I Y
IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION BETWEEN
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
AND )
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OFLETTER CARRIERS
CASE NO. H94N-4H-D97053392GTS NO. 035813
GRIEVANT: G. H. Baird, Jr .
PLACE: St. Augustine, FLDATE: December 3, 1997
******************************************************************************
BEFORE: J. REESE JOHNSTON, JR ., ARBITRATOR
APPEARANCES: FOR THE POSTAL SERVICE:Ron Midkiff, Labor Relations SpecialistNorth Florida DistrictUnited States Postal Service1300 Gulf Life DriveP.O. Box 40005Jacksonville, FL 32203-6563
FOR THE NALC :John W. Bourlon, Advocate14803 Seminole TrailSeminole, FL 33776
Suite 325
es Jo tin, Jr., Aibitra.We' Shades 'Cdeek Parkway
Birmingham , AL 35209
AWARD: The grievance of G. H. Baird, Jr. is granted and the seven day suspensionshall be reduced to a Letter of Warning . The Postal Service is directed tocompensate the Grievant, G. H. Baird, Jr. for the pay he lost as a result ofthe seven day suspension .
DATE OF AWARD : December 22, 1997
fiDEC 2 4 1997
Ltt-il lij I„ ,
s~rlr~nnn-`DNa,,"naf us, .,es
" u URe~tons
BACKGROUND
By letter dated November 25, 1996, the Grievant, G . H .
Baird, Jr ., was notified of a Notice of Disciplinary Action .
This Notice read as follows :
"November 25, 1996
MEMORANDUM FOR : G . H . BAIRDCITY CARRIERST. AUGUSTINE , FL POST OFFICE
SUBJECT: Notice of Disciplinary Action
You are hereby notified of your suspension from dutywithout pay for seven ( 7) consecutive calendar days for thefollowing reason :
CHARGE NO . 1 . IMPROPER CONDUCT-DISRESPECT TO SUPERVISOR
On November 19, 1996 , you were given a discussionregarding your disruptive disrespectful conduct towardme your supervisor . immediately after leaving the room,you said loudly to me, "You ain ' t nothing, you don'ttell me what to do . " O/C Al Winters was walking intohis office and heard your outburst . He stated to you,"He's your supervisor ." You repeated "He ain'tnothing." and then said to Mr . Winters "and you ain'tnothing." Mr . Winters repeated what you had said inthe form of a question . "You ain't nothing ?" At thatpoint Mr . Winters instructed you to return to yourcase .
When questioned concerning this matter, you said youwere not disruptive and that Mr . Al threatened you andtold you that you were nothing .
Your actions have been contrary to your duties andresponsibilities as a postal worker , as well as parts 666 .1,666 .2 and 666 .51 of the Employee and Labor Relations Manualand parts 112 .21 and 112 .25 of the M-41 Handbook .
2
In addition to the above, the following elements of yourpast record were considered in taking the action :
1 . A letter of warning dated May 3, 1996, because ofimproper conduct-disrespect to a supervisor .
You will remain in an active duty status during the advancenotice period .
Date and time suspension to commence : beginning of your touron Monday , December 39m 1996 .
Date and time suspension to end : end of your tour on Sunday,January 5, 1997 .
You are requested to turn in your Postal Service badge toyour immediate supervisor on the last scheduled workdayprior to the effective date of the suspension .
You may appeal this action in accordance with Article 15 ofthe National Agreement within 14 days of the receipt of thisnotice .
George R . ArsenaultSupervisor , Customer Services
RECEIVED BY EMPLOYEE DATE
TIME
The Grievant refused to sign a receipt for the letter
but the letter was read to him by his supervisor on 11/26/96 .
After the notice letter was discussed in Step 2 and no
agreement being reached, the case was appealed by the Union on
its Standard Grievance Form . On this form under the Section
3
entitled Facts, the Union stated "Discipline issued to G . Baird
on 11 / 25/96 . 7 day suspension for 'improper conduct - disrespect
to supervisor ."' Under the portion entitled Union Contentions it
stated. "Discipline issued was not for just cause . Management
failed to follow principles of progressive discipline . Charge
not a proper base for discipline . Mitigating circumstances .
Grievant denied due process - improper citation of pending
discipline . And the corrective action requested was 1 . The 7-day
suspension be rescinded and all records be removed from file . 2 .
Make Grievant whole for any and all loss ."
The Letter of Warning referred to in the November 25,
1996, Notice of Disciplinary Action was issued on May 3, 1996,
and it charged improper conduct/disrespect to a supervisor . This
Letter of Warning had been grieved and was still in the grievance
process at the time of the issuance of the November 25 Notice of
Disciplinary Action . The testimony at the hearing before me was
that Letter of Warning was settled in April 1997 by agreeing to
remove it from the grievance file but on the further condition
that no further incidents occur . It was also stated that there
were other incidents following the settlement of the May 3, 1996,
Letter of Warning .
An interesting thing occurred in the Request For
4
Disciplinary Action by Mr . Baird's supervisor . This request for
disciplinary action is marked Exhibit A and is attached to this
Opinion and made a part hereof . Two things should be noted from
this Request for Disciplinary Action .
1 . The Supervisor made two recommendations in his
request. 1) He recommended that due to progressive discipline a
7-day suspension was warranted . 2) He recommended "Letter of
Warning ." It was also pointed out by the Union that there had
been no concurrence by a higher supervisor in the request for
discipline . As is shown on Exhibit A the higher supervisor dated
his concurrence 1/20/96 . If this date were correct it, of
course, would have been reviewed and concurred in eleven months
prior to the request being made . It should be noted that it is
my finding based on the testimony of the higher official, one
Pete Hefner, that he reviewed and concurred in the requested
disciplinary action on 11/20/96, not 1/20/96 . However, the
concurrence does not state which recommendation he concurred in,
1) the 7-day suspension or 2) a Letter of Warning .
The Step 2 grievance decision read as follows :
"DATE : 01-23/97
STEP 2 GRIEVANCE DECISIONGRIEVANT : BAIRD, GEORGE H .
5
NALC 28096
NALC PRESIDENTBRANCH 689PO BOX 161ST . AUGUSTINE , FL 32085-0161
IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 5, ECTION 2 OF THE NATIONALAGREEMENT , THE ABOVE REFERENCED GRIEVANCE WAS DISCUSSED ATSTEP 2 WITH NALC REPRESENTATIVE JEANNE ROBSHAW AND USPSREPRESENTATIVE PETE HEFNER ON 01/07/97 .
MR . BAIRD WAS ISSUED A 7 DAY SUSPENSION ON 11/26/97 FORIMPROPER CONDUCT/DISRESPECT TO A SUPERVISOR .
ALSO NOTE THE FOLLOWING :BY MUTUAL AGREEMENT THE SUSPENSION AND STEP TWO DECISION WASEXTENDED TO GIVE GRIEVANT TIME TO CONSIDER OFFER BYMANAGEMENT TO REDUCE SUSPENSION TO A PAPER SUSPENSION, (NOMONEY LOST ) TO BE HELD IN FILES FOR A ONE YEAR PERIOD .
UNION CONTENDS THAT MANAGEMENT ISSUED DISCIPLINE WITHOUT
JUST CAUSE . MANAGEMENT FAILED TO FOLLOW PRINCIPLES OF
PROGRESSIVE DISCIPLINE . CHARGE NOT PROPER BASIS FOR
DISCIPLINE . MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF SICK WIFE . UNPAID
BILLS ETC . GRIEVANT DENIED DUE PROCESS . IMPROPER CITATION
OF PENDING DISCIPLINE .
REMEDY REQUESTED BY UNION IS TO RESCIND SEVEN DAY SUSPENSIONAND MAKE GRIEVANT WHOLE REMOVE SUSPENSION FROM ALL RECORDSAND FILES .
MANAGEMENT CONTENDS THAT DISCIPLINE WAS ISSUED FOR JUSTCAUSE AND PROPERLY CITED A LETTER OF WARNING WAS ISSUED ON
05/09 /96 FOR IMPROPER CONDUCT/DISRESPECT TO A SUPERVISOR .
(SEE ATTACHED)THERE ARE NO MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ALLOWS A POSTALEMPLOYEE TO BE DISRESPECTFUL TO A SUPERVISOR . THAT MR .
BAIRD DOES NOT RESPECT MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL IS EVIDENT BYTHE NATURE OF THE PRIOR DISCIPLINE AND THIS DISCIPLINE
ACTION AS WELL . THE FACT THAT OF HIS BEHAVIOR IN THEPRESENCE THE OIC AND STATION MANAGER SHOWS TOTAL DISREGARD
FOR ANY MANAGEMENT POSITION . (SEE LOW AND SUSPENSION LETTER
CONTENTS ) ATTACHED .
6
AS PER MUTUAL AGREEMENT WITH NALC PRESIDENT AND POSTMASTER(SEE ATTACHED ) THE FOLLOWING DATES ARE NOTED FOR THE SEVENDAY SUSPENSION TO BEGIN AND END WITH ( REQUIREMENTS OF
ORIGINAL INSTRUCTIONS THE SAME .)
DATE AND TIME SUSPENSION TO COMMENCE BEGINNING OF TOUR ONMONDAY FEBRUARY 3, 1997 .DATE AND TIME SUSPENSION TO END : END OF YOUR TOUR ON SUNDAY,
FEBRUARY 9, 1997 .
AFTER CONSIDERING ALL OF THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED, IFIND NO VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONALAGREEMENT, THEREFORE THIS GRIEVANCE IS DENIED .
/s/ Pete HefnerPETE HEFNERU . S . POSTAL SERVICESTEP 2 DESIGNEE
The Union filed a Letter of Corrections and Additions
which read as follows :
"FEBRUARY 3, 1997
MR . E . T . HEFNER , STEP 2 DESIGNEEMR . J . BLUHM, POSTMASTERST . AUGUSTINE POST OFFICE99 KING STREETST. AUGUSTINE , FL 32084
RE : GRIEVANCE #28096GRIEVANT : GEORGE BAIRD
LETTER OF CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS
PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 15, SECTION 2, STEP 2g OF THE NATIONAL
AGREEMENT , THIS LETTER OF CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS SHALL BEINCLUDED AS PART OF THE ABOVE REFERENCED FILE , IN RESPONSE
TO THE STEP 2 DECISION , DATED 1 /23/97 AND RECEIVED ON
1/24/97 .
7
I SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING CORRECTIONS FOR THE FILE :
IN YOUR STEP 2 DECISION LETTER YOU STATED " UNION CONTENDS
THAT MANAGEMENT ISSUED DISCIPLINE WITHOUT JUST CAUSE .
MANAGEMENT FAILED TO FOLLOW PRINCIPLES OF PROGRESSIVE
DISCIPLINE . CHARGE NOT PROPER BASIS FOR DISCIPLINE .MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF SICK WIFE , UNPAID BILLS, ETC .
GRIEVANT DENIED DUE PROCESS . IMPROPER CITATION OF PENDING
DISCIPLINE ." YOU FAILED TO INCLUDE ALL ISSUES RAISED BY THEUNION AT THE STEP 2 MEETING . A COPY OF THE UNION'S
CONTENTIONS AND REMEDY IS ATTACHED TO THIS LETTER .
IN YOUR STEP 2 DECISION LETTER YOU HAVE STATED " MANAGEMENTCONTENDS THAT DISCIPLINE WAS FOR JUST CAUSE . A LETTER OFWARNING WAS ISSUED ON 05/09/96 FOR IMPROPER CONDUCTDISRESPECT TO A SUPERVISOR . (SEE ATTACHED )" THERE WERE NOATTACHMENTS TO YOUR STEP 2 DECISION LETTER .
IN YOUR STEP 2 DECISION LETTER YOU ALSO MADE REFERENCE TOLOW AND SUSPENSION LETTER CONTENTS ATTACHED . AGAIN, THEREWERE NO ATTACHMENTS TO YOUR STEP 2 DECISION LETTER .
I SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS FOR THE FILE :
ARTICLE 15 , SECTION 2, STEP 2f STATES THE DECISION SHALLINCLUDE A FULL STATEMENT OF THE EMPLOYER'S UNDERSTANDING OF(1) ALL RELEVANT FACTS, (2) THE CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONSINVOLVED AND (3 ) THE DETAILED REASONS FOR DENIAL OF THEGRIEVANCE ." YOUR DECISION FAILED TO INCLUDE A DETAILEDSTATEMENT OF THE FACTS . PRESENTED AT STEP 2 OR THECONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED . YOU FAILED TO MENTION ALLOF THE UNION CONTENTIONS AND THE CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONSINVOLVED . YOUR FAILURE TO RENDER A PROPER GRIEVANCEDECISION AT STEP 2 IS A VIOLATION OF THE CONTRACTUALPROVISIONS OF THE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE .
IN ADDITION, IT MUST BE NOTED THAT THE UNION STILL HAS NOTBEEN AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONDUCT INTERVIEWS ANDCOMPLETE INVESTIGATION RELEVANT TO THIS GRIEVANCE . THELIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME ALLOWED FOR STEWARD TIME AND THEEXCESSIVE AMOUNT OF GRIEVANCES TO BE PROCESSED DOES NOTALLOW SUFFICIENT TIME FOR PROPER PREPARATION OF ANY OF THEGRIEVANCES TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE GRIEVANT .
8
THIS LETTER IS AN OFFICIAL PART OF THE GRIEVANCE FILE AND
WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE STEP 3 APPEAL .
/s/ JEANNE ROBSHAWJEANNE ROBSHAWPRESIDENT , NALC BRANCH 689P . O . BOX 161ST . AUGUSTINE, FL 32085-0161
The Union appealed the grievance to the third step and
gave as its reasons for appeal as follows : Seven days suspension
issued to Grievant was not for just cause . Grievant denied due
process, Management failed to follow procedures of progressive
discipline, Management failed to properly investigate, improper
citation of pending discipline . And all other arguments from
Step 1 and Step 2 are carried forward . Management refused to
allow the Union to process this grievance, appeal filed off the
clock under duress, in violation of Articles 15 and 16 . The
corrective action requested was suspension be rescinded and all
records be removed from the files . Make Grievant whole from any
and all loss .
read as follow
The Third Step
s :
Grievance decision by Management
"Mr . Matthew L . Rose H94N- 4H-D 97053392 DIST 320National Business Agent 02/11/97 28096National Association of BAIRD JR G
Letter Carriers SAINT AUGUSTINE , FL 32084-9998AFL-CIO
Provision Allegedly Violated 16 .4000/65 .1800/65 .0205
9
Subject : Regional Grievance Decision
Dear Mr . Rose :
After considering all available evidence in the record andthat offered by the union at the Step 3D hearing on April25, 1997 , it is my decision to deny the grievance .
In this case , the grievant was issued a fourteen (7) daysuspension for, (1) improper conduct-disrespect tosupervisor . Evidence in the file , indicates the grievantwas guilty as charged . On November 19, 1996 , the grievantwas given a discussion regarding his disruptive,disrespectful conduct towards his supervisor . Immediatelyafter leaving the room the grievant said loudly to thesupervisor , "You ain't nothing , you don ' t tell me what to
do ." The Officer -In-Charge was walking into the room andoverheard the conversation and the grievant ' s outburst . Hestated to the grievant , "He is your supervisor", the
grievant repeated , " He ain't nothing ," and then said to the
Officer- In-Charge , " And you ain ' t nothing " . The Officer-In-Charge repeated what the grievant had said and theninstructed the grievant to return to his case. The
grievant ' s behavior was in violation of section 666 .1, 666 .2
and 666 .51 of the Employee and Labor Relations Manual and
section 112 .21 , and 112 .25 of the M-41 Handbook . In
addition , the grievant was issued a letter of warning on May3, 1996 , for improper conduct-disrespect to a supervisor .
Therefore , this grievance is denied .
In our judgment , the grievance does not involve anyinterpretive issue ( s) pertaining to the National Agreementor any supplement thereto which may be of generalapplication . Unless the union believes otherwise , the casemay be appealed directly to regional arbitration inaccordance with the provisions of Article 15 of the NationalAgreement .
/s/Bernard U . Richardson
Bernard U . RichardsonLabor Relations Specialist
cc : District Office Jacksonville, Fl .Postmaster St. Augustine, Fl .
10
ISSUE
Did the Postal Service have just cause to issue the
Notice of Disciplinary Action? If not, what should the remedy
be?
DISCUSSION
I have reviewed my tapes of the testimony of the
witnesses , examined the exhibits introduced by the parties and
reviewed the excellent closing oral arguments made by the
representatives of the parties . Based on all of the above, it is
my finding :
Grievant Mr . Baird was ordered to come to work on his
off day, Tuesday, November 19, 1996 . That he immediately went to
work on his normal daily route and when Frank Debisceglie came to
work he began helping him case his route, that while going to
help Frank and while walking between the route cases the
supervisor said to him in an arrogant way "You belong on Route
C-28 ." Mr . Baird replied that he said don't worry, Frank and I
are working everything out between both routes . At that time
supervisor Arsenault told him to face the case . The Grievant
told the supervisor not to talk to him that way, that he had
worked too many years on this job to be treated in that manner .
That a few minutes later while the Grievant was casing route
11
C-28, supervisor Arsenault came to his case and said "come into
the office . I want to have a discussion about what went on ."
That the Grievant stated "I will go in the office when a shop
steward is available to be with me ." The Supervisor replied that
he did not need a shop steward, it was only a discussion, to
which the Grievant replied, "I don't trust you and I don't want
to be alone with you ." At that time the Grievant called E .
Hefner, another supervisor over to him . Hefner said it's only a
discussion and that the Grievant didn't need a shop steward and
that Hefner will go in the office with the Grievant and the
supervisor . That Hefner , the supervisor and the Grievant went
into the Postmaster ' s office for a discussion . The Grievant
stated that he asked if this could lead to discipline and was
told no . In the Postmaster ' s office, the Grievant stated that he
told Pete Hefner in front of the supervisor that "I am on this
job too long to be talked to and taking orders from someone like
Arsenault , he is nothing ." It is my finding that the Grievant
then went to the door of the office , opened the door and started
to step through when the acting officer-in -charge, Al Winters,
was approaching the door to the office . That Winters had seen
and heard the Grievant while coming out of the office loudly
telling supervisor Arsenault that he was nothing and that he,
12
meaning supervisor Arsenault , couldn't tell him what to do . At
this time Al Winters stated "He is your supervisor " to which the
Grievant replied "He ain't nothing " and in talking to Winters,
stated "You ain't nothing ." Winters ordered the Grievant to
return to his case which , after getting a drink of water, the
Grievant did .
The Union raised a number of issues of denial of due
process, the first one being that the notice of the 7-day
suspension included a notice of a discussion , and that this was
wrong . In this regard it is my finding that the only reference
to the discussion was to indicate where the later disrespectful
or improper conduct occurred and was not cited as an element of
past discipline . I therefore find this issue raised by the Union
not to be well taken . The Union also raised as a denial of due
process the fact that the Grievant was not permitted to have a
shop steward at the discussion . The contract clearly provides
that a discussion shall be between the supervisor and the
Grievant and no other person need be present . The Union also
raised the fact that E . Hefner, another supervisor , was present
at the discussion . It is my finding in this regard , based on the
testimony , that the Grievant asked Mr . Hefner to go with him into
the office because he did not want to be in the office alone with
13
supervisor Arsenault . Therefore , I find that those issues raised
by the Union as a denial of due process are not with merit . The
Union also raised the issue of there being no concurrence by
higher authority in the request for discipline by the immediate
supervisor . Earlier in this opinion I have discussed this and
found that this was not well taken and was without merit as to
the question of due process . The Union also contends that the
language addressed to a supervisor, to-wit, " He ain't nothing"
and to the acting Postmaster that "he ain't nothing either" ;
being lacking in profanity and lacking in insubordination would
be insufficient to bring a disciplinary charge against the
Grievant . The Union cited an expedited case and it is my
understanding that expedited cases are not to be cited as
authority in any future arbitration case and also that case dealt
with a delay in granting a pay increase . I therefore will not
consider that case, it being an expedited case . None of the
other cases cited by the Union dealt with the question of whether
disrespectful conduct could be the basis of discipline where
there was an absence of the use of profanity or an absence of any
insubordinate act .
In the case before me , much of the testimony dealt with
the Grievant stating to two supervisors that they ain't nothing .
14
However, to me the most important part of his alleged statement
was when he said "You don ' t tell me what to do ." This is
insubordination as it is acknowledged without exception that
supervisors are to tell employees what to do and if the employee
does not think that order is appropriate, he has the right under
the contract to file a protest . The only exceptions are if
following the order would create a physically harmful situation
or would subject the employee to criminal charges . The universal
rule is that the employee obeys the order now and protests the
order at a later time . Therefore , based on the alleged statement
"you don't tell me what to do", it is my finding that this
language would qualify as disrespect to a supervisor coupled with
insubordination . All the other cases cited by the Union except
one dealt with the Management ' s failure to review and concur in
the requested discipline . I have already alluded to that
particular thing and attached Exhibit A to this opinion , having
found that there was a proper concurrence even though the date
was inadvertently incorrect . However, I did leave for discussion
the fact that there were two recommendations made by the
immediate supervisor and the concurrence did not state which of
the recommendations was being concurred in . It is my finding
that this under the facts before me was harmful error .
15
The Union also alleges that the Union Steward was denied
sufficient time to investigate and prepare the grievance . Based
on the testimony of the number of hours that have been granted to
union stewards at this particular post office, it is my finding
that this claimed denial of due process was not proved by the
testimony and therefore has no merit .
Based on the above discussion, it is my finding that the
alleged denial of due process did not in any instance except one
reach a level of seriousness so as to be considered harmful error
as defined by the United States Supreme Court in the case of
Cornelius V . Nutt . It is my finding that the Postal Service
through its management official made two recommendations of
discipline . The concurrence of the higher official does not
state which recommendation he concurred in ; therefore, the
concurrence lacks finality . This failure should result in the
lesser discipline being imposed .
AWARD
The grievance of G . H . Baird, Jr . is granted and the
seven day suspension shall be reduced to a Letter of Warning .
The Postal Service is directed to compensate the Grievant, G . H .
Baird, Jr . for the pay he lost as a result of the seven day
suspension .
16
~ REQUEST FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION
SSN: 084- 30-4488 _FULL NAME OF EMPLOYEE : G : _ H, BAIRD _ _______
DUTY STATION ' ST. AUGUSTINE
POSITION TITLE Full Time Carrier LEVEL: PS 5
PAY LOG: 100 OFF DAYS: ROTATE SCHED :7:75-16 :25
TOUR: ~- -
NATURE OF OFFENSE : IMPROPER CONDUCT/ DISRESPECT TO SUPERVISOR
REASON FOR REQUESTING ACTION ( GIVE FULL DETAILS WHO - WHAT- WHEN - WHERE
WHERE, WHY)' DISRESPECTF ULNESS TOWARDS SUPERVISOR MR . RSENAUL.IMMEDIATELY AFTER
LEAVING THE ROOM MR. BAIRD STATED LOUDLY TO MR ARSENAULT"YOU AIN 'T NOTHING,
YOU DON 'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO ," AND ALSO SAID TO THE O . I.C. 'HE AIN 'T NOTHING ."
MR. WINTERS REPLIED HE 'S YOUR SUPERVISOR .
EMPLOYEE'S EXPLANATION OR REPLY (ATTACH EMPLOYEE ' S WRITTEN STATEMENT
IF APPROPRIATE ) . THIS SECTION MUST BE COMPLETED OR SHOW REASON WHY NOT:
DISRUPTIVE MR. AL THREATENED ME, AND
DURING TOLDME WAS N
FINDINGMR .
BAIRD STATEDI WASN'T ATTACHED)
D
NAMES OF WITNESSES (ATTACH WRITTEN STATEMENT HORrCOMMENTSS I FAP~OPRRSE
IF THERE ARE NO WITNESSES , SO STATE) :
SEE ATTACHED STATEMENTS
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION : IMPROPER CONDUCT / DISRESPEST TO A SUPERVISOR
RECOMMENDATION : DUE TO PROGRESSIVE DISCIPLINba. 7 DAY SUSPENSION IS WARRENTED .
RECOMMENDATIO LETTER OF WARNINSIGNATUE OF SUPERVISOR REQUES NIAME
(PRION :GEOR R. ARSENAULTSSN: 004-54-2771
JOB TITLE : 204B CUSTOMER SERVICE
DUTY STATION /TOUR: ST. AUGUSTINE, FL 32084DATE: iii>ri
I HAVE REVIEWED AND C THI&RE UESTED ACTION :{~ iE4h- TITLE :~
DATE :