesses who testify against him; and
3.	To allow jurors to assess the  credibility of a witness by observing that witness's behavior.

In Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 530 (1986). the Court noted that the Confrontation Clause is one of several constitutional safeguards toe promote fairness in the criminal justice system. In Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 {1980}, the Supreme Court left open the possibility that competing interests, such as a

46

jurisdiction's interest in effective law enforcement, might prevail over the right to confront opposing witnesses. However, in Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 {1988). the Supreme Court held that that taking other interests into account should not be interpreted as creating exceptions to "the irreducible literal meaning of the clause," reaffirming that a defendant has the right to confront his alleged victim "face-to-face." However, as per Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990) below, there may still be exceptions.

Admission of out-of-Court Statements

The admission of hearsay evidence sometimes results in depriving defendants of their right to confront opposing witnesses, as the Supreme Court observed in Delaney v. United States, 263 U.S. 586 (1924).
In Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 (1968), the Court recognized a common law exception to the Confrontation Clause's requirement when a witness was unavailable and, during previous judicial proceedings, had testified against the same defendant and was subject to cross-examination by that defendant. The Supreme Court reaffirmed this exception in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), holding that "the Framers would not have allowed admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination." Further, the Court in Crawford overturned Ohio v.
Roberts (above).
The Union contends that, even though this process does not end in the court of law, the premise is the same.

Supervisor …… TACS clock ring training

On Thursday, May 13, 2021 at 11:21am; I sent the following email to Postmaster …:
Good afternoon, in accordance with articles 17 and 31 of the National Agreement I am requesting any and all TACS clock ring training, either required or mandated, for supervisor …..
On Monday, May 14, 2021 at 9:17 am; I received the following email from Postmaster ….:
I meant Wednesday; I apologize. Here is the training record for …..

Attached was a list of training courses that Supervisor …. has yet to take. The information provided shows there isn't a single TACS clock ring course completed by Supervisor …. in his entire employment with the Postal Service.

Rebuttal to OIG report of investigation of City Carrier ……, dated March
24, 2021.

•	Page 4 'Predication' states that this case was initiated based on information provided by ….) Labor Relations Specialist, Eastern Area, …., Tennessee. It goes on to state that …. advised the OIG of an allegation involving … … that he was possibly engaged in employee misconduct.
The Union would like to ask why in the hell is a labor specialist from the Eastern area involved with and initiating an investigation of a city letter carrier from ….? Mr. …. has called and emailed (copy in case file) Business Agent …. as well as me looking for information against Mr. …..
Why has he removed all of management at the …. Installation and taken over portions of this investigation? He also sat in on the initial Investigative interview on February 19, 2021. He has absolutely no business interfering in an investigation of any city letter carrier. I'd say his involvement is highly suspect as well as prejudicial to Mr. ….. Mr. … immediately left the Investigative Interview on the 19th and called the OIG. Why? Why not Postmaster ….? Why not any of the supervisors? This is a clear violation of Mr. …. due process as Mr. …. has made sure with his involvement that every step of the grievance procedure will be tainted with his involvement.
•	Page 4 'Predication' states that …. told the OIG that … OIC of …. advised …. was possibly engaged in employee misconduct. …. advised he was concerned …. was fraudulently reporting his time and attendance in his position as a Union advocate...
This is misleading. Mr. … wasn't advised about anything. He was in the Investigative interview and took part in questioning Mr. …. He contacted the OIG based off of information that he had gotten when he sat in on the Investigative interview.
•	Page 4 'Synopsis" The OIG concluded the following based off of their investigation: This investigation determined …. engaged in misconduct
•	

when, on two occasions, he fraudulently presented PS Forms 3971, Union LWOP requests to attend arbitration hearings while in actuality, conducted personal affairs.

The three words that need to be focused on in the OIG's synopsis are as follows:
Determined: having made a firm decision and being resolved not to change it
Fraudulently: false, misleading, intended to deceive Presented: hand over, give, hand out
At the end of the OIG's brief and narrow-minded investigation they determined that:
1.	on 10/23/2020 Mr. …. submitted a 3971 requesting Union LWOP for the dates of 11/4/20 thru 11/7/20 with the intent of misleading management because he could see into the future and know that the arbitrations were somehow going to be canceled and therefore, he would use that time to do personal business.
2.	On 1/6/21Mr. …. submitted a 3971requesting Union LWOP for the dates of 1/12/21 thru 1/13/21, with the intent of misleading management because he could see into the future and know that the arbitration was going to be canceled and therefore, he would use that time to do personal business.
How in God's name can the OIG come up with that conclusion? They are the main investigative arm of the Postal Service and this is what they came up with? I'm surprised that they didn't ask Mr. …what the winning numbers to the lotto were going to be being as he can predict the future. On page 5 of the OIG report they shoot their own synopsis in the foot. The second paragraph states the following:
…. stated … found out the night before that the arbitration was cancelled.
This was referring to the 1/12/21date. There is nothing in the OIG report to discredit this statement. Mr. … told the OIG in  their investigation that he found out late of the cancellation and that he told his wife if it got

cancelled, he would take her to a Dr. appointment. Again, there is nothing in the OIG report to refute that statement.
On page 6 of the OIG report it states the following:
SA …. asked if the leave was intended for the purpose of being at an arbitration and approved on that intention. … stated, "Yes, correct."
Yet the OIG, without any evidence to the contrary, determined that Mr. … turned in his 3971 with the intent to mislead.
On page 6 of the OIG report, bottom paragraph, it deals with the dates of November 4-7. Mr. ….stated that he had some arbitrations on those dates. One day to travel and one day of arbitration for a total of 4 days for 2 arbitrations. He submitted that 3971 on 10/23/20. This is where the OIG becomes untruthful in their report. It reads as follows:
He couldn't remember when or if the arbitration schedule was cancelled but ….), NALC Business Agent, was usually the one who would inform him of any changes.
Quite frankly the OIG made that up. That was never said and I believe it was intentionally put in the report to support their synopsis. Mr.  …. never said that he couldn't remember IF the arbitration schedule was canceled.
That makes absolutely no sense. If the Arbitration wasn't canceled, he would have been at it. So, for the OIG to add that one word it completely changed the complexion of what Mr. … stated.
The most damning part of the OIG investigation is what's not in it. Mr. ….told the OIG at least 6 times that he had contacted his supervisor … to tell him that the arbitrations were cancelled for the November 4-7 dates and asked that he change his Union LWOP to regular LWOP. The TACS clock rings show … ein# on the date in question and code 06004 was entered. This is crucial because code 08400 is Union LWOP. Mr. …. does not have access to TACS so it could only have been …. inputting that code and there would have been no reason to change what was requested on the 3971(Union LWOP} to regular LWOP if it wasn't due to Mr. ….

asking that it be changed. The OIG, the federal investigators, the main investigators of the post office never questioned supervisor …..
How is that possible? _How can you not even ask one question of the Supervisor, who inputted the clock ring code, before coming up with some outlandish determination? It's almost as if someone got involved in the investigation that shouldn't have been. Someone, say, from the Eastern Area that had no business sticking his nose in someplace it didn't belong. Someone that initiated this entire OIG investigation. I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer but I think there is something fishy going on in ….and it aint trout. There is no other reason for the OIG to falsify statements made and to come up with the asinine conclusion that they did if it wasn't to harm a steward that has been absolutely cleaning Management's clock in the grievance procedure.
One more thing. ….Management was involved in one of the worst falsification of clock ring grievances that this district has seen. It ended up costing the Postal Service a quarter of a million dollars. Mr. …. was well aware of this as he sat in on the arbitration that awarded the Union that decision. Mr. …. never notified the OIG that there was true fraud going on in ….. He never contacted them to "advise" them that there was management engaged in misconduct. Why is that? And why is it that a shop steward that took a day of LWOP, that he acknowledged he shouldn't have, which cost the Postal Service nothing, and he apologized profusely for, would get Mr. …. so involved? It's a head scratcher.

Concerning OIC ….. statement of facts.

OIC …. statement shows that he courtesy copied his Statement of facts to Acting MPOO … on February 23, 2021. This is four days after the Initial Investigative Interview, which was on February 19, 2021. He had requested a fourteen day suspension at that time.
He later back fills this same statement and plagiarizes the OIG report almost verbatim.
He then goes on to include Investigative Interviews up through April.
The Union contends that OIC … had already determined, by his own admission, that he was requesting a 14-day on February 23rd• Unfortunately for him he forgot to change the date on his "Statement of Facts."
One more thing the Union would like to address in OIC … statement. He writes that he reached out to Business Agent …. attempting to confirm Mr. … statements. My business agent does not provide internal documents to anyone in Management. If Mr. …. wanted to verify something then he should have gone through Mr. …. shop steward, which is me.

CHARADE AT INFORMAL A MEETING
On page 15-2 of the JCAM both parties have agreed to the following language:
15.2 Section 2. Grievance Procedure-Steps Informal Step A (a)
Informal Step A (a) Any employee who feels aggrieved must discuss the grievance with the
employee's immediate supervisor within fourteen (14) days of the date on which the employee or the Union first learned or may reasonably have been expected to have learned of its cause. This constitutes the Informal Step A filing date. The employee, if he or she so desires, may be accompanied and represented by the employee's steward or a Union representative. During the meeting the parties are encouraged to jointly review all relevant documents to facilitate resolution of the dispute. The Union also may initiate a grievance at Informal Step A within 14 days of the date the Union first became aware of (or reasonably should have become aware of) the facts giving rise to the grievance. In such case the participation of an individual grievant is not required. An Informal Step A Union grievance may involve a complaint affecting more than one employee in the office.
An employee or union representative must discuss the grievance with the employee's immediate supervisor within fourteen calendar days of when the grievant or the union first learned, or may reasonably have been expected to learn, of its cause. The date of this discussion is the Informal Step A filing date.
The above language of Article 15 is crystal clear. Management, particularly OIC …, violated the above provision of Article 15 when he replaced the supervisors at the …. Installation and met with me himself.
Before the Informal Step A meeting I asked OIC … the following questions:
1.	How many supervisors are at the …. Installation? three form SOs and two 204.bs
2.	Why are you meeting with me and not one of the supervisors?

Based off of conduct allegations is why 1 took it

4.	Did you perform all the investigative interview, besides the OIG's?

Yes

5.	Did you request the discipline?

Yes

6.	Were you absolutely positive, when you requested this discipline, that Mr. ….should receive this 14-day?
Yes

7.	Did you issue this discipline?

Yes

8.	Were you still positive, at the time of issuance, that he should receive this discipline?

Yes

In case# S8N-3P-D 17652 (c-1469), dated March 25, 1981, Arbitrator Raymond Britton opined the following:
To the contrary, in the considered judgment of the Arbitrator, this failure goes to the very heart of the grievance process in that the Grievant is thereby denied the contractual right to have his grievance considered independently and objectively at the outset of the grievance procedure by his supervisor who is generally most familiar with his work record. Any removal of the supervisor's authority to settle the grievance, It seems to the Arbitrator, is violative of the letter and spirit of the Agreement and renders the Step 1 procedure little more than a charade.
Accordingly, the Arbitrator finds the assertion by the Employer that the Grievant was not denied due process to be without persuasive merit.
The Union could not agree more with Arbitrator Britton. Here, in this cited case, we have OIC ….. involvement:
•	Handled the first II
•	Was directly involved with the OIG
•	Was directly involved with Area Labor Specialist …..
•	Handled the second II
•	Handled the third II
•	Requested the discipline
•	Acknowledged at Informal A meeting that he was positive of his decision when requested
•	Issued the discipline
•	Acknowledged at Informal A meeting that he was still positive of his decision when issuing
•	wrote in disciplinary action that there were no mitigating factors
•	met at Informal A instead of his supervisors

This is the very charade that Arbitrator Britton was talking about. How has this not only violated the above cited provision but also Mr. … right to due process. How could anyone say this grievance was considered independently and

objectively? Management has poisoned the well of this disciplinary process by essentially removing an entire step from the grievance procedure.

Request to meet

From:   coreylwalton@yahoo.com (coreylwalton@yahoo.com)
To:	…. Cc:
	lassan@nalc.org
Date: Thursday, May 13, 2021, 11:29 AM CDT

Good afternoon, I am requesting to meet on local grievance #21-SSMK1-12 at the infonnal step a level. This wlll be for the 14-day suspension issued to city letter carrier …. This grievance will need to be met on May 26, 2021.
Please let me know who I will be meeting with and what time this meeting will take place. I also need to know who I will be meeting with at the Formal Step A level.

Thank you, Corey I Walton

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

RFI

From: ……)
To:	coreylwalton@yahoo.com
Date: Tuesday, May 18, 2021, 07:57 AM CDT

Good Morning sir,

Inreference to your request to interview …...

You can interview both Friday May 21st• Lets set it for 11am, this will allow for operations to be unimpacted.

For informal A. I will meet with you. I have a free morning on the 26th• Please let me know what time works for you. Also,
I can meet you in … if that is more convenient. Let me know and I will get us an office space there.

In regards to the items 1 and two of this RFI I am meeting with HR and labor to ensure that you receive the relevant information you requested.

Good morning. In accordance wi h Articles 17 and 31 of the National Agreemenl 1 am requesting lhe following information, concerning the 14 day suspension issued lo city carrie…..·

1. Any disciphne or adverse action issued to supervisors …. for their role in the    falsification of clock nngs in the …. mstallat1on. This ultimately ed to over $250,000 in losses to the usps.

7. Any disctpltne or adverse action issued to postmaster …. for her role in the fa{sification of clock rings in
…. installation.  This ultimately led to over $250,000 in losses to the usps

I am requesting this information to show disparate treatment as outlined in the just cause principles incorporated into article 16.

I am also requesting to interview the following people:

1.	Supervisor ….
1.	
2.	Supervisor ,,,,

These interviews can be over the phone.

Thank you in advance for your prompt response

Corey I Walton

Informal A meeting notes

Before the Informal Step A meeting I asked OIC … several questions. He answered the questions and we both signed at the bottom of the page. He made a copy for himself.
I handed OIC …. my entire case file. He took my typed contentions and he read each page. I informed him that I had written several notes on different pages of my case file and he declined to read those. We addressed several pages of my typed contentions verbally. He provided no written contentions or rebuttal at the Informal A meeting. We discussed a settlement but could not agree.
We then called the Formal Step A designee …. and we set up our Formal A meeting. Mr. …. forwarded Mr. …. the Formal A appeal the 8190 and all documents from the Informal A meeting.

17 and 31 ARGUMENT

On page 17-4 and 17-5 of the JCAM, both parties have agreed to the following language:
Steward Rights. Article 17.3 & 17.4 establish several steward rights:
•	The right to investigate and adjust grievances and problems that may become grievances;

•	The right to paid time to conduct those activities;

•	The right to obtain management information;

•	Superseniority concerning being involuntarily transferred;

•	An employee's right to steward representation during an Inspection Service interrogation.

Steward Rights-Activities Included. A steward may conduct a broad range of activities related to the investigation and adjustment of grievances and of problems that may become grievances. These activities include the right to review relevant documents, files and records, as well as interviewing a potential grievant, supervisors and witnesses. Specific settlements and arbitration decisions have established that a steward has the right to do (among other things) the following:
•	Complete grievance forms and write appeals on the clock (see below).

•	Interview witnesses, including postal patrons who are off postal premises (National Arbitrator Aaron, NB-NA-0219, November 10, 1980, C-03219; Step 4, HlN-3U-C 13115, March 4, 1983, M- 01001; Step 4, H8N-4J-C 22660, May 15, 1981, M-00164);
•	Interview supervisors (Step 4, H7N-3Q-C 31599, May 20, 1991, M-00988);

•	Interview postal inspectors (Management Letter, NS-N-0224, March 10, 1981, M-00225);
•	Review relevant documents (Step 4, H4N-3W-C 27743, May 1, 1987, M-00837);

•	Review an employee's Official Personnel Folder when relevant (Step 4, NC-E 2263, August 18,
1976, M--00104);

•	Write the union statement of corrections and additions to the Formal Step A decision (Step 4, AS-S-0309, December 7, 1979, M-01145).
•	Interview Office of Inspector General [OIGJ Agents.

A steward has the right to conduct all such activities on the clock (see below).

On page 31-1 of the JCAM both parties have agreed to the following language:
31.3	Section 3. Information The Employer will make available for inspection by the Union all relevant information necessary for collective bargaining or the enforcement, administration or interpretation of this Agreement, including information necessary to determine whether to file
31.3	

or to continue the processing of a grievance under this Agreement. Upon the request of the Union, the Employer will furnish such information, provided, however, that the Employer may require the Union to reimburse the USPS for any costs reasonably incurred in obtaining the information. Requests for information relating to purely local matters should be submitted by the local Union representative to the installation head or deslqnee. All other requests for information shall be directed by the National President of the Union to the Vice President, Labor Relations. Nothing herein shall waive any rights the Union may have to obtain information under the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. (The preceding Article, Article 31, shall apply to City Carrier Assistant Employees. (emphasis added)
On page 31-2 of the JCAM, both parties have agreed to the following language:

i

Information. Article 31.3 provides that the Postal Service will make available to the union all relevant information necessary for collective bargaining or the enforcement, administration or interpretation of the Agreement, including information necessary to determine whether to file or to continue the processing of a grievance. It also recognizes the union's legal right to employer information under the National Labor Relations Act. Examples of the types of Information covered by this provision indude:
•	attendance records

•	payroll records

•	documents in an employee's official personnel file

•	internal USPS instructions and memorandums

•	disciplinary records

•	route inspection records

•	patron complaints

•	handbooks and manuals

•	photographs

•	reports and studies

•	seniority lists

•	overtime desired and work assignment lists

•	bidding records

•	wage and salary records

•	training manuals

•	Postal Inspection Service Investigative Memoranda (IM)

•	Office of Inspector General Report of Investigation (ROI)
•	

To obtain employer information the union need only give a reasonable description of what it needs and make a reasonable daim that the information is needed to enforce or administer the contract. The union must have a reason for seeking the information-it cannot conduct a "fishing expedition" into Postal Service records. Settlements and arbitration awards have addressed the union's entitlement to information in certain specific areas. For example, the union has a right to any and all information which the employer has relied upon to support its position in a grievance (Step 4, H1C-3U-C 6106, November 5, 1982, M-00316). Note that the union also has an obligation to provide the Postal Service with information it relies upon in a grievance (Article 15).
In the case file is the Union's request for information. I specifically asked for a copy of the OIGs handwritten notes from their investigation. These would be SA …. notes. Although the OIG report states that SA …. and Special Agent …. interviewed Mr. … that is not correct. SA … interviewed Mr. … and SA ….. wrote notes of the investigation. I wanted a copy of his notes.
Being as Management relied heavily on the OIG report, in their disciplinary action, I wanted to read those handwritten notes. I feel strongly that, due to the OIG report being so blatantly erroneous in the things that Mr. …. said in that investigation, the OIG notes either were not correct or were not read properly.
In case# F06N-4F-D 10098499, dated May 7, 2010, Arbitrator Zane Lumbley opined the following:
The Agency also should have undertaken to determine if handwritten notes separate from the OIG's report existed pursuant to one of the Union's three separate requests; Burns's lack of familiarity with the OIG's procedures does not excuse its failure in this respect. As above, whether providing those notes would have changed anything is unknown but is not the issue. The Union made timely requests for them, the second coming within seven days of the emergency placement and the third dated only four days after the NOR, and had a clear right to see them in order properly to investigate the matter and assess whether to proceed with the grievance. I do not agree with the Agency that the Union's decision to proceed with this hearing after it was offered additional time by the undersigned shows it was not prejudiced. The mere fact it did not see the handwritten notes until April 14, 2010, less than a month before the hearing, undercut its ability, guaranteed by Article 31 of the National Agreement, to have "available for inspection ... all relevant information necessary for ... the enforcement ... of this Agreement, including information necessary to determine whether to file or to continue the processing of a grievance under this Agreement." Nor is the presence of arbitrariness or caprice on the part of the Agency required to find the Union's ability to represent its member was prejudiced. As Arbitrator Eaton noted in Case No. F09N-4F·C 94030206 (January 2, 1995), "The point is that no intelligent decision can be made by a party lacking the fundamental facts upon

which to proceed, facts which are required to be supplied by Article 15,17 and 31 of the National Agreement.

There is no possible way that the OIG came up with their synopsis if SA …. had properly recorded the answers that Mr. …. was giving to SA …..questions. I had a right to obtain those notes so that I could completely discredit the OIG's entire report. At the Informal Step A meeting OIC … stated that he would again attempt to get me the OIG's handwritten notes. As of today, three days before the Formal Step A meeting, I still don't have those handwritten notes. Management's refusal to provide me with those handwritten notes violated Mr.
…. due process rights.