[Previous entry] [Main Index] [Next entry]

04/20/2004 Entry: "Certified Interpreter Should Have Been Used for Safety Talk ((AIRS #40281 - K98C-IK-C 02029061)"

The Postal Service violated the National Agreement by failing to provide a certified interpreter for deaf and hard of hearing employees during training and safety talks concerning anthrax, according to a ruling by Arbitrator Roberts. The arbitrator ordered that management should cease and desist from using non-certified interpreters in the case of biochemical training and safety talks. He specified that volunteers may still be used in these instances so long as such individuals are certified.

This case arose in Charlottesville, Va. after the Postal Service instituted training and safety talks shortly after September 11, 2001 on procedures for addressing anthrax and other biochemicals. Management used volunteer interpreters who were not certified in signing to interpret these talks for deaf and hard of hearing employees. The union thereafter filed a grievance challenging the Postal Service’s failure to use certified interpreters in these instances.

The union argued that without certified interpreters, challenged employees cannot interact properly with management to obtain full information on the procedures related to anthrax, It asserted that this omission is very serious given the possibility of exposure to life threatening biochemicals. The union contended that management’s actions violated the Memorandum of Understanding on Reasonable Accommodation for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing. It requested that the Service be ordered to retain a certified interpreter on call to address formal training issues regarding all biochemical exposure.

The Postal Service countered that it did not violate the National Agreement. It asserted that it would be cost prohibitive to retain on call interpreters and it had the option under the MOU to use volunteer interpreters. Management contended also that there have not been any complaints from deaf or hard of hearing employees regarding the skills of the volunteer interpreter used in these instances, and therefore there is no proof that the interpretation was not done properly.

The arbitrator indicated that the MOU on Reasonable Accommodation for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing provides that “[e]very effort will be made to provide certified interpreters when deemed necessary by an application of the principles set forth herein.” He acknowledged that such a provision, read in conjunction with Article 3, indicates that management may pay for certified interpreters “but only when deemed necessary by Management.” However, Arbitrator Roberts stressed that “even within the confines of such absolute authority, the Agency is still under the obligation to make decisions that are neither arbitrary, capricious nor unreasonable.” “Their choice of option in this matter was clearly unreasonable, considering the circumstances of the matter,” he concluded.

In reaching this decision, he said that given the importance of the subject matter involved, the need to keep all employees informed about precautions to take in the event of biochemical threats, and the “primary intent” of Article 14, “it would only be incumbent upon the Employer to ensure every Postal Employee be provided reasonable accommodation toward full understanding of the various training sessions and talks the Service to employ a certified interpreter in such instances of this magnitude.” Accordingly, he ruled that the Postal Service’s actions constituted a “clear violation” of the MOU on Reasonable Accommodation for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing. He thus sustained the grievance.

Gary Kloepfer
Assistant Director "A"