APWU Los Angeles Local President has his hands full trying toconduct the Locals business and trying to eradicate the snakes in his administration. Local Executive Treasurer Chiezika” Chez” Nwanyanwu and Clerk Craft Director Charquita Rainey along with Headquarters National Officer Regional Coordinator Omar Gonzales have join forces to undermine President Davis ability to provide the membership with the type of representation the members demand, need and deserve by refusing to turn over the keys to the Local Union office.
Article 9 NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF OFFICERS
j. All current officers of the Local shall remain in office until9am April 6th of the election year and shall turn over all records, documents, property and instruments to their successors.
“Chez” recently contacted Bank of America where Local 64 hastheir accounts and told the bank officers that Dominic Davis is NOT the President even though the members elected him not once but twice in a rerun because the former President Vicki Toliver was not happy with the first results and petitioned for the rerun. This group of bandits have elected to hold The Greater Los Angeles Area Local 64 and its members hostage and have not allowed President Davis to bring in an independent CPA to examine the financial records of the Local.
There have been sizable expenditures that “Chez” has seen fit to use that have were not approved or voted on by the Local Executive Board under former President Vicki Toliver and the dues paying Union members. One being the relocation of theUnion office from Los Angeles to Torrance Ca. Many members still do not know the office has been moved.
Regional Coordinator Omar Gonzales has inserted himself in the local’s business stating he was given authority to do so by Washington Headquarters. What happened to Local Union offices business being autonomous?
Chez and Charquita Rainey as Union Officers voluntarily testified for Postal Management and committed pergury in sworn testimony against President Davis in Arbitration and Civil Court accusing him of threatening their lives and having him removed from his initial term as the local President in 2019. Both the Arbitrator and the Civil Court deemed their testimony as NOT being credible. Their slander and lies havecaused damage to the reputation of President Dominic Daviswith some the menbers.
President Davis is an Honorably discharged Veteran and their intentional deceitfulness could have sent him to jail for a lengthy period caused severe psychologically damaged to his minor daughter who was about 10 years old at the time who credibly testified to what she had seen and heard. “Out Of The Mouth of Babes”
These blatant lies by these two corrupt Union officers would have cost Davis his Postal employment had it not been for the on-site authenticated video camera footage and the excellent representation Dominic Davis received from APWU National Business Agent James Stevenson .
Regional Coordinator Omar Gonzalez was and is well aware of these two officers lies because he has seen the ruling, yet he still assist them intheir quest to deceive and lie to the
membership by filing multiple restraining orders against Davis as recently as last year regarding their lies in 2019 which the court dismissed
See excerpts from Arbitrator Najeeb N. Khoury opinion attached.
1 Regular Arbitration Panel
In the Matter of Arbitration GRIEVANT:Dominic Davis BETWEEN POST OFFICE: LANDC
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE USPSCase No:#1F-18T-1F-D 21037880 And APWU Case No:#N2C92320M
AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS UNION
-BEFORE: Najeeb NKhoury, Arbitrator APPEARANCES:
FOR THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE: Elias Villegas
Labor Relations
Los Angeles District
FOR THE UNION: JamesStevenson APWU National Business Agent
Place of Hearing: Los AngelesBulk Mail Center 5555 Bandini Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90201
Date of Hearing: July 19, 20 & August 24, 25, 2022
Date of Award: December 4, 2022
Relevant Contract Provision: Article 16.1 (Just Cause)
A. The Evidence Does Not Support Many Of The Postal Service’s FactualAllegations
The Notice of Proposed Advise Action contains many allegations that are not supported by a preponderance of theevidence. For instance, the notice alleges that Grievant said hewould kill Thompson. The only evidence on this point comes from the testimony of Rainey and Nwanyanwu, but I cannot credit their testimony.
Rainey, during an investigative interview, stated that Grievant initially brandished a knife. This was not accurate. Rainey alsostated that it was Grievant who told Thompson that Grievant had something for Thompson when in fact it was Thompson who told Grievant this. Rainey also testified that Grievant pointed the gun at Thompson and Nwanyanwu, which the video recording does not corroborate. For these reasons, I cannot credit Rainey’s testimony.
Similarly, Nwanyanwu stated the Grievant pointed the gun atNwanyanwu’s head, but the video evidence does not support this.
The video evidence also does not support Nwanyanwu’stestimony that Grievant had the gun pointed towards Thompson. For these reasons, I cannot credit Nwanyanwu’s testimony. It is the Postal Service that bears the burden ofshowing there is credible evidence supporting the conclusion that Grievant stated he would kill Thompson. Such credible evidence is lacking.
The Notice of Proposed Adverse Action also alleges the following events occurred, which are not supported by theevidence: that only Nwanyanwu and the LAPD preventedGrievant from committing a murder; that Grievant brandished a gun (as opposed to having it pointing downwards); that theincident happened on a public street; that Grievant threatened tobeat up Thompson and was the instigator of the incident; and that Grievant pointed the gun at Thompson and Nwanyanwu.
The Letter of Decision—Removal alleges that Grievant wasattempting to escalate the situation by asking Thompson to take the conversation outside, and that Grievant exhibit maliciousness in asking Thompson to go outside. The evidence supports a finding that Grievant was trying to get the conversation away from his daughter, not that he was trying to escalate the situation.
The Letter of Decision—Removal also concludes that any disagreement with Grievant can “escalate to you threatening tokill.” Ex 72. As discussed below, the evidence does not support such a conclusion.
B. The Evidence Does Not Support A Finding That Grievant Made Inappropriate Comments to Rainey
I cannot make a finding that there is credible evidence that, at any point before August 16, 2019, Grievant made anyinappropriate comments to Rainey. The only evidence on this comes from Rainey’s testimony, and as mentioned above, her testimony is not reliable.
Concerned member
