No. 00-758 

In the Supreme Court of the United States 

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, PETITIONER 

v. 

MARIA A. GREGORY 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI 
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 

JOINT APPENDIX 

HENK BRANDS 

Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, 

Todd & Evans, P.L.L.C. 
1615 M Street, N.W. 
Suite 400 
Washington, D.C. 20036 
(202) 326-7945 

Counsel of Record for 

Respondent 

BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD 

Acting Solicitor General 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 
(202) 514-2217 

Counsel of Record for 

Petitioner 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED: 
NOVEMBER 13, 2000 

CERTIORARI GRANTED: FEBRUARY 20, 2001 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

Relevant docket entries, United States Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit ................................ 

1 

Regional arbitration panel (dated Aug. 25, 1999) .......... 
3 

Letter to the Merit Systems Protection Board 

Atlanta Regional Office from Jim Jones 
(dated Jan. 20, 1998) .................................................... 

17 
Letter to Matthew Rose from Bernard U. 

Richardson (dated Dec. 17, 1997) .............................. 

20 

Letter to Matthew Rose from Bernard U. 

Richardson (dated Dec. 17, 1997) .............................. 

22 

Letter to Maria Gregory from Tommy L. Caruthers 
(dated Nov. 17, 1997) ................................................... 
24 

Letter to Maria Gregory from William J. Cox 
(dated Sept. 18, 1997) .................................................. 
31 

Letter to William S. Davis from Bill Davis (dated 

Sept. 18, 1997) ............................................................... 

34 

Letter to Matthew L. Rose from Bernard U. 

Richardson (dated Aug. 15, 1997) ............................. 

36 

Letter to Maria Gregory from William J. Cox 
(dated Aug. 7, 1997) ..................................................... 
38 

Letter to William S. Davis from Bill Davis (dated 

June 7, 1997) .................................................................. 

41 

Letter to William S. Davis from Bill Davis (dated 

May 13, 1997) ................................................................ 

43 

Letter to Maria Gregory from Shawn A. Thompson 
(dated Apr. 30, 1997) ................................................... 
45 

Letter to Maria Gregory from Shawn A. Thompson 
(dated Apr. 23, 1997) ................................................... 47 

(I) 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 

No. 00-3123 

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, PETITIONER 

v. 

MARIA A. GREGORY 

DOCKET ENTRIES 

_________________________________________________ 

ENTRY NO. 
DOCKET NUMBER 

_________________________________________________ 
_________________________________________________ 

1. PETITIONER’S STATEMENT CON- 
CERNING DISCRIMINATION. (SE- 
LECTED 01) (CS-01/10/00) FILED: 

01/07/00 (EDD 01/10/00 (JV) 00-3123 

2. CERTIFIED LIST FROM MSPS. (MS- 
01/13/00) FILED: 01/18/00. (EDD 01/21/00 
BY SPP) 00-3123 

* * * * * 

10. AFFIRMED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN- 
PART AND REMANDED. PRECEDEN- 
TIAL OPINION BY: J. CLEVENGER, 

(1) 

2 

JUDGMENT ENTERED: 05/15/00. NO 
COSTS. OPINION SENT TO PARTIES: 

05/15/00. (EDD 05/15/00 BY KSH) 00- 
3123 

* * * * * 

11. RESPONDENT - PETITION FOR RE- 
HEARING [NPF] (MS-06/29/00) FILED: 

06/29/00 PETITION CIRCULATED: 

06/30/00 PETITION: DENIED ON 

07/13/00. (EDD 07/13/00 BY AV) 00-3123 

3 

REGIONAL ARBITRATION PANEL 

USPS CASE NO: H94N-4H-D 97090945 
GTS NO: 036580 
IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION 

BETWEEN 

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 

AND 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER 

CARRIERS, AFL-CIO 

[Filed: Aug. 25, 1999] 

BEFORE: RAYMOND L. BRITTON, Arbitrator 

APPEARANCES: 

For the U.S. Postal Service: 
Jim Hildreth 

For the Union: 

Judy Willoughby 

Place of Hearing: 

U.S. Post Office 

Date of Hearing: 
July 20, 1999 

Record Closed: 

July 20, 1999 

AWARD: 

For the reasons given the grievance is sustained and 
it is directed that the seven-day suspension sub- 
sequently unilaterally reduced to a Letter of Warning 
be expunged from the Grievant’s record. 

Date of Award: August 20, 1999 

/s/ RAYMOND L. BRITTON 

RAYMOND L. BRITTON 

4 

ISSUE 

Was there just cause to issue the 7-day suspension 
that was unilaterally reduced through a Step 2 decision 
to a Letter of Warning? 

HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS 

The parties failed to reach agreement on this matter, 
and it was submitted to arbitration for resolution. 
Pursuant to the contractual procedures of the parties, 
the undersigned was appointed as Arbitrator to hear 
and decide the matter in dispute. 

At the commencement of the hearing, it was stipu- 
lated by the parties that this matter was properly 
before the Arbitrator for decision and that all steps of 
the arbitration procedure had been followed and that 
the Arbitrator had the authority to render the decision 
in this matter. After the hearing, it was agreed that 
the United States Postal Service (hereinafter referred 
to as “Employer”) and the National Association of 
Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO (hereinafter referred to as 
“Union”) would present oral closing arguments in 
support of their respective positions. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF THE CASE 

Maria A. Gregory (hereinafter sometimes referred to 
as “Grievant”) is a Letter Technician at the Hinesville, 
Georgia Post Office. 

On April 23, 1997, Shawn A. 
Thompson, Supervisor Customer Services, issued a 
memorandum to Maria A. Gregory, Subject: Notice of 7 

5 

Day Suspension which states in relevant part as follows 
(Joint Exhibit No. 2): 

* * * 

You are hereby notified that you will be sus- 
pended for a period of seven (7) calendar days 
beginning on May 17, 1997. You are to return to 
duty at your regularly scheduled reporting time 
on your first regularly scheduled day following 
the suspension. 

CHARGE: INSUBORDINATION 

On Monday, April 7, 1997, I instructed you to 
case your route before leaving. I repeated these 
instructions and each time you stated that you 
would not stay. You stated your child was ill and 
you had to get an appointment. In spite of my 
repeated instructions to case your route before 
leaving you did in fact leave without following 
my instructions. In this instance you were 
insubordinate and charged accordingly. 

You have the right to file a grievance under the 
grievance arbitration procedure set forth in 
Article 15 of the National Agreement within 14 
days of your receipt of this notice. 

* * * 

A grievance was filed protesting the Notice of 7 Day 
Suspension and a Step 1 meeting held and decision 
rendered on May 3, 1997 by Shawn A. Thompson 
denying the grievance. 

6 

Pursuant to Article 15 of the National Agreement, 
the grievance was appealed to Step 2 of the grievance 
procedure alleging a violation of, but not limited to, 
Articles 15, 16 and 19 of the National Agreement and 
stating in relevant part as follows (Joint Exhibit No. 2): 

FACTS: WHAT HAPPENED—Grievant issued a 7- 
day suspension charged with insubordination on 
Wednesday, 23 Ap 97. 

UNION CONTENTIONS: REASONS FOR GRIEV- 
ANCE—Untimely discipline. Macon policy on 
insubordination not followed. Grievant not given 
direct orders nor management informed grievant 
of failing to follow instructions—after repeated 
similar incidents occurred. Discipline unwar- 
ranted. Requested supporting documentation not 
provided. 

CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUESTED: Cease and 
desist. Grievant made whole—all records and 
files cleared. Grievant made whole of all and any 
lost wages. 

On May 13, 1997, Postmaster Bill Davis in a memo- 
randum to William S. Davis, President, Local 4944, 
Subject: Step 2, Grievance Decision, Maria A. Gregory, 
stated in relevant part as follows (Joint Exhibit No. 2) 

* * * 

Step 2, hearing was held on May 9, 1997, con- 
cerning the grievance identified above. 

The grievance alleges a violation of Articles 15, 
16 and 19. 

7 

Union Contentions 

Untimely discipline, Discipline unwarranted. 

Facts & Management Decision 

Just cause does exist. Union does not deny the 
facts surrounding the April 7, 1997 incident. 
However, after reviewing the seriousness of the 
grievant’s actions, the suspension is reduced to a 
Letter of Warning. 

The grievant has not served the suspension. 
Therefore, no wages were lost. The requested 
remedy is inappropriate and denied. 

* * * 

On May 22, 1997, William S. Davis in a letter to Bill 
Davis, Postmaster, stated in relevant part as follows 
(Joint Exhibit No. 2): 

* * * 

Pursuant to Article 15, Section 2, Step 2.g. of the 
National Agreement, this letter of corrections 
and additions shall be included as part of the 
above referenced file, in response to your Step 2 
decision, dated 13 May 1997 and received 14 May 
1997. 

I submit the following corrections for the file: 

The union has not admitted to any “facts sur- 
rounding the April 7, 1997 incident.” The union 
does not remember the “facts” the way manage- 
ment has outlined. 

8 

Management withdrew the seven day suspen- 
sion at Step 2 as it annotated on the upper top 
portion of the Standard Grievance Form. How- 
ever, management had also prepared a letter stat- 
ing that “no further action would be taken 
against the United States Postal Service con- 
cerning this matter” and was signed by the Union 
President unaware that grievant had intended/ 
initiated an Employee Equal Opportunity com- 
plaint. Employee did not sign document waver- 
ing any rights to EEO process. Management 
would not provide the union with a copy of said 
letter. 

I submit the following additions for the file: 

Grievant was disparately treated when other 
employees in the same situation have not been 
denied time to seek medical care/treatment for 
their dependant(s): 

Paula Hall has been called in from street duty 
when her child was taken ill on May 7 1997. 

Diane Cantrell and Melinda, rural carriers 
have received permission to take care of their 
child when taken ill. 

Mark Hall has been granted time to tend to his 
ill mother (now deceased). 

Lynnette Wynn, city carrier, has not been 
denied time to take care of her children when they 
become ill. 

9 

Bill Davis, City Carrier, allowed to go home on 
April 19, 1997—absence of child care provider. 

Archie Burson, City Carrier, allowed to take 
care of his daughter in March/April time frame. 

Management read the letter of suspension three 
times to grievant. Initial reading was done 
on May 23, 1997. On the same day—that 
afternoon—Ms. Shawn Thompson, Supervisor of 
Customer Services had Ms. Diane Smith, 204-B 
for clerk craft, sign the bottom portion of the 7- 
day notice of Suspension to acknowledge her 
witnessing grievant electing not to sign receipt of 
letter during the morning session. Grievant did 
not accept another copy with 204-B’s 
signature—Ms. Smith was not a witness in the 
meeting; therefore, falsifying a document. On 
May 26, 1997, Ms. Thompson recd the letter once 
again stating that the first time the letter was 
read should be discarded as though it never 
happened. The letter from which she read from 
now had evidence where management had whited 
out Ms. Smith’s signature. 

During Step 1 meeting Ms. Thompson was 
unfamiliar with management’s request for 
discipline letter. She stated all she was familiar 
with is what she puts down on her notes and the 
notes she makes have a different meaning from 
what is placed on discipline. Disciplinary 
actions are FAXED to Macon by Postmaster, 
Bill Davis, Macon prepares discipline letters and 
are returned to her for administrating. 

10 

Ms. Thompson was unfamiliar with Macon’s 
policy on points to remember when “an employee 
refuses to carry out instructions” and did not 
follow the required outline. 

Management intended to place grievant in 
jeopardy and endangering the health of a child. 

Management “DID NOT” specifically state that 
he/she may be removed for insubordination if the 
instructions were not carried out immediately. 

Grievant asked for ample time to obtain 
medical care for her dependent and would return 
to complete her duties as she did. Although she 
expressed her intent, management assigned 
another T-6 to complete casing grievant’s route 
and to distribute in four parts for auxillary 
assistance. Grievant’s child was out of school for 
five days due to her illness; grievant reported to 
work as a result of harassment from manage- 
ment. 

Discipline towards grievant is predetermined 
for her union activities, employee equal opportu- 
nity activities, and for previously filing a sexual 
harassment compliant against a co-worker. 

Management has refused to provide the union 
with all relevant information concerning this 
discipline. 

On May 27, 1997, the grievance was appealed to Step 
3 of the grievance procedure, alleging a violation of, but 
not limited to, Articles 15 and 16 and as reasons for the 

11 

appeal stated in relevant part as follows (Joint Exhibit 
No. 2): 

* * * 

Disparate treatment—endangering the health of 
a child. Supervisor did not state, at anytime, 
grievant was being insubordinate or conse- 
quences of insubordination as outlined by Macon 
district policy. Postmaster influenced Supervi- 
sor’s decision for discipline. Management re- 
taliation for grievant’s active involvement in 
union activities, (Union Steward), as a par- 
ticipating in EEO activities and for charges 
brought on a co-worker for sexual harassment. 

* * * 

On August 15, 1997, Bernard U. Richardson, Labor 
Relations Specialist, Southeast Area, in a memorandum 
to Mr. Matthew L. Rose, National Business Agent, 
Subject: Regional Grievance Decision, stated in 
relevant part as follows (Joint Exhibit No. 2): 

* * * 

After considering all available evidence in the 
record and that offered by the union at the Step 
3D hearing on August 13, 1997, it is my decision 
to deny the grievance. 

In this case, the grievant was issued a seven (7) 
day suspension for, (1) insubordination. Evi- 
dence in the file indicates the grievant was guilty 
as charged. On Monday, April 7, 1997, the 
grievant was instructed to case his route before 

12 

leaving. The instructions were repeated and each 
time the grievant stated he would not stay. The 
grievant stated her child was ill and she had to 
get to an appointment. In spite of the instruc- 
tions being repeated, the grievant did not follow 
the supervisors instructions. The Grievant’s 
actions were in violation of section 666 of the 
Employee and Labor Relations Manual. The 
grievant is aware of her responsibilities in re- 
gards to following instructions and was charged 
accordingly. Therefore this grievance is denied. 

* * * 

On August 25, 1997, the grievance was appealed to 
arbitration. 

POSITION OF THE PARTIES 

The Position of the Employer 

It is the position of the Employer that there was just 
cause for the issuance of the 7-day suspension sub- 
sequently reduced to a Letter of Warning. The 
Employer contends that despite being repeatedly 
instructed by her supervisor to case her route before 
leaving, the Grievant stated that she would not stay as 
her child was ill and she had to get to an appointment. 
The Employer further contends that the Grievant failed 
to follow instructions and that her actions were in 
violation of Section 666 of the Employee and Labor 
Relations Manual. Finally, the Employer contends that 
the Grievant never informed management that it was 
an emergency situation or that the Grievant’s daughter 
needed medical attention. 

13 

The Position of the Union 

The Union takes the position that management has 
the burden of proof and did not have just cause to issue 
a seven-day suspension on April 23, 1997, subsequently 
reduced to a Letter of Warning. The Union contends 
that no direct order was given to the Grievant nor was 
it stated that she may be removed for insubordination. 
The Union contends that the action of management was 
disparate, arbitrary and punitive. The Union further 
contends that there was no insubordination but only a 
misunderstanding. Finally, the Union contends that 
there may be an unwritten rule that employees are to 
follow the instructions of their supervisor but on this 
day there were no clear instructions given the Grievant 
and the Grievant came within the health related 
exception to the rule. 

OPINION 

In the resolution of this matter, the Arbitrator is 
called upon to determine whether under the circum- 
stances presented, the Grievant may justifiably be 
found to have been insubordinate to Supervisor Shawn 
Thompson on Monday, April 7, 1997. 

Shawn Thompson, Supervisor of Customer Service, 
testified that on the morning of April 7, 1997, the 
Postmaster told her that the Grievant would have to 
leave early that day because her daughter is sick. After 
being advised by the Postmaster that the Grievant 
would have to leave early that day, she went to the 
Grievant’s case and said to the Grievant that she would 
have to case city route 13 and divide it up so that other 
carriers could deliver the route and then she could 
leave for the day. The Grievant replied that she would 

14 

not be able to case the route and that she would have to 
leave early. Supervisor Thompson states that she said 
nothing by way of response to the Grievant. She states 
that over the period of the morning this was talked 
about with the Grievant at least three or four times. In 
her discussions with the Grievant, she explained that 
route 13 had to be split before the Grievant left. She 
testified that the situation would have been different 
and she would have told the Grievant to go had the 
Grievant told her she had a 9:45 appointment or that 
her child was in grave need of medical attention 
because she could then make arrangements as to what 
to do with the route. The Grievant, however, never 
said this nor did she say that this was an emergency 
situation and her child needed medical attention. When 
she explained to the Grievant that she needed to stay, 
the Grievant continued to say that she had to leave. 
The Supervisor testified that she then went to the 
Union President, Bill Davis, and explained this to him 
and why the Grievant needed to stay. At her request, 
Mr. Davis talked to the Grievant. When Davis finished 
talking to the Grievant, she passed Davis in the exit 
door and he said she is leaving, she has to go. The 
Grievant was in the parking lot in her car ready to 
leave and she called out the Grievant’s name and 
explained to the Grievant that she had to case route 13 
and split it. When the Grievant said that she had to go, 
she states that she told the Grievant that if you go, you 
realize you will be A.W.O.L. She admits that the 
Grievant told her that she would be returning after she 
took her daughter to the doctor. The Grievant 
returned to the Post Office about two hours later and 
carried her route. 

15 

Based on the testimony of Supervisor Thompson, it is 
difficult for the Arbitrator to find that the Employer- 
has met its burden of establishing the proof of the 
charge that the Grievant was insubordinate. While she 
may have felt that she gave the Grievant a “direct 
order,” she admittedly did not tell the Grievant that she 
was giving her a (direct) order. In failing to use that 
term or even saying to the Grievant that she will or 
must stay or exercising her authority with words of a 
similar nature, the Supervisor allowed a situation to 
develop which invited misunderstanding and was 
fraught with ambiguity as her words were capable of 
being understood in two or more possible ways. The 
Grievant testified that after she talked to the Union 
President and the Supervisor and was finally ready to 
leave, the final words of the Supervisor to her were to 
do what you have to do. The Grievant testified that 
when she left that day, it was her understanding that 
she had been given permission to leave. 

It is the further testimony of Supervisor Thompson 
that as a supervisor she never gives direct orders as 
this is not part of her personality and she finds doing so 
demeaning to the other person. It is, however, a 
prerequisite to a finding of insubordination that it be 
shown that a supervisor used clear and understandable 
language that leaves no room for doubt that a subordi- 
nate is being ordered to accomplish a particular act. 
This requirement, in the judgment of the Arbitrator, is 
not satisfied by stating to an employee several times, as 
was done in this case, that the employee is needed to 
perform a particular task or tasks. Not only did the 
Supervisor not make it clear that she was issuing a 
direct order but the testimony indicates that the 
Supervisor never told the Grievant that she did not 

16 

have permission to leave. There is a conflict in the 
testimony as to whether the Supervisor told the 
Grievant that there would be a penalty if she left. 
While the Supervisor testified that she reminded the 
Grievant that she would be A.W.O.L. if she left, the 
Grievant denies that the Supervisor made this 
statement. As the Grievant is not charged with being 
A.W.O.L. however, it is found by the Arbitrator to be 
unnecessary to this opinion that he endeavor to deter- 
mine whether the testimony of the Supervisor or the 
Grievant is the more accurate in this regard. 

It is the burden of the Employer to show by the 
greater weight of the evidence that the Grievant was 
insubordinate. In the considered judgment of the 
Arbitrator, the evidence submitted by the Employer is 
not sufficient to satisfy this burden and the Arbitrator 
is therefore required to find that just cause did not 
exist for the issuance of the 7 day suspension sub- 
sequently reduced to a Letter of Warning. 

In light of the above findings, it is deemed by the 
Arbitrator to be unnecessary that he determine 
whether the Grievant came within the health related 
exception to the rule that employees are required to 
follow the instructions of their supervisors or whether 
the Grievant was subjected to disparate treatment. 

17 

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 
SOUTH GEORGIA DISTRICT 

Macon, GA. 31213-9401 

DATE: January 20, 1998 

OUR REF: HR:JJones:dh:9401 

SUBJECT: Appeal of Maria A. Gregory 

Merit Systems Protection Board 
Docket No. AT-0752-98-0261-I-1 

TO: MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

ATLANTA REGIONAL OFFICE 
401 WEST PEACHTREE STREET N.W. 
SUITE 1050 
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30308-3510 

Attached is Agency’s response to petition for appeal 
filed by Maria A. Gregory. 

/s/ JIM JONES 

JIM JONES 

Labor Relations specialist 
Macon, Georgia 31213-9401 

Attachment 

18 

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 
SOUTH GEORGIA DISTRICT 

Macon, GA. 31213-9401 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

DOCUMENT 
LOCATION DATE DESCRIPTION SOURCE 

1 01/20/98 Narrative Response Jim Jones, 

Agency Rep. 

3 01/20/98 Statement Regarding Jim Jones, 

Formal Response 
Agency Rep. 

4a 11/17/97 Letter of Decision 
Tommy L. 

Caruthers, 
Senior Labor 
Relations 
Specialist 

4b 09/18/97 Notice of Proposed 
Joe Cox, 

Removal Supervisor/ 

Customer 
Services 

5 01/20/98 Certificate of Service Jim Jones, 

Agency Rep. 

19 

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 
SOUTH GEORGIA DISTRICT 

Macon, GA. 31213-9401 

NARRATIVE RESPONSE 

On September 19, 1997, the Appellant was issued a 
Notice of Proposed Removal charging failure to per- 
form her duties in a satisfactory manner. The Notice of 
Proposed Removal cited three prior disciplinary 
actions. As stated in the proposal, the Appellant re- 
quested 3.5 hours of overtime/auxiliary assistance to 
deliver her route on September 13, 1997. This request 
was 1.30 hours more than what was needed. 

On November 26, 1997, the Appellant received a 
Letter of Decision from Tommy L. Caruthers, Senior 
Labor Relations Specialist. Mr. Caruthers considered 
the response offered by the Appellant before issuing his 
decision. No plausible explanation was provided. 

20 

LABOR RELATIONS PROCESSING CENTER 

[Seal omitted] 

UNITED STATES 
POSTAL SERVICETM 

December 17, 1997 

Mr. Matthew L. Rose 
Southeast Area Grievance 

National Business Agent 

Appeal No. H94N-4H-D 

National Association of Letter 

97098237 DIST 310 

Carriers, AFL-CIO 
Dated: 06/23/97 9732H 

Grievant: GREGORY M 

HINESVILLE GA 
31313-9998 

Provision Allegedly Violated: 16. 4000/ 

65.0500/65.0750 
Subject: Regional Grievance Decision: 

Dear Mr. Rose: 

After considering all available evidence in the record 
and that offered by the union at the Step 3D hearing on 
December 16, 1997, it is my decision to deny the 
grievance. 

In this case, the grievant was issued a fourteen (14) day 
suspension for, (1) delaying accountable mail and (2) 
failure to follow instructions and. Evidence in the file 
indicates the grievant was guilty as charged. On April 
3, 1997, the grievant failed to deliver the mail as 
required. This action caused the mail to be delayed. On 
April 10, 1997, the grievant was given instructions 
regarding delaying mail to be delivered. Instructions 
were given to the grievant to call the office and speak 

21 

to the Supervisor or the Postmaster when a situation 
occurred as did on April 18, 1997. The grievant failed to 
follow these instructions. The grievant’s actions were 
in violation of sections 112.21 of the M-41 Handbook and 
section 666.53 of the Employee and Labor Relations 
Manual. In addition, the grievant had been previously 
issued a seven (7) day suspension dated April 26, 1997 
for insubordination. Under the circumstances, the 
fourteen (14) day suspension was issued for just cause. 
Therefore, this grievance is denied. 

In our judgment, the grievance does not involve and 
interpretive issue(s) pertaining to the National Agree- 
ment or any supplement thereto which may be of gen- 
eral application. Unless the union believes otherwise, 
the case may be appealed directly to regional arbitra- 
tion in accordance with the provisions of Article 15 of 
the National Agreement. 

/s/ BERNARD U. RICHARDSON 

BERNARD U. RICHARDSON 
Labor Relations Specialist, Southeast Area 

cc: District Office Macon, Ga. 

Postmaster Hinesville, Ga. 
[Address illegible] 

22 

LABOR RELATIONS PROCESSING CENTER 

[Seal omitted] 

UNITED STATES 
POSTAL SERVICETM 

December 17, 1997 

Mr. Matthew L. Rose 
Southeast Area Grievance 

National Business Agent 

Appeal No. H94N-4H-D 

National Association of Letter 

98010952 DIST 310 

Carriers, AFL-CIO 
Dated: 10/06/97 9745H 

Grievant: GREGORY M 

HINESVILLE GA 
31313-9998 

Provision Allegedly Violated: 16. 4000/ 

65.0500/65.1900/65.0750/74.0000 
Subject: Regional Grievance Decision: 

Dear Mr. Rose: 

After considering all available evidence in the record 
and that offered by the union at the Step 3D hearing on 
December 16, 1997, it is my decision to deny the 
grievance. 

In this case, the grievant was issued a fourteen (14) day 
suspension for, (1) delaying accountable mail, (2) 
unauthorized overtime/failure to follow instructions and 
(3) failure to perform duties in a satisfactory manner/ 
unauthorized overtime. Evidence in the file indicates 
the grievant was guilty as charged. On July 17, 1997, 
the grievant failed to deliver 3 certified pieces of mail to 
734 Bacon Road. This action caused the mail to be 
delayed. On July 18, 1997, the grievant made 1.24 units 

23 

of unauthorized overtime; did not fill out a PS Form 
3996 or a 1571 to curtail the mail. On July 19, 1997, the 
grievant made .62 units of overtime, and again did not 
request auxiliary assistance by use of a Ps Form 3996. 
On July 25, 1997, the grievant requested 3.5 hours of 
auxiliary assistance. The request was disapproved, 
however, the grievant was assisted by two employees, 
both taking 1.5 hour of auxiliary assistance from the 
grievant. In spite of this action, the grievant still made 

1.6 hours of overtime. Again on July 26, the grievant 
made 1.6 hours of overtime after having requested 1.25 
hours of assistance that was given to another employee. 
The grievant’s actions were in violation of sections 
112.2 of the M-41 Handbook and section 666.53 of the 
Employee and Labor Relations Manual. In addition, 
the grievant had been previously issued a letter of 
warning dated May 5, 1997 for insubordination. Under 
the circumstances, the fourteen (14) day suspension was 
issued for just cause. Therefore, this grievance is 
denied. 

In our judgment, the grievance does not involve any 
interpretive issue(s) pertaining to the National Agree- 
ment or any supplement thereto which may be of 
general application. Unless the union believes other- 
wise, the case may be appealed directly to regional 
arbitration in accordance with the provisions of Article 
15 of the National Agreement. 

/s/ BERNARD U. RICHARDSON 

BERNARD U. RICHARDSON 
Labor Relations Specialist, Southeast Area 

cc: District Office Macon, Ga. 

Postmaster Hinesville, Ga. 
[Address illegible] 

24 

[Seal omitted] 

OFFICER OF LABOR RELATIONS 

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 
SOUTH GEORGIA DISTRICT 
451 [COLLEGE] ST 

CERTIFIED MAIL #P 283 974 886 

MACON GA 31213-9401 

November 17, 1997 

Maria Gregory 
204 Elizabeth Street 
Hinesville GA 31313-2115 

RE: Notice of Decision, Ms. Maria Gregory, 

Hinesville GA. 
Referencing Notice of Proposed Removal 
dated September 18, 1997 

The following constitutes my decision regarding the 
above referenced notice which was issued to you, Ms. 
Maria Gregory, a city letter carrier of the Hinesville, 
Georgia Post Office. Consideration was given to your 
written answer issued by notice dated September 25, 
1997 and your personal answer of November 14, 1997. 
Having considered both in conjunction with the charges 
levied against you, it is my decision is to uphold the 
removal. The reasons for my decision follow: 

For the record, I am noting that, Mr. Jim Hildreth, 
Labor Relations Specialist, South Georgia District had 
originally been named as the deciding official in this 
action. However, due to your protesting his involve- 
ment, I was renamed as the deciding official. There was 
no disagreement to naming me as the deciding official in 

25 

that I had not been involved in this case prior to being 
named as the deciding official. This accounts for part of 
the delay in answering the charges. 

Based on your oral and written presentation, it appears 
that your answer provides that, the infraction as 
charged was de-minimus and would not justify the 
action taken. You and your representative, Attorney 
E. Kontz Bennett, Jr., explained that, based on your 
analogy of the circumstances, the total time served on 
Route 4 equated to only .6 of an hour of additional time 
than what was requested. You further explained that, 
all procedures had been followed regarding obtaining 
authorization for auxiliary assistance, in accordance 
with the city carrier’s handbook and that if you had 
been in error in your estimation, you would have called 
in to correct your estimation. All of this would have 
been in accordance with the M-41/M-39 handbooks 
which govern city delivery methods and practices. You 
referred to the charges as being frivolous, insubstantial 
and unsubstantiated. You charged that Mr. Bill Davis, 
Postmaster, who was present at our meeting, along 
with Mr. Joe Cox the issuing supervisor, as being 
behind all of this. 

During our meeting, Mr. Cox explained that you had 
requested 3.5 hours of auxiliary assistance. He granted 
you 3 hours of auxiliary assistance, gave what he 
thought to be 3 hours of delivery time to three other 
carriers and accompanied you on the route. Based on 
Mr. Cox’s account, you returned to the office 1.5 hours 
earlier than your route’s scheduled end time. This 
would equate to an approximate 2 hour overestimation 
in time needed since Mr. Cox left a half hour of the time 
that you estimated you needed, to be delivered by you. 

26 

[You] offered that you had returned to the office 1.25 
hours earlier than your scheduled end tour time. This 
flies in the face of your answer that there was only .6 
tenth of an hour in dispute. Even considering your 
account, this would still have been an over estimation 
of 1.75 hours which is too much for someone familiar 
with this route, especially considering that this is a 
route that you are familiar with and is one of your 
regular assignments. I checked postal records prior to 
my leaving the Hinesville Georgia Post Office on the 
day of our meeting and found that you had been 
assigned to this route on the 4 previous work days. 
This is further proof that you were familiar with this 
route. 

When repeatedly asked for an explanation as to why 
you made such a gross overestimation of overtime or 
auxiliary assistance needed, you offered no explanation 
that made sense. You continuously explained that you 
were recuperating from foot surgery and was slow. 
You explained other problems related to this route, 
such as this route being, partially, a military base and 
how occupants continuously moved which, made your 
estimation even more difficult. However, your explana- 
tion was offered to show why you had been slow in 
delivering the portion of the route that you did deliver. 
Yours was not to explain why you had made the 
overestimation. Why you made the overestimation is 
still unexplained. Mr. Cox on the other hand was 
impressed that you were attempting to use stalling 
tactics and still finished 2 hours earlier than what had 
been requested. 

[You] offered, when questioned that, Mr. Cox, had 
never carried your route, but told you exactly what to 

27 

take off of your route by street name and address. He 
decided to give this portion of your route to three other 
carriers. He estimated this to be 3 hours work. 
Records revealed that you had records to prove that 
the three carriers who were given the work taken off of 
your route, carried the portions given to them in 2.91 
hours. Mr. Cox, who had never carried the route 
missed his estimation by .08 of an hour. On the other 
hand, You, being familiar with this route, missed this 
estimation by approximately, 1.75 or 2 hours, 
depending on whose version that was used. The Postal 
Service normally allows for an approximate 15-20 
minute difference in estimation. Yours was grossly 
over-stated. 

The conclusion that must be drawn is that, Mr. Cox, 
who was had never carried the route but was familiar 
with city carrier work methods being a former city 
letter carrier, correctly estimated the time that was 
needed to be relieved as you requested. However, a 
carrier such as yourself, who regularly carries the route 
and had carried the route in the last 4 successive days, 
had overestimated the time by approximately (2) hours. 
This shows that you overestimated the time needed to 
deliver the route on purpose for obvious reasons. 

[You] offered that you had been sent out on another 
route to deliver some mail when you returned early. 
Mr. Cox verified this in that you had returned to the 
office so much earlier than had been expected. This 
explains why your account of the amount of time spent 
working by you, and the three others who were given 
splits off of your route, equated to .6 of an hour over 
what you estimated. The time you offered, as a defense 
to your being close in your estimation, was exaggerated 

28 

by adding the time that you worked, after you returned 
to the office early, which you were sent back out to 
deliver on another route. 

If Mr. Cox had not taken the time off of your route and 
accompanied you on the route, the evidence disclosed 
that you would have made the unjustified time. When 
questioned, Mr. Cox explained that the motive for you 
doing what you did was to make up for the suspension 
that you had been previously issued. No other 
explanation makes sense so I agree. 

Based on the foregoing it appears that your removal 
will promote the efficiency of the Postal Service and is 
therefore warranted. Considering the elements of your 
past record which shows that you have engaged in 
similar conduct previously, have been forewarned, the 
nature of your infraction, your length of service and the 
other Douglas Factors, I find that your removal is 
warranted. Your removal will be made effective 
November 26, 1997[.] 

As a preference eligible, you have the right to appeal 
this decision in writing to the U.S. Merit Systems 
Protection Board, Atlanta Regional Office, 401 West 
Peachtree Street, N.W. 10th Floor, Atlanta GA 30308- 
3510 within 20 calendar days from the effective date of 
this decision. If you appeal to the MSPB, you should 
state whether you do or do not wish a hearing and you 
should furnish me a copy of your appeal. For further 
information on appeals procedures, contact Jim Jones. 
Attached for your reference are a copy of the MSPB 
regulations and a copy of the appeal form. 

If you appeal this action, you will remain on the rolls, 
but in a nonpay, nonduty status after the effective date 

29 

of this action, until disposition of your case has been 
reached either by settlement or through exhaustion of 
your administrative remedies. 

If you appeal to the MSPB, you thereby waive access to 
any procedures under the National Agreement beyond 
Step 3 of the Grievance/Arbitration procedure. You 
have the right to file an MSPB appeal and a grievance 
on the same matter. However, if the MSPB issues a 
decision on the merits of your appeal, if an MSPB 
hearing begins, if the MSPB closes the record after you 
request a decision without a hearing, or if you settle the 
MSPB appeal you will be deemed to have waived access 
to arbitration. Further, if you have an MSPB appeal 
pending at the time the Union appeals your grievance 
to arbitration, or if you appeal to the MSPB after the 
grievance has been appealed to arbitration, you will be 
deemed to have waived access to arbitration. 

You are entitled to a representative of your own choos- 
ing throughout your appeal. You and your representa- 
tive, if he or she is a U.S. Postal Service employee, shall 
be afforded a reasonable amount of official time for 
preparation of your case if you and/or your representa- 
tive are otherwise in a duty status. 

If this action is overturned on appeal, back pay will be 
allowed, unless otherwise specified in the appropriate 
award or decision, ONLY IF YOU HAVE MADE 
REASONABLE EFFORTS TO OBTAIN OTHER 

30 

EMPLOYMENT DURING THE RELEVANT NON- 
WORK PERIOD. The extent of documentation neces- 
sary to support your back pay claim is explained in the 
ELM, Section 436. 

/s/ TOMMY L. CARUTHERS 

TOMMY L. CARUTHERS 
Senior Labor Relations Specialist 

Attachments: MSPB Regulations 

MSPB Appeal Form 

ELM Section, Section 436 

31 

Hinesville GA 31313-9998 

[Seal omitted] 

UNITED STATES 
POSTAL SERVICE 

September 18, 1997 

SUBJECT: Notice of Proposed Removal 

TO: Maria Gregory 

City Letter Carrier 
SSN: 451-94-4749 
Hinesville GA 31313-9998 

This letter is to serve as advance written notice that it 
is proposed to remove you no sooner than 30 calendar 
days from receipt of this notice. The reason for this 
action is: 

CHARGE 1: 
Failure to Perform Your Duties in a 

Satisfactory Manner 

Specifically, postal records indicate you requested 3.5 
hours of overtime/auxiliary assistance on September 13, 
1997 while assigned to case and carry route CR04. 
Based on a review of the mail volume and your 
scheduled leaving time I questioned you as to the need 
for such overtime/assistance. You acknowledged the 
need and the inability to case and carry the route with 
less amount of overtime/assistance. I provided you 
with 3 hours of auxiliary assistance and advised you I 
would ride the remaining portion of the route with you. 

Records indicate you made your first delivery at 12:00 
and made your last delivery at 15:00. Your scheduled 

32 

end of tour for September 13, 1997 was 16:30. Based on 
the time you requested as overtime/auxiliary assistance 
and the actual time utilized, you overestimated your 
workload by 1.30 hours. When questioned in regards to 
your actions you failed to provide any information to 
support your actions or explain the unnecessary 
request for overtime/assistance. 

In arriving at the decision to remove you from the rolls 
of employment, I have given consideration to the 
following elements of your employment record. 

• On May 13, 1997, you were issued a letter of 
warning for insubordination. 

• On June 7, 1997, you were issued a 7-day suspen- 
sion for delaying the mail and failure to follow 
instructions. 

• On August 18, 1997 you were issued a 14-day 
suspension for 1) delaying accountable mail, 2) 
unauthorized overtime, 3) failure to follow 
instructions, 4) failure to perform your duties in a 
satisfactory manner. 

You and/or your representative may review the mate- 
rial relied on to support the reasons for this notice at 
the Hinesville Post Office during the hours of 9:00 a.m. 
to 4:00 p.m. 

If you do not understand the reasons for 
this notice, contact me for further explanation. 

You and/or your representative may answer this 
proposal within 10 days from your receipt of this letter, 
either in person or in writing or both, before James 
Hildreth, Labor Relations Specialist, U.S. Postal Ser- 
vice, 2 North Fahm St., Savannah GA 31402-9401. You 

33 

may also furnish affidavits or other written material to 
Mr. Hildreth within 10 days from your receipt of this 
letter. You will be afforded a reasonable amount of 
official time for the above purpose if you are otherwise 
in a duty status. After the expiration of the 10-day time 
limit for reply all the facts in the case, including any 
reply you submit, will be given full consideration before 
a decision is rendered. You will receive a written 
decision from Mr. Hildreth. 

You have the right to file a grievance under the 
grievance/arbitration procedure set forth in Article 15 
of the National Agreement within 14 days of your 
receipt of this notice. 

/s/ WILLIAM J. COX 

WILLIAM J. COX 
Supervisor, Customer Services 
Hinesville GA 31313-9998 

Attachment 

I, , received this notice on Time 

[Illegible] 

34 

[Seal omitted] 

UNITED STATES 
POSTAL SERVICE 

Hinesville, Georgia 31313 

September 18, 1997 

Subject: Step 2, Grievance Decision, Maria A. Gregory 

USPS #1064 
NALC #97-45H 

To: William S. Davis 

President, Local 4944 
P O Box 1426 
Hinesville, GA 31310-8426 

Step 2 hearing was held on September 9, 1997 con- 
cerning the grievance identified above. The grievance 
alleges a violation of Articles 2, 15 & 19. 

Union Contentions 
Management does not have “just cause” to issue 
discipline. Prior elements are improperly cited. 

Facts & Management Decision 
The prior elements are properly cited. They are clearly 
related to the charges in the discipline. Insubordination 
and failure to follow instructions are related as is 
delaying the mail with delaying accountable mail. 

Postal rules and regulations prohibit the actions of the 
grievant. The grievant was made aware of said rules 
and the consequences involved. The corrective action is 
progressive. 

35 

The union’s contention that prior discipline, not yet 
adjudicated, can’t be cited is wrong. If this were true 
the grievant would have immunity until adjudication. 

“Just cause” is present. The grievant has not corrected 
the work deficiencies. Therefore, progressive correc- 
tive action is appropriate. Grievance is denied. 

In addition, since the issuance of this suspension the 
grievant has continued to delay mail, failed to follow 
instructions and performed such that unauthorized 
overtime resulted. Specifically on August 12th and 
15th, 1997, the grievant committed these same infrac- 
tions. Clearly progressive discipline has not been 
sufficient to correct the deficiencies. 

/s/ BILL DAVIS 

BILL DAVIS 
Postmaster 

36 

LABOR RELATIONS PROCESSING CENTER 

[Seal omitted] 

UNITED STATES 
POSTAL SERVICETM 

August 15, 1997 

Mr. Matthew L. Rose 
Southeast Area Grievance 

National Business Agent 

Appeal No. H94N-4H-D 

National Association of Letter 

97090945 DIST 310 

Carriers, AFL-CIO 
Dated: 06/02/97 9721H 

Grievant: GREGORY M 

HINESVILLE GA 
31313-9998 

Provision Allegedly Violated: 16. 4000/ 

65.0750/65.1400 
Subject: Regional Grievance Decision: 

Dear Mr. Rose: 

After considering all available evidence in the record 
and that offered by the union at the Step 3D hearing on 
August 13, 1997, it is my decision to deny the grievance. 

In this case, the grievant was issued a seven (7) day 
suspension for, (1) insubordination. Evidence in the file 
indicates the grievant was guilty as charged. On 
Monday, April 7, 1997, the grievant was instructed to 
case his route before leaving. The instructions were 
repeated and each time the grievant stated he would 
not stay. The grievant stated her child was ill and she 
had to get to an appointment. Inspite of the instruc- 
tions being repeated, the grievant did not follow the 
supervisors instructions. The grievant’s actions were 

37 

in violation of section 666 of the Employee and Labor 
Relations Manual. The grievant is aware of her 
responsibilities in regards to following instructions and 
was charged accordingly. Therefore this grievance is 
denied. 

In our judgment, the grievance does not involve any 
interpretive issue(s) pertaining to the National Agree- 
ment or any supplement thereto which may be of 
general application. Unless the union believes other- 
wise, the case may be appealed directly to regional 
arbitration in accordance with the provisions of Article 
15 of the National Agreement. 

/s/ BERNARD U. RICHARDSON 

BERNARD U. RICHARDSON 
Labor Relations Specialist, Southeast Area 

cc: District Office Macon, Ga. 

Postmaster Hinesville, Ga. 
[Address illegible] 

38 

HINESVILLE GA 31313-9998 

[Seal omitted] 

UNITED STATES 
POSTAL SERVICE 

August 7, 1997 

SUBJECT: Notice of Fourteen (14) Day Suspension 

TO: Maria Gregory 

SSN: 451-94-4749 
City Carrier 
Hinesville GA 31313-9998 

You are hereby notified that you will be suspended for 
a period of (14) fourteen calendar days beginning on 
August 18, 1997. You are to return to duty at your 
regularly scheduled reporting time on your first 
regularly scheduled day following, August 31, 1997. 

CHARGE 1: 
Delaying Accountable Mail 

On 7/17/97 you were delivering mail on CR11. You 
failed to deliver 3 certified pieces to 734 Bacon Road. 
Your actions caused mail to be delayed. This is a 
serious offense that the Postal Service does not take 
lightly. You are hereby charged accordingly. 

CHARGE 2: 
Unauthorized Overtime/Failure to 

Follow Instruction 

On Friday 7/18/97, you were assigned to CR7. On this 
day, you made 1.24 units of unauthorized overtime. 
You did not complete a PS Form 3996 or 1571 to curtail 
mail. 

39 

On 7/19/97, you made .62 units of unauthorized over- 
time. You did not request auxiliary assistance via PS 
Form 3996. By virtue of the above listed unauthorized 
overtime, you are being charged accordingly. 

Charge 3: 
Failure to Perform Your Duties in 

a Satisfactory Manner/Unauthor- 
ized Overtime 

On 7/25/97 you requested 3.5 hours of auxiliary 
assistance. Your request was disapproved but I sent K. 
Chipple and A. Burson to assist you by both taking 1.5 
hours of auxiliary assistance off of you. In spite of this 
you still made 1.6 hours of overtime. Part of the reason 
that this occurred was due to the fact that you took all 
of the “hold mail” out to attempt delivery, which is 
contrary to the purpose of holding mail. In addition, 
you cleaned out cluster boxes which I told you was the 
responsibility of the regular carrier and not the T-6 
carrier which you were. 

On 7/26/97 you requested 1.25 hours of auxiliary assis- 
tance. I gave the auxiliary assistance to A. Burson. In 
spite of this you still made 1.56 hours of overtime. In 
addition to this, when Mr. Burson came to get the split 
that he was to carry off of your route you would not 
give him the mail causing him to have to get the mail 
himself. After you returned to the office, it was found 
that you had taken out hold mail again and mail that 
you had cleaned out of customers boxes which as 
previously explained was the regular carrier’s duty. 

The above two cited incidents chronicle behavior 
intended to expand your street time for the purpose of 
making overtime. In this regard you are accordingly 
charged. 

40 

In addition, the following prior elements for your past 
record have been considered in arriving at this decision. 

• 5/13/97 Letter of Warning Insubordination 

• 6/7/97 7 Day Suspension Delaying Mail/Failure 
to Follow Instructions 

You have the right to file a grievance under the 
grievance/arbitration procedure set forth in Article 15 
of the National Agreement within 14 days of your 
receipt of this notice. 

/s/ WILLIAM J. COX 

WILLIAM J. COX 
Supervisor Customer Services 
Hinesville GA 31313-9998 

I, received this notice on Time 

Employee refused to sign, Witness by Bill Davis 8-7-97 
at 4:38 pm 

41 

[Seal omitted] 

UNITED STATES 
POSTAL SERVICE 

Hinesville, Georgia 31313-9998 

June 7, 1997 

Subject: Step 2, Grievance Decision, Maria A. Gregory 

USPS #1051 
NALC # 97-32H 

To: William S. Davis 

President, Local 4944 
P O Box 1426 
Hinesville, GA 31310-8426 

Step 2: hearing was held on May 29, 1997, concerning 
the grievance identified above. The grievance alleges a 
violation of Articles 15 and 16. 

Union Contentions 
Grievant treated disparately. 

Facts & Management Decision 
“Just Cause” exist for the suspension which is hereby 
reduced from 14 calendar days to 7 calendar days. The 
7 day suspension will begin June 28, 1997 and end July 
4, 1997. The unions contentions are without merit. The 
previous Letter of Warning can we relied upon because 
it has not been overturned at any step in the grievance 
procedure. Grievant’s explanation of events does not 
excuse her actions. Had grievant been performing 

42 

duties as required by the M-41 the mail would not have 
been delayed. Grievance is denied. 

/s/ BILL DAVIS 

BILL DAVIS 
Postmaster 

cc: Maria A. Gregory 

43 

[Seal omitted] 

UNITED STATES 
POSTAL SERVICE 

Hinesville, Georgia 31313-9998 

May 13, 1997 

Subject: Step 2, Grievance Decision, Maria A. Gregory 

USPS #1051 
NALC # 97-21H 

To: William S. Davis 

President, Local 4944 
P O Box 1426 
Hinesville, GA 31310-8426 

Step 2, hearing was held on May 9, 1997, concerning the 
grievance identified above. The grievance alleges a 
violation of Articles 15, 16 and 19. 

Union Contentions 
Untimely discipline, Discipline unwarranted. 

Facts & Management Decision 
Just cause does exist. Union does not deny the facts 
surrounding the April 7, 1997 incident. However, after 
reviewing the seriousness of the grievant’s actions, the 
suspension is reduced to a Letter of Warning. 

44 

The grievant has not served the suspension. Therefore, 
no wages were lost. The requested remedy is inappro- 
priate and denied. 

/s/ BILL DAVIS 

BILL DAVIS 
Postmaster 

cc: Maria A. Gregory 

Grievant 

45 

HINESVILLE GA 31313-9998 

[Seal omitted] 

UNITED STATES 
POSTAL SERVICE 

April 30, 1997 

SUBJECT: Notice of Fourteen (14) Day Suspension 

TO: Maria Gregory 

City Letter Carrier 
SSN: 451-94-4749 
Hinesville GA 31313-9998 

You are hereby notified that you will be suspended for 
a period of fourteen (14) calendar days beginning June 
21, 1997. You are to return to duty at your regularly 
scheduled reporting time on your first regularly 
scheduled day following July 4, 1997. 

CHARGE 1: 
Delaying of Mail 

On April 18, 1997, you brought mail back to the office. 
This mail was from route C-13. You cased and carried 
C-16 on this day. After receiving help on the street you 
returned with the portion of C-13 that you were to 
deliver. Your actions caused this mail to be delayed and 
you are charged accordingly. 

CHARGE 2: 
Failure to Follow Instructions 

On April 10, 1997, you were given instructions re- 
garding delaying mail delivery. Instructions were 
given to call the office and speak to a supervisor or 
Postmaster when a carrier had a situation like you had 
on April 18, 1997. Your failure to follow these instruc- 

46 

tions contributed to the unnecessary delay of mail. 
Therefore, you are charged accordingly 

In addition, the following prior elements of your past 
record have been considered in arriving at this decision. 

• On April 26, 1997 you were issued a 7-day suspen- 
sion for insubordination. 

You have the right to file a grievance under the 
grievance/arbitration procedure set forth in Article 15 
of the National Agreement within 14 days of your 
receipt of this notice. 

/s/ SHAWN A. THOMPSON 

SHAWN A. THOMPSON 
Supervisor, Customer Svcs. 
Hinesville, GA 31313-9998 

I, received this notice on Time 

Employee refused to sign. Witness: Bill Davis 4-30-97 
6:18 pm 

47 

[Seal omitted] 

UNITED STATES 
POSTAL SERVICE 

Hinesville, Georgia 31313-9998 

April 23, 1997 

Subject: Notice of 7 Day Suspension 

To: Maria A. Gregory 

City Letter Carrier 
SSN: 451-94-4749 
Hinesville, GA 31313-9998 

You are hereby notified that you will be suspended for 
a period of seven (7) calendar days beginning on May 
17, 1997. You are to return to duty at your regularly 
scheduled reporting time on your first regularly sched- 
uled day following the suspension. 

CHARGE: INSUBORDINATION 

On Monday, April 7, 1997, I instructed you to case your 
route before leaving. I repeated these instructions and 
each time you stated that you would not stay. You 
stated your child was ill and you had to get an 
appointment. In spite of my repeated instructions to 
case your route before leaving you did in fact leave 
without following my instructions. In this instance you 
were insubordinate and charged accordingly. 

You have the right to file a grievance under the 
grievance/arbitration procedure set forth in Article 15 

48 

of the National Agreement within 14 days of your 
receipt of this notice. 

/s/ SHAWN A. THOMPSON 

SHAWN A. THOMPSON 
Supervisor, Customer Services 

I, received this notice on Time 

Employee refused to sign, Witness by Bill Davis 4-26- 
97 at 10:55