Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Postal Employees

Post your thoughts and opinions here about current Postal employee topics.

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Window Clerk  
#1 Posted : Saturday, February 11, 2012 10:42:06 PM(UTC)
Window Clerk

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 7/31/2010(UTC)
Posts: 1,014

Here's a site that culls together anything pertaining to lawsuits against everybody.

I went to their search engine within the site and typed into it: U. S. Postal Service.

WOW...Confused

Lots of lawsuits by employees.

Some of which may apply to some of you fine people.

http://leagle.com/Search.aspx?q=Search


Melerkat  
#2 Posted : Sunday, February 12, 2012 12:12:36 AM(UTC)
Melerkat

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/13/2011(UTC)
Posts: 2,648

Well, technically a grievance is a lawsuit. You have a plaintiff, a defendant and a judge.
I've been through many an arbitration proceeding and I got to tell you, it's not much different than being in court.
We got lawyers, witnesses, evidence, photos, and no lack of drama.


“Soldiers can sometimes make decisions that are smarter than the orders they've been given.”<br />― Orson Scott Card, Ender's Game
delovibrio  
#3 Posted : Sunday, February 12, 2012 1:08:04 AM(UTC)
delovibrio

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/12/2011(UTC)
Posts: 1,355

Melerkat wrote:
Well, technically a grievance is a lawsuit. You have a plaintiff, a defendant and a judge.
I've been through many an arbitration proceeding and I got to tell you, it's not much different than being in court.
We got lawyers, witnesses, evidence, photos, and no lack of drama.


 
Sorry Melerkat,
 
Working on my Masters in Criminal Justice, I have sat in plenty of court rooms for my classes, No way does the Usps Grievance come close to comparing.
 
 
I know you are knowledgeable in The Usps, But let this one go.
Melerkat  
#4 Posted : Sunday, February 12, 2012 1:33:44 AM(UTC)
Melerkat

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/13/2011(UTC)
Posts: 2,648




delovibrio wrote:
Melerkat wrote:
Well, technically a grievance is a lawsuit. You have a plaintiff, a defendant and a judge.
I've been through many an arbitration proceeding and I got to tell you, it's not much different than being in court.
We got lawyers, witnesses, evidence, photos, and no lack of drama.


 
Sorry Melerkat,
 
Working on my Masters in Criminal Justice, I have sat in plenty of court rooms for my classes, No way does the Usps Grievance come close to comparing.
 
 
I know you are knowledgeable in The Usps, But let this one go.


I CERTAINLY WILL NOT! READ:

http://nalcunion.com/2011/08/jcam-article-15-grievance-arbitration-procedure/


Are you trying to tell me that is NOT A LEGAL PROCEEDING?

You need to go back to school.

Perhaps you need to learn the difference between A CRIMINAL CASE and A CIVIL CASE, but THE PROCEEDINGS ARE VERY MUCH THE SAME.

There is CRIMINAL COURT and there is CIVIL COURT.

Yet EVEN IN CRIMINAL COURT the Union still can represent an employee:

Court of Appeals Upholds Letter Carrier’s Firing for Disclosing ‘Mail Cover’ Investigation To Customer


February 11, 2012 by postal
Filed under: legal cases, letter carriers, postal, postal news 

Letter Carrier fired for “improper conduct/providing confidential
information to a postal customer of a government matter/interference in a criminal investigation.”

 

Robert W. Holdsworth appeals from a final decision of the Merit
Systems Protection Board , affirming a decision of the United States
Postal Service to remove Holdsworth from his position as a letter carrier.

Holdsworth served as a letter carrier for the USPS for twenty-two
years. In August or September 2008, Inspector Teresa Ryan from the U.S.
Postal Inspection Service advised Holdsworth that USPIS would be
conducting a “mail cover” in connection with a criminal mail fraud
investigation. A “mail cover” is “the process by which a nonconsensual
record is made of any data appearing on the outside cover of any sealed
or unsealed class of mail matter . . . to obtain information for [inter
alia]: . . . [o]btaining evidence of commission or attempted commission
of a crime.” USPS Intranet, Administrative Support Manual, 213 Mail
Covers. On December 17, 2008, the USPIS, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, and the Department of Health and Human Services executed
search warrants on the targets of the mail cover. Contrary to the
inspectors’ expectations, the targets were not surprised by the
inspection, but rather were already on notice of the investigation
because, they said, their letter carrier had informed them that the
authorities were watching their mail. After conducting an investigation,
on October 1, 2009, the Agency issued a notice of Holdsworth’s proposed
removal based on the stated charge of “improper conduct/providing
confidential information to a postal customer of a government matter/interference in a criminal investigation.”

Four days following notice of his proposed removal, on October 5,
2009, Holdsworth engaged in activity forming the basis for a second
charge against him in an amended removal notice: “charge #2 – improper
conduct – inappropriate conduct towards a postal customer.” This charge
stems from Holdsworth’s alleged use of profanity to several members of a
family on his route, following what Holdsworth believed was one of the
family member’s improper handling of mail addressed to others. In a
notice dated October 8, 2009, the Agency informed Holdsworth that he was
being placed on emergency off-duty status. On October 13, 2009, the
Agency issued the amended removal notice, adding the second charge described above.

On December 3, 2009, the Agency’s deciding official, Steven Ulrich,
issued a letter of decision concluding—based on the factors listed in
Douglas v. Veterans Administration, 5 M.S.P.R. 280 (1981) (“Douglas
factors”)—that the penalty of removal was warranted. On February 5,
2010, an arbitrator conducted a hearing in accordance with the National
Association of Letter Carriers’ (“Union”) agreement, to investigate
whether there was just cause for the Agency’s notices of October 1, 8,
and 13. The Arbitrator considered the Union’s arguments and concluded
that the Agency’s emergency off-duty placement and removal of Holdsworth
were justified. U.S. Postal Serv. v. Nat’l Assoc. of Letter Carriers,
AFL-CIO, No. C06N-4C-D 10008189 157-128-1000-20009 at 12 (Mar. 7, 2010) (Brown, Arb.) (“Arbitration Decision”).

This court has thoroughly considered Holdsworth’s remaining arguments and concludes that they lack merit.

"Not the same?"

Very much the same.
LET's REVIEW THAT LAST SENTENCE:
"This court has thoroughly considered Holdsworth’s remaining arguments and concludes that they lack merit."

WHAT WAS THAT? This "WHAT?"
"THIS C.O.U.R.T."
THIS COURT.
SAME THING.


Your turn!




Melerkat2012-02-12 09:46:29
“Soldiers can sometimes make decisions that are smarter than the orders they've been given.”<br />― Orson Scott Card, Ender's Game
Fed1969  
#5 Posted : Sunday, February 12, 2012 1:39:50 AM(UTC)
Fed1969

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/28/2010(UTC)
Posts: 3,333

Some grievances and EEO complaints end up as lawsuits.  To me when money is involved and it could end up in court, and lawyers are involved in a settlement, this is a lawsuit.
Melerkat  
#6 Posted : Sunday, February 12, 2012 1:45:03 AM(UTC)
Melerkat

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/13/2011(UTC)
Posts: 2,648

Fed1969 wrote:
Some grievances and EEO complaints end up as lawsuits.  To me when money is involved and it could end up in court, and lawyers are involved in a settlement, this is a lawsuit.


Well at least someone got it right. Well done Fed1969.
We SUE for damages "To Make The Carrier Whole."
Well over 75% of all grievances result in a monetary settlement.
SETTLEMENT, same as in a Court of Law.
Arbitrators are usually LAWYERS. Labor Relations Attorneys.


“Soldiers can sometimes make decisions that are smarter than the orders they've been given.”<br />― Orson Scott Card, Ender's Game
Vettor  
#7 Posted : Sunday, February 12, 2012 1:55:03 AM(UTC)
Vettor

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 12/26/2011(UTC)
Posts: 245

Window Clerk wrote:
Here's a site that culls together anything pertaining to lawsuits against everybody.

I went to their search engine within the site and typed into it: U. S. Postal Service.

WOW...Confused

Lots of lawsuits by employees.

Some of which may apply to some of you fine people.

http://leagle.com/Search.aspx?q=Search



Yes there are many lawsuits currently out at every federal agency to try and put an end to the corruption and law evading tactics by higher ups in each agency.  Luckily the battle is being won by the litigators. 
Veteran unemployment to 0%.
skip222  
#8 Posted : Sunday, February 12, 2012 2:29:06 AM(UTC)
skip222

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 9/23/2011(UTC)
Posts: 476

Window Clerk wrote:
Here's a site that culls together anything pertaining to lawsuits against everybody.

I went to their search engine within the site and typed into it: U. S. Postal Service.

WOW...Confused

Lots of lawsuits by employees.

Some of which may apply to some of you fine people.

http://leagle.com/Search.aspx?q=Search



another BS post!
Melerkat  
#9 Posted : Sunday, February 12, 2012 2:52:44 AM(UTC)
Melerkat

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/13/2011(UTC)
Posts: 2,648

Why do you say that Skip?
I searched "USPS" and got a boatload of cases.


“Soldiers can sometimes make decisions that are smarter than the orders they've been given.”<br />― Orson Scott Card, Ender's Game
Fed1969  
#10 Posted : Sunday, February 12, 2012 4:00:18 AM(UTC)
Fed1969

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/28/2010(UTC)
Posts: 3,333

I would expect USPS to have a lot of frustrated employees due to all the issues.  Much frustration leads to many lawsuits.
dafishman  
#11 Posted : Sunday, February 12, 2012 6:07:14 AM(UTC)
dafishman

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/6/2011(UTC)
Posts: 448

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Melerkat wrote:
Well, technically a grievance is a lawsuit. You have a plaintiff, a defendant and a judge.
I've been through many an arbitration proceeding and I got to tell you, it's not much different than being in court.
We got lawyers, witnesses, evidence, photos, and no lack of drama.












Normal.dotm
0
0
1
32
187
ABC
1
1
229
12.0






0
false


18 pt
18 pt
0
0

false
false
false














/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}






http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/grievance


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lawsuit

No technically, if its not filed at a courthouse its not a lawsuit.   It may have similarities but for it to be a official lawsuit it has to be filed at a court of law.

The outcome is pretty much the same. 


Fed1969  
#12 Posted : Sunday, February 12, 2012 6:15:06 AM(UTC)
Fed1969

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/28/2010(UTC)
Posts: 3,333

Many lawsuits are settled or dropped before being filed with a court.
delovibrio  
#13 Posted : Sunday, February 12, 2012 6:57:10 AM(UTC)
delovibrio

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/12/2011(UTC)
Posts: 1,355


dafishman wrote:
Melerkat wrote:
Well, technically a grievance is a lawsuit. You have a plaintiff, a defendant and a judge.
I've been through many an arbitration proceeding and I got to tell you, it's not much different than being in court.
We got lawyers, witnesses, evidence, photos, and no lack of drama.












Normal.dotm
0
0
1
32
187
ABC
1
1
229
12.0






0
false


18 pt
18 pt
0
0

false
false
false














/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}






http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/grievance


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lawsuit

No technically, if its not filed at a courthouse its not a lawsuit.   It may have similarities but for it to be a official lawsuit it has to be filed at a court of law.

The outcome is pretty much the same. 


The outcome is, yes but not the start to finish,

thanks dafishman for being reasonable, court of law is one part of it.

and for merekat to tell me to go back to school is like me telling him to research all his post, which i will not do because i feel he is usually 99% right.

But not this time, not a grievance between a pig grieving box collection compared to a court of law murder trial, i like how he threw in a law suit and a case, when he specifically compared " just a grievance to a court of law.

nice way to stray away from post merekat

delovibrio  
#14 Posted : Sunday, February 12, 2012 7:02:12 AM(UTC)
delovibrio

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/12/2011(UTC)
Posts: 1,355

Melerkat wrote:
Well, technically a grievance is a lawsuit. You have a plaintiff, a defendant and a judge.
I've been through many an arbitration proceeding and I got to tell you, it's not much different than being in court.
We got lawyers, witnesses, evidence, photos, and no lack of drama.


 
Just this part is what i am concentrating on, dont stray!
 
I will give you another chance, just a grievance or a specific grievance? and do not stray from grievance.
 
now with that in mind, how is a grievance the same as any court? go ahead you can use traffic, drug and criminal court, just those 3.
 
your turn?
 
what was that?
delovibrio  
#15 Posted : Sunday, February 12, 2012 7:20:19 AM(UTC)
delovibrio

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/12/2011(UTC)
Posts: 1,355


Melerkat wrote:



delovibrio wrote:
Melerkat wrote:
Well, technically a grievance is a lawsuit. You have a plaintiff, a defendant and a judge.
I've been through many an arbitration proceeding and I got to tell you, it's not much different than being in court.
We got lawyers, witnesses, evidence, photos, and no lack of drama.


 
Sorry Melerkat,
 
Working on my Masters in Criminal Justice, I have sat in plenty of court rooms for my classes, No way does the Usps Grievance come close to comparing.
 
 
I know you are knowledgeable in The Usps, But let this one go.


I CERTAINLY WILL NOT! READ:

http://nalcunion.com/2011/08/jcam-article-15-grievance-arbitration-procedure/


Are you trying to tell me that is NOT A LEGAL PROCEEDING?

You need to go back to school.

Perhaps you need to learn the difference between A CRIMINAL CASE and A CIVIL CASE, but THE PROCEEDINGS ARE VERY MUCH THE SAME.

There is CRIMINAL COURT and there is CIVIL COURT.

Yet EVEN IN CRIMINAL COURT the Union still can represent an employee:

Court of Appeals Upholds Letter Carrier’s Firing for Disclosing ‘Mail Cover’ Investigation To Customer


February 11, 2012 by postal
Filed under: legal cases, letter carriers, postal, postal news 

Letter Carrier fired for “improper conduct/providing confidential
information to a postal customer of a government matter/interference in a criminal investigation.”

 

Robert W. Holdsworth appeals from a final decision of the Merit
Systems Protection Board , affirming a decision of the United States
Postal Service to remove Holdsworth from his position as a letter carrier.

Holdsworth served as a letter carrier for the USPS for twenty-two
years. In August or September 2008, Inspector Teresa Ryan from the U.S.
Postal Inspection Service advised Holdsworth that USPIS would be
conducting a “mail cover” in connection with a criminal mail fraud
investigation. A “mail cover” is “the process by which a nonconsensual
record is made of any data appearing on the outside cover of any sealed
or unsealed class of mail matter . . . to obtain information for [inter
alia]: . . . [o]btaining evidence of commission or attempted commission
of a crime.” USPS Intranet, Administrative Support Manual, 213 Mail
Covers. On December 17, 2008, the USPIS, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, and the Department of Health and Human Services executed
search warrants on the targets of the mail cover. Contrary to the
inspectors’ expectations, the targets were not surprised by the
inspection, but rather were already on notice of the investigation
because, they said, their letter carrier had informed them that the
authorities were watching their mail. After conducting an investigation,
on October 1, 2009, the Agency issued a notice of Holdsworth’s proposed
removal based on the stated charge of “improper conduct/providing
confidential information to a postal customer of a government matter/interference in a criminal investigation.”

Four days following notice of his proposed removal, on October 5,
2009, Holdsworth engaged in activity forming the basis for a second
charge against him in an amended removal notice: “charge #2 – improper
conduct – inappropriate conduct towards a postal customer.” This charge
stems from Holdsworth’s alleged use of profanity to several members of a
family on his route, following what Holdsworth believed was one of the
family member’s improper handling of mail addressed to others. In a
notice dated October 8, 2009, the Agency informed Holdsworth that he was
being placed on emergency off-duty status. On October 13, 2009, the
Agency issued the amended removal notice, adding the second charge described above.

On December 3, 2009, the Agency’s deciding official, Steven Ulrich,
issued a letter of decision concluding—based on the factors listed in
Douglas v. Veterans Administration, 5 M.S.P.R. 280 (1981) (“Douglas
factors”)—that the penalty of removal was warranted. On February 5,
2010, an arbitrator conducted a hearing in accordance with the National
Association of Letter Carriers’ (“Union”) agreement, to investigate
whether there was just cause for the Agency’s notices of October 1, 8,
and 13. The Arbitrator considered the Union’s arguments and concluded
that the Agency’s emergency off-duty placement and removal of Holdsworth
were justified. U.S. Postal Serv. v. Nat’l Assoc. of Letter Carriers,
AFL-CIO, No. C06N-4C-D 10008189 157-128-1000-20009 at 12 (Mar. 7, 2010) (Brown, Arb.) (“Arbitration Decision”).

This court has thoroughly considered Holdsworth’s remaining arguments and concludes that they lack merit.

"Not the same?"

Very much the same.
LET's REVIEW THAT LAST SENTENCE:
"This court has thoroughly considered Holdsworth’s remaining arguments and concludes that they lack merit."

WHAT WAS THAT? This "WHAT?"
"THIS C.O.U.R.T."
THIS COURT.
SAME THING.


Your turn!




 

You used a court that happened outside the usps supposedly grievance court that is just like a court of law. I want to see an example of the USPS grievance court that you said is just like a court of law, not an actual court of law case that had an USPS employee involved. nice try!

Melerkat  
#16 Posted : Sunday, February 12, 2012 10:23:21 AM(UTC)
Melerkat

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/13/2011(UTC)
Posts: 2,648

Court: NALC Must Go To Arbitration To Enforce Grievance Settlements With USPS


March 16, 2011 by postal
Filed under: legal cases, postal, postal news, usps 

The problem of USPS ignoring their settlement agreements is a big
one. Courts, like the one below, are mandating that unions take their
disputes to arbitration before asking for enforcement in court, even
when the dispute has already been settled multiple times! Unions have
to take their disputes all the way to arbitration or the courts won’t
enforce them. The NLRB has taken the same position. More and more of
the grievances I see being filed are asking for enforcement of a
previous grievance settlement, such as payment of back pay. It is
getting ridiculous as resolutions drag out to a year or more. Extreme
cases are taking three years! Employees are growing impatient and angry and union leaders are feeling the heat.

In the case below, NALC Branch #155 (Illinois) filed a lawsuit claiming USPS had continously..

…..failed and refused to provide information requested by Branch 155 in a
timely manner so that it may adequately represent its members as required by the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (“NLRA”).

As a result of Defendant’s continuous and on-going usurpations of the
National Agreement, Branch 155 has been forced to file multiple grievances in accordance with

the National Agreement’s grievance procedure as well as repeated unfair
labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board, Region
14 (“NLRB”) against the Defendant. These unfair labor practice charges
filed with the NLRB have been filed as far back as 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, and 2010 for violating the collective bargaining
agreement by failing to timely provide requested information.

As a result of Defendant’s continued refusal to abide by the terms
and conditions of the National Agreement, not only as against this
Plaintiff herein but as against multiple other local unions affiliated
with the National Letter Carriers Association across the United States,
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board in Washington,
D.C., issued Memorandum M 03-18 recognizing the Defendant’s continued
refusal to provide information and stated that in the wake of the number
of reoccurring cases against the Defendant for failure to provide
requested information, “all information requests should receive prompt and responsive replies…”

As a result of the Defendant’s continued refusal to abide by the
terms and conditions of Articles 17.3 and 31 of the National Agreement, the memorandums of Vice President of

Labor Relations, John E. Potter and Chief Operating Officer and
Executive Vice President (1998) , Patrick R. Donahoe (2002), as well as the covenants agreed to in Memorandum M 03-
18, Plaintiff’s members continues to suffer irreparable harm.

But the court was not persuaded by NALC’s arguments. The court ruled:

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) permits a party to
move for judgment after the complaint and answer have been filed by the
parties. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(c); Buchanan-Moore v. County of
Milwaukee, 570 F.3d 824, 827 (7th Cir. 2009). After reviewing the
pleadings, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to satisfy a
condition precedent to filing this action -specifically, it failed to
exhaust the grievance and arbitration procedures established in the
applicable collective bargaining agreement.1 Plaintiff did not pursue
its grievances through to arbitration as required under the agreement,
and the Court does not read an implied claim for into the statute
governing judicial enforcement, 29 U.S.C. § 185. Plaintiff asks the
Court to read the terms of the agreement and consider whether they are
reasonable in light of directives issued by Defendant’s officials and
manuals promulgated by the parties. But this Court cannot rewrite the
parties’ agreement, and under the agreement, Plaintiff is required to arbitrate Defendant’s failure to comply with the settlement agreements.

While the Court does have subject matter jurisdiction over an action
seeking judicial enforcement of a contract between the Postal Service
and a labor organization, see 39 U.S.C. § 1208, once this Court
determines that an issue is arbitrable and, as here, that arbitration
procedures were not exhausted, it can go no farther in reviewing the
dispute. See generally Niro v. Fearn Int’l Inc., 827 F.2d 173, 175-76
(7th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for judgment on the
pleadings (Doc. 30) is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED without
prejudice to Plaintiff pursuing its claims through the grievance process.

National Association Of Letter Carriers vs  United States Postal Service, decided February 8, 2011



“Soldiers can sometimes make decisions that are smarter than the orders they've been given.”<br />― Orson Scott Card, Ender's Game
Melerkat  
#17 Posted : Sunday, February 12, 2012 10:24:49 AM(UTC)
Melerkat

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/13/2011(UTC)
Posts: 2,648




" I want to see an example of the USPS grievance court that you said is just like a court of law."

Um...WENT TO COURT.

Just say'in. Your turn. (Player).

Heheheh! Now I've got a "Lawyer Wannabe" arguing with me! This is TOO GOOD TO BELIEVE!

Who's up next?
Any defeated Congressmen that took a job as a postal employee out there want to have a go at this?

Listen up "JUNIOR", I've dealt with hundreds of REAL LAWYERS before. I'm not fazed in the least by you. Put some time on the clock, junior.

(Next he'll tell me that he is a 40 year Postal Veteran that is taking a course in "Criminal Justice."
Yeah.....right.)
Heheheh! LOL






Melerkat2012-02-12 18:41:56
“Soldiers can sometimes make decisions that are smarter than the orders they've been given.”<br />― Orson Scott Card, Ender's Game
delovibrio  
#18 Posted : Sunday, February 12, 2012 12:31:58 PM(UTC)
delovibrio

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/12/2011(UTC)
Posts: 1,355


Melerkat wrote:



" I want to see an example of the USPS grievance court that you said is just like a court of law."

Um...WENT TO COURT.

Just say'in. Your turn. (Player).

Heheheh! Now I've got a "Lawyer Wannabe" arguing with me! This is TOO GOOD TO BELIEVE!

Who's up next?
Any defeated Congressmen that took a job as a postal employee out there want to have a go at this?

Listen up "JUNIOR", I've dealt with hundreds of REAL LAWYERS before. I'm not fazed in the least by you. Put some time on the clock, junior.

(Next he'll tell me that he is a 40 year Postal Veteran that is taking a course in "Criminal Justice."
Yeah.....right.)
Heheheh! LOL






 
I am 45 years old, and i have 24 years in federal service.
I am going to stop here because i knew you would beat around the bush, I asked for examples of the regular grievance procedures, not incidents like the one you described that has to be handled outside of USPS.
I wanted normal, everyday, grievances involving the shop steward an employee, and the sup and pm  Inside the postal system, within the walls of the usps, identical to a court room, all the examples you have are dealing with the usps as either the defendant or the plantiff
But you know what> you seem like the kind of know it all, that would argue medicine with a doctor, Law with a lawyer and how to eat a bananna with a monley! so you win!
delovibrio  
#19 Posted : Sunday, February 12, 2012 12:39:44 PM(UTC)
delovibrio

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/12/2011(UTC)
Posts: 1,355


ummmm,

What court was this? was it a Usps court like your original post said?

I think not!

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

This is where that took place, New york district court, so what happened school boy?

you got schooled, you back up my post against you, what happened to the usps court that you said had lawyers, judges etc?

 

wait theres more> United States Attorney for the

Southern District ofNew York

Attorney for Defendants USPS

 

So, how did i get schooled? you pretty much provided the post that prooves Usps did not, i say again did not use their own grievance lawyers and judge, thanks kid!

 

 

 

 

 


delovibrio2012-02-12 20:48:59
Rss Feed  Atom Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.


This page was generated in 1.567 seconds.