DECISION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Appellant, Jarvis Gray, a former employee of the House of Representatives Postal Operations (the “HPO”), lost his employment when HPO internal mail functions were taken over by a private contractor, Pitney Bowes Management Services (“PBMS”). Appellant claims that the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer (the “CAO”) of the House failed to provide him with adequate advance notice of his prospective termination, as required under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the “WARN Act”), as applied by section 205 of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (the “CAA”), 2 U.S.C. § 1315, and the Board’s implementing regulations. In particular, appellant argues on appeal that the distribution of a December 13, 1995 memorandum advising of the prospective take-over at a meeting of employees on December 13, 1995 did not constitute a reasonable method of delivery, within the meaning of the Board’s implementing regulations, and that the memorandum itself did not satisfy the requirements of the WARN Act, as applied by the CAA and the Board’s regulations. For the reasons set forth below, the Board affirms the Hearing Officer’s decision granting summary judgment against appellant.
In this case, the Hearing Officer concluded that, although the notice provided by the CAO omitted the expected date of the office closing and the expected date of the employees’ separation from employment, as required by section 639.7(d)(2) of the Board’s implementing regulations, the December 13, 1995 memorandum “substantially complied with the notice requirements of the WARN Act as incorporated in CAA § 205; any omissions of information normally required in such a notice were, under the circumstances here, minor, inadvertent errors which do not give rise to a violation.” Conclusion of Law No. 4 at 2. In Gerard J. Schmelzer v. Office of the Chief Administrative Officer (Case No. 96-HS-14 (WN), consolidated on appeal with Case Nos. 96- HS-05, 06, 09, 16, 18, 20, 26 (WN)) (hereinafter “Schmelzer”), the Board affirmed the Hearing Officer’s legal conclusion, reasoning that the December 13, 1995 memorandum substantially complied with the statute and regulations because “all appellants either knew the dates on which their employment with the House would terminate and PBMS would take over the functions of the HPO or attended a meeting that took place at least 60 days before the closing of the HPO, at which these dates were discussed. Thus, the notification purpose of the statute was satisfied despite the technical deficiencies in the December 13, 1995 memorandum.” Schmelzer at 14.
