Arbitrator: Mystery Shopper Survey Should Not Be Used to Discipline Postal Window Clerks

Mystery Shopper Evaluations (from APWU)

"An undated letter [PDF] from USPS headquarters indicates that Mystery Shopper Evaluations cannot be used to justify disciplinary action. Local projects similar to the Mystery Shopper program cannot be used to justify disciplinary action either. The letter was sent to all Area Labor Relations Managers at the request of the APWU. Employees must follow the instructions of their supervisors, however, and may be subject to discipline based on the independent personal observations of their supervisor. They cannot be issued discipline based on the hearsay evaluation of a mystery shopper or similar third party."

Mystery Shopper Evaluations Should Not Be Used to Discipline Window Clerks

posted September 2, 2006

This is a summary of Arbitrator Michael Wolf’s decision in case C00C-4C-D-05085599. The issue in this case involved the discipline of an employee under the mystery shopper program. The Union took the position that the discipline was improper in light of the Postal Service's position that the Mystery Shopper program was only to be used as a diagnostic tool and not the source for disciplinary action. The Postal Service adopted a policy applicable to window clerks (sales and service associates) that operates under the acronym GIST, which stands for "greet, inquire, suggest, and thank." Under this policy, a window clerk must ask a series of questions and offer suggestions whenever a customer needs window service, such as mailing a package. In the 1990's, the Postal Service instituted something called the Mystery Shopper program. Under this program, the Postal Service contracted with an outside company, which provided anonymous "customers" who visited postal facilities to ascertain whether employees were providing services to the public that were consistent with the Postal Service's policies, including the GIST program. These "customers" engage in transactions with window clerks and report back on whether the clerks have followed proper procedures in dealing with the public. In a series of memoranda, the Postal Service made clear to the Union and to its own managers that the Mystery Shopper program was designed to improve service and was not to be used for the purpose of instituting discipline. For example, a Headquarters official wrote as follows in 1997 to all vice presidents of area operations:

The Mystery Shopper program's purpose and intent is as a corrective, not punitive, diagnostic tool to correct conditions that are detrimental to customer satisfaction. The survey does not, and should not, identify individuals, and must not be used as the source for disciplinary action.

When this tool was discussed with the APWU, we advised them it was not our intent to use it as a basis for issuing disciplinary actions. Rather, we have introduced it as a feedback tool on a unit's performance as seen by the customer.

Again in 1997, the Acting Manager for Contract Administration advised area labor relations specialists as follows:

[E]mphasis is added relative to recent indications that the Mystery Shopper Program is allegedly being used as a tool for employee discipline.

The APWU was advised at the National level that the Mystery Shopper Program would be used as a feedback tool to monitor customer satisfaction. Negative information gathered from the Mystery Shopper survey should not be used as the basis for taking disciplinary action against an employee.

Headquarters officials also emphasized that, information derived from Mystery Shopper evaluations should not be used to identify employees or to institute discipline:

Mystery Shopper evaluations do not, and should not, identify individuals and must not be used as the source for disciplinary action. I continually hear of instances where post offices are spending great deals of time reviewing tapes and Point of Sales receipts in an effort to identify the retail associate or the shopper. In many instances, offices try to use this information to discredit the shopper evaluation. This time can be much better spent in trying to drive the behavior and ultimately increase customer satisfaction and retail revenue.

The grievant was issued a disciplinary suspension; the Postal Service claimed the grievant failed to follow instructions by not asking all the appropriate questions. The Union argued that the Mystery Shopper Program could not be used as the basis for discipline. In this case, Management improperly used a Mystery Shopper evaluation to target the Grievant for discipline. This was an abuse of the Mystery Shopper Program and contrary to the agreement pursuant to which the Union consented to the practice of using Mystery Shoppers.

The arbitrator sustained the Union’s grievance; he ruled the Postal Service improperly based its discipline decision on the Mystery Shopper Program. As such, he rescinded the disciplinary action. In reaching his decision the arbitrator noted:

Initially, it must be noted that, although the Mystery Shopper Program was devised by Management as an adjunct to the GIST initiative, its use and procedures were agreed to by the Union in a memorandum dated October 7, 1999. Both before and after that written agreement, directives from Postal Service headquarters made clear that there would be several important limitations on the program: (1) "The [Mystery Shopper] survey does not, and should not, identify individuals and must not be used as the source for disciplinary action;" and (2) "Negative information gathered from the Mystery Shoppers survey should not be used as the basis for taking disciplinary action against an employee." It appears that these limitations were, for the most part, respected by Post Offices around the country from 1997 to the present. These limitations have been in effect for almost 10 years and have been accepted by both parties. They therefore constitute a binding past practice.

Gary Kloepfer
Assistant Director [APWU]
Maintenance Division

back to Home page back to Postal News