Mailhandlers Local 306 - Palatine (United States Postal Service)

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Dec 3, 2010

13-CB-019292 (N.L.R.B. Dec. 3, 2010)

JD(NY)–49-10
Palatine, IL
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
NEW YORK BRANCH OFFICE
NATIONAL POSTAL MAIL HANDLERS UNION
LOCAL 306 (U.S. POSTAL SERVICE)
and Case Nos. 13-CB-19292-P
13-CB-19414-P
ANITA HATCHER, An Individual 13-CB-19471-P
and
KENNY REED, An Individual
Helen Gutierrez, Esq., Counsel for the General Counsel.
Barry Bennett, Esq., Dowd, Bloch & Bennett, Counsel for the Respondent.
Empress Queen Akefe Muzari:El, for Charging Party Reed.
Kenny Reed, for Charging Party Hatcher.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
Joel P. Biblowitz, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard by me in Chicago,
Illinois on October 12, 2010. The Consolidated Amended Complaint herein, which issued on
September 13, 2010, was based upon unfair labor practice charges, as well as an amended
charge, that were filed by Anita Hatcher and Kenny Reed on October 9, 20091, March 15, 2010,
April 12, 2010, and June 11, 2010. The Complaint alleges, and National Postal Mail Handlers
Union Local 306, herein called the Respondent or the Union, admits that the Respondent has
been the exclusive collective bargaining representative of all full-time and regular part-time mail
handlers within the Respondent’s jurisdiction employed by the U.S. Postal Service, herein called
the Employer, but excluding all office clerical employees, professional employees, managerial
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. The Respondent further admits that
the collective bargaining agreement covering the unit contains a grievance and arbitration
procedure and that Charging Parties Hatcher and Reed, as well as DeAnne Kindle, have been
employed in the unit and have been members of the Union, and that in 2007, 2008 and 2009,
Hatcher, Reed and Kindle filed grievances against the Employer, that they requested that the
Union provide them with copies of their grievances and the documents and/or attachments
related to the grievances, but that the Union failed and refused to provide them with these
requested documents, in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. The Union denies each of
these latter allegations.
I. Jurisdiction
The Employer provides postal services throughout the United States, including its facility
in Palatine, Illinois, the only facility involved herein, and the Board has jurisdiction over the
Employer by virtue of Section 1209 of the Postal Reform Act of 1970. The Respondent admits,

1 Unless indicated otherwise, all dates referred to herein relate to the year 2009.
JD(NY)–49-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
and I find that the Employer is now, and has been at all times material herein, an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.
II. Labor Organization Status
The Respondent admits, and I find, that it has been a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. The Facts
Jefferson Peppers is the president of the Respondent and Yulande Robinson is the
president of the Palatine branch; Manuella Clay and Sandra Toney are stewards at the Palatine
branch location, although the Complaint does not allege Toney to be an agent of the Union.
Kindle testified that she filed a grievance against the Employer in about March 2010. She went
to the Union office at the facility, told Toney about the situation that she was complaining about,
Toney gave her a form, and she filled out the grievance and returned it to Toney. About two
weeks later she returned to the Union room at the facility and saw Toney and Clay and told
them that she needed a copy of the attachment to the grievance. She testified that Toney said
that she didn’t know what grievance she was referring to, and Kindle said that she was referring
to the grievance that she filed with her about two weeks earlier. Toney said that she should
check with Union steward Joslyn Cole2, who might know about it, but when she spoke to her,
Cole told Kindle that she wasn’t aware of the grievance. Kindle testified that she never received
the attachments to the grievance that she requested, and never repeated her requests for the
documents. Toney testified that when employees file grievances with the Union together with
witness statements or other documents attached to the grievance, they are entitled to copies of
these documents simply by asking for them. However, Ms. Kindle never asked her for
documents related to any of her grievances. Clay also testified that employees who file
grievances through the Union are entitled to copies of their statements or decisions in the matter
by asking her for them; other documents must be requested from Peppers at Union
headquarters. Clay further testified that Kindle never asked her for copies of documents from
her grievances. Robinson similarly testified that if a member wanted witness statements that
they provided in a grievance, or a denial decision by the Employer, he/she would be entitled to
that information, and if the member simply wanted to look at the file, the member would be
entitled do so. If they wanted other items, they would have to request it from Peppers at
headquarters. She also testified that Kindle never asked her for copies of grievance documents
or for an opportunity to look at her grievance documents. Peppers testified that he has never
spoken to Kindle about any request to obtain grievance related documents.
Reed filed a grievance with the Union in about July 2008 in the presence of Hatcher and
some other employees. He filed it in the Union office and gave it to Toney, Clay and Robinson.
When he did not hear anything from the Union about the status of the grievance he began
asking for the result of the grievance, but received no response from the Union. He then asked
for attachments from the grievance, but the Union never gave him those documents. In the Fall
of 2009 Robinson told he and Hatcher to come to the Union office at the facility and she told
Clay to show them the documents that they were requesting, and Clay showed them a
document dated November 17, 2008, signed by Virdell Head, a labor relations specialist for the
Employer, entitled Step 2 Decision, stating that the grievance was denied. He and Hatcher
asked for a copy of that Decision, but Robinson refused, saying that they would have to get it
from Head, and Reed called Head and asked if she could give him a copy of the Decision. Reed

2 Cole is not named in the Complaint and did not testify at the hearing.
JD(NY)–49-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
gave two affidavits to the Board about this matter, one in late 2009, and the other in about
September 2010; the first affidavit does not refer to Ms. Head, and the affidavits do not say that
the Union told them to contact Head; they say that he and Hatcher decided to do so on their
own. The affidavit also states that after they asked for the Decision, Clay said that they would
have to call Peppers, Reed called him, but he was not in the office, and she then gave them the
Decision to read.3 Toney, Clay and Robinson each testified that Reed has never asked them for
any documents related to any grievances. Peppers testified that he has never spoken to Reed
about any request to obtain documents.
Hatcher ran for the branch president against Robinson in 2004 and 2007, losing the
election on both occasions. In addition, she was running against Robinson, again, for branch
president in October 2010. She was a Union steward for one year beginning in September
2000. She testified that she filed grievances in May 2007 with Robinson, Clay and Toney, but
she was never informed of the result of these grievances and never received anything from the
Union regarding the grievances. She never even received copies of the grievances themselves,
even though she requested copies. She testified further that, in July 2008, she went to the
Union office with Reed to file grievances. The testimony regarding the July 2008 grievances is
difficult to follow. She testified that she was never given a copy of the grievance, but when
asked whether she ever learned the outcome of the grievance, she testified: “Yes, I believe I
did.” She testified that she learned of the outcome in the Union office at the facility, but it is
unclear if this occurred a month later or a year later. She also testified that she and Reed went
to the Union office in the Fall of 2009 where they met with Robinson, Toney and Clay. Hatcher
asked where were her grievances and they responded: “what grievances?” After Hatcher
identified the grievances, Toney said that they didn’t have anything. Hatcher said that she
wanted to get a copy, and Clay said that Step 1 was denied. Hatcher asked to get a copy of the
Step 2, and she said that they could read it, and they gave her Head’s November 17, 2008 Step
2 Decision discussed above. She asked for a copy of this Decision, but they said that she would
have to get it from Head. A few days later, she and Reed again went to the Union office and,
again, asked for the Decision. Robinson and Clay told her that she would have to talk to
Peppers, and tried to call him, but they told Hatcher that he was not in the office. Hatcher tried
to call Peppers several times and left messages for him with his secretary, but he never
returned her calls.4 The only document that she received from the Union pursuant to these
requests was Head’s November 17, 2008 Step 2 Decision.
More troubling, is Hatcher’s testimony regarding her cross craft grievance. Counsel for
the Union showed her a letter dated April 6, 2010 that Peppers wrote to her. The subject of the
letter is stated as “Cross Craft” and the letter states:
This is to advise that the following action has been taken in regards to the above cited
grievance.
The Postal Service has rendered an unfavorable decision at Step 3 and the Union is

3 Although Reed’s affidavit also states that he never campaigned for or against anyone
running for Union office, he has campaigned for Hatcher when she ran for branch office
president.
4 On cross examination, Hatcher again testified that she never spoke to Peppers. However,
in her affidavit to the Board, she states: “…I called headquarters for Local 306 and talked to
Jefferson Peppers the president of the local’s secretary and he ultimately gave the okay to
release it.” Eventually, she testified that “for that one particular grievance,” she spoke to
Pepper’s secretary, and received Head’s Decision.
JD(NY)–49-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
reviewing the grievance for possible arbitration. Although all cases are reviewed for
possible arbitration, additional documentation and/or consultation must be made to
thoroughly review all aspects of this instant grievance.
If you have any questions, please contact this office.
She was shown the letter and was asked:
Q. Is this a letter you received from the Union?
A. No, sir.
Q. You never received that letter?
A. No.
She was then shown her affidavit that states that the Employer denied the grievance, but the
Union sent her a letter stating that it was reviewing the grievance for possible arbitration. Upon
her request, she was shown her affidavit and, again, was asked:
Q. Now, with that in mind, I would like you to look again at Exhibit 1 and is that the letter
you’re referring to in that affidavit?
A. No.
Q. Okay, what letter were you referring to? What type of letter were you referring to in
your affidavit?
A. I would have to see my affidavit.
Hatcher was then asked what other letter she could have received from the Union that referred
to the arbitration, and she testified: “That could possibly be it.”
Q. And I’m saying you first said that you never got any such letter.
A. I remember. I remember now.
Q. You remember seeing his letter?
A. Yes, yes.
Toney testified that in about early 2009 Hatcher asked her if there was any final
determination in the scanning grievance that she filed and Toney told her that the Union did not
have jurisdiction over scanning; clerks and mail handlers can both scan, but the Union was
thinking of taking the issue to the national level for more clarity on the issue. Hatcher asked for a
copy of the settlement and Toney gave it to Clay, the chief steward, who gave it to Hatcher.
Toney testified that was the only occasion that Hatcher asked for any documents regarding her
scanning grievance. Clay testified that on one occasion Hatcher called her while she was in the
Union office and asked her for a copy of a denial of an outsourcing grievance that she had filed;
Clay told her to come to the Union office and she would give her a copy, which she did. On
another occasion, Hatcher and Reed came into the Union office and asked for a copy of a
denial of a 2008 grievance involving the alleged outsourcing of mail handler’s work, denying
JD(NY)–49-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
them overtime. Clay obtained the denial dated November 17, 2008, and gave it to Hatcher. She
testified that she never refused to give Hatcher a grievance document that she requested.
Sometime after these events, she received a telephone call from Hatcher saying that she
needed a copy of the denial letter referred to above. Clay told her that she already gave her a
copy of it and Hatcher said that she lost it, and Clay gave her another copy of the denial.
Robinson testified that in about 2007 Hatcher was discharged by the Employer and filed
a grievance with the Union challenging the discharge. (The grievance was successful and she
was returned to work.) Hatcher asked Robinson for a copy of the case file and Robinson told
her that she would have to call the then Union President, Hardy Williams at the Union
headquarters. While Hatcher was in the office, Robinson called Williams and told him of
Hatcher’s request and asked if she could give Hatcher the case file. Williams asked if Hatcher
provided a statement and Robinson said that she had, and Williams said that she could give her
a copy of the statement. Williams then asked if there was a decision on the grievance, and
Robinson said that there was, and Williams said that Hatcher could be given the decision, but
that Hatcher would have to call him for any other documents from the file.
Peppers testified to the procedure employed by the Union when employees request
grievance documents from the Union. The Union has approximately four thousand members
and about one hundred stewards in the facilities that it covers. In a typical year, the Union has
approximately one thousand grievances that reach Step 2, and each of those grievances
generate from ten to thirty documents. Among the documents generated by these grievances
are some that Peppers referred to as “sensitive.” Examples of such documents or information
are employees’ medical records, social security numbers, addresses and telephone numbers,
statements by fellow employees or stewards with an unfavorable opinion of the grievant’s work
record or, on the other hand, something positive about the employee from a supervisor who
wouldn’t want the Employer to learn of what he/she said. Peppers testified that rather than leave
it to the one hundred stewards to decide subjectively which documents can be released, the
Union has maintained a rule that other than the grievance itself, statements provided by the
grievant, or decisions regarding the grievance, all other information has to be requested from
him at the Union’s headquarters in order for there to be some uniformity in providing documents
to grievants and other members:
I got 100 and some odd stewards out there. You have some stewards who may…give
stuff away that’s sensitive. There are some stewards who may not want to give any
information that I’d be willing to release. So, it’s just a matter of…being consistent and
being able to release what we think…they’re entitled to…We try to train people and we
try to give them enough knowledge to have some discretion and be able to look at things
and make some common sense discussions [sic].
Peppers testified further that this policy is not in writing and has never been communicated to
the Union membership. He testified that neither Kindle, Reed, nor Hatcher has spoken to him
about releasing grievance documents to them.
IV. Analysis
The Consolidated Complaint alleges that since about November 2009, the Union failed
and refused to provide Hatcher with copies of her grievances and other grievance related
documents that she requested, since about September 2009, failed and refused to provide
Reed with copies of his grievances and other grievance related documents that he requested,
and since about April or May 2009, failed and refused to provide Kindle with documents or
attachments related to grievances that she filed, in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
JD(NY)–49-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
Although the Union’s policy that has Peppers “vetting’ what appears to be sensitive information
has never been communicated to the Union membership, that is not alleged herein to violate the
Act, although it would certainly be preferable if the membership were aware of it.
In Branch 529, National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO, 319 NLRB 879 (1995),
the Board found that the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by refusing to
provide the charging party with copies of her grievance forms that she had requested. In making
this finding, the Board (at p. 881) specifically found that (1) the requested grievance documents
specifically pertained to her grievance; (2) her interest in obtaining these documents was self
evident; (3) her legitimate interest in obtaining copies of these documents was effectively and
reasonably communicated to the union; (4) the union raised no substantial countervailing
interest in refusing to give her the documents; and (5) the number of documents requested was
extremely limited and would not have placed a heavy burden upon the union. In National
Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO, 328 NLRB 952 (1999), and Local 1657, United Food &
Commercial Workers, AFL-CIO, 340 NLRB 329 (2003), the Board also found that the
respondent unions violated the Act by refusing to provide the employees with the requested
grievance documents. What is present in the instant matter, but was lacking in the above cited
cases, is credibility issues.
I found Hatcher and Reed to be lacking in credibility. It is not because Hatcher (with
Reed’s assistance) may have had an “agenda” here of embarrassing the Union to assist her
candidacy against Robinson for branch president. She has an absolute right to run for any union
office that she wishes without compromising her right to obtain relevant information from the
Union. Rather, I find that, at times, her testimony, as well as that of Reed, was not believable
and conflicted with statements that she, as well as Reed, made in affidavits that they gave to the
Board. On the other hand, I found Toney, Clay, Robinson and Peppers to be credible witnesses
whose testimony was straightforward and believable. They testified that Reed never requested
any documents from them, and whatever documents Hatcher requested, she was given, and I
credit that testimony. Because I do not credit the testimony of Reed and Hatcher when it
conflicts with the Respondent’s witnesses, I find it unnecessary to determine whether their
requests comply with the factors enumerated in Local 529, supra. I therefore recommend that
the allegations regarding Hatcher and Reed be dismissed.
The situation is different with Kindle who, like Toney, Clay, Robinson and Peppers,
appeared to be testifying in a direct and truthful manner. She testified that about two weeks after
filing her grievance with Toney, she asked Toney and Clay for a copy of the grievance, and
Toney said that she didn’t know what grievance she was referring to, but that Kindle should
speak to steward Cole, who might know about it. When she asked Cole about it, she told Kindle
that she was not aware of the grievance that she was referring to. Kindle never obtained the
documents that she requested, and never repeated her request to Toney, Clay or Robinson,
who each testified that Kindle never requested grievance documents from them. I recommend
that the Complaint allegation regarding Kindle be dismissed, not because she was lacking in
credibility, but because I find that the evidence fails to establish that they were aware of the
documents that she was requesting. I therefore recommend that the allegation regarding Kindle
also be dismissed.
Conclusions of Law
1. The Employer has been an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Respondent has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
JD(NY)–49-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
the Act.
3. The Respondent did not violate Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act as alleged in the
Consolidated Amended Complaint.
On these findings of fact, conclusions of law and based upon the entire record, I hereby
issue the following recommended5
ORDER
It is recommended that the Complaint be dismissed in its entirety.
Dated, Washington, D.C., December 3, 2010.
___________________________________
Joel P. Biblowitz
Administrative Law Judge

5 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.