REGULAR ARBITRATION PANEL
SOUTHERN REGION
{
GRIEVANT : James Holcomb
POST OFFICE : Houston, Texas
CASE NOS . :
Postal Service
SON-3V-D 2368
Union
007-06-91DA
GTS #012321
IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION )
between
)
{
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE )
(
and
)
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER )
CARRIERS , AFL-CIO {
BRANCH 283 )
BEFORE :
F . Jay Taylor ,
ARBITRATOR ,
Southern Region
APPEARANCES :
For the U . S .
Postal Service :
For the NALC :
Norma Ramirez
Labor Relations Representative
Vernon Wade
President , Branch 283
PLACE OF HEARING :
U . S . Post Office
Houston, Texas
DATE OF HEARING :
June 3, 1992
AWARD :
The grievance is sustained and the removal
action is rescinded .
The Grievant's
reinstatement shall be construed as a "last
chance " offer . If his attendance deficiencies
continue the Employee can count on his discharge
being upheld by an Arbitrator if the Union will
bother to take it to Arbitration .
DATE OF AWARD : June 11, 1992
The grievance was heard in Houston, Texas, on June 3,
1992, before F . Jay Taylor, Impartial Arbitrator, Southern
Region .
Both parties were professionally represented by competent
and experienced Advocates . They stipulated that the procedural
steps of the grievance procedures as outlined and prescribed in
the National Agreement have been complied with and that the
subject grievance is properly before the Arbitrator for hearing
and adjudication .
The Advocates were afforded an opportunity to offer all
relevant evidence, both oral and documentary, and to examine and
to cross-examine the witnesses, all of whom testified under oath .
At the conclusion of the Hearing, Ms . Ramirez on behalf of the
Service and Mr . Wade on behalf of the Union, stated that (a) they
had no further proofs to offer in support of their respective
contentions ; that (b) subject to the objections entered into the
Record, they were satisfied with the state of the Record ; and
that (c) the Postal Service and the NALC had each received a
full, fair and impartial Hearing .
The Grievant completed the Record to his satisfaction in
a closing statement . He also testified that he had been fully
and fairly represented by his Union, NALC Branch #283, in the
proceedings .
The Advocates elected to make closing summations in lieu
of filing post-Hearing Briefs . The proceedings were taperecorded by the Arbitrator for use in preparing the FINDINGS and
AWARD in the case .
2
THE ISSUE :
Was the Grievant, James Holcomb, removed from
the United Postal Service for just and proper
cause pursuant to the provisions of the National
Agreement ? If not, what is the appropriate
remedy?
STATEMENT OF THE CASE :
This case arises out of a dispute wherein the Union
protested the removal of Full Time City Carrier James Holcomb
from the ranks of the United States Postal Service . The Grievant
began his career with the Service on April 21, 1979, and his date
of removal was September 13, 1991 . The reason given for the
Employee's termination was deficiencies in attendance .
In a Notice of Removal dated August 6, 1991, John Levo,
Supervisor at the Fairview Station in Houston advised Mr . Holcomb
that-You are hereby notified that you will be removed
from the Postal Service effective close-ofbusiness September 13, 1991 .
You are charged with Unsatisfactory Attendance .
A review of your attendance record since November
13, 1990, reflects the following unscheduled
absences :
12-22 / 27-90
01-11 / 12-91
02-12-91
04-03-91
07-11/ 13-91
24
16
3
8
24
hours
hours
hours
hours
hours
AWOL
SL
32 minutes AWOL
AWOL
AWOL
In addition, the following elements of your past
record will be considered in taking this action :
You were issued a Letter of Warning dated
February 7, 1990 for attendance .
3
You were issued a Seven Day Suspension dated
June 21, 1990 for attendance .
You were issued a Fourteen Day Suspension
dated November 13, 1990 for attendance .
You were issued a Fourteen Day Suspension
dated April 26, 1990 for improper
conduct/failure to follow instructions .
The Union promptly filed a grievance noting that the
Employee has a very "serious problem" (substance abuse addiction)
which he is "trying very hard to overcome ." The Union requested
that the removal action be rescinded and that Mr . Holcomb be made
"whole ." The Service denied the grievance at each step of the
grievance procedure . After the Grievant signed a statement
requesting a Modified Article 16 Deferment, the grievance was
appealed to Arbitral review .
SUMMARY POSITION OF THE SERVICE :
The Agency argued that it had certainly terminated James
Holcomb for just cause . The Record proves that his attendance
Record was deplorable . Certainly the Service cannot fulfill its
mission with part-time Employees when full-time Employees are
needed to serve the public . Furthermore, most of the Employee's
absences were unscheduled, the worst kind, since these absences
impose a special burden on Management and the bargaining unit
Employees who have to shoulder an extra load . Thus, there is a
serious adverse impact on the Station when an Employee turns up
AWOL such as happened in Mr . Holcomb's case . The attendance
4
record chronicled in the Notice of Removal as well as past
disciplinary actions assessed the Grievant speak for themselves .
"Enough is enough ." Management attempted to help the Employee
deal with his drug related problems, but to no avail . The
grievance, therefore, is completely without merit . It should be
denied and dismissed in its entirety .
SUMMARY POSITION OF THE UNION :
The Union did not deny that Mr . Holcomb had attendance
problems, problems which the Service need not tolerate in
ordinary circumstances . James Holcomb, however, was the victim
of drug abuse . He recognized that he had a problem and he moved
to correct it . Substance abuse and addiction is a disease . He
is entitled to the benefits recorded in Article 35 : "An
employee's voluntary participation in such programs will be
considered favorably in disciplinary action proceedings ."
Mr . Holcomb voluntarily sought help and as of February 4,
1992, he was declared to be drug free and he is drug free today .
Uncontested is the Union's contention that the Grievant was and
is an excellent Employee and is "attempting to get his life back
together ." This includes sole custody and responsibility for a
nine year old daughter . Mr . Holcomb is pleading for an
opportunity to prove that he can be a valuable and productive
Employee . The grievance, therefore, is fully meritorious and the
remedy prayed for by the Union should be granted in its entirety .
5
FINDINGS :
it is the finding of the Arbitrator after a careful
review and weighing the oral and the documentary evidence, the
well-reasoned arguments advanced by Ms . Ramirez on behalf of the
Service and Mr . Wade on behalf of the Union, all lead to the
conclusion that justice would best be served if Mr . Holcomb were
allowed to continue with his Carrier duties at the Fairview
Station on a Last Chance basis . Then it can be determined if the
Grievant remains drug free and corrects his attendance
deficiencies .
Medical experts agree that alcoholism and drug addiction
are diseases . They are progressive diseases during which the
victim is unable to control his physical well being or his
emotional state . Stress is the order of the day . Frequently the
victim is the last to recognize what others have long known, that
he has a serious problem which is gradually overcoming him .
Finally the employee reaches a point where their loss of control
over their drug abuse and their lives gets them into an untenable
situation . In Mr . Holcomb's case it was his inability to report
for work as scheduled on a regular basis . Because addiction is a
disease, corrective or progressive discipline such as was
assessed against the Grievant did little to alleviate the
problem .
Fortunately, Mr . Holcomb recognized his problem and began
taking steps to regain his self-control and to address the root
of his trouble . At that point the Grievant began his flight back
into reality which culminated in a drug free environment in
6
February 1992 . Even though several of the Employee's cited
absences occurred after that date, I am persuaded that this was
the beginning of his rehabilitation . Today, as a result of the
Employee's successful efforts to combat his problems I believe
that Mr . Holcomb can be saved as an employable member of the
Postal Service . He has apparently been successful in seeking
professional help and hopefully his behavior will be corrected .
I read into Article 35 of the National Agreement a
certain compassion of the Service for those Employee victims of
drug and alcohol abuse . It clearly states that "An Employee's
voluntary participation in such programs (PAR) will be considered
favorably in disciplinary action proceedings ."
Although it was not the PAR program which worked to
rehabilitate the Grievant, he did voluntarily seek help from a
recognized professional agency, The Hauser Clinic-Prucare . The
Union has documented the treatments received by Mr . Holcomb .
Thus, in my view, and in the spirit of Article 35, I am
persuaded that the Grievant's attendance problems were the result
of substance abuse and consequently, he should be given one last
opportunity to prove to Post Office Management that his
misconduct was, indeed, the result of drug addiction and that his
attendance deficiencies will not be repeated if he is allowed to
continue in his present job . Furthermore, he will have the
opportunity to demonstrate that he is fully capable of meeting
his Employer's standards for attendance and promptness . If his
attendance problems continue then he should not expect the Union
7
to be as successful in defending him as it was in this
proceeding .
There are two other points which I believe deserve
consideration . One is that the Grievant is a relatively longterm Employee with a seniority date of April 21, 1979 . With more
than thirteen years of service certainly he has gained valuable
experience which would serve well if he can prove that he has
recovered sufficiently to perform his duties in a satisfactory
manner . If he had not been suffering from drug addiction and had
accumulated such a dismal record of attendance, then I would have
no hesitancy in supporting his removal . Almost all of the
elements of past Record resulting in discipline were assessed
because of problems related to attendance . As noted above, I am
persuaded that this improper conduct was the result of substance
abuse and that he should have one last opportunity to prove his
ability to meet the Service requirement for attendance .
A second consideration is the testimony from both Agency
and Union witnesses that James Holcomb is a good Employee, as one
witness stated : "At least when he is present to work ." Also the
Grievant has testified that now he is drug free he can prove
himself to be a valuable Postal Service Employee . This is his
opportunity and if he fails or falters then he can certainly
count on summary dismissal .
Therefore, after due consideration, and for the reasons
set forth above, the undersigned, duly designated Arbitrator
makes the following
8
AWARD
The grievance is sustained and the removal action is
rescinded . The Grievant's reinstatement shall be construed as a
"last chance" offer . If his attendance deficiencies continue the
Employee can count on his discharge being upheld by an Arbitrator
if the Union will bother to take it to Arbitration .
~~~ep
F . Jay Ta or, A trat or
9