Discharge for Off-Duty Conduct
Problem and Issue Identification
Charles Lee was discharged from the Postal Service on March 4, 2011. According to the notice of removal, the reason for discharge was his conviction of a conspiracy to acquire financing. This offense was determined by Title 18 USC § 371, Conspiracy to Commit an Offense or to Defraud the United States (Holley et al, 2011). The employer stated that Lee failed to disclose all required information and obtained unlawful mortgage financing. The Union had filed the grievance on March 16, 2011, and it was denied and appealed. After that, the grievance was appealed to arbitration. It may be assumed that Lee was discharged without just cause and no nexus was represented between his workplace and the criminal conduct.
The major overriding issue of this case is whether Charles Lee’s removal was for just cause. The sub-issues needed to be outlined are whether any nexus between Lee’s workplace and the crime presented and whether his removal was procedurally correct. The case also raises the issue of burden of proving the cause for the removal and whether the Postal Service proved that Lee’s removal was for just cause.
Analysis and Evaluation
Under the general rule, the employee may be discharged for off-duty conduct if the employee is engaged in dishonest, criminal, notoriously immoral or disgraceful conduct. The conviction of any crime may be ground for any disciplinary action up to discharge, according to sec. 2635.101 (a) of the Standards for Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (U.S. Office of Government Ethics, 2016; as cited by Holley et al, 2011). However, in disciplinary cases, including discharge, the employer has the burden of proof that the discharge did not violate the contract standard for just cause (The American Bar Association, 2016). Moreover, the Postal Service failed to demonstrate the “nexus” between Lee’s crime and employment. According to arbitration case, referenced by the Union, the Postal Service must demonstrate a nexus between employer’s criminal conduct and employment. For example, it should determine whether the off-duty conduct had an adverse impact on operations, efficiency, personnel, or property of the employer (Holley et al, 2011). Moreover, the employer must prove some harm to the public, employees or to employer itself caused by the employer’s misconduct.
The major stakeholders affected by this case are the Postal Service as an employer, Lee as an employee, and the Union as an employee’s representative. The customers of the Postal Service are indirectly affected by the case as well. Thus, the Postal Service seeks to protect its operations, efficiency, trust, and the interests of its customers, while the Union and Lee seek to defend employee’s right not to be unreasonably and unlawfully discharged. The Postal Service has a right to discharge Lee for his criminal conduct, but it has to prove the nexus between his employment and the crime, as well as to prove that his termination was for just cause.
The Union addressed the employer’s argument …
