UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 21, 2014

361 N.L.R.B. 8 (N.L.R.B. 2014)

8 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
United States Postal Service and Manchester Area
Local 320, American Postal Workers Union,
AFL–CIO. Case 01–CA–102755
July 21, 2014
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS MISCIMARRA, JOHNSON, AND SCHIFFER
On April 8, 2014, Administrative Law Judge Raymond
P. Green issued the attached decision, and the judge is-
sued an erratum on April 22, 2014. The Respondent
filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General
Counsel filed an answering brief.1
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 briefs and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,2 and conclusions as
modified below and to adopt the recommended Order as
modified.3
For the following reasons, we adopt the judge’s find-
ing that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the
Act. The Union submitted three requests for infor-
mation. All three requests sought information pertaining
to staffing of unit positions. The requests encompassed
presumptively relevant information as to any unit em-
ployees who may have applied for those positions, and if
any unit employees had applied, the Respondent would
have been obligated to furnish that information without
requiring any further demonstration of relevance by the
1 The General Counsel also resubmitted its posthearing brief to the
administrative law judge.
2 The Respondent has implicitly excepted to some of the judge’s
credibility findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule
an administrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear
preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are
incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd.
188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record
and find no basis for reversing the findings. Member Johnson finds no
basis to reverse the judge’s crediting of shop steward Philip Randall
and implicit discrediting of Manager Tom Wood regarding whether
Wood disclosed the names of applicants to the tool and parts clerk and
auto mechanic positions. Thus, while the record corroborates the Re-
spondent’s assertion that Randall did not ask for the names of the tool
and parts clerk applicants, and that Randall would not have recognized
the names even if Wood disclosed them, that testimony does not con-
tradict Randall’s additional testimony that he did not recall being told
the names of job applicants. Similarly, Wood’s testimony that he told
Randall the names of auto mechanic applicants was undermined by his
later testimony that he merely told Randall the veteran status of a few
of the applicants.
3 We shall modify the judge’s recommended Order to conform to the
violation found and to the Board’s standard remedial language, and we
shall substitute a new notice to conform to the Order as modified and in
accordance with Ishikawa Gasket America, Inc., 337 NLRB 175
(2001), enfd. 354 F.3d 534 (6th Cir. 2004), and Durham School Ser-
vices, 360 NLRB 694 (2014).
Union. See, e.g., Knappton Maritime Corp., 292 NLRB
236, 238 (1988). However, as to nonunit employees en-
compassed by the Union’s information requests, the in-
formation was not presumptively relevant, and the Union
bore the burden of establishing the relevance of that in-
formation to the performance of its duties as collective-
bargaining representative. See, e.g., Hertz Corp., 319
NLRB 597, 599 (1995), enf. denied 105 F.3d 868 (3d
Cir. 1997). Here, it so happened that none of the appli-
cants for the positions were unit employees, but the Un-
ion was not in a position to know that. Because the Un-
ion’s requests encompassed presumptively relevant in-
formation to the extent any unit employees had applied,
the Respondent was required, at a minimum, to com-
municate to the Union that none had, which would have
enabled the Union to understand that its requests required
a further demonstration of relevance. The Respondent
did not tell the Union that no unit employees had applied;
it merely said that the requested information did not exist
and the Respondent had no duty to “create such docu-
ments.” For these reasons, the judge properly concluded
that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5).
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified below and orders that the Respondent, United
States Postal Service, Manchester, New Hampshire, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the Order as modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(a).
“(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Union by
failing and refusing to respond appropriately to infor-
mation requests made by the Union.”
2. Delete paragraph 2(a) and reletter the following
paragraphs accordingly.
3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the admin-
istrative law judge.

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
violated 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
361 NLRB No. 6

POSTAL SERVICE 9
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
Union by failing and refusing to respond appropriately to
information requests made by the Union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
listed above.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

The Board’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/01–CA–102755 or by using the QR
code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the
decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor
Relations Board, 1099 14th Street N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273–1940.

Don Firenze, Esq. and Robert Redbord, Esq., for the General
Counsel.
Dallas Kingsbury, Esq., for the Respondent.
DECISION
RAYMOND P. GREEN, Administrative Law Judge. I heard this
case in Boston, Massachusetts, on February 20, 2013. The
charge and the amended charges were filed on April 12, May
15, and June 18, 2013. The complaint which issued on July 31,
2013, alleged that the Respondent has failed to furnish to the
Union the following information.
1. A list of USPS employees who submitted 991 forms for
the tools and parts clerk position.
2. A list of USPS employees who submitted 991 forms for
the garage man position.
3. The current hiring roster for LDC 32 mechanics.
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed, I
make the following
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent is subject to the jurisdiction of the National
Labor Relations Board pursuant to Section 1209 of the Postal
Reorganization Act of 1970. It also was conceded and I find
that the Union is a labor organization as defined in Section 2(5)
of the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The facility involved in this case is located in Manchester,
New Hampshire. The manager of this facility is Tom Wood.
The two union people involved in this case are Mike Lafayette,
whose title is the “Motor Vehicle Director” for the local union
and Philip Randal who is a shop steward.
The Union, Local 320, is party to a collective-bargaining
agreement with the Postal Service and represents a unit of
about 30 employees employed in the Vehicle Maintenance
Facility, (VMF). Adjacent to this facility is a mail handling
operation that employs about 450 people, some of whom are
also represented by Local 320.
a. Information requests for the tool and parts and the
garage man positions
On February 22, 2013, a position for a tool and parts person
was posted at the VFM. On March 23, chief steward Lafayette
learned from a steward at the other facility that Jeannie
LaVigne had bid for this position on March 22. At the time,
LaVigne was employed as a plant worker in the mail handling
operation. Also, unbeknownst to Lafayette there was another
plant employee, Lorianne Long, who had also applied for this
job. Thus, as of March 23, there were two employees who had
filed 991 forms.
On March 3, 2013, a job as a garage man at the VMF was
posted. As a result of this posting, two plant employees, Deb
Stegall and Jason Oulette applied for this one job. However, as
only VMF employees were eligible to apply during the first 10-
day posting, the applications of Stegall and Oulette were disre-
garded. Nevertheless, after the initial 10 days passed and no
VFM employee applied, the job was again posted, this time
throughout the entire installation. At this time, Deb Stegall was
the only applicant. Presumably, she got the job.
On March 27, Lafayette sent a written request for infor-
mation. Insofar as the tools and parts job, he asked for (a) a “list
of USPS employees who submitted 991 forms for the tool and
parts clerk position,” and (b) a “list of USPS employees that
submitted 991s for the open Garage Man.” A 991 form is es-
sentially the employee’s bid for the job opening. Lafayette
testified that the reason he wanted this information was because
he wanted to find out who had bid for the jobs so that he could
keep tabs on the number of vacant position at the VMF and to
make sure that the jobs were filled consistent with the contrac-
tual seniority and bidding provisions.
On March 28, Woods, after consulting with and being ad-
vised by the Respondent’s labor relations department, sent a
letter to Lafayette stating that the information requested did not
exist and that the Respondent had no obligation to “create such
documents.”
In the ensuing months, there were a number of discussions
between Wood and shop steward Randall regarding the tool and
parts position as to when and whether it would be filled. Ran-
dall credibly testified that he was never told the names of the
two job applicants. In the end, the job was initially offered to
Lorianne Long, but when she failed the qualifying test, it was
then offered and accepted by LaVigne in June 2013.
10 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
With respect to these positions, there were no complaints by
any applicant that she was being unfairly treated or that she was
not given the appropriate consideration based on seniority. No
grievances were filed as to these situations and it does not ap-
pear that any grievances were contemplated by any of the em-
ployees who applied for these jobs. At the same time, it should
be noted that it would not have been any burden for Woods to
simply let Lafayette know who the applicants were. Indeed,
Woods testified that he would have done so but for the fact that
he was advised to the contrary by the Labor Relations Depart-
ment.
b. Information request relating to auto technician hirings
At some time in the past, the Postal Service had contracted
out certain vehicle maintenance work to outside companies.
However, in 2010, the Union and the Postal Service entered
into a memorandum of understanding, whereby the Postal Ser-
vice agreed to bring back some of that work and have it done
in-house. Thus, the Postal Service agreed to hire a total of 740
auto mechanics on a nationwide basis. It was also agreed to
allocate those jobs to the various locations and as a result, the
Manchester VMH was awarded six positions that are classified
as LTC-32 auto technicians. The agreement states;

The Employer shall seek to fill duty assignments not filled
through the bid procedure via the normal hiring process in-
cluding the terms of Article 39.2.A.11. When applicable, the
Employer will proceed with the normal hiring process as ex-
peditiously as possible.

The agreement does not call for the immediate hiring of any
particular number of auto technicians at any specific location.
It contemplates filling these positions over a period of time.
Moreover, the process, would of necessity, be somewhat com-
plicated by the normal turnover of people in this job classifica-
tion and the fact that existing local Postal Service employees, if
qualified, would be entitled under the contract, to a preference
for these jobs before outsiders could be solicited and hired.
According to Woods, he commenced the process of filling
these positions soon after Memorandum of Understanding was
signed. He testified that he posted the positions of auto me-
chanic but did not receive any applications from the existing
complement of Manchester employees. Therefore, he started
the process of hiring from the street, by advertising in local
newspapers and online.
Woods testified that as of March 2013, he had received ap-
plications from six people who had, on paper the requisite qual-
ifications. At this time, there were four open positions.
In his March 27 request for information, Lafayette requested
the “current hiring roster for LDC 32 mechanics.” Lafayette
testified that he wanted this information because he felt that the
facility was perhaps dragging its feet in filling these positions
and therefore he wanted to make sure that the Memorandum of
Understanding was being complied with. However, this expla-
nation was not contained in the letter. Nor did Lafayette ever
communicate to Woods the reason why he wanted a hiring
roster for the LDC mechanics.
According to Woods, there did not exist a hiring roster at the
time of this request. He testified that although he could recall
that some time in the remote past, there had been such a thing
as a hiring roster when the Postal Service was more actively
involved in hiring people, such a roster hadn’t existed for a
good long time before he assumed his present position.1 Thus,
he testified that when he received Lafayette’s letter, he didn’t
understand what the latter meant by a “hiring roster.” He did
not understand that the request may have been to provide a list
of those people who had applied for the auto mechanic jobs and
who were being considered for employment.
In his response dated March 28, 2013, Woods wrote that the
information requested did not exist and that the Postal service
was not required to create such documents. Lafayette did not
respond to this letter or explain why he wanted a hiring roster.
He did not at any time say that what he wanted was a list of
those people who had applied for the mechanic jobs and who
were being considered to hire.2
III. ANALYSIS
Assuming a valid collective bargaining relationship in ac-
cordance with Section 9(a)( of the Act, where information is
sought for the purpose of enabling a union or an employer to
administer a collective-bargaining agreement, including the
evaluation and processing of actual or potential grievances, the
legal test is whether the information is relevant. In this regard,
the determination of relevancy is based on a liberal, discovery
type of standard. NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432,
437 (1967); National Broadcasting Co., 352 NLRB 90, 97
(2008); Knappton Maritime Corp., 292 NLRB 236 (1988).
Additionally, the fact that the information sought may tend to
disprove a grievance is as equally relevant as those situations
where the information would tend to support a grievance. This
is because the process of resolving grievances is best served by
the disclosure of information which would tend to resolve
grievances one way or the other, at the earliest stage of the
procedure and not burden the parties with unwarranted arbitra-
tions. NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., supra, Square D Electric
Co., 266 NLRB 795, 797 (1983); Ohio Power Co., 216 NLRB
987, 991 (1975).
Although there was no actual grievance filed (or even con-
templated) by any of the employees who applied for the tool
and parts position or the garage man position, it is my opinion,
that Lafayette’s request, which essentially was for the names of
those individuals who applied for the jobs, was relevant to his
responsibility to make sure that the seniority and bidding provi-
sions of the collective-bargaining agreement were followed to
the extent applicable. In my opinion, the response that no such
list existed is an insufficient reason to deny this information.
There were four applicants for these two jobs and a short list
could easily have been prepared and turned over. I therefore
1 Although not contained in the collective-bargaining agreement,
there is a joint manual for contract interpretation that has the following
entry.
Question 10: Is management responsible for making reasonable ef-
forts to maintain an adequate hiring roster to fill motor vehicle vacan-
cies?
Response: Yes
2 Ultimately, in June 2013, Woods did hire four people to fill this
job classification.

POSTAL SERVICE 11
conclude that the Postal Service did not meet its obligation to
furnish relevant information to the Union in a timely manner.
Yeshiva University, 315 NLRB 1245, 1248 (1994).
With respect to the Union’s request for the “hiring roster,”
this is a little more complicated. In my opinion, the Union had
a right to know what effort (or lack of effort), the employer was
making to fulfill its obligation to hire auto mechanics under the
terms of the 2010 Memorandum of Understanding. And in this
regard, Lafayette’s information request could have been clearer.
But even though he did not explain that he was seeking the
names of people applying for and being considered for these
jobs, Woods did not, in turn, ask Lafayette what he wanted or
why. In this situation it is hard for me to say who was more at
fault for failing to resolve an ambiguous request for infor-
mation. My own inclination is that the person asking for the
information has the obligation to clarify the request if there is a
legitimate question about its meaning. But it seems that where
an ambiguous information request is made, it is the Board’s
view that the requestee is the one that has the obligation to ask
for a clarification. See Yeshiva University, supra, citing
Keauhou Beach Hotel, 298 NLRB 702, (1990), and La Guardia
Hospital, 260 NLRB 1445 (1982).
In light of the above, it is my opinion that by failing to seek
clarification of the union’s request for information regarding
the potential hiring of applicants for the auto mechanic posi-
tions and by refusing to furnish such information, the employer
has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.3
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended4
ORDER
The Respondent, the United States Postal Service, Manches-
3 In its Brief, the Respondent very reasonably asserts that this case
is “much ado about nothing.” While not earth shaking, it seems to me
that the violations are “enough about something,” so that it cannot be
said that the matter is “de minimus.”
4 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopt-
ed by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for
all purposes.
ter, New Hampshire, its officers, agents, successor, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and Desist from
(a) Refusing to furnish relevant information to Manchester
Area Local 320, American Postal Workers Union, AFL–CIO,
in connection with bids for jobs within the Manchester facility
or in relation to the hiring of auto technicians in accordance
with the requirements of the 2010 Memorandum of Under-
standing.
(b) In any like or related manner, interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of their Section 7
rights.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Upon request, furnish to the Union the information re-
quested in the letter sent by the Union dated March 27, 2013.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its
Manchester, New Hampshire facility copies of the attached
Notice marked “Appendix.”5 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 1, after being
signed by Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive
days in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted. In addition to physical
posting of paper notices, notices shall be distributed electroni-
cally, such as by email, posting on an intranet or internet site,
and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent 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. In
the event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the
Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility in-
volved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and
mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current em-
ployees and former employees employed by the Respondent at
any time since March 28, 2013.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps Re-
spondent has taken a comply.
5 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 Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board.”