There is attached to defendant's original brief (Docket Paper No. 4) the Minutes of a staff meeting called by Order of the Regional Director, D. A. Myers, on Monday, August 19, 1957, at 12:55 p.m. Present at that meeting, among others, were Regional Director Myers and District Manager Moon. The unequivocal direction was made by Regional Director Myers at that meeting, as recorded in the Minutes, (Exhibit 'E') -- 'In the future District Managers will sign all disciplinary actions including removals.' This determination was recorded in a report of changes made September 4, 1957, (Exhibit 'F'), as follows:
'2. Delegation of authority to District Postal Manager to take disciplinary action including removal and suspension in excess of 14 days.
'Before: Letters of Decision on all penalties beyond 14 days or less Suspension were signed by Regional Operations Manager, except in Postal Districts where Regional Director signed.
'Now: Letters of Decision, except in the post offices at Philadelphia, Newark and Pittsburgh, are now signed by the District Postal Manager (reprimands and 14 days or less suspensions not included).'
By Memorandum of October 15, 1957 (Exhibit 'G'), the delegation of authority was expressly confirmed in writing to the District Postal Manager of New Jersey and Philadelphia by the Regional Director, D. A. Myers.
Plaintiff, despite the foregoing, contends that this is only a delegation of authority by implication and cites in support thereof the case of Zirin v. McGinnes, 1960, 282 F.2d 113, 116, wherein the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit specifically rejected any delegation of authority by implication. In that case, the power delegated was 'to approve all personnel actions affecting appointments, reinstatements, promotions and transfers.' Plaintiff argues that the effect of that decision which relies on Iselin v. United States, 270 U.S. 245, 46 S. Ct. 248, 70 L. Ed. 566, clearly demonstrates that absent a direct delegation, the Court should reject the government's contention in this case and conclude that the present discharge was beyond the authority of the District Postal Manager. The fallacy of that argument rests in the assumption that the powers delegated by the Secretary of the Treasury in the Zirin case and those delegated in the instant case are identical. Here the power delegated -- 'review and disposition of disciplinary actions' -- encompasses much broader authority than in Zirin and includes the right to discharge, and does not merely imply it as the plaintiff contends. However, plaintiff further contends that since the action taken by the District Director was 'prior to the formal confirmation in writing of the District Director', it is therefore a nullity and ineffective. He argues that the oral delegation of August 19, 1957 is ineffective, as is likewise the determination there made reduced to writing on September 4, 1957 and forwarded to the Regional Personnel Manager.
I know of no statutory provision and none has been brought to my attention which requires more formality than is here present, to wit: written minutes of the meeting of August 19, 1957, and the written confirmation thereof on September 4, 1957. The Regional Director was empowered by proper delegation to determine who should act in the case of removals and having properly done so, plaintiff cannot complain in the absence of statutory regulation that it was not done in any particular manner. Although it is not necessary for decision on this point, it is a matter of interest that plaintiff's removal was effective as of October 28, 1957, and not as of October 8, 1957, as he now contends.
In summary, the Court is of the opinion that the documents here submitted sufficiently vest power in the Regional Director to establish proper rules and regulations with respect to disciplinary actions and removals within the framework of the authority delegated to him. that he has done so properly and according to law and regulations appears clearly from the record submitted. The defendant's motion for summary judgment, therefore, must be granted.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.