REGULAR ARBITRATION PANEL

Between:     United States Postal Service                                                                        Grievant:    Personal
                   and National Postal Mail Handlers Union                                                     Post Office:    SLC,  P&DC
Before:        Robert S. Adams, Arbitrator                                                                       Case No: E00M-1E-D 03052867                                                                                      

Appearances:    for U.S. Postal Service:  Nancy Oman                         for the Union:  Arthur Sandack, Esq.
Place of Hearing:  Salt Lake City, Utah
Date of Hearing:   October 24, 2003
Date of Briefs:      November 15, 2003
Date of Award:    December 30, 2003

ISSUE:  Did the Postal Service have just cause to issue a Notice of Suspension for 14 days on December 4, 2002 for unacceptable conduct to XXXXXXXX?  If not, what is the appropriate remedy?

INTRODUCTION:  XXXXXXXX (hereinafter referred to as the Grievant) is an employee of the United States Postal Service and works as a Mail Handler in the Salt Lake City Distribution Center.  The Grievant maintains a seniority date of March 3, 1973 and at the time of incident was in good standing with the Postal Service.  XXXXXXX also serves as a local Union steward.  The Grievant proceeded to the break room at approximately 8:30 a.m. in order to commence his first break of the shift.  In walking to the break room the Grievant was confronted by another employee Mail Handler XXXXXX.  XXXXXXX initiated an activity of "horseplay" by attempting to cut the Grievant's apron strings.  The activity included verbal comments and the Grievant thrust his foot backward to the rear, kicking Mail handler XXXXXXX on the leg.  Records indicate a prior incident involving the same two individuals.  The Grievant reported the incident and was then informed that he must draft a statement describing the incident.  The Grievant was sent home for the duration of his shift on the 12th day of November.  A Postal Inspector interviewed the Grievant at his residence the following day.  The second individual, XXXXX, indicated that he sustained an injury to his leg as a result of the incident on November 12, 2003.  The Grievant was assessed a fourteen-day suspension by the Postal Service.  The Union filed a grievance and progressed the grievance through steps one, two, and three of the grievance process as outlined in the collective bargaining agreement.  The grievance was progressed to Arbitration and neither party presented any issues of timeliness.

POSITION OF THE NEUTRAL
    The decision making process in adjudication of this case is guided by the eloquent passage from my mutually respected colleague Arbitrator Dana Eischen in his award referenced by both parties which he offers __ "When the rhetorical excesses of ardent advocacy are stripped away."  Therefore, I will strip away the rhetorical excesses and respond to three pivotal issues controlling the primary issues before the Tribunal.

    1.   Was the zero tolerance policy sufficiently in place and, if so, was language sufficiently violated?
    2.   Were the parameters of "just cause" upheld in the assessment of discipline?
    3.   Was the discipline appropriate if the answer to issues 1 and 2 are affirmative?

......... The Zero Tolerance Policy was posted in the Salt Lake City facility sufficient for employee awareness........................
......... The Grievant was represented and the charges were communicated............................
......... Personnel reports of the incident conflict with the Grievant's report and testimony.  The discipline assessed passed the Eischen Article 16 test and I feel is appropriate.....................

AWARD          Grievance of 14-day suspension is denied in its entirety.