United States Postal Service

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Jun 5, 2015

07-CA-138249 (N.L.R.B. Jun. 5, 2015)

JD–34–15
New Baltimore, MI
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
WASHINGTON, DC
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
Case No.: 07–CA–138249
07–CA–138262
and
BRANCH 654, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF LETTER CARRIERS (NALC), AFL–CIO
Eric S. Cockrell, Esq.,
for the General Counsel.
Roderick D. Eves, Esq.,
for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
CHRISTINE E. DIBBLE, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Detroit,
Michigan on February 11, 2015. Branch 654, National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL–CIO
(Charging Union) filed charges in Cases 07–CA–138249 and 07–CA–138262 on October 6,
2014.1 The General Counsel issued the consolidated complaint on December 17, 2014. The
United States Postal Service (Respondent) filed a timely answer denying all material allegations.
(GC Exhs. 1-A to 1-J)2
The consolidated complaint alleges that from September 4 to October 17, 2014,
Respondent unreasonably delayed in furnishing the Charging Union with the following
information: clock rings for employee Larry Kucken (Kucken), clock rings for all unit employees
and city carrier assistants (CCA), and workload status report for August 25, 2014.3

1 All dates are in 2014, unless otherwise indicated.
2 Abbreviations used in this decision are as follows: “Tr.” for transcript; “GC Exh.” for General
Counsel’s exhibit; “R. Exh.” for Respondent’s exhibit; “CU Exh.” for Charging Union’s exhibit; “ALJ
Exh.” for administrative law judge’s exhibit; “Jt. Exh.” for joint exhibit; “GC Br.” for General Counsel’s
brief; “R. Br.” for Respondent’s brief; and “CP Br.” for Charging Union’s brief. My findings and
conclusions are based on my review and consideration of the entire record.
3 These allegations are alleged in pars. 7(a) and (b) of the consolidated complaint.
JD–34–15
2
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respondent, I make the following
5
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent provides postal service for the United States and operates facilities 10
throughout the United States, including the State of Michigan. Respondent admits and I find that
Section 1209 of the Postal Reorganization Act, 39 U.S.C. § 101, et seq. (PRA) gives the National
Labor Relations Board (the Board/NLRB) jurisdiction over the Respondent in this matter.
At all material times the Charging Union and National Association of Letter Carriers 15
(NALC), AFL–CIO (National Union) have been labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
20
A. Overview of Respondent’s Operation
Respondent process at and delivers mail from its postal facility in New Baltimore,
Michigan. From 2012 until July 2014, Richard Firestone (Firestone) was the postmaster and
installation head of the New Baltimore facility. In May 2014, Amy Kauffman (Kauffman) 25
became the supervisor of the facility.4 On or about August 2, 2014, Nancy Murrell (Murrell) was
assigned to the New Baltimore facility as the postmaster and officer-in-charge (OIC). (R Exh. 4.)
The following constituted a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:30
All full-time and regular part-time city letter carriers employed by Respondent at
various facilities throughout the United States, but excluding professional
employees, employees engaged in personnel work in other than a purely non-
confidential clerical capacity, postal inspection service employees, employees in 35
the supplemental work force, rural letter carriers, mail handlers, maintenance
employees, special delivery messengers, motor vehicle employees, postal clerks,
managerial employees, supervisory personnel, and security guards as defined in
Public Law 9-375, 1201(2).
40
(GC Exhs. 1-G, 1-I.) During the period at issue, the New Baltimore facility had approximately
20 employees represented by NALC and the Charging Union. Seventeen of the represented
employees were full-time regular letter carriers, 3 were city carriers and, or an assistant letter
carrier. From February 2013 through January 2015, Lawrence Kucken (Kuken) was the branch

4 Kauffman provided undisputed testimony that when she first arrived at the New Baltimore facility,
she and an acting supervisor (204b) were the only managers until Nancy Murrell arrived. (Tr. 105.)
JD–34–15
3
steward and employed at the New Baltimore facility. Since January 2003, Clarence Blaze
(Blaze) has been the president for Branch 654, NALC, which included the New Baltimore
facility. He is responsible for representing about 240 employees at the Mt. Clemens annex and
main facility, Marine City facility, Algonac facility, and the New Baltimore facility.
5
B. Collective-Bargaining Agreement and Requests for Information
NALC entered into a nationwide collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with
Respondent that is effective from January 10, 2013 through May 20, 2016. Article 31 of the
CBA governs requests for information (RFI). It reads in relevant part:10
Requests for information relating to purely local matters should be submitted by
the local Union representative to the installation head or designee. All other
requests for information shall be directed by the National President of the Union
to the Vice President, Labor Relations. Nothing herein shall waive any rights the 15
Union may have to obtain information under the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended.
(GC Exh.4, p. 108.) As a result of a discussion Firestone held with Blaze and Kucken about a
system for submitting RFIs to local management, on or about November 7, 2013, Firestone 20
created a RFI log. The system he devised required the local Union to submit a copy of the RFI
to him. He would then number the RFI, log it into the RFI book with the date it was received,
give a copy of the RFI to the supervisor, provide the Union with the requested documentation,
and log in the RFI log book the date the information was provided to the Union.
25
C. Union’s RFI: September 4, 19, and October 17
From August 23 to 29, Kucken believed that he had worked beyond the overtime limits
established in the CBA. Consequently, on September 4 he approached Kauffman at her desk on
the workroom floor and handed her two RFI forms. He told her that he needed the information 30
because he believed there had been an overtime violation. One of the RFI forms requested,
“Clockrings for Larry Kucken for 8/23/14 to 8/29/14 (pay period 19 week 1).” The other RFI
form requested, “Clockrings for all city carriers and the workload status report for 8/25/14.” (GC
Exhs. 5a, 5b.) Kucken and Kauffman both signed the forms dated September 4. Kauffman is
authorized to access and print the workload status reports and clock rings. On the same day, 35
Kucken also prepared grievance nos. NB 14-098 and NB 14-099.5 Approximately a week after
September 4, Kucken asked Kauffman about the status of his RFIs. Kauffman responded that
she was aware of the requests but they had not been “filled” and provided no additional
explanation. By RFI forms dated September 14, Kucken again went to Kauffman and requested
the clock rings and workload status reports. Kauffman received the requests on September 19. 40
(GC Exhs. 8a, 8b.)
At some point in September, Kucken told Blaze he was having difficulty getting the
requested information from management and asked for his advice. Blaze had two conversations
and one meeting with Murrell in an attempt to help Kucken secure the documents. His first 45

5 The grievances were settled on January 22, 2015. (GC Exh. 7.)
JD–34–15
4
conversation with Murrell occurred in mid to late September. Blaze telephoned Murrell to ask
that she cooperate with the Charging Union’s information request. She responded that she would
provide the information. Approximately a week later, Blaze again contacted Murrell because
Kucken still had not received the requested information. Murrell told Blaze she would
“definitely” provide them with the requested information.6 (Tr. 33.) 5
The record is unclear on the exact date timeline but at some point in late September or
early October, Kauffman went to Murrell and complained that she was overworked and needed
assistance. Murrell agreed to help with some of her tasks and took the RFIs and placed them on
her desk.7 10
On October 1, a labor-management meeting was held in Murrell’s office to discuss a
variety of work issues.8 The meeting lasted approximately 2 hours; and in attendance were
Murrell, Blaze, and Kucken. Kauffman came in and out of the meeting intermittently.9 Towards
the end of the meeting, Blaze and Kucken informed Murrell that the Charging Union still had not 15
received a response to its requests for information. Murrell apologized for not responding and
told them to provide her with another copy of the requests and she would fill them immediately.
Murrell also advised them that going forward to submit information requests to her. Prior to the
end of the meeting, Kucken provided her with another copy of the RFIs he submitted in
September.20
After the meeting on October 1, Murrell was out of the office and did not return until the
following Monday. Consequently, she did not comply with Charging Union’s RFIs during this
period. During her absence, Kauffman went to Murrell’s office and retrieved the RFIs from her
desk and returned them to her own desk with the intention of responding to them. However, the 25
next day Kauffman was in training all day and did not fill the information requests. In the
meantime, Murrell returned to the office to respond to the RFIs but could not find them on her
desk. She also could not locate them on Kauffman’s desk. She texted Kauffman, who
responded at the end of the workday, asking if Kauffman knew where the RFIs were located.
Kauffman responded that they were on her desk but when Murrell looked the next morning she 30
still could not find the RFIs. Kucken was out of the office that day. Consequently, on October
15, when Kucken approached Murrell in her office, she told him that she could not locate the
previous information requests and asked him to again give her more copies. On October 17,
Kucken submitted a third written request for clock rings and the daily performance/analysis

6 Based on the totality of the evidence, I find that Blaze’s testimony on this point conflates
conversations that were held on two separate occasions. Like Murrell, he had difficulty recalling exact
dates. Kucken, however, was consistent in his testimony regarding dates, approximate times, and events.
Therefore, I credit his testimony that it was not until the October 1 meeting that Murrell directed the
Charging Union to give all future RFIs to her.
7 Murrell testified that she was unaware of the RFIs until “a day or two” before the October 1
meeting. However, I do not credit her testimony on this point because throughout most of her testimony
she had difficulty recalling dates and events.
8 The labor-management meetings were normally held every quarter.
9 In contrast to Blaze’s testimony, Kucken testified that Kauffman was not in attendance. Neither
Murrell, nor Kauffman mentioned Kauffman’s attendance in the meeting. I find that resolution of this
conflict is inconsequential and not necessary for deciding the merits of the case.
JD–34–15
5
report (workload status report). (GC Exhs. 9a, 9b.) Later the same day, a folder was left at his
workspace which contained the requested information.
III. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS5
A. LEGAL STANDARDS
Section 8(a) (5) of the Act mandates that an employer must provide a union with relevant
information that is necessary for the proper performance of its duties as the exclusive bargaining 10
representative. NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co. 351 U.S. 149, 153 (1956); Detroit Edison Co. v. NLRB,
440 U.S. 301, 303 (1979). “. . . [T]he duty to bargain unquestionably extends beyond the
period of contract negotiations and applies to labor-management relations during the term of an
agreement.” NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432, 436 (1967) Information requests
regarding bargaining unit employees’ terms and conditions of employment are “presumptively 15
relevant” and must be provided. Whitesell Corp., 352 NLRB 1196, 1197 (2008), adopted by a
three-member Board, 355 NLRB 649 (2010), enfd. 638 F.3d 883 (8th Cir. 2011); Southern
California Gas Co., 344 NLRB 231, 235 (2005). If the requested information is not directly
related to the bargaining unit, the information is not presumptively relevant, and the requesting
party has the burden of establishing the relevance of the requested material. Disneyland Park, 20
350 NLRB 1256, 1257 (2007); The Earthgrains Co., 349 NLRB 389 (2007).
The standard for establishing relevancy is the liberal, “discovery-type standard.” Alcan
Rolled Products, 358 NLRB No. 11, slip op. at 4 (2012), citing and quoting applicable
authorities. In Leland Stanford Junior University, 307 NLRB 75, 80 (1992), the Board 25
summarized its application of the principles as follows:
[T]he Board has long held that Section 8(a)(5) of the Act obligates an employer to
furnish requested information which is potentially relevant to the processing of
grievances. An actual grievance need not be pending nor must the requested information 30
clearly dispose of the grievance. It is sufficient if the requested information is potentially
relevant to a determination as to the merits of a grievance or an evaluation as to whether a
grievance should be pursued. United Technologies Corp., 274 NLRB 504 (1985); TRW,
Inc., 202 NLRB 729, 731.
35
The requested information does not have to be dispositive of the issue for which it is
sought, but only has to have some relation to it. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., 301 NLRB
1104, 1104–1105 (1991). The Board has also held that a union may make a request for
information in writing or orally. Further, the Board has found that a delay is unreasonable when
the information requested is easily and readily accessible from an employer’s files. Bundy Corp., 40
292 NLRB 671, 672 (1989).
B. Respondent’s unreasonable delay in providing the requests for information
The General Counsel alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act 45
because the Charging Union’s requests for information were relevant and necessary to the
performance of its duties as the designated servicing representative of the exclusive collective-
JD–34–15
6
bargaining representative of the unit; and Respondent’s delay in providing the information was
unreasonable. Respondent argues that its delay was caused in part by the Charging Union’s
failure to submit the RFIs to the appropriate official. Further, Respondent contends it should be
forgiven because its delay was not committed in bad faith, but rather because the facility was
short-staffed and management was overworked. 5
1. Information is presumptively relevant
I find that the information sought by the Charging Union is presumptively relevant to the
performance of its statutory obligations. The Board has consistently held that certain information 10
is presumptively relevant. “It is well settled that information concerning names, addresses,
telephone numbers, as well as wages, hours worked, and other terms and conditions of
employment of unit employees is presumptively relevant . . .” Bryant & Stratton Business
Institute, 323 NLRB 410 (1997); see also, Georgetown Holiday Inn, 235 NLRB 485 (1978)
(names and addresses of unit employees, like wage data, are presumptively relevant to a union’s 15
role as bargaining agent and no showing of particularized need required.); Deadline Express, 313
NLRB 1244 (1994); and Dyncorp/Dynair Services, 322 NLRB 602 (1996).
Since the requested information relates to wages it is presumptively relevant and the
burden is on Respondent to rebut the relevancy. Leland Stanford Junior University, supra at 80. 20
Respondent, however, admits that the requested information is necessary for, and relevant to, the
Charging Union’s performance of its duties as the designated servicing representative of the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit. (GC Exh. 1-I.)
Accordingly, I find that the requested information is relevant and necessary for the25
Charging Union to effectively perform its duties as the exclusive representative of the bargaining
unit. See United Graphics, Inc., 281 NLRB 463, 465 (1986) (the Board held that information
presumptively relevant to the union’s role as bargaining agent must be provided to the union as it
“relates directly to the policing of contract terms.”).
30
2. Charging Union not responsible for Respondent’s delay in responding to RFIs
Respondent argues that the Charging Union was partially responsible for the delay in
receiving a response to the RFI because it failed to adhere to the terms of Article 31 of the CBA
that says RFIs of a local nature should be submitted to the installation head or designee. As 35
noted earlier, the applicable language in the CBA states, “Requests for information relating to
purely local matters should be submitted by the local Union representative to the installation
head or designee.” (GC Exh. 4, p.108.) Specifically, Respondent argues that the Charging Union
should have submitted the RFIs directly to Murrell because she was the Officer in Charge (OIC)
in September and October. Respondent, therefore, implies that because of the Charging Union’s 40
action, it waived its right to receive a response or a timely response to the requests for
information.
The Board requires a waiver of a union’s statutory right be clear and unmistakable.
Metropolitan Edison Co. v. NLRB, 460 U.S. 693 (1983); Timken Roller Bearing Co., 138 NLRB 45
15, 16 (1962). “A clear and unmistakable waiver may be found in the express language and
structure of the collective-bargaining agreement or by the course of conduct of the parties. The
JD–34–15
7
burden is on the party asserting waiver to establish that such a waiver was intended.” Leland
Stanford Junior University, supra. See also, NLRB v. New York Telephone Co., 930 F.2d 1009
(2d Cir. 1991), enfg. 299 NLRB 44 (1990); United Technologies Corp., supra. I do not find
Respondent’s argument persuasive on this point. The record does not establish that the Union
explicitly (or implicitly) waived its right to a response or a timely response to its requests for 5
information. The last sentence of Article 31 of the CBA notes that nothing in the provision
waives any rights the Charging Union has to obtain information under the Act. I have previously
found that the requested information was presumptively relevant, and thus the Charging Union is
entitled to exercise its Section 7 rights under the Act to obtain the information.
10
I also reject Respondent’s argument that the delay in responding to the RFIs is excusable
because the Charging Union did not submit them to the installation head or designee. It is clear
that Firestone was not the installation head in September or October. Firestone and Murrell
testified that Firestone left the New Baltimore facility in July and Murrell was assigned to the
facility as the OIC in August. Although Kucken initially submitted the information requests to 15
Kauffman, the circumstances convince me that Murrell had designated her to fulfill this task.
When Kucken submitted the RFIs to Kauffman on September 4 and 19, she did not tell him that
she could not or was not responsible for handling the requests. Likewise, she never told Kucken
that the requests were to be submitted to Murrell. Moreover, Kauffman admitted in her role as
an acting supervisor she had received several oral requests for information which she filled. 20
There has been no evidence that the oral requests for information she responded to as an acting
supervisor were substantially different or more complex than the RFIs at issue. Consequently, it
is clear that Kauffman was well versed in how to respond to RFIs. Moreover, this contradicts
Respondent’s argument that RFIs involving a local matter had to be submitted to the installation
head. It is also significant to note that Kauffman eventually went to Murrell and complained to 25
her that she did not have the time to do her other tasks and respond to the RFIs. Consequently,
Murrell retrieved the RFIs from Kauffman and told the Charging Union that going forward they
should submit information requests to her. This fact establishes that at some point Murrell (or
Firestone) had designated Kauffman as and was aware the she was the official handling RFIs.
Moreover, when informed by Murrell that Kauffman was no longer the designee for processing 30
RFIs, the Charging Union submitted them directly to Murrell. I find, therefore, that the delay in
responding to the Charging Union’s RFIs was solely caused by Respondent.
3. Totality of the circumstances does not alleviate the unreasonableness of the delay
35
Respondent contends that it made a diligent effort to provide the information “reasonably
promptly.” NLRB v. John S. Swift Co., 277 F.2d 641 (7th Cir. 1960). Respondent notes again
that the initial requests were submitted to Kauffman who was newly promoted to a supervisory
position; and she had not yet received training on processing union requests for information.
According to Respondent, Kauffman was exceptionally busy in September and October and the 40
office was also short-staffed. Respondent also points to the mix-up with locating the RFIs after
the October 1 labor-management meeting as a contributing factor in the delay to respond. Based
on the factors that are considered in evaluating whether Respondent exhibited a reasonable good-
faith effort to respond to the RFIs, Respondent argues that its efforts were reasonably prompt.
See Allegheny Power, 339 NLRB 585 (2003) (factors to consider in assessing the promptness of 45
the response are complexity and extent of the requested information, its availability, and
difficulty in accessing the information.)
JD–34–15
8
I find that Respondent’s argument fails. It is clear that Respondent’s actions, given the
totality of the circumstances, do not meet the definition of reasonable promptness as set forth in
West Penn Power Co. Neither Kauffman, nor Murrell testified that the RFIs were complex or
voluminous. Both admitted that it took a minimal amount of time to access the information, and 5
acknowledged that they were authorized to access and print it. Further, Kauffman testified that
she did not know why it took her so long to respond to the Charging Union’s RFI other than to
explain that she was “busy.” In other words, Kauffman felt her other tasks were more important
than responding promptly to the Charging Union’s information requests. I find that this excuse
fails under the definition of reasonable delay established by the Board. West Penn Power Co., 10
supra.
Accordingly, I find the Respondent’s delay in responding to the Charging Union’s
request for information was unreasonable and thus violates Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act and
within the meaning of the PRA.15
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, United States Postal Service, provides postal service for the United
States and operates various facilities throughout the United States. The Board has jurisdiction 20
over Respondent and this matter by virtue of Section 1209 of the PRA.
2. The National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL–CIO and the Charging Union are
labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
25
3. By its unreasonable delay in providing the necessary and relevant information
requested by the Charging Union in writing on or about September 4, 19, and October 17, 2014,
the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act and within the meaning of the PRA.
30
4. The above unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
5. The Respondent has not violated the Act except as set forth above.
35
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices by its
delay in providing the Charging Union with the necessary and relevant information it requested, 40
I shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
The General Counsel requests that I order as appropriate remedies an affirmative
bargaining order, a broad cease-and-desist order, and “any other labor organization” language for 45
the Respondent’s unreasonable delay in providing the Charging Union with the requested
information in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. I find, however, that traditional
JD–34–15
9
remedies are appropriate in this matter. In Hickmott Foods, 242 NLRB 1357 (1987), the Board
held that a broad cease-and-desist order is warranted only when it has been established that an
employer has a proclivity to violate the Act or has engaged in such egregious or widespread
misconduct as to demonstrate its general disregard for the employees’ statutory rights. The
Board has also found that a broad posting requirement was appropriate when the respondent 5
displayed “a clear pattern or practice of unlawful conduct.” Postal Service, 339 NLRB 1162,
1162 (2003). I find, however, that the evidence in this case is insufficient to show that in the
New Baltimore, Michigan facility, the Respondent has shown a proclivity to violate the Act or
engaged in such egregious misconduct as to demonstrate a disregard for employees’ fundamental
statutory rights. The settlements, judgments, and orders cited by the General Counsel to support 10
issuance of the requested remedies do not involve the New Baltimore, Michigan facility.
Therefore, Respondent will be ordered to post and communicate by electronic post to
employees the attached Appendix and notice.
15
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended10
ORDER20
The Respondent, United States Postal Service, in New Baltimore, Michigan its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from 25
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Branch 654, National Association of Letter
Carriers (NALC), AFL–CIO (Charging Union) by its unreasonable delay in providing the
Charging Union, information requested that is necessary and relevant to its role as the exclusive
representative of the employees in following unit: 30
All full-time and regular part-time city letter carriers employed by Respondent at
various facilities throughout the United States, but excluding professional
employees, employees engaged in personnel work in other than a purely non-
confidential clerical capacity, postal inspection service employees, employees in 35
the supplemental work force, rural letter carriers, mail handlers, maintenance
employees, special delivery messengers, motor vehicle employees, postal clerks,
managerial employees, supervisory personnel, and security guards as defined in
Public Law 9-375, 1201(2).
40
(b) In any like or related manner, interfering with, restraining or coercing its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act.

10 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.
JD–34–15
10
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the purposes and policies
of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in New Baltimore,
Michigan copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”11 Copies of the notice, on forms 5
provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being signed by the 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 and members are
customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, the notices shall be
distributed electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other 10
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 involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to 15
all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since
September 4, 2014.
(b) 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 that 20
the Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. June 5, 2015
25
____________________________
Christine E. Dibble (CED)
Administrative Law Judge

11 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 National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations
Board.”
JD–34–15
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
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively and in good faith with the New Baltimore,
Michigan Branch 654, National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC), AFL–CIO
(Union) by failing and refusing to furnish it with requested information in a timely
manner that is relevant and necessary to the Union’s performance of its duties as the
collective-bargaining representative of our unit employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed to you by Section 7 of the Act.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
(Employer)
DATED: __________ BY__________________________________________
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor
Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it
investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under
the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
Patrick V. McNamara Federal Building
477 Michigan Avenue, Room 300
Detroit, Michigan 48226-2543
Telephone: (313) 226-3200
Fax: (313) 226-2090
Hours of Operation: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. ET
JD–34–15
Hearing impaired callers should contact the Federal Relay Service by visiting its website at
www.federalrelay.us/tty
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case 07-CA-138249 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.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE.
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND
MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS
CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE
REGIONAL OFFICE’S COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (313) 226-3200.