United States Postal Service

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 30, 2014

360 N.L.R.B. 181 (N.L.R.B. 2014)

POSTAL SERVICE 181
360 NLRB No. 35
United States Postal Service and American Postal
Workers Union, Local 1070, AFL–CIO. Cases
24–CA–090192, 24–CA–096216, 24–CA–096482,
24–CA–096075, 24–CA–097060, 24–CA–097087,
and 24–CA–097089
January 30, 2014
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS JOHNSON
AND SCHIFFER
On September 30, 2013, Administrative Law Judge
Michael A. Rosas issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions and the General Counsel filed
an answering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings, findings, and conclusions1 and
to adopt the recommended Order as modified and set
forth in full below.2
ORDER
The National Labor Relations orders that the Respond-
ent, United States Postal Service, San Juan, Puerto Rico,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with American
Postal Workers Union, Local 1070, AFL–CIO by unrea-
sonably delaying in furnishing it with requested infor-
mation that is relevant and necessary to the Union’s per-

1 The Respondent does not except to the judge’s findings and con-
clusions. Its exceptions are limited to “[t]he ALJ’s recommendation
that a cease and desist Order be issued against Respondent, United
States Postal Service, Puerto Rico, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns.” Respondent contends that the Order is overbroad. Although
the judge limited the notice posting requirement to Respondent’s facili-
ties in San Juan, Puerto Rico, the judge inadvertently neglected to in-
clude “San Juan” before “Puerto Rico” in the introductory sentence of
the Order. We have modified the Order accordingly. See Postal Ser-
vice, 356 NLRB 483 (2011), enf. denied on other grounds and remand-
ed 660 F.3d 65 (1st Cir. 2011), and reaffirmed on remand 359 NLRB
1052 (2013).
2 We shall modify the judge’s recommended Order to conform to
his findings and to conform to the Board’s standard remedial language.
Specifically, the judge found that the Respondent had unreasonably
delayed in providing the information requested on August 30 and 31,
October 13 and 30, and November 5. The judge further found that the
Respondent failed to provide certain information and failed to timely
provide other information requested on November 11, and December
10, 23 and 26. Finally, the judge found that the Respondent failed to
provide information requested on December 7, 18, 19, 22, and 29,
2012. We shall substitute a new notice to conform to the Order as mod-
ified.
formance of its functions as the collective-bargaining
representative of the Respondent’s unit employees.
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively with American
Postal Workers Union, Local 1070, AFL–CIO by failing
and refusing to furnish it with requested information that
is relevant and necessary to the Union’s performance of
its functions as the collective-bargaining representative
of the Respondent’s unit employees.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Furnish to the Union in a timely manner the infor-
mation requested by the Union on November 11, and
December 7, 10, 18, 19, 22, 23, 26, and 29, 2012, insofar
as such information has not already been furnished.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its San Juan, Puerto Rico facilities within Zip Code Clus-
ter 009, copies of the attached notice marked “Appen-
dix”3 in both English and Spanish. Copies of the notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Sub-
Region 24, after being signed by the Respondent’s au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by the Respond-
ent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicu-
ous places including all places where notices to employ-
ees are customarily posted. In addition to physical post-
ing of paper notices, the notices shall be distributed elec-
tronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an
internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the Re-
spondent customarily communicates with its employees
by such means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material. If the Re-
spondent has gone out of business or closed the facility
involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall du-
plicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice
to all current employees and former employees employed
by the Respondent at any time since August 30, 2012.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director for Sub-Region 24 a sworn
certification of a responsible official on a form provided
by the Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent
has taken to comply.

3 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
182 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey
this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with the
American Postal Workers Union, Local 1070, AFL–CIO
(the Union) by unreasonably delaying in furnishing it
with requested information that is relevant and necessary
to the Union’s performance of its functions as the collec-
tive-bargaining representative of our unit employees.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with the
American Postal Workers Union, Local 1070, AFL–CIO
(the Union) by failing and refusing to furnish it with re-
quested information that is relevant and necessary to the
Union’s performance of its functions as the collective-
bargaining representative of our unit employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of
the rights listed above.
WE WILL furnish the union with the information re-
quested on November 11, and December 7, 10, 18, 19,
22, 23, 26, and 29, 2012, insofar as such information has
not already been furnished.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
Enrique Gonzalez Quinones and Vanessa Garcia, Esqs., for the
General Counsel.
Rebecca Horan, Esq., of St. Louis, Missouri, for the Respond-
ent.
Juan Carlos Gonzalez-Del Valle, for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MICHAEL A. ROSAS, Administrative Law Judge. These cases
were tried in San Juan, Puerto Rico on August 27, 2013.1 The

1 At the commencement of the hearing, the General Counsel submit-
ted an Order issued by the Regional Director that morning advancing
American Postal Workers Union, Local 1070, AFL–CIO (the
Union) filed the charges and amended charges in the above-
captioned cases between September 17, 2012 and March 27,
2013,2 and the General Counsel issued a complaint on Decem-
ber 31 and an amended complaint on March 29. The com-
plaint, as amended, alleges that the United States Postal Service
(the Postal Service) violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act (the Act)3 by unreasonably delaying
in providing the Union with relevant information under their
collective-bargaining agreement. For a remedy, the Union seeks
a broad cease and desist order and an affirmative bargaining
order. The Postal Service denied the allegations in the com-
plaint, but now concedes that it delayed in providing infor-
mation which the Union was entitled to under the collective-
bargaining agreement. It objects, however, to the General
Counsel’s request for a cease and desist order with broad appli-
cation to all Postal Service facilities within the Caribbean Dis-
trict.
Settlement discussions continued until just before the hearing
commenced. I was informed that the Postal Service would
amend its answer to admit all of the amended complaint allega-
tions and that the only stumbling block was the remedy. The
General Counsel insisted on a cease-and-desist order to be
posted at every Postal Service facility within the Caribbean
District. The Postal Service expressed a willingness to agree to
a cease-and-desist order, but only one that was limited to the
facility at issue in this case.
Ultimately, the parties could not agree and the Postal Service
proposed a unilateral settlement agreement for my approval
pursuant to Board Rule 101.9(d). Since I was already at the
hearing site and all parties prepared to proceed, I reserved deci-
sion on the Postal Service’s application and received brief tes-
timony relevant to a remedy.4 Upon review of the record, it is
evident that the charging party did not agree as to the entirety
of the proposed settlement. Moreover, the proposal was submit-
ted to me only after I arrived at the hearing location in San
Juan, Puerto Rico. Having heard all of the relevant, albeit brief
testimony, I decline to accept the proposed unilateral settlement
pursuant to Independent Stave Co., 287 NLRB 740, 743 (1987).
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed
by the General Counsel and the Postal Service, I make the fol-
lowing
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Postal Service provides postal services for the United
States and operates various facilities throughout the United
States in the performance of that function, including the

the hearing in Case 24–CA–100739 from August 21 to August 20 in
order for that case to be heard together with the above-captioned cases.
(Tr. 6.)
2 All dates are between August 2012 and March 2013, unless other-
wise indicated.
3 29 U.S.C. Secs. 151–169.
4 R. Exh. 1; Tr. 15–20.
POSTAL SERVICE 183
DMDU Annex facility, located in Cataño, a municipality in the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The Postal Service admits, and
I find, that the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) has
jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Section 1209 of the
Postal Reorganization Act of 1970, 39 U.S.C. 1201 et seq., and
that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Parties
The Postal Service’s Caribbean District encompasses two
Caribbean neighbors, the United States Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico and the United States District of the Virgin Islands.
The Caribbean District consists of approximately 132 facilities
divided into four Zip Code clusters. Facilities and zip codes
within the Virgin Islands fall under 008, while Puerto Rico is
divided into 3 clusters: 006 for zip codes in the west; 007 for
zip codes in the east; and 009 for zip codes in the San Juan
metropolitan area. Each cluster is managed by a Post Office
Operations Manager (POOM). The DMDU Annex facility is
organizationally included within Zip Code cluster 009 and is
managed by Plant Manager Lisa Ojeda.5
The following Postal Service employees constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All employees in the bargaining unit for which it has been
recognized and certified at the national level – maintenance,
motor vehicle, postal clerks, mail equipment shop, and mate-
rial distribution employees.
At all material times, the Union has been designated and has
served as the Unit’s collective-bargaining representative, and
recognized as such by the Postal Service. This recognition has
been embodied in successive collective-bargaining agreements,
the most recent of which is effective, by its terms, from 2011 to
2015.
B. The Union’s Information Requests
Between August 30 and December 29, the Union submitted
the following requests for information relating to the operations
of the DMDU Annex. All of the requests were necessary and
relevant to the Union’s performance of its duties as the exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative of unit employees.
On August 30, the Union requested in writing that the
Postal Service furnish it with contract, installation and war-
ranty information relating to water fountains at its San Juan
facilities. The Postal Service, however, unreasonably de-
layed in furnishing the Union with such information until
March 3.
On August 31, the Union has requested in writing that the
Postal Service furnish it with: (1) “Three-reassignment wait-
ing list of all craft to enter the Caribbean District;” and (2) a
“list of employees waiting for change of craft to custodian.”

5 Juan Delgado, the Caribbean District’s Manager of Human Re-
sources, credibly testified regarding his district’s organizational struc-
ture. (Tr. 21–28.)
The Postal Service, however, unreasonably delayed in fur-
nishing the Union with such information until October 26.
On October 13, the Union requested, in writing, that the
Postal Service furnish it with the “PSE Seniority List in order
(applying entry day and tie breaker method).” The Postal Ser-
vice, however, unreasonably delayed in furnishing the Un-
ion with the requested information until March 9.
On October 30, the Union requested, in writing, that the
Postal Service furnish it with the “Updated list of Change of
Craft Requests within the same Installation.” The Postal Ser-
vice, however, unreasonably delayed in furnishing the Union
with the requested information until March 3.
On November 5, the Union requested, in writing, that the
Postal Service furnish it with the “Copy of DMDU Cataño
Annex Credit Card bill from May 1, 2011 until November 1,
2012, used to pay Alpine Cooler.” The Postal Service, however,
unreasonably delayed in furnishing the requested information
until March 3.
On November 11, the Union requested, in writing, that the
Postal Service furnish it with: (1) “Space Requirement to the
APBS, LCUS SWYB and other Operations,” and (2) “PS form
Form 919, 929.” The Postal Service, however, failed and re-
fused to furnish the Union with the requested information re-
garding the Space Requirement to the APBS, LCUS SWYB
and other Operations, and unreasonably delayed in providing
the Union with the PS Form 919, 929 until March 3.
On December 7, the Union requested, in writing, that the
Postal Service furnish it with the “3972 of Luis Fernandez for
pay period 10.” The Postal Service, however, failed and re-
fused to furnish the Union with the requested information.
On December 10, the Union requested, in writing, that the
Postal Service furnish it with “Accession Reports for pay peri-
ods (PP): 1, 2, 4, 21, 22 and 23 for calendar year 2011, and pay
periods 12, 20, 21, 24, 25 and 26 for calendar year 2012.” The
Postal Service, however, unreasonably delayed in providing
the Accession Report for pay period 24 until March 14. As to
the remainder of the request, the Postal Service failed and
refused to furnish the information.
On December 18, the Union requested, in writing, that the
Postal Service furnish it with the following information: (1)
Bidding history of Kevin Rodriguez; (2) Updated Human Re-
sources list for change of craft to custodial; (3) Copy of the
letter sent to employees concerning the change of craft list with
the intention of filling a labor custodial position; (4) Copy
PRD-10 of the following facilities: Boquer6n, Can6vanas,
Cotto Laurel PO, Dorado, Florida, Isabela PO, Sabana Hoyos,
and Salinas PO; (5) Copy of the contract or document to per-
form labor custodial duties for the same facilities, as listed in
(4) above; (6) “Accession Report, effective date of vacancy of
position no. 95442464 vacated by Aurea Quiles”; and (7)
Copy of the job history of position no. 95442464; (8) Copy of
the bidding history of employee Aurea Quiles. On December
26, the Union requested, in writing, that the Postal Service fur-
nish it with the “Updated seniority of laborer custodial.” The
Postal Service, however, failed and refused to furnish the
Union with the requested information.
On December 19, the Union requested, in writing, that the
Postal Service furnish it with a “Copy of the contract to per-
184 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
form duties of mail processing equipment at the dumper of the
APBS feeder on 12119/12.” The Postal Service, however,
failed and refused to furnish the Union with the information
requested.
On December 22, the Union requested, in writing, that the
Postal Service furnish it with a “Copy of the Updated Emer-
gency Evacuation Plan.” The Postal Service failed and refused
to furnish the Union with the information requested.
On December 23, the Union requested, in writing, that the
Postal Service furnish it with the following information: (1)
“Laborer Custodial Seniority List Updated”, and (2) “PRD-10
of PSE’s.” The Postal Service, however, unreasonably delayed
in furnishing the Union with the “Laborer Custodial Seniority
List Updated” until March 3, and failed and refused to furnish
the Union with the “PRD-10 of PSE’s.”
On December 26, the Union requested, in writing, that the
Postal Service furnish it with the following information: (1)
Copy of the salary history of welder Luis Casilla, and (2)
“Copy of the interview panel consensus final rating sheet of
laborer custodial Jorge Flores for BEM position, for interview
held on September 12, 2012.” The Postal Service, however,
unreasonably delayed in furnishing the Union with a “Copy of
the salary history of welder Luis Casilla” until March 9, and
failed and refused to furnish the “Copy of the interview panel
consensus final rating sheet of laborer custodial Jorge Flores for
BEM position, for interview held on September 12, 2012.”
On December 29, the Union requested, in writing, that the
Postal Service furnish it with the following information: (1)
“Copy of notification sent to the Union of change of Begin
Tour for Job ID# 70041443;” (2) “All information relating the
reassignment of Kevin Rodriguez from City Carrier to Laborer
Custodial;” and (3) “Agreement between the Union and Man-
agement relating the reassignment of Kevin Rodriguez from
City Carrier to Laborer Custodial.” The Postal Service, howev-
er, failed and refused to furnish the information requested.
After delaying, failing or refusing to provide the aforemen-
tioned information to the Union, the Postal Service implement-
ed remedial measures in order to avoid a recurrence of similar
unfair labor practices. As a result, Senior Plant Manager Ojeda
implemented procedures to ensure that DMDU managers and
supervisors responded in a timely fashion to future information
requests.6
Legal Analysis
The Postal Service admitted that it violated Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act by unreasonably delaying, failing and refus-
ing to provide the Union, on 14 occasions between August 30
and December 29, 2012, with information that was necessary
and relevant to the performance of its duties as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of unit employees. Moreo-
ver, the Postal Service does not object to issuance of a tradi-
tional cease-and-desist order. It does, however, object to the
General Counsel’s request for an Order directing the posting of

6 Lisa Ojeda, the Senior Plant Manager, provided credible testimony
as to the measures taken after the violations occurred. (Tr. 32–33, 39–
41.)
such a notice at every Postal Service facility within the Carib-
bean District. The Postal Services argues that a broad cease-
and-desist order is unwarranted and a traditional cease-and-
desist order limited to the specific facility involved in this liti-
gation is the appropriate remedy.
Broad cease-and-desist orders are appropriate when an em-
ployer is shown to have a proclivity to violate the Act or has
engaged in such egregious or widespread misconduct as to
demonstrate a general disregard for the employee’s fundamen-
tal statutory rights. Hickmott Foods, 242 NLRB 1357 (1979);
Postal Service, 345 NLRB 409 (2005). T he Board reviews the
totality of the circumstances to ascertain whether the employ-
er’s specific unlawful conduct demonstrates an attitude of op-
position to the purposes of the Act to protect the rights of em-
ployees generally. Postal Service, 345 NLRB at 410. Failure to
respond to information requests, although unlawful and a per-
sistent problem, does not necessarily amount to egregious or
widespread misconduct, and a lack of regard for employees’
fundamental statutory rights. See Albertsons, Inc., 351 NLRB
254, 260 (2007).
The Postal Service produced testimony by managers explain-
ing their efforts to avoid similar recurrences in the future. The
remedial steps undertaken by the Postal Service in this instance,
however, were insufficient to undo the harm caused by its fail-
ure to timely provide relevant information necessary for the
Union to effectively represent the interests of unit employees.
In Postal Service, 345 NLRB at 410, the Board considered the
following factors in determining the scope of a cease-and-desist
order: (1) the frequency of the failures to furnish information
within a 2-year period at the same facility; (2) whether the vio-
lations occurred after issuance of a narrow cease-and-desist
order (suggesting the inadequacy of the order to deter future
violations); (3) whether the information requests related to
grievance investigations (suggesting that repeated unlawful
refusals to provide the information have the potential to hide
other misconduct); (4) whether the Respondent presented a
weak defense of its actions; (5) the extent of the history of in-
formation request violations at Respondent’s locations nation-
wide within the past 2 decades; (6) whether the Board previous-
ly issued broad cease-and-desist orders against Respondent for
similar repeated information request violations at facilities
within the same district; and (7) whether the Board’s issued a
concurrent decision against Respondent for the same violation.
While there is a lengthy history of similar violations and
Board orders at other Postal Service facilities around the coun-
try, the facility at issue in this case is not included in that rec-
ord. Moreover, there is no indication that the information re-
quested related to grievance investigations. The General Coun-
sel contends that the Board’s recent decision in U.S. Postal
Service, 359 NLRB 1052 (2013), along with a recently author-
ized complaint and informal settlement agreement, evidence a
pattern of similar violations. Vague references to a complaint
and settlement agreement, however, do not constitute evidence
of violations. Moreover, in its recent U.S. Postal Service deci-
sion, the Board did order the Postal Service to furnish the Un-
ion with requested information and post notices at its San Juan
area facilities. The Board issued its order, however, only after a
remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the First
POSTAL SERVICE 185
Circuit on the contentious issue of confidentiality interests ap-
plicable to personnel records of unit employees and job appli-
cants.
Only when an employer has an extensive history of viola-
tions, or a history of noncompliance with cease-and-desist or-
ders, should a broad cease-and-desist order be granted. Postal
Service, 345 NLRB at 411. The violations established here
consist of delays in providing information to the Union regard-
ing certain operations at the DMDU Annex in Cataño, Puerto
Rico. There is no evidence of a previous violation in connec-
tion with this facility. Because no proven pattern or practice of
unlawful activity exists at this and other facilities in the Carib-
bean District, a broad remedy requiring a District-wide notice
posting is unwarranted. See Consolidated Edison, 323 NLRB
910, 911 (1997) (Board reversed judge’s finding that the cease-
and-desist order should be posted at all of the employer’s facili-
ties, not just the facility where the improper conduct occurred,
as the unlawful activity affected only one employee at that
facility).
As noted in Postal Service, 359 NLRB 1052, 1056 (2011),
however, the Board did require the Postal Service to post a
traditional cease-and-desist order at its “San Juan, Puerto Rico”
facilities.7 The DMDU facility is located within the Postal

7 This remedy language carried over from the Board’s earlier deci-
sion at 356 NLRB 483, supra, in which it adopted that portion of the
judge’s recommended remedy.
Service’s San Juan area “cluster” of facilities. Accordingly, a
cease-and-desist order will issue directing the Postal Service to
post a traditional cease-and-desist order at its San Juan, Puerto
Rico facilities, also referred to as Zip Code cluster 009.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By unreasonably delaying, failing and refusing to provide
the Union with information that was necessary and relevant to
the performance of its duties as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of Unit employees, the Postal Service
has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of Act.
2. The aforementioned unfair labor practices affected com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Postal Service has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall order it to cease and desist there-
from and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act. I shall recommend that the Postal
Service be ordered to furnish the information requested to the
Union and post an appropriate notice.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]