President Obama’s fiscal 2011 budget proposal requires the continuation of six-day delivery by the Postal Service. The administration also promises to work with postal unions and other stakeholders to keep the Postal Service strong for years to come. In setting the amount for “revenue forgone” to cover the costs of free and reduced rate mail, the spending plan says payments will be made “provided that 6-day delivery and rural delivery of mail shall continue at not less than the 1983 level….” Looking to the future, the proposal, submitted to Congress on February 1, states, “The Administration will work with the Postal Service, its employee unions, the Congress, and other stakeholders to make sure the Postal Service (remains) a pillar of the American economy and a vital public resource through the current crisis and over the long haul.” Language in a separate section, however, proposes changes in the Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA) that could be problematic. The NALC is investigating those proposals and will act to protect letter carriers’ interests. See the USPS section of the budget, with key sections highlighted
The Postal Service’s presentation of its 5-day delivery proposal appears to be on a fast track for presentation to the Postal Regulatory Commission. In announcing the MTAC agenda, the Postal Service has included a 90 minute briefing on 5-day a week delivery on February 17. The Postal Service will repeat this presentation on the web four additional times in February.
source: NALC
http://www.nalc.org/images/FY2011AdminBudgetProposalUSPS.pdf
Nice thought you share it good keep it up.
Please consider appointing a NEW POSTMASTER GENERAL. Or whatever the process is because PMG POTTER is DESTROYING the USPS and is LYING UNDER OATH, making us look like we are in worse shape than we really are, but if he has his way we will be… He is anti-union getting rid of all of the craft employees who do all of the work to get the mail out, and delivered everyday 6 day a week… Yet he continues to ADD MANAGEMENT JOBS!! and none of them touch the mail but they draw the biggest salaries, and say that we, the union workers are costing the USPS so much of the overall budget (he’s a LIAR) take a look at their executive budget @ headquarters and their many layers of management.. Also why do they all GET AND NEED THEIR OWN COMPANY CARS? I thought they said we have no money or is it for only their PERKS,BOUNES and not SERVICE…THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE!!! AND IT ALL STARTS WITH PMG POTTER!!!! FIRE HIM!
CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD
(909) 987-XXXX
INLAND OFFICE OF APPEALS XXXX Arrow Rt, Bldg 19-A
PO BOX XXXX RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91729
GUILLERMO MOJARRO Claimant-Appellant
US POSTAL SERVICE c/o UCEXPRESS
Employer
Case No. XXXXXXX
Issue(s): 1256
Date Appeal Filed: 01/12/2010
EDO: XXXX BYB: 11/01/2009
Date and Place of Hearing(s):
(1) 04/12/2010 Rancho Cucamonga
Parties Appearing:
Claimant, Employer
DECISION
The decision in the above-captioned case appears on the following page(s).
XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX, Administrative Law Judge
Case No.: XXXXXXX Inland Office of Appeals
CLT/PET: Guillermo Mojarro
Parties Appearing: Claimant. Employer
Parties Appearing by Written Statement: None
ISSUE STATEMENT
The claimant appealed from a determination disqualifying the claimant for unemployment benefits under Unemployment Insurance Code section 1256. The issue in this case is whether the claimant left the most recent employment voluntarily without good cause.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The claimant was employed as a Distribution Clerk. Level VI, for 22 years with the above-named employer earning $52,000 per year when his employee on October 30, 2009 under the following circumstances. The claimant resigned and accepted early retirement.
The claimant has a long, complicated history of grievances with his employer. The relevant portion of that history begins in February of 2007 when he was suspended for inappropriate conduct towards a co-employee. At the end of that brief suspension, the claimant informed the employer that he was not emotionally prepared to return to work. The claimant’s physician verified the claimant was unable to work because of his depression and anxiety. The claimant did not return to work before resigning on October 30, 2009 to accept his early retirement.
In February of 2009n the claimant requested to be returned to work. On March 26, 2009 the employer notified the claimant in writing that he was required to provide “objective and specific medical documentation sufficient to establish that you are able to perform the essential functions of your position, with or without accommodation…” before the employer could return him to employment. In response to this directive the claimant submitted a four-paragraph correspondence from his treating psychiatrist, Dr. Harry G. Lewis. The correspondence detailed the claimant’s condition, diagnosis and prognosis.
At the hearing the employer’s psychiatrist confirmed that this correspondence from Dr. Lewis “technically” satisfied the employer’s request for detailed medical documentation. Despite complying with the request, the employer did not return the claimant to his employment. Instead, it demanded that he submit to examination by the employer’s physicians. The claimant asserted his privacy rights and prevented the employer-appointed psychiatrist from sharing his
opinions with the employer. The employer refused to return the claimant to his position. The impasse was not resolved until the claimant became eligible for early retirement, which he then accepted.
REASON FOR DECISION
In Precedent Decision P-B-37 the appeals board held that in determining whether there has been a voluntary leaving or a discharge under section 1256 of the code it must first be determined who was the moving party in the separation. If the claimant left employment while continuing work was available, the claimant was the moving party. If the employer refused to permit the claimant to continue working, although the claimant was ready, willing and able to do so, the employer was the moving party.
An individual is disqualified for benefits if he or she has been discharged for misconduct connected with his or her most recent work. (Unemployment Insurance Code, section 1256.)
Absence caused by illness does not constitute misconduct. (Precedent Decision P-B-216.)
The department’s determination that the claimant was the moving party in this separation of employment is incorrect. The claimant had been out of work due to a psychiatric condition. The leave from work was approved by the employer. The claimant’s psychiatric issues were resolved according to the claimant’s treating physician, thereby opening the way for him to return to employment. The employer refused to permit the claimant to continue to work since it had not received a medical report from its own physician concerning the claimant’s medical condition. The claimant was ready willing and able to return to employment. Accordingly, the employer’s refusal to return the claimant to employment was the reason the claimant was forced to take early retirement, and thus the employer is the moving party in the separation.
The claimant was not discharged for misconduct connected with his most recent work. The absence from work was due to psychiatric medical condition. The employer approved the leave, and appropriately demanded medical verification that the claimant was capable of returning to his employment. According to the employer-appointed psychiatrist the claimant’s treating psychiatrist’s written release “technically” complied with the employer demand. Nevertheless, the employer refused to return the claimant to work.
The absence from work for a medical condition is not misconduct. The claimant was cleared medically by his own physician to the satisfaction of the employer’s written policy, and should have been returned to work. The employer’s refusal to return the claimant to work may have been for good cause. However, the decision not to return the claimant to his position was for reasons not amounting return the claimant to work may have been for good cause. However, the decision not to return the claimant to his position was for reasons not amounting to misconduct by the claimant. Accordingly, the claimant is not disqualified under code section 1256.
DECISION
The department’s determination is reversed. The claimant is not disqualified under code section 1256. and benefits are payable provided the claimant is otherwise eligible.
MR. PRESIDENT, PLEASE DON’T ALLOW THEM TO CHANGE THE POST OFFICE FROME 6 DAY DELIVERY TO 5 DAYS.. THIS WILL BE THE BEGINING OF THE END OF THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, WE WILL START TO LOSE THE TRUST OF THE PUBLIC WONDERING IF WE WILL BE AROUND TOMORROW? DIDN’T THE POST OFFICE ORIGNALY BE PUT IN PLACE TO ENSURE THAT EVERY AMERICAN @ EVERY ADDREDD CAN RECEIVE MAIL? I THOUGHT WE WERE A SERVICE? TO SERVE THE PUBLIC.. PMG POTTER THINKS LIKE A REPUBLICAN, IT’S NOT ALWAYS ABOUT MONEY IT’S ABOUT SERVICE.. IF THE IRS DIDN’T MAKE A PROFIT WOULD THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ALLOW THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO JUMP IN AND TAKE OVER JUST TO MAKE A PROFIT???? I THINK NOT, SO WHY WOULD WE ALLOW THE SAME WITH THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVECE??? AND LOSE 40,000 JOBS? OF MY FELLOW CO-WORKERS…
ARE YOU READING THIS? WHY ARE YOU DESTROYING THE POST OFFICE ? WE ALL KNOW 5 DAYS ISN’T THE SALUTION, ALLS YOU ARE HURTING IS CRAFT EMPLOYEES HAS IT BEEN THAT LONG SINCE YOU WERE IN CRAFT? YOU MAKE 5 TIMES WHAT WE MAKE PER YEAR JUST IN BASE PAY NOT COUNTING PFP SO YOU CAN’T UNDERSTAND WHAT WE GO THROUGH DAILY NOT KNOWING IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A JOB WITH THIS NRP CRAP