For example, 22,753 postal employee injuries occurred while "handling material or equipment." 10,180 occurred "striking against material or equipment." Almost 9,000 were dog bites. Many in the category of "stepping on or in, falling, slipping, twisting,' 10,600, were undoubtedly caused while crossing lawns under threat of discipline if the carrier does not cross the lawn. In this category of slip and fall injuries, the most important cause relates to the insistence of postal management that the carrier "finger his mail" while he walks his route. This means the carrier's eyes are on the mail in his hand and not on the walkway, the lawn, the curb or the steps he is walking on. Clearly, he is susceptible to slips and falls because of this unsafe work requirement.

Additionally, the increased pressure on carriers to deliver longer routes in a shorter time causes them to speed their pace and risk the consequent injuries from lack of attention to hazard.

Some of those hazards are difficult to minimize, such as attacks by dogs. Many hazards, however, could be reduced if you were to insist on an intensive campaign of compliance on the part of USPS with employee safety standards. The overcrowded, dimly-lit, poorlyventilated work areas so common in the Postal Service are an invitation to work injury.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I also wish to dispel any doubts as to our confidence in the Washington administrators of the OWCP. I do not suggest to you that the administration of this important program has been without massive problems. To the contrary. The delays and confusion surrounding the handling and disposition of our members' claims have been intolerable. But at least at the Washington level, we have found the administrators to be competent and responsive. Much of the blame for the obvious inadequacies in this program comes from a lack of personnel to administer it in the field.

I understand that Congress is recognizing this problem and will provide additional help to speed up processing of injury claims. We believe that will be helpful.

I do suggest, Mr. Chairman, that a great part of the problem lies with the agency that has the initial role of examining and approving injury claims. In our case, the USPS has obviously adopted a negative and punitive attitude toward injury claims. In their zeal to cut costs of this program, they have embarked on a conscious course of discouraging legitimate injury claims by denial, delay, threats and intimidation.

An insistence that USPS administer the Compensation Act properly and evenly would go a long way to satisfying some of the more outrageous problems our injured members are now experiencing.

We are convinced that there is a determined policy within USPS to cut down on the number of injury claims by imposing additional requirements on claimants beyond those of the Compensation Act. We have files on USPS delays of as long as three months in beginning the processing of injury claims. In addition, USPS has even altered unilaterally ÖWCP claim forms, such as the printover form CA 17. The USPS on August 2, 1976, issued a directive to all Akron, Ohio, sectional center employees entitled "Responsibilities of Employee Reporting on-the-job Injuries and Claim for Wage Contribution."

As an example of intimidation, this form states: "Late reporting of injuries beyond the day of injury will be cause for disciplinary action." Further, with regard to filling out forms reporting the injury, USPS directed employees they must fill out form CA-1 "while arrangements are being made with the doctor or hospital and transportation."

This directive permits pursuant to law the employee to choose his physician "as long as they can be seen by the physician on the day of injury." Further qualifying this legal choice of physician is the requirement that "the employee's physician will be contacted by the supervisor and the appointment will be scheduled (by the supervisor)." If the injury is not reported on the day of occurrence, besides being subject to disciplinary action, the "treatment will be marked 'B', indicating the possibility of the injury not being workrelated."

A more clear example of intimidation and coercion designed to prevent filing of injury claims would be difficult to find.

It is possible postal management in Miami has found even a stronger method of intimidation to prevent injured employees from filing claims. When management deems an employee has experienced "excessive on-the-job injuries," then management coerces the suspect employee to "voluntarily" request a transfer into another craft or face disciplinary charges. Obviously an employee facing such a threat will be inclined not to pursue his injury claim.

Our files also reflect the following examples of USPS efforts to prevent prompt payment of worker injury claims:

An insistence on physical exams while on 45-day continuance of pay.

Refusal to permit injured employees to file for compensation until they file a grievance.

Refusals to permit letters carriers to use a doctor of their choice when injured.

Referral to doctor unlicensed in state of injury.

Delay in the submission of claim forms to regional OWCP offices. Refusal and delay in providing injured employees with necessary forms to file claims.

USPS calls to employees' doctors questioning them as to their diagnoses and seeking their approval of light duty assignments for injured employees.

Further examples of intimidation of injured employees on the part of USPS are similarly reflected in our files:

A carrier suffering from back injuires was ordered to report for duty. His duty was to sit in a straight-back chair and read a book on safety. After four hours of pain he was permitted to go home, but was ordered to appear the next morning.

Charges of "failure to follow instructions" are being brought against injured carriers as discipline for filing their claims.

A proposed removal letter was given a carrier who was unable to report for duty after submitting evidence of a total disability.

Step increases have been denied "for failure to maintain standards" for injured workers on light duty.

These are, I fear, only the tip of the iceberg of abuses by USPS in administering their function under the Compensation Act. If delays and abuses in the administration of this valuable program are to be finally eliminated, you must start at the beginning. Correct the abuses of USPS in harassing, intimidating and delaying the claims of injured workers. Insist USPS provide a safe climate for its

workers.

When you have accomplished that, the delays in processing these claims that exist elsewhere in the system will be more readily prevented.

The addition of more OWCP staff people should be of great help. If Congress can cause all involved in implementing this desirable program to adopt the philosphy of the Act; namely, an injured worker is entitled to a prompt and just disposition of his claim, most of the problems will become manageable. That understanding, unfortunately, is clearly absent from USPS and, sadly, is not clearly present in the field administrators of OWCP.

Whatever you decide to do about these problems, I urge you not to blame injured workers for the deficiencies of the program. Their individual problems, as a result of their injuries, have been greatly aggravated by the real problems of this program-maladministration and a conscious effort on the part of USPS to prevent the injured workers from receiving the benefits of the Act.

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting us to testify before you this morning.

Mr. GAYDOS. In behalf of the committee, President Vacca, I want to thank you for being patient and for submitting your statement. Mr. Le Fante?

Mr. LE FANTE. Please go first.

Mr. GAYDOS. Thank you.

We amended the Act in 1974. You made general reference to the resultant improvements. Could you be more specific?

Mr. VACCA. Without a doubt the 45-day continuance of pay was the most important. Because of the delays even at the time in adjudicating the claim, that was the most important part of the Act. Mr. GAYDOS. May I interrupt you right there?

We had other witnesses testify to the effect that the claims have substantially increased. One of the witnesses suggested that the 45day period was the primary reason for that type of increase. Do you have any ideas along those lines?

Mr. VACCA. There could be an increase and there would be an increase, because there is a continuance of pay by the agency under the law. Prior to that, if the employee was injured, he realized if he filed a claim and had to wait for payment, he would be on lost time until such time as that would be paid. So they did not file a claim,

they worked without it; they worked while they were injured, and in many cases used their sick leave and annual leave to be able to continue to receive paychecks every couple of weeks.

So if it has increased, it has only increased because really and truthfully the obligation belongs to the government to take care of the employee when he gets injured, not his own sick leave or annual leave or go on lost time to wait for his claim to be adjudicated. That is the reason for the increase.

Mr. GAYDOS. What about the accusation that any time you need a 45-day respite from your work, you just go through the technical aspect of suffering from an injury and getting 45 days' pay? Do you think there is any merit to that?

Mr. VACCA. That sounds like the United States Postal Service testifying.

Mr. GAYDOS. As president, you see no substance to that?

Mr. VACCA. No, I do not. In a program as large as this, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Le Fante, you are absolutely bound to have some cases of abuse. However, the agency and the government certainly should not use a shotgun approach to resolve those abuses; they should discuss the matter with the abusers.

Mr. GAYDOS. Do you know whether the Postal Service employees use a safety officer as such or someone else who would substitute in that capacity? Have you ever heard of a postal safety officer? Mr. VACCA. Oh, yes, sure.

Mr. GAYDOS. How do they employ him? Is he employed by a region or is he employed by a post office unit or does he float around? What is a post office safety employee's job supposed to be?

Mr. VACCA. Mr. Chairman, they have safety officers at the national levels, the headquarters levels, supposedly at the local levels; I doubt at the district levels. I do not know what their qualifications are to appoint or promote safety officers. I would hope they were competent people. However, irrespective of their competence, safety officers in the Federal Government, especially in the United States Postal Service, absolutely have no authority whatsover.

In private industry, a safety officer in a plant, if he saw something out of line, could shut down a complete line of machines until that safety hazard was corrected. In the United Stats Postal Service that is not the case.

Mr. GAYDOS. In other words, it is safe then to conclude, Mr. President, that as far as the current efficacy or the affirmative aspect of a safety officer is concerned, the Postal Service today does not enjoy that type of a situation because there are not that many around; or if they are around, you do not see much evidence of their action. Is that an accurate appraisal of the situation?

Mr. VACCA. Over the years, and 16 years as a national officer in the National Association of Letter Carriers and as an active letter carrier for 13 years, I have to say that I have met many safety officers at all levels who are competent people, who desire to do the job, but the almighty cost to the Postal Service-it is not "safety at any cost," it is "deliver the mail at any cost."

Mr. GAYDOS. In your capacity-

Mr. VACCA. Substitute safety; not at any cost, because they are saving a lot of money.

Mr. GAYDOS. Have you ever seen any kind of a brochure, rule, regulation, bulletin board notice regarding a safety procedure or rule? Does that occur within the Postal Service?

Mr. VACCA. Yes. In fact, I have been on many safety committees, labor-management committees, where we have discussed safety over the years. But they give a lot of lip service to safety is really what I am saying.

Mr. GAYDOS. Are they effective?

If I understand you correctly, and I am trying to get an accurate picture, if they do have safety officers and if they do have some functions, or assigned duties, and they do have meetings with the employees' representatives, what is the aftermath of those meetings?

Is there a uniform type of rule or regulation that is mutually adopted to make the workplace safer? Is it a hit-or-miss affair? Does someone care or do they not care? Does it involve the necessity of the employees who are represented by a union to make their own safety rules and habits?

Mr. VACCA. Safety rules, as you read them, Mr. Chairman, as you go through meetings, are excellent. They are good, they talk about them, but when it gets down to the workplace, to getting the job done, the coercion done to get the job performed is what causes the accidents and the problems with our people.

As far as I am concerned, only the safety people within the safety department are interested in safety.

Mr. GAYDOS. I yield to Mr. Le Fante.

Mr. LEFANTE. Mr. President, on page 4 of your prepared testimony, and this is along the lines that the Chairman is pursuing in his questioning, the second sentence on page 4, you say:

"Many hazards, however, could be reduced if you were to insist on an intensive campaign of compliance on the part of the USPS with employee safety standards.'

I think that is what the Chairman is trying to get at. You made specific reference to employee safety standards, so my first question is how were these standards created? Where did they come from? Who is the author of them? Is it by mutual concern of the employees and employer, and to what extent do they implement them to educate the employees as to what the standards may be?

Mr. VACCA. The standards are devised at the national level with the Safety Division, discussed with the employee organizations, and then filtered down to the regional and to the local levels where our contract calls for safety committees to be created and to look the workplace over for safety features. That is the makeup of how those are done.

Mr. LEFANTE. Is it a mutual endeavor by the employer and employee?

Mr. VACCA. As far as creating safety standards?

Mr. LEFANTE. Yes.

Mr. VACCA. No. That is done by management.

94-539 O- 78-8