ksaldarini@govexec.com
Every Friday on GovExec.com, Legal Briefs reviews several cases that involve, or provide valuable lessons to, federal managers. We report on the decisions of a wide range of review panels, including the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Federal Labor Relations Authority and federal courts.
Postal worker Curtis McComb has been cast as merciful former prisoner Jean Valjean in a real-life version of Victor Hugo's "Les Miserables", while the Postal Service has been cast as Javert, "the-law-is-the-law" policeman who chases down Valjean in Hugo's tale of mercy versus unbending justice.
Two years ago, McComb clocked in a co-worker who was late because of a nose bleed. After learning of the falsification, the Postal Service launched an investigation of McComb and discovered he had lied on his job application 12 years earlier. McComb had written that he had never been convicted of a crime, when in fact he had spent nine months in prison for credit card fraud and burglary. The Postal Service fired McComb, and the Merit Systems Protection Board upheld the firing.
But like the saintly Bishop of Digne in "Les Mis," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit showed McComb mercy on June 29. The court ruled that the Postal Service had punished McComb too severely for one offense that "was minor and motivated by altruism" and another that "took place more than a decade before."
The court ordered MSPB and the Postal Service to show a little tenderness and give McComb a lesser punishment.
Lesson: When dishing out punishments, decide whether you're a Javert or a Bishop of Digne.
McComb v. Postal Service (99-3077), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, June 29, 1999
No Sample, No Job
One morning, Navy employee Alan Biddix was minding his own business when his work leader approached him with the news: He had been selected for an immediate random drug test.
Suddenly feeling ill, Biddix respectfully declined the drug test and said he was going home to recover from his ailing condition. The work leader questioned Biddix's abrupt health change and instructed him to provide a urine sample.
Biddix again declined. His boss fired him.
Biddix has appealed the firing several times, but in what appears to be the final upholding of the manager's decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that "Biddix's numerous excuses for non-compliance were after-the-fact rationalizations, not bona fide explanations."
Lesson: If you just say no to a drug test, your manager can just say no to your job.
Biddix v. Navy (99-3065), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, June 30, 1999.
Unfair Share of Overtime
Three employees at the Red River Army Depot in Texarkana, Texas, discovered that their co-worker had hogged the overtime pie, hoarding 540 hours of overtime in the previous year that should have been dispersed among all of them.
The depot's collective bargaining agreement stipulates that overtime offers should be sliced up equally among employees that perform the same job. Management argued that as boss, it can dish out overtime any way it wants.
Management justified its decision by saying that the employee who got all the overtime was more efficient than the other three workers. Much of the overtime is spent tracking down missing orders. The favored employee would actually go to the warehouse to find lost shipments, while the other workers would only call the warehouse to ask someone else to find them.
But the Federal Labor Relations Authority rejected that argument because the bargaining agreement, which management signed, requires equal distribution of overtime. FLRA ordered the depot to award back pay for the three overtime-less workers.
Lesson: If you promise to share the overtime pie, don't expect anyone to be happy with a few crumbs.
Red River Army Depot v. NAGE (55 FLRA No. 91), Federal Labor Relations Authority, June 29, 1999.