RECEIVEDmseries.nalc.org/c04711.pdf · E&LR (Behavior and Personal Habits) ; Part 666.1 of the E&LR (Discharge of Duties) ; and Section 112.25 of the M-41 Handbook. Appearances: For

IVOLUNTARY LABOR ARBITRATION

iIN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION

tBETWEEN

iUNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICEDETROIT, MICHIGAN POST OFFICEDETROIT, MICHIGAN 48233 i

iAND

iNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERSBRANCH NO . 1,DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226 j

CASE NO . CIN-4B-D 31325

-----------------------------------------~

OPINION AND AWARD

RECEIVEDMAR 18 1985

Jack R. SeboltSubject : Failure to discharge duties -

Consumption of alcohol during working hours .

Submission Agreement : John Smith , Grievant

Was the removal of theTGrievant for just cause, and,if not, what shall the remedy be?

Contract and Handbook and Manual Provisions :

Article 16 and Article 19 of the 1981 National Agreement,Joint Exhibit 1 ;

Part 661 .54 of the Employee and Labor Relations Manual( Use of Intoxicating Beverages ) ; Part 666 .2 of theE&LR (Behavior and Personal Habits ) ; Part 666 .1 of theE&LR (Discharge of Duties ) ; and Section 112 .25 of theM-41 Handbook .

Appearances :

For the Employer

Bennie J . Powell , Labor Relations RepresentativeMarvel Brown , Manager, Springwells Station

For the Union

Peter Romanelli , PresLdent Emeritus , Branch 1, NALCJohn H . Smith , GrievantGeloney Kelly , Jr ., Financial Secretary

I . INTRODUCTION

The hearing in this case was held on Wednesday, November 7,

1984 at the Main Post Office , 1401 West Fort Street , Detroit,

Michigan 48233 , before the undersigned Arbitrator duly

appointed by the parties pursuant to the rules of the United

States Postal Service Regular Regional Level Arbitration

Procedures to render a final and binding decision in this

matter . At the hearing, the parties were afforded full oppor-

tunity to present such evidence and argument as desired , including

an examination and cross - examination of all witnesses .

transcript of the hearing was made . The Employer filed

hearing brief , which was received on December 11, 1984,

the hearing was declared closed ,"-since the Union relied

comprehensive oral closing . Both parties stipulated at

ing as to this Arbitrator ' s jurisdiction and authority

a final and binding decision in this matter .

II . STATEMENT OF THE GRIEVANCE

No formal

a post-

whereupon

on its

the hear- _

to issue

FACTS : Notice of Charges - Removal ( non-veteran ) No justcause - Grievant states that he delivered all maildistributed to his route on 3/8 / 84 . Management didnot present evidence at Step 1 to prove the allegedcharge .

CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUESTED :Rescind Notice of Charges - Removal ( non-veteran) andreimburse any lost wages or benefits .

III . FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On March 20, 1984, the Grievant was issued a Notice of

Charges-Removal, to be effective no earlier than thirty days from

receipt by Grievant . The Notice of Removal specified the following

grounds as reason for the discharge :

On 03/08/84 you were assigned to Springwells Station,Route #912, Detroit, Michigan 48209 . On 03/09/84 inthe afternoon the Station Manager received complaintsthat mail had not been delivered on Route #912 on03/08/84 . Additionally, the Station Manager receiveda call from the Postal Service Complaints Officer . Hestated that he had received a complaint on non-deliveryof mail on your route on 03/08/84 . A total of ten (10)consumer service cards were received by the manager ofSpringwells Station which were complaints of non-deliveryoff mail on Junction Street, Toledo Street, NewberryStreet and Rpmeyn Street on Route #912 on 03/08/84 .

The consumer service cards also indicate that you fre-quently appeared to be under the apparent influence ofintoxicants when you are on duty on your route .

Additionally, your supervisor observed that upon yourreturn to the station on 03/08/84 you appeared to beunder the apparent influence of intoxicants, your eyeswere glassy and your face was flushed .

Your conduct is unacceptable and your conduct failed tomeet the Postal Service's Standard of Conduct as statedin the Employee and Labor Relations Manual :

Section 666 .1 - Discharge of Duties"Employees are expected to discharge their assignedduties conscientiously and effectively ."

Section 666 .2 - Behavior and Personal Habits"Employees are expected to conduct themselves duringand outside of working hours in a manner which re-flects favorably upon the Postal Service . Althoughit is not the policy of the Postal Service to inter-fere with the private lives of employees, it doesrequire that postal personnel be honest, reliable,trustworthy, courteous and of good character andreputation . Employees are expected to maintainsatisfactory personal habits so as not to'be obnoxiousor offensive to other persons or to create unpleasantworking conditions ."

- 3 -

4

And Handbook M-41, City Delivery Carriers Duties andResponsibilities, Section 112 .25 :

"Be prompt, courteous, and obliging in the performanceof duties . Attend quietly and diligently to work andrefrain from loud talking and the use of profanelanguage ."

The following elements of your past record will beconsidered in taking this action :

1 . Notice of Suspension of fourteen (14) days dated12/21/83 for conduct .

2 .

3 .

Notice of Suspension of fourteen (14) days dated06/09/83 for failure to obey orders .Notice of Suspension of fourteen (14) days dated03/23/83 for failure to adhere to prescribedschedule . Modified to seven calendar days perStep 1 settlement dated 04/09/83 .

4 . Notice of Suspension of seven (7) days dated12/14/82 for failure to follow instructions .Modified to five calendar days per. Pre-ArbitrationSettlement dated 04/13/83 .

5 . Letter of Warning dated 10/07/82 for safety violation .6 . Letter of Warning dated 09/15/82 for failure to

provide security of mail .7 . Letter of Warning dated 06/04/82 for improper

clock rings .8 . Letter of Warning dated 01/19/82 for improper

clock rings .9 . Letter of Warning dated 08/04/81 for failure to

make basic clock rings .10 . Notice of Suspension of fourteen (14) days dated

08/18/80 .11 . Letter of Warning dated 03/10/80 for failure to

conduct a vehicle safety check .12 . Notice of Suspension of seven (7) days dated

07/11/80 for Absent Without Official Leave .

The Grievant, John Smith, was appointed as a Career City

Letter Carrier at the Detroit, Michigan Post Office some 17 years

prior to his removal . The Grievant had served on his present

assigned city letter carrier route (Route 912 at Springwells

Station) for five years . Grievant was removed as a result of a

- 4 -

number of customer complaints that indicated that the Grievant

continuously delivered mail while in an intoxicated state ; failed

to deliver mail on Route 912 at Springwells Station on that date ;

was intoxicated on his route on the day in question ; and was

observed by at least one supervisor to be under the influence of

intoxicants when he returned from his route to the Springwells

Station that afternoon . Further, it is claimed that on March 9,

1984, the Station Manager received complaints of non-delivery

on Grievant's route for the previous day . The sole Management

witness, Manager , Springwells Station, Marvel Brown, gave-the

following account of events which led to Grievant' s removal .

Ms . Brown testified that Grievant was scheduled on Route 912 on

the day in question , March 8 , 1984 . According to Brown , Management

began to receive complaints about 4 P .M . that day . The complaints

were from irate-customers who asserted that no mail was delivered

on various blocks along the route, according to Brown' s testimony .

Brown claims she received some of the complaints herself , although

she left the premises before 4 P . M . when the bulk of the complaints

apparently came in . She also testified that Tom Webster , from the

Complaint Department downtown , called her early the next day and

informed her of numerous complaints to that department . It was

at this point, Brown stated , that she went to locations on the

route where specific complaining customers resided and began to

attempt to interview them herself . It is Brown's testimony that,

on March 9 , she interviewed numerous customers , who all complained

- 5 -

of Grievant ' s conduct the prior day and for sometime before the

precipitating incident . Some customers refused to fill out com-

plaint forms ; some would not give their names ; but all customers

interviewed who had seen Grievant the prior day claimed either

that he was intoxicated or that he was not performing his duties .

In substantiation of these assertions by the Employer,

Management submitted Employer Exhibit 2, which contains six

Consumer Service Cards (PS Form 4314 -C) where specific named

individuals stated that Grievant was intoxicated and failing to

deliver his mail on the day in question or at other times just

prior to that event . Employer Exhibit 2 also contains four PS

Form 4314-P Consumer Service Cards , which are the written notes

of telephone complaints taken by various postal employees . Two

out of the four cards were apparently taken by Witness Brown

herself . One card was taken by I . Brown , the Superintendent of

Stations and Branches Operations at Springwells, and one was

taken by L .' Rogers . All these forms complain of no mail delivery

on March 8 .

Employer Witness Brown testified that the complaints of

various customers indicate that the Grievant continuously

delivered mail while in an intoxicated state . Moreover, the

complaints are specific that a substantial number of homes on

route 912 received no mail delivery whatsoever on March 8 . The

customer complaint cards submitted into evidence do contain

complaints exactly as Brown indicated . No customers were actually

presented by Management at hearing to supply direct evidence of

the claims and allegations made by Management . Moreover, the

supervisor who allegedly observed Brown in an intoxicated state

on March 8 was not called to testify .

The Grievant emphatically denies the Employer ' s accusation

that he consumed alcohol while on duty March 8, 1984 . He insists

that he took pills or medication on the date in question and did

not drink any intoxicating liquor at any time during the day .

Grievant claims that when he returned to the station at approxi-

mately 3 P .M., no supervisor mentioned to him that he smelled

alcohol on his breath . No one confronted him or asked him to

take a breathalyzer test . Grievant further insists that he performed

all his duties on March 8 . It was .not until the following Monday,

after two days off while a substitute worked, that Grievant was

informed that there were customer -complaints or that there was

allegedly a problem with the Grievant's drinking on the job .

Grievant and the Union emphasize that no curtailed mail

was ever found that could be traced to Route 912 . The Union

stresses that no charges that Grievant threw away mail have been

lodged against Grievant, even though postal inspectors did investi-

gate the incident . Moreover, neither the substitute mail carrier

nor any other employee found hidden mail or mail outside Grievant's

case . The Union insists that, without evidence that mail was mis-

delivered or otherwise improperly handled , mere customer complaints -

rank hearsay at its worst - cannot support a removal action . Since

Management attempted to trace curtailed or misdelivered mail through

its considerable manpower , particularly through postal inspectors,

- 7 -

the failure to-come up with any mail that actually was not

properly delivered rebuts claims of customers that Grievant failed

to perform his=duties .

Grievant maintains throughout the grievance process and at

hearing that all accusations against him are totally unfounded

and that he was "set up " or framed because of his prior work

record and problems with Management . He also claimed that certain

customers who lived at the latter part of his delivery route were

angered by not receiving early delivery of their mail and held

Grievant personally responsible . He specifically asserted that

certain customers wanted their benefit checks and other monies

in the early morning, but that because of the layout of his route

he could not satisfy them. These customers instigated false

complaints and claims of drinking-while on the job , Grievant

argues .

Thus, the entire basis for the unwarranted allegations

and resulting discipline was because , at least in the Grievant's

mind, he had engaged in the normal activities and responsibilities

of a letter carrier . In support thereof , Grievant cites the fact

that several customers allegedly went along his route and attempted

to obtain signatures for a petition for his reinstatement . He

claims that certain customers thought Grievant was the best

carrier ever on the route . Although the Union concedes that this

testimony is hearsay , it reminds the Arbitrator that if credence

is given to Management ' s exclusively hearsay evidence, Grievant's

claims must be given equal credit .

- 8 -

While Grievant admits that he has had some problems at work,

he ascribes the source of the numerous disciplines against

him to "bad blood" between himself and Management at the

springwells Station. The Grievant specifically testified

that station management has given him "a hard time" beginning

in 1980 . Indeed , the record does indicate that , during this

period, Smith has been disciplined thirteen times, including the

present removal action . The Grievant further testified that,

prior to 1980 , he had few if any problems . To the contrary,

Management claims that Grievant was diciplined nine times

from 1976 to 1980 . This contradiction must seriously detract

from Grievant ' s credibility , Management urges .

IV . DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS

The Arbitrator has accorded a great deal of time to the

consideration of this case , including the evaluation of the

evidence , the testimony of the two witnesses presented and

of the documentary evidence submitted to me . The issue

on the merits is one of relative simplicity , involving

a situation of alleged drinking on-the-job and of non-

performance or inadequate performance of mail deliveries

on March 8 , 1984 . The allegations of intoxication while

Grievant was in on-duty status, in carrier uniform, and at

a time when no official clock-out had occurred are indeed

serious . Such conduct merits summary discharge, under

this labor contract or under any reasonable concept of

just cause . Moreover , given Grievant ' s place on the

progressive discipline grid, the claims of lack of per-

formance of reasonable assigned work duties on the date in

question also would merit discipline , including in this

instance removal . These facts are the basis for Management's

charges that Grievant had engaged in conduct unbecoming

a postal employee and that he was perceived by his customers

as being consistently under the influence of intoxicants

while on duty on his route .

Management further avers that Supervisor Browny

credibly testified that she interviewed witnesses, all

of whom claimed to have observed the Grievant intoxicated

on the route on March 8 or at times prior tb_that critical

date . She testified in a frank and candid manner that

many of the customers whom she interviewed stated that

Grievant demanded to use their bathroom on the route, or

urinated at the side of a house or in other places

outdoors in plain view of the public . She indicated that

- 10 -

at least one customer stated that she saw Grievant in a bar

located on .the route on March 8, and that, at that time, Grievant

was intoxicated . In addition, Management points to the "testimony"

of the unnamed Management Supervisor, who was not present at

hearing but whose diaried observation was recorded in the grievance

documents themselves, which indicated . that Grievant, when he returned

to the Springwells Station on the afternoon of March 8, appeared

to be drunk . Given the Union's complete failure to ascribe any

improper motive or reason to discredit the evidence proferred by

the Service, Management's version of the facts must be credited,

it argues .,

Moreover, Management stresses that Grievant was referred

to the PAR-Alcohol Rehabilitation Program on October 8, 1982

but, by January 27, 1983, had quit participating in the program .

Accordingly, on March 25, 1983, William E . Booker, PAR Coordinator,

withdrew Grievant (referred to as the "client") from active files

and so indicated in writing to Management . Although Grievant

denied that he had a drinking problem on the witness stand at

this hearing, the above facts certainly can be used by the

Arbitrator in assessing credibility and the likelihood of

Grievant's behaving in a manner which the customers claimed

occurred . (See Employer Exhibit 3 .)

The Union, on the other hand, maintains that the grievance

should be sustained because the Grievant was removed without

just cause . At best , the Union emphasizes, the evidence proferred

- 11 -

by Employer is merely circumstantial and patently hearsay ; no one

testified that he or she had actually observed the Grievant drink-

ing alcohol or smelled alcohol on Grievant's breath, nor is there

any evidence that liquor was found on the Grievant's person or

jeep . Instead, the alleged proof of the use of alcoholic beverages

was based solely on the inference that because a certain super-

visor claimed to have observed the Grievant on March 8 in what

was his or her opinion an intoxicated state, that he must have

been drinking . Moreover, the complaints of customers not pre-

sented in person at the hearing cannot be given any credence

whatsoever, since they were not subjected to cross-examination

for possible bias or prejudice, because , for example, their

homes were located on the last portions of the route to be

delivered or for other, undisclosed reasons .

In the Union's view, no negative inferences can be drawn

from the testimony of Employer Witness Brown . There is no

concrete evidence that any of the people who complained on

March 8, if they in fact complained, had mail that particular

day. It is possible, for example, that an individual might

complain that mail was not delivered because a check or other

letter might be expected, but had been delayed by sources

wholly unrelated to Grievant .

The crux of this case, as the parties acknowledge,

involves two issues : a credibility determination by me and a

judgment as to whether hearsay evidence like that presented

- 12 -

here as the major portion of Management ' s case can , in this

instance , or ever , justify and prove a discharge of an employee

under the just cause standard in this labor contract .

Given the state of the record evidence actually adduced,

it appears to me that the Union is correct that Management

cannot sustain its burden of proof on the intoxication while on

duty contention . During this hearing , as in a game of tug-of-war,

each side enlisted the aid of an equal number of witnesses (one

to a side ) to support its respective position . Grievant denies

that he was drinking ; Management argues that he was .

Management Witness Brown insists that she was told by an

unnamed supervisor that Grievant was "observed " upon his return

to the station on March 8 and appeared to be under the apparent

influence of intoxicants . Brown reports that she was told that

Grievant ' s eyes were glassy and that his face was flushed . I,

like the Union , am deeply troubled by the failure of the Employer

to produce this supervisor so that he or she could be subjected

to cross-examination , since presumably the testimony elicited

would have constituted the only concrete and direct evidence

that Grievant in fact had been drinking on the job . Ordinarily,

under the rules of evidence applicable in courts of law, such

a failure to call a witness under the control of an interested

party would require a presumption that testimony given would be

adverse to that party .

- 13 -

Given the nature of the arbitration process , I am unwilling

to go so far under these particular circumstances . There is,

however, an obvious failure to elicit any concrete and direct

evidence of drinking on duty other than the hearsay complaints,of

customers introduced as Employer Exhibit 2 and the testimony of

Brown where she merely repeats the complaints of customers and

reports their alleged observations .

As the Union notes, correctly, I might add, it is possible

that an individual might drink the night before and be completely

sober when reporting for work and yet still retain the odor of

the intoxicating beverages which he may have consumed . It is

also possible that an individual taking medication might be

perceived by others as acting in_a manner which at times seems

like the behavior of a drunk, without having had one single drink .

Although these misinterpretations are unlikely, such innocent

errors have happened .

More important, as the Union stresses , those customers who

allegedly told Employer Witness Brown that they saw Grievant in

a bar, or urinating in public, or, otherwise saw behaviors that

seemed to indicate drunkenness on the job on the part of the

Grievant might not have had any experience or basis upon which

to so conclude . Although this is also merely a possibility, the

Arbitrator has no basis, given the nature of the proofs adduced,

to ascertain or conclude whether this is so or not . Opinion

evidence , such,as that presented by Brown , must , therefore, be

further discounted where , as here , the Employer witness and

- 14 -

complaining customers have not been brought to -the hearing .

Customers or the unnamed supervisor may in fact have a clear

bias against the Grievant . Without an ability to cross-examine

and ascertain the likelihood of the alleged bias, the Union has

been effectively prevented from making its case and Grievant has

been denied basic rights to confrontation which are inherent in

the arbitration process . I so hold .

Finally , the Union contends that it presented convincing

evidence through the testimony of Grievant that he had not

imbibed in alcohol on the date in question . Grievant conceded

that he has had a "problem " over the last five years , since the

break-up of his marriage . Management should have attempted

corrective action , not punitive action, in this case , it contends .

The Union further opines that theTService should have attempted

to counsel Grievant and call him into its office and try to help

him with his work-related troubles rather than greasing the skids

of the discipline ladder to create a plunge to removal . As to

that assertion , the Arbitrator certainly cannot agree .

The Arbitrator has often noted that any presumption that

supervisors generally are more trustworthy than grievants when

they testify at arbitration hearings or that they lack a motive

or self-interest to shape facts to their benefit is one that is

questionable at best and often simply wrong . I have also noted

at various times that reliance on demeanor evidence to

- 15 -

resolve instances of credibility is slippery ground

at best. I agree with Arbitrator Samuel H . Jaffee that drawing

conclusions from opinions based on the demeanor of various

witnesses is notoriously unreliable and a treacherous basis for

solving fact controversies. See Golden Pride, Inc ., 68 LA 1232,

1235 (1977) .

The Arbitrator, however, cannot close his eyes to the

obvious, especially when a grievant subjects himself to the

scrutiny of being a witness in-hearing . This particular Grievant

testified fully and completely at the hearing in this arbitration

proceeding . Grievant at the time slurred his speech, appeared

to be flushed, and often disorientated . Moreover, he relied on

the claim of personal antipathy against him to justify the

prior numerous instances of discipline and the initial referral

to the PAR Program . Yet, he presented neither a basis for the

claim of improper motives on Management's part, or any explana-

tion as to why he did not follow through and/or participate in

PAR .

Under these facts, I certainly have not given any

substantial weight to the denials of wrongdoing of the Grievant .

I do not find him "innocent of wrongdoing ." On the charge of

improperly imbibing on duty and/or of being intoxicated on the

job, I hold merely that Management at hearing completely failed

to prove its case . That is, after all, the burden assumed by

it in discipline and discharge cases under the contract .

- 16 -

As to the second charge, that of failure of Grievant to

.properly discharge his duties on March 8, the ultimate weakness

in the case before the Arbitrator is that there is no concrete

evidence that a mail was misdelivered or curtailed on the date

in question . Management has not been able to find any mail, or

to show that any mail was not delivered which was in fact

scheduled for Route 912. All Management did on March 9 was to

go to approximately every fifth house on the route, and attempt

to ascertain if the residents had received mail .

The fact that some residents had not received mail, and

that one irate customer desired to have her check early, cannot

constitute sufficient evidence to terminate a 17-year veteran;employee

in my view . This is so despite the truly disastrous work record

of this Grievant . Ultimately, to justify discharge, more than several

group complaints must be proved . A dereliction of duty or "bad act"

has to be shown to allow disciplinary action for this or any employer .

Corroboration of the claims of omission must be had .

The obvious sticky point as to this charge, once again, and

what creates a close contest in credibility, is the pure hearsay

nature of the evidence adduced by the Employer . No evidence of

curtailed mail was introduced . Despite a postal inspector investi-

gation, no proof of thrown-away mail was offered . The Service

merely claims that where there is smoke, there is fire ; that an

experienced letter carrier can fool supervisors and the postal

inspectors called in ; nevertheless, the Arbitrator should sustain

- 17 -

Management because Grievant has shown a . propensity to engage in

similar , numerous misbehaviors in the past . Yet the Service

acknowledges that Management has been unable to find concrete

evidence of missing mail and is forced to argue that "a seasoned

carrier who failed to deliver a portion of his route would have

a number of methods to prevent detection of his failure to

perform his assigned duties ." (Employer ' s Brief , p . 2) . Manage-

ment is thus ultimately forced to rely solely on the fact, as

credibly testified to by Employer Witness Brown, that a number of

customers who were awaiting mail on the-day in question did not

see the carrier on that particular block on the day in question

during the delivery period and received no mail , or that some customers

claimed to have seen him drunk on the route and not delivering mail .

As noted above , one could and should desire more probative

and convincing evidence from Management , upon whom the burden

of proof rests . The Arbitrator recognizes that arbitration is

not a court of law and that the technical rules of evidence are

intentionally made inapplicable here . Hearsay is admissible,

and must be accorded the weight deemed appropriate by the Arbitrator .

In this instance , I believe the weight of the customer

complaints , in the form introduced in this case , is once again

insufficient . Grievant and the Union claim that numerous postal

customers are routinely angry with letter carriers because the

customers are scheduled for deliveries on the route later than

they like . Grievant also claimed that one woman was specifically

- 18 -

irritated around the time of the incident before me because a

check she expected was not received in the mail . These claims

in no way counteract or explain why the number of customers

involved here would complain simultaneously on a particular day .

Grievant's attempted explanations might serve to some extent to

explain why a series of complaints over time might occur .

Nowhere does Grievant convincingly present a plausible reason

for the number of complaints involved here to have come in on

March 8 and 9 . But that is not his burden .

Grievant's prior work record does reveal a propensity

to act in a manner. similar to that for which he is charged .

Although, in a criminal case , the record compiled by Grievant

might be inadmissible, in arbitration, prior work records are

often used by both labor and management both to prove the merits

of the case and with reference to the propriety of a particular

penalty imposed . Unions commonly claim that a particular

grievant with an outstanding work record would be unlikely to

suddenly seriously breach a work rule . Management, on the

other hand, often asserts that employees who have a repeated

pattern of similar misconduct have created by their, own conduct

the inference that they have merely repeated their indiscretions

once again . Under these particular facts and circumstances,

Grievant's prior work record seems to support the hearsay claims

of the customers credibly reported by Manager Brown .

19 -

Is such "proof" sufficient ? Lawyers often say, "Hard cases

make bad law ." Grievant is far from a perfect employee . To hold,

however , that the evidence of prior bad acts and customer complaints,

without any objective , corroborative proof , is sufficient to sustain

a finding of a rule violation and a removal would , in my view,

violate the basic right of employees to have a hearing and be proved

to have acted in breach of a rule . Some witness with personal .

knowledge--the unnamed supervisor, for example--could certainly

have been called by the Service to testify here, I believe . Without

that irreducible minimum, I find this contract ' s just cause standard

violated , as well - as a violation of the accepted norms of industrial

due process . I so find .

Based on the foregoing , including my assessment of

Grievant ' s demeanor and despite the extent and consistent nature

of the complaints submitted , I find Management has not sustained

its burden of proof that Grievant . engaged in conduct unacceptable

to the Postal Service by failing to discharge his duties on

March 8 . Specifically , the evidence does not show that Grievant

did not deliver mail to large segments of his route . Based on

observations of customers who were moved to telephone the Employer

both by Grievant ' s appearance and conduct , there was certainly

reason to investigate . Without some corroboration , this was

insufficient proof of breach of duty permitting discipline .

Since no breach of duty was proved whatsoever , I must order

Grievant restored to his former position , with full backpay

and all benefits , including seniority - Therefore , the grievance

must be sustained .

V . AWARD

For the reasons stated above and incorporated herein as if

fully rewritten , the grievance is sustained in its entirety .

Grievant is ordered restored to his former position , or substan-

tially equivalent employment, with all benefits and rights

restored, including full back pay .

ELLIOTT H . GOLDSTEINArbitrator

Chicago, IllinoisMarch11, 1985

ELLIOTT H . GOLDSTEINArbitrator29 South LaSalle StreetSuite 800Chicago, IL 60603(312) 444-9699