Supervisor's instruction was not complete and unequivocal
Awarded a one-day disciplinary suspension for failing to follow a supervisor’s directions on how to improvise a delivery at a particular location in the face of a temporary obstruction, a postal worker grieved the suspension.
R.F. was a mail carrier with 35 years’ experience. On September 2, 2009, her deliveries included three packages addressed to a particular residence. The items came with instructions directing the delivery person to “leave at door, do not card” — in other words, the mail carrier was not to leave a notice in the recipient’s community mail box inviting them to pick up the packages at the post office. The packages were to be delivered to the door.
When R.F. arrived at the location, she was unable to deliver the packages as directed. The house was set back some 50 feet from the road and the driveway, which was in the process of being resurfaced, was blocked by cones. There was a large grassy field adjacent to the property, but no obvious alternate access.
R.F. left a delivery notice in the community mailbox alerting the recipient that the packages could be picked up at the post office.
When the delivery supervisor came across the packages later in the day after R.F. had finished her shift, the supervisor took it upon herself to deliver the packages.
While the cones were still blocking the driveway, the supervisor noted tire tracks in the field adjacent to the house. She followed the tracks through the field and, in the process of making the delivery, was informed by the recipient that the path that the supervisor had taken was in fact being used temporarily as a driveway.
Instructed to use alternative “driveway”
The supervisor left a note to that effect for R.F. telling her that more packages were on the way and that she should use the alternative “driveway.”
R.F. saw the note the next day and attempted another delivery. However, cones still blocked the driveway and, while she could see the tracks through the field, she was unwilling to risk committing her vehicle and herself to potential hazards on the track.
Again she left delivery notice cards in the recipient’s community mailbox and, upon her return to the post office, explained her concerns and her decision to the Superintendent and to her shop steward.
R.F.’s failure to deliver the packages was noted by the supervisor who approached R.F. a few days later asking for an explanation. R.F. was not particularly communicative. She did not look up from her work and simply said that she had spoken to both the Superintendent and to her shop steward and that the supervisor should speak to them.
Disciplined for insubordination
The next day R.F. was given notice of an interview to discuss her failure to follow delivery procedures and her supervisor’s instructions. R.F. was assessed a one-day suspension without pay.
The union grieved.
The suspension was warranted, the employer said. R.F.’s failure to follow instructions and unwillingness to provide an explanation to her supervisor constituted insubordination. R.F. was given a clear, written order by a person in authority. As she had raised no health and safety concerns at the outset, R.F. was obliged to obey the instructions as given and grieve later if she wished.
The union argued that R.F. was prepared to use the alternate driveway as directed but judged that it was unsafe. It was unreasonable to expect R.F. to drive off-road, down an incline and through a field in order to make a delivery. She reported her concerns immediately to both her shop steward and to the Superintendent, who gave her no alternate instructions. There was no cause for discipline. At most, a letter to clarify expectations might be appropriate in this case where there was a communication breakdown.
Failure of communications, not insubordination
The Arbitrator agreed. “Insubordination is a willful act that requires clarity of communication between the person in authority giving lawful direction and the subordinate willfully disobeying the direction.”
In this case, the Arbitrator said, “there was a failure of adequate communications …”
The supervisor did not directly explain to R.F. how she had navigated the temporary driveway. The safety concerns that R.F. communicated to the Superintendent were not transmitted to the supervisor.
“I find that the written direction to achieve service delivery by using ‘another driveway beside the existing one’ was not a clear communication to [R.F.] to drive her personal vehicle off-road, down an incline and across a field even if it had tracks from whatever vehicle or vehicles the resident used. The expectation, its possible implications for [R.F.’s] vehicle and the method of access to and egress from the property was sufficiently unusual that it required greater explanation.”
The grievance was allowed.
