F. F. D. Rules Changed Unilaterally by USPS

By: Stephen A. Albanese 
NBA - Boston / Northeast Region, APWU
2 Electronics Avenue, S. 38
Danvers, MA 01923 - 978/777-8692

The Postal Service issued a management instruction on September 28, 2000 that makes major changes in the Fitness for Duty (FFD) process. This new instruction now completely replaces and rewrites Section 160 of the EL 806 Handbook. The resulting changes are dramatic. The authority to request Fitness for Duty exams has been given to line supervisors through the use of form 2492. This new form replaces form 2485 in the FFD procedure. The effect of this new form is to essentially remove the installation head from the FFD process and give considerable control to line supervisors when initiating such an action. In addition, a whole range of subjective standards have been introduced which now serve as a basis for questioning a workers physical and mental ability to perform their duties.

The following is a list of factors that a supervisor can consider when deciding whether or not to send an employee for a Fitness for Duty exam:

*significant increases in unscheduled absences
*increased bathroom use
*changes in behavior or work performance after lavatory or lunch breaks
*general changes in behavior toward fellow employees
*deterioration in personal hygiene and/or cleanliness of the work location
*inattention to work duties and progressive deterioration in concentration and memory
*threatening behavior

Supervisors can also impose emergency Fitness for Duty exams if an employee becomes argumentative, or shows an unusual interest in news stories or literature dealing with violence. Everything I've covered thus far is certainly concerning but I was even more alarmed when I read new instructions dealing with disclosure of an employee's medical history.

Under these new guidelines medical officials conducting the FFD exam can demand written responses from individuals when questioned during their medical assessment. The examining physician can also require the employee report any current or past physical, mental, or psychological conditions. In reading these modifications one has to be concerned about the broad range of authority being handed to supervisors. One also has to be alarmed at the wide unrestrained authority examining physicians have in delving into a worker's medical past.

The Postal Service attempted to issue these changes a year ago but after meeting with the Unions agreed to pull the changes back. Now, without any formal notice, they have re-issued the instructions to the field as originally proposed. Greg Bell, the Director of Industrial Relations, advised me that there is a challenge to these new instructions and it is likely that a Step 4 will be filed if they are not withdrawn.

Stewards, officers, and members must be vigilant in defending workers who may be impacted by these changes. Some legal issues regarding a worker's medical privacy may surface, particularly if an over aggressive medical examiner comes into the picture. Our best strategy at this point is to get clear evidence on the event or events that led to the FFD exam. If a specific medical condition is at the root of the dispute steps should be taken to see that only medical evidence relating to that condition gets released. Any efforts to open up an employee's medical past must be challenged as being an unnecessary and unwarranted invasion of the worker's medical privacy.

Fitness for Duty exams have been a problem in the past, now with these changes I suspect new challenges will face Union advocates in protecting the membership. It would be wise for officers, stewards, and members to get a copy of this September 28, 2000 management instruction to review the FFD exam procedure changes being implemented by the USPS. Bear in mind these procedures are under challenge at the national level but management is likely to start using these new guidelines while our challenge progresses.