Use of POV While Traveling
The issue in this
case was whether the Postal Service violated the Collective Bargaining
Agreement when it denied the grievant the right to use his vehicle to travel
to Norman, Oklahoma, for a training class.
In this case the
Grievant had submitted a written request to four (4) Management officials
that he be allowed to drive his personal vehicle to the training facility in
Norman, OK. He cited as his reasons the following: “I am aware that an
individual was allowed to drive to a detail in Texas. Even though the
Federal Government has taken over the security at the National airports I,
still feel that the threat is very real and have no wish to put my life in
harms way. Especially (sic) when I can drive and feel much safer for myself
and give my family peace of mind.”
The Postal Service denied the grievant’s request to use his POV by claiming
in part that studies show that it is still much safer to travel by public air
transportation than by personal vehicle. As you know, the Postal Service is
responsible for your safety while you are traveling on official business. We
believe it is much safer to fly to out-of-state training classes using a
public air carrier than to drive our own personal vehicles. Therefore, your
request to drive your personal vehicle is denied for that reason. In
addition to this action, the Postal Service terminated a local past practice
that permitted employees to use their POVs for travel to off-site training.
The
arbitrator sustained the Union’s grievance by rejecting the Postal Service’s
arbitrary application of the F-15 Handbook. He found that the Postal
Service’s “blanket policy” which prohibited the use of a POV for all
employees to be arbitrary and order local management to rescind its policy.
The arbitrator’s ruling states in part:
Section 5-5.1 et
seq. shows that the Postal Service, as a national organization that
has installations and employees throughout the entire 48 contiguous states,
Hawaii and Alaska, specifically allows for the option for an
employee-traveler to receive approval to use his/her POV for official travel.
Section 5-5.1.2 sets forth six (6) considerations that will be used by the
approving official upon which to base his/her decision, however, the criteria
need not be limited to those specified in the regulation. In this case, Plant
Manager Tate added on his own authority a seventh criterion; i.e., that
traveling by commercial air vice by ground vehicle was safer and therefore
would be the default method of transportation. Mr. Tate strongly set forth an
edict that he would not authorize employees to drive their vehicles to or
from training classes in Oklahoma or other states and characterized the use
of their POVs as a personal convenience. Mr. Tate cites vehicular accident
statistics and costs related thereto in support of his cessation of approving
the use of POVs by employees on official travel.
Mr. Tate’s concern
for the safety of the employees who work in the P&DC Maintenance Operation
may be laudable while at the same time is paternalistic and an abuse of
managerial discretion in the manner that it has been used to deny employee
requests to use their POV in official travel situations. First, it patently
runs counter to the provisions of Handbook F-15, section 5-5.1.1, that states
that an employee may receive approval to use his/her POV for personal
convenience, provided the employee submits a cost comparison with the
travel voucher and the cost comparison shows that the use of the POV was a
method of transportation that was advantageous to the Postal Service.
(Emphasis provided). Secondly, Arbitrator August, while denying the grievance
cautioned Management that the policy was not to be a blanket denial for all
such requests and that each employee’s request was to be handled on a
case-by-case basis. It is clear that the approach taken by Mr. Tate, and
executed by Mr. Norsworthy, is that if each case made a request to use the
employee’s POV it would be disapproved because the request was contrary to
the policy stated in Mr. Tate’s memorandum that he would henceforward
disapprove all requests to use POVs. Such automatic disapproval cannot be
said to constitute reviewing each employee’s request on a case-by-case basis.
It does demonstrate an absolute approach contrary to the provisions of
Handbook F-15. Thirdly, if the Postal Service as an organization believed
that it was unsafe for employees to operate their POVs while traveling to
alternate work sites such as the training facility in Norman, OK, used by
employees from all over the country, the Postal Service would have included
such a concern in its regulations. On the contrary, there is not a mention of
road safety as a criteria or a consideration in any section of the Handbook
F15, despite the fact that the Postal Service has employees all over the
country where traffic conditions can be quite difficult i.e., New York City,
Washington, D.C. beltway, Seattle and its outlaying areas, Chicago, Los
Angeles, etc. or vast remote areas such as the deserts of California,
Arizona, and New Mexico, the Salt Flats of Nevada, etc. In contrast; the
drive from Baton Rouge to Oklahoma City may represent one of the
least-trafficked thoroughfares as well as be accessible by well-built federal
highways on the entire drive. Mr. Tate’s concern for road safety would have
bad plausible validity had it been pertinent to the conditions of the Baton
Rouge-Oklahoma City corridor and cited the vehicular
accidents/fatalities/injuries/costs involved therein. Taking a broad sweep of
the entire country when the area of Mr. Tate’s concern is so placid in
comparison is not persuasive enough to construct a reasonable basis to
automatically deny every employee’s request to use his POV for official
travel. Moreover, the reliance on vehicular safety is overstated by Mr. Tate.
The same source of his safety information, the NSC, also has sobering
statistics about deaths and injuries in the workplace, where Mr. Tate has
more control over the environment. Additionally, the NSC cited specific
problem areas related to vehicular accidents, none of which particularly
applied to the Grievant.
In view
of the foregoing, the October 27, 2000, policy and that the manner in which
it is being used is an abuse of managerial discretion, resulting in arbitrary
and capricious action. Lastly, the safety concern advocated by the Mr. Tate
was obviated when be approved the use of a POV for Mr. Sihto. A safety
concern is generally held to be a constant factor; not one that can be
abandoned because the cost of a rental ca at the alternate work site would be
greater than allowing the employee to use his POV. If it was not safe for
the Grievant to be on the road to drive from Baton Rouge to Norman, OK, it
was no safer for Mr. Sthto to drive from Baton Rouge to Beaumont, Texas.
