Senator Sasser QUESTION NO. 2 work and how can it be coercion?" "How does your grievance procedure used to protect an employee from ANSWER: We are proud of our record of representation of Postal Workers under the terms of our collective bargaining agreement which, despite occasional efforts by the Postal Service to undermine its effectiveness, remains a potent weapon for the protection of Postal Workers' rights. Our grievance procedure is basically outlined in Article XV of the collective bargaining agreement, a copy of which I have attached hereto. For the purpose of processing grievances relating to disciplines the procedure works as follows: Step 1. (a) The employee, within 14 days of the violation, discusses the grievance with his immediate supervisor. The employee may be accompanied by his steward if he so desires. The Union may also initiate a grievance on its own. (b) Within 5 days of the presentation of the grievance, the supervisor must render his decision, stating his reasons. (c) The Union may appeal an adverse decision at Step 1 by writing to the head of the installation in 10 days. Step 2A. (a) Within 7 days after receipt of the appeal, the head of the installation (The Postmaster or someone representing him) must meet with the steward or Union representative. (b) Within 10 days after the appeal (in other words, no less than three days after their meeting), the installation head must issue his written decision, stating his reasons orally, if desired. (c) Within 10 days after receipt of the 2A decision, the Union may appeal to the Regional Director for Employee and Labor Relations. Step 2B (a) A management official on a regional level discusses the matter with a regional or national union representative. Senator Sasser August 5, 1977 Page 5 (b) Within seven days after the 2B meeting, the Regional Director must issue his decision and reasons therefore. (၁) Within 21 days after the decision, the Union may appeal to arbitration. Arbitration, which consists of a hearing before a neutral arbitrator, is the final and binding step in the procedure. It should be noted, however, that if the Union's grievance were based on a violation of Article II, then the grievance could be filed directly at the second step, bypassing Step 1, under the provisions of Article II itself. If a grievance were filed protesting threats or coercion directed against employees relating to involuntary political activities, it would have to be filed at the appropriate step, and then percolate through the grievance procedure. Of course, the employer could always deny the grievance. It is precisely for that reason that we hope you will inquire of the Postal Service just what their position on such matters will be. QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR STEVENS QUESTION NO. 1 "What effect, if any, do you think H.R. 10 would have on employee-employee relationships away from the work situation?" ANSWER: Virtually none. H.R. 10 does nothing except to give federal employees a measure of the same political and civil rights which other Americans have had for 200 years. Of course, some Postal Workers may find themselves on different sides of explicitly partisan battles, just as employees do every day. However, to answer your specific question, any off-the-job disagreements, conflicts, or even common political struggles would have no effect on-the-job status, unless, of course, one of the parties was a supervisor. There could be little that an employee could do to another because of political activity that would have any effect on the second's on-the-job status. Senator Sasser QUESTION No. 2 "Do employees who run for political office currently get the benefit of health insurance and life insurance coverage when they are on annual leave without pay? If so, how are the premium payments made?" ANSWER: Employees of the Postal Service under the Hatch Act presently cannot run for public office, even if they are on leave without pay status, since they remain employees of the Postal Service whether or not they are on leave. If allowed to run for such offices, the practices on payment of benefits generally in effect should, of course, be continued for employees who choose to take time off to run for office. QUESTION NO. 3 "How do you feel about limiting the use of employee lists (a) by parties? (b) by political candidates? (c) by fund raisers? (d) by employees recruiting fellow employees?" ANSWER: 5 U.S.C.A.S.552a (the Privacy Act), which is made specifically applicable to the Postal Service pursuant to 39 U.S.C.A. S 410 (b)(1), prohibits the disclosure of records on individuals to all the groups listed in your question. "Records" is defined in the Act to include "any item, collection or group of information about an individual that is maintained by an agency . . . that contains his name, or identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular. Furthermore, the Postal Service is specifically exempted from disclosing "information of a commercial nature under business practices would not be publicly disclosed." is our understanding from the attorneys at the Postal Service that certain mail-order houses have attempted to acquire a list of Postal Service employees, but that, pursuant to the above provisions of law, particularly the latter, they had been administratively denied. which It Therefore, given both of these provisions of law, it would appear that none of the groups listed in your question could acquire such lists of employees for the purposes of solicitation. Again, this is no different from the situation prevailing in private industry, where commercial firms certainly do not provide wholesale mailing lists of their employees to political causes on a regular basis. " Senator Sasser I hope that the above fully answers the questions which you and Senator Stevens asked. I appreciated the opportunity testify before your Committee, and look forward to the most expeditious consideration possible of this important piece of legislation guaranteeing the civil rights of our members. Sincerely, to EA:mr opeiu #2 Emmet Andrews APWU Assails Fisher on Hatch, by Patrick J. Nilan (From Federal Times, May 2, 1977) THE QUESTIONS raised by Rep. Joseph L. Fisher, D. VA., in the April 4th, 1977, issue of Federal Times and the solution he proposes are typical of the debate that has grown about the way to liberalize the law governing the role which state and federal employees may play in the political processes of our democracy. This role, as defined in the Hatch Act of 1939, is so minimal that it comprises a serious abridgement of the constitutional rights of postal and federal workers. Fisher, like many other participants in this debate, begins with questionable assumptions, employs a lot of platitudes and asks the wrong questions. His April 4 article contains some good examples of the myths and slogans and pat solutions that becloud this issue and limit creative debate. Fisher commences with the question, "What is the proper balance between a federal employee's right to participate in the political process and the need to maintain a politically neutral civil service?" On the surface this appears to be a good question, and he tries to prove it by saying that it has been the topic of continuous congressional debates since 1791. But is it? Let's take a look. His question involves a dubious assumption. It suggests that a "politically neutral" civil service is such a good thing that the government is obliged to create and preserve one, even at the cost of curtailing the free speech, free assembly and free petition rights of the citizens, the postal and federal employees. These are important First Amendment rights which should not be abridged by anybody for any purpose except one so compelling as to constitute a "clear and present danger" that the exercise of these rights by the individual will seriously interfere with or jeopardize the rights of the majority. Fisher fails, to establish such a "clear and present danger" but let us first deal with his phrase, "politically neutral." By this I assume he does not mean "neutered" or "emasculated" but "impartial." If he wants to argue that a politically emasculated civil service is essential to the proper functioning of our democracy, then he has the Hatch Act to support him: because this is precisely the condition of our postal and federal employees under the present law. If, on the other hand, he is saying that it is essential for our civil service to be impartial in the administration of the law, then we are on the same wave length. In his effort to demonstrate that a politically "neutral" civil service is essential to the proper functioning of our government and to the integrity and independence of the service, Fisher cites a number of examples evidently intended to illustrate the evils that a politically active service might fall into. But these examples illustrate the belief, shared by opponents of liberalization, that the way to prevent abuses is not only to prohibit coercion, that is the exertion of political pressures within the service, but also to provide sanctions that prohibit even voluntary political activities by individaul employees. These protagonists want us to believe that such double protec |