USPS, Local 410

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Aug 17, 2006

25-CB-008924 (N.L.R.B. Aug. 17, 2006)

JD–60–06
Henderson, KY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER
CARRIERS, BRANCH 410
(UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE)
and Case 25–CB–8924

PATRICIA BIGHAM, an Individual

Rebekah Ramirez, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Oriana Vigliotti, Esq. (Cohen, Weiss & Simon LLP),
of New York, New York, for the Respondent.

DECISION

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

JOHN T. CLARK, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Evansville, Indiana, on
April 27, 2006. The charge was filed on October 17 and amended on October 19, 2005,1 and
the complaint was issued January 30, 2006. The complaint alleges that the National
Association of Letter Carriers, Branch 410 (the Respondent or Union), violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act), by threatening unit member Patricia
Bigham with refusing to file a grievance on her behalf unless she became a union member,
coercing her into becoming a union member, withdrawing a grievance concerning her because
she refused to join the Respondent and because she complained to the National Association of
Letter Carriers (NALC), and threatened her with having to reimburse the Respondent for legal
expenses because she filed an unfair labor practice charge.

On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, my
credibility determinations based on the weight of the respective evidence, established or
admitted facts, inherent probabilities, and reasonable inferences drawn from the record as a
whole and, after considering the briefs filed by the parties,2 I make the following

FINDINGS OF FACT

I. JURISDICTION

The United States Postal Service (USPS) provides postal services for the United States
and operates various facilities throughout the United States in the performance of that function,
including its facility in Henderson, Kentucky, the only facility involved in this proceeding. The
National Labor Relations Board (the Board) has jurisdiction over the USPS and this matter
pursuant to Section 1209 of the Postal Reorganization Act. The Respondent, National
1 All dates are in 2005 unless otherwise indicated.
2 The General Counsel’s unopposed motion to correct the transcript is granted.

JD–60–06

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
2
Association of Letter Carriers, Branch 410, is admitted to be, and I find is, a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

II. ALLEDGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES

A. Introduction

Paragraph 5 of the complaint alleges that the Respondent is the exclusive bargaining
representative of certain employees of the USPS. The record establishes that the Respondent
more accurately is described as the local affiliate of the Section 9(a) representative, the NALC.
The USPS has recognized the NALC as the exclusive bargaining representative of the
employees in the following unit which the Respondent stipulates, and I find, is appropriate for
collective bargaining:

All city letter carriers at the Employer’s Henderson, Kentucky facility: BUT EXCLUDING
all managerial and supervisory personnel, professional employees, employees engaged
in personnel work other than a purely non-confidential clerical capacity, security guards,
Postal Inspection Service employees, employees in the supplemental work force as
defined in Article 7, rural letter carriers, mail handlers, maintenance employees, special
delivery messengers, motor vehicle employees, and postal clerks.

There are approximately 26 letter carriers in the unit and only 2 not union members. Charging
Party, Patricia Bigham, is a member.

At all material times the NALC and the USPS have maintained and enforced a collective-
bargaining agreement covering conditions of employment of the unit employees and containing
a multistep grievance and arbitration procedure. The initial step of the grievance procedure,
informal step A, is usually an informal meeting between the union steward and the immediate
USPS supervisor involved with the grievance. The grievant may or may not attend. If the
grievance is not resolved it is moved to formal step A, that is a meeting between the branch
chief steward and the branch postmaster. If they cannot resolve the grievance it is referred to
the dispute resolution team (DTR), also known as the B team. The DTR consists of a
representative appointed by the USPS and a representative appointed by the NALC. The
resolution of the grievance by the DTR team is final and binding and from which no appeal can
be taken. If the DTR team cannot resolve the grievance, the team may declare impasse. The
grievance is then sent to NALC Business Agent Pat Carroll and his USPS counterpart who
decide if the grievance should go to arbitration.

Ernie Kirkland is the assistant NALC business agent. He and Carroll are located in Troy,
Michigan. Neither appeared at the hearing.

Robert E. Gibson is the Respondent’s president and chief steward and has been for the
previous 7 years. As the Chief Steward he meets with the postmaster at the formal step A
meeting set forth in the grievance procedure. Frank Ditterline has served as the Respondent’s
steward for the last 2 years and Jack Buckman has been the Respondent’s treasurer for the
past 4 years. The foregoing elected representatives are full-time letter carriers and all serve the
bargaining unit members without pay. Gibson and Ditterline frequently attend State and
national union training seminars specifically addressing issues surrounding the filing of a
grievance and the duty of fair representation.

Membership in the Union is voluntary and letter carriers are eligible to join after
completion of a 90–day probationary period. In order to join, an employees must sign a union

JD–60–06

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
3
dues-authorization form and return it to a union representative.

Bigham began employment at the Henderson Branch Post Office in 1986. For a period
of time between 1990 and 1993, Bigham was the Respondent’s president. She also
erroneously believed that she was a member of the Union, a prerequisite to holding a union
office. This error was discovered when Bigham attempted to vote at a NALC National
Convention. Although she was prevented from voting, and resigned as the Respondent’s
president, she did not join the Respondent until sometime in 1995. She resigned her
membership in April 2004.

B. The General Counsel’s Case

The counsel for the General Counsel acknowledges that the following alleged incident
occurred before the 6-month “statue of limitations” set forth in Section 10(b) of the Act (which
prevents complaint allegations that occurred more than 6 months before the charge) and are
offered solely as background evidence to shed light on the unlawful conduct alleged in the
complaint.

Bigham was hired as a city letter carrier, but do to an injury in 1999, she was placed on a
limited duty assignment. On March 18, 2005, the USPS offered Bigham a new limited duty job
as a clerk, effective April 1. Bigham accepted, under protest. The new job changed her days
off from rotating days, that allowed her to have a 3-day weekend every 6 weeks, to fixed days of
Wednesday and Sunday, thereby preventing her from having consecutive days off.

Bigham stated that around April 1 she requested that Gibson file a grievance because
she wanted to continue holding a letter carrier job in order to maintain her rotating days off
schedule. She claims that Gibson said that he would see what the Union could do about the
matter and gave Bigham a dues-authorization form to sign. Bigham stated that Gibson told her
that she needed to sign the form because “she was not a union member” and that the Union
“could not represent her fairly without being a union member.” Bigham signed the form, dated it
April 1, 2005, and returned it to Gibson. She also told Gibson that it was the law that the Union
had to represent her whether or not she was a member. Gibson responded, according to
Bigham, that he was the judge and the jury and that he decided what grievance could be filed
and that she did not have a grievance. Gibson put the dues-authorization form in his locker.

About 45 minutes later Bigham went to Gibson and asked if he was going to file the
grievance. When he replied in the negative she requested, and received, her dues
authorization form. She contends that General Counsel Exhibit 2 is her original dues
authorization form. Bigham testified that she spoke about this incident with letter carriers Kevin
McCardel, Leo Speaks, and Greg Pixley. When asked on direct examination specifically what
she told Pixley she replied, “I told him that I had signed the union papers and that Robert was
not going to file a grievance for me and that I had asked to have my papers given back to me”
(Tr. 31).

Bigham testified that as soon as she received the offer from the USPS, somewhere
around March 18, she began calling NALC Business Agent Carroll in Troy, Michigan, because
Gibson was “not wanting to help me out” (Tr. 32–35). Bigham testified that during the morning
of April 11 she had a 10-minute phone conversation with Ernie Kirkland, the assistant NALC
business agent. The outcome of the conversation, according to Bigham, was that Kirkland
agreed that she had a grievance and said that he would contact Gibson. Although there is no
evidence that Kirkland did contact Gibson about this matter, grievance number 0505,
concerning the job offer, was filed by Ditterline, on April 11 (Jt. Exh. 2 at 4). Gibson and Regina

JD–60–06

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
4
Edmonds, the Henderson Postmaster could not resolve the grievance and the Respondent
appealed the grievance to step B, the DTR team.

The DTR team found the grievance without merit on June 22. In its decision the DTR
team specifically found that the limited duty job offer “with Non-Scheduled days of
Sunday/Wednesday, work hours of 0800-1650, and a description of the duties of the modified
assignment” was proper in light of Bigham’s medical restrictions and that the USPS had not
violated the collective-bargaining agreement.

The Complaint Allegations

The complaint alleges, in part, that the Respondent threatened Bigham with refusing to
file a grievance on her behalf unless she became a union member, coerced her to become a
union member, and withdrew her grievance in retaliation for her previous refusal to join the
Respondent and because she complained to the NALC.

In support of the foregoing allegation Bigham testified that after receiving the DTR team
decision denying grievance 0505 she went to Gibson and requested that another grievance be
filed contending that because the DRT specifically found that her new position “is a Modified
Carrier Position with clerk duties assigned” (Jt. Exh. 2 at 3), she was still entitled to have
rotating days off. Gibson refused, stating that she did not have a case.

Bigham testified that as soon as she arrived at work on the morning of June 27, Gibson
told her that Ditterline, the Respondent’s steward, needed to see her. Later that morning, as
she was walking across the workroom floor Ditterline stopped her. According to Bigham,
Ditterline held a dues-authorization form and told her that he would like to file the grievance but
that she needed to join the Union. Bigham contends that Ditterline admitted forcing her to join
the Union in order for him to file the grievance. She claims that she told him “well, you know,
you have to represent me no matter what but since you are going to force me, I will sign it
because I knew they would not file a grievance, probably (Tr. 43).” Bigham signed and dated
the dues-authorization form and returned it to Ditterline, who she observed delivering it to
Gibson. She thereafter “said something to another carrier” (Tr. 44).

On July 2, the Respondent filed grievance 0509, concerning the rotating days off. On
July 8 Gibson and Postmaster Edmonds met to discuss the grievance. In an attempt to resolve
it they made a joint conference call to the DTR team that had denied grievance 0505. They
specifically asked the team if the days off issue was considered when the team decided
grievance 0505. The DTR team said that it was, and that they concluded that the USPS’s
action was proper. Based on that information, Gibson withdrew the grievance and drafted a
memo to the file explaining his reasons.

On learning that the grievance was withdrawn Bigham confronted Gibson. After hearing
Gibson’s explanation, Bigham was still not satisfied and again called the NALC business agents
as well as the DTR team in Indianapolis, Indiana.

Gibson testified that Carroll called him and said that Jimmy Williams, executive vice
president of the NALC, had told him that Bigham had threatened a lawsuit. Carroll said that in
Williams’ view “a grievance is cheaper than a lawsuit.” Carroll then asked Gibson, as a favor, to
refile the grievance. Grievance 0510, filed on July 14, is essentially the same as grievance
0509. A different DTR team declared impasse (Jt. Exh. 5) and the grievance was moved to
arbitration. The arbitrator determined that the grievance was not arbitrable because the issue
was previously decided in the DTR team’s resolution of grievance 0505.

JD–60–06

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
5

On October 17 Bigham filed the unfair labor practice charge against the Respondent.
Thereafter, Bigham attended the Respondent’s October meeting membership. Gibson
announced to the membership, under the “new business” agenda, that an unfair labor practice
charge had been filed against the Respondent. In response to a question, Gibson identified
Bigham as the Charging Party. The question of the need to hire an attorney was asked.
Gibson said that although he thought that was likely because he had no experience with the
Board, he would have to check on it. Jack Buckman, the Respondent’s treasurer, testified that
he asked that if the Respondent won the case, if it could be reimbursed for the lawyer’s cost.
According to Bigham, Gibson responded that he did not see why Bigham could not be held for
the fees, to which she responded that she was not paying them. Bigham contends that it was
only after the foregoing exchange that Gibson said that he would have to ask the NALC.

Based on the foregoing, paragraph 5(h) of the complaint alleges that the Respondent
threatened Bigham with having to reimburse the Respondent for its legal expenses because she
employees filed an unfair labor practice charge.

III. DISCUSSION

Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act prohibits a union from restraining or coercing employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. Section 7 guarantees employees
the right to join or to refrain from joining labor organizations. Section 8(b)(1)(A)) does not
require motivation or intent to establish a violation. E.g., Boilermakers Local 686 (Boiler Tube
Co.), 267 NLRB 1056, 1057 (1983).

A union’s status as the exclusive representative of the bargaining unit members imposes
on it a statutory duty to represent the interests of its members without hostility or discrimination.
That statutory duty is violated when the union’s representational conduct is arbitrary,
discriminatory, or in bad faith. Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (1967). A union violates Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act when, in processing contract grievances, it discriminates against unit
employees who are not members of the union. E.g., Auto Workers (Ford Motor Co.), 325 NLRB
530 (1998), enfd. 168 F.3d 509 (D.C. Cir. 1999). Nevertheless, “[a] wide range of
reasonableness must be allowed a statutory bargaining representative in serving the unit it
represents, subject always to complete good faith and honesty of purpose in the exercise of its
discretion.” Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330, 338 (1953).

Based on the foregoing, it is obvious that if Bigham’s testimony is credible, regarding
Gibson’s and Ditterline’s comments concerning her need to join the Respondent before they
would file a grievance on her behalf, the Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
The Respondent acknowledges this fact by characterizing the case as a “classic credibility
dispute.” I agree, and because Bigham’s testimony is the entire corpus of the General
Counsel’s case I have made a careful evaluation of the reliability of her accounts, both standing
alone and when weighted in juxtaposition to the contrary accounts and the categorical denials of
the Respondent’s witnesses. I generally did not find her demeanor to be that of a candid
witness, who was testifying without rancor, especially when comparing her testimony to that of
the Respondent’s witnesses. In addition to her demeanor, for the reasons set forth below, I also
find that her testimony suffers from a lack of corroboration, and is implausible and improbable.

Gibson admitted that as a union official he has a professional relationship with Bigham,
but he also volunteered that beyond work he has no relationship with Bigham. Based on his
demeanor when making that statement it is also clear that he wanted none. He testified that
“[s]he does not seem to like me very much and, sometimes, the feeling is mutual. Gibson has

JD–60–06

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
6
known Bigham for 11 years. Gibson testified that she telephones the NALAC business agents
to complain about his actions regarding all of her grievances. Gibson opined that he thought
that Bigham had “some issues about control.” He testified that Bigham is unable to accept that
the grievance procedure requires that once a grievance progresses beyond the initial level it
becomes the Union’s grievance. As such he, as the chief union steward, has the authority and
the responsibility to settle the grievance even in a manner that is not satisfactory to the grievant.
Gibson’s assessment is based on his undisputed testimony that during his tenure as president
the Respondent has filed approximately 22 grievances on Bigham’s behalf, when she has been
both a member and a nonmember of the Respondent.
Bigham, who does not dispute Gibson’s assertions, contends only that in previous dealings
Gibson would ignore or laugh at her requests.

When testifying about Bigham, Gibson’s demeanor was neither aggressive nor hostile.
He appeared resigned to the situation between himself and Bigham, and he testified in a calm,
noncombative manner. I find him to be a trustworthy and forthright witness.

Regarding Bigham request for the dues-authorization form in April 2005 Gibson only
acknowledges that Bigham approached him about rejoining the Union. Gibson testified that he
got the form from his locker, signed it, handed it to Bigham, and that he never saw the form
again. Assuming that General Counsel Exhibit 2 is the form Gibson signed, Bigham’s testimony
is still puzzling. She acknowledged her signature, and that she dated the form April 1, and that
General Counsel Exhibit 2 is the original form. She also testified that she retrieved the form
from Gibson approximately 45 minutes later. Bigham offers no explanation, or even
acknowledgement, that the date after what appears to be Gibson’s signature, is April 4. April 4
is also the date in the block indicating that the form was delivered to the USPS on that day.
Although not of major significance, it is of interest because Gibson denies ever again seeing the
form he signed and gave to Bigham. This denial presumably encompasses General Counsel’s
Exhibit 2.

In any case Gibson's alleged statement that Bigham had to become a member for the
Respondent to represent her fairly appears to be the primary purpose for which the background
evidence is being offered. This statement was allegedly made after Gibson told Bigham that
she did not have a grievance (Tr. 27–28). Assuming Gibson wanted Bigham to join the
Respondent it appears contradictory for him to begin his coercion by stating that he does not
believe that she has a meritorious grievance. In essence Bigham’s testimony is that Gibson told
her that she had to rejoin the Respondent, in order to find out for certain that her grievance had
no merit. Notwithstanding Bigham’s telling Gibson that his statement is unlawful, she signs the
dues-authorization form. Forty-five minutes later Bigham asks Gibson if he is going to file her
grievance. After he refuses, she requests the return of her dues-authorization form, the very
form that she alleges Gibson had only just coerced her into signing. Gibson immediately
complies with her request, without comment. I find that this story lacks the proverbial “ring of
truth.” I do not accept the General Counsel’s offer of background evidence in light of Gibson’s
credible denial and the history of conflict between he and Bigham.

Bigham also admits that she was calling the NALC business agents since March 18
about “everything that was coming up effecting me” and Gibson not wanting to help her. Gibson
did not specifically deny Bigham's testimony that he thought her grievance was without merit
and he most certainly was aware that Bigham was calling the NALC business agents—he
testified that she called them about all her grievances. Based on this undisputed history of
conflict, I find it difficult to accept that Gibson would be so bold, and so foolish, as to make such
a blatantly coercive statement to Bigham, herself a former union president. I am equally
troubled by Bigham’s failure to take any action with either the Board or the NALC business

JD–60–06

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
7
agents, based on her acknowledged understanding that Gibson’s alleged statement was
unlawful. It appears that throughout this period all Bigham’s communications with the NALC
business agents were limited to soliciting their support in getting Gibson to file a grievance that
he did not believe had merit. I also observed that Bigham’s demeanor is not that of an
individual who is easily intimidated, or deterred. I find it incredible that Gibson would think that
he could threaten or coerce Bigham into doing that which she did not want.

Bigham also testified that she talked to McCardel, Speaks and Pixley about the incident.
Bigham testified that she told Pixley that, “I had signed the union papers and that [Gibson] was
not going to file a grievance for me and that I had asked, to have my papers given back to me”
(Tr. 31). Pixley testified, but as will be seen, his testimony was directed at the Ditterline incident
entirely, and he in no way corroborates Bigham’s testimony concerning Gibson’s alleged
coercive statement. I find that the lack of corroboration of Bigham’s version of events also
detracts from her credibility

In any case, Bigham remains a nonmember, her grievance is filed, Gibson and the
Postmaster cannot resolve the grievance, Gibson moves it to the DTR team and they find that it
is without merit. Bigham claims that thereafter on June 27 Ditterline told her that he would refile
the grievance if she becomes a union member. As of June 27, Bigham had talked to Gibson
about filing another grievance specifically concerning the “rotating days off” issue and he had
told her “a couple of times” that she “did not have a case” (Tr. 40). Thus, according to Bigham,
while Gibson, the chief steward, is telling her she has no case, Ditterline, the steward, is
assuring her “that he would like to file that grievance but, you know, I wasn’t a union member
and that I needed to join the union” (Tr.41). Once again Bigham states that she confronts the
union representative—“you know, you have to represent me no matter what”—only to
immediately succumb to the unlawful coercion—“since you are going to force me I will sign it.”
Bigham offers as a reason for her action that, “I knew they would not file a grievance, probably.”
(Tr. 43.) Bigham’s thinking is especially confusing because Gibson had just filed a grievance on
her behalf, and moved it all the way forward to the DTR team for resolution, all while Bigham
was not a member. Ditterline filed the grievance on July 2. Gibson testified that the grievance
was refiled because Bigham wanted it refiled because she felt that the initial finding concerning
her days off by the DTR team was erroneous, and that the refiling had nothing to do with her
membership. On July 8, after Gibson and Postmaster Edmonds held a joint conference call with
the DTR team, Gibson withdrew the grievance. His decision was based on the DTR team’s
acknowledgement that the days off issue had been considered as part of their decision.

Gibson testified that as the result of a telephone conversation with National Business
Agent Carroll, the Respondent, refiled the grievance on July 14. Carroll told Gibson that
Bigham had called Jimmy Williams, NALC executive vice president, and had threatened a
lawsuit. Carroll said that in Williams’ view “a grievance is cheaper than a lawsuit.” Carroll then
asked Gibson, as a favor, to refile the grievance. Grievance 0510, filed on July 14, is essentially
the same as grievance 0509, that was withdrawn by Gibson. A different DTR team declared
impasse (Jt. Exh. 5) and the grievance was moved to arbitration. The arbitrator determined that
the grievance was not arbitrable because the issue was previously decided in the DTR team’s
resolution of grievance 0505.

Ditterline’s entire 7-year employment with the USPS has been at the Henderson Post
Office. He has been a union member for 5 years and a steward for 2 years. He has attended
three training courses conducted by the NALC on the processing of grievances. Ditterline
credibly testified that on June 27 he was approached by Bigham while he was working. Bigham
said that she wanted to rejoin the Union. Ditterline testified that he obtained a dues-
authorization form from a file cabinet, had Bigham sign it, and immediately took the form to

JD–60–06

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
8
Gibson. He acknowledged that he might have said “thank you” after Bigham gave him the form.
He specifically denied telling Bigham that she, or anyone else had to be a union member for him
to file their grievance, or threatening Bigham, or anyone else, with not filing a grievance for them
until they joined the union.

Ditterline’s demeanor was that of an honest and truthful witnesses. Neither his
demeanor nor the evidence gives any indication that he is, or perceives himself to be, Gibson’s
lackey. He acknowledged the conflict between Gibson and Bigham, but he did not appear to
harbor any hostility towards Bigham, and none is argued by the counsel for the General
Counsel.

It is obvious from Ditterline’s testimony that he is reluctant to engage in a dialogue with
Bigham. Counsel for the General Counsel contends that both Gibson’s and Ditterline’s
testimony is “suspiciously identical,” and implausible, because neither inquired of Bigham why
she wanted to rejoin the Union. In response to that question they both answered that it was
none of their business. Unlike the counsel for the General Counsel, I find nothing suspect in
their statements. There is no question that Bigham had a right to join the Respondent and,
considering her adversarial relationship with Gibson, it is conceivable that she may have viewed
any such inquiry as an attempt to obstruct her path to membership. I also find that Gibson’s and
Ditterline’s lack of interest is consistent with their demeanor when testifying about Bigham.
Neither exhibited overt hostility or aggressiveness towards her, but it was clear that they only
interact with her in their official union capacity, and only then to the extent that is absolutely
necessary.

Not only does Bigham have a history of joining and resigning from the Union, but by the
brevity of her testimony concerning that history, it appears that she has no compelling urge to
expound on the reasons for her actions. Thus, she was eligible for membership in the
Respondent in 1986, and although not a member she was elected president of the Respondent
for a period of time during the early nineties. It was while attempting to vote at the NALC
convention that she discovered that she was not a member. Notwithstanding being informed
that she was mistaken about her membership in the Union, she did not join until 1995, and she
resigned in 2004. I see no reason for Bigham to explain why she was exercising her right of
association, nor do I find anything implausible in Gibson and Ditterline not asking her why she
wished to rejoin—it really is none of their business.

Greg Pixley was subpoenaed by counsel for the General Counsel as a corroborating
witness for Bigham. Pixley is a letter carrier at the Henderson facility, and at times he works
beside her. Pixley was a member of the Respondent from 1995 until he resigned in 2001 or
2002. Until Bigham rejoined in 2005, she and he were the only nonmembers. Notwithstanding
the fact that he was not a member, I found him to be a very credible witness who did not appear
to have a bias towards either party and was making a sincere effort to recount the events as
best he could.

Counsel for the General Counsel prefaced her question by directing Pixley’s attention to
April 2005, and then asked him about a conversation he had with Bigham. Over the
Respondent’s hearsay objection I allowed his testimony. Pixley stated that Bigham came to him
and asked if he had heard what Ditterline had told her. Pixley said that he had not because he
is usually wearing earphones and is too busy working to pay attention to his surroundings.
Bigham told him that Ditterline had given her papers to sign to rejoin the union. Bigham said
that Ditterline told her that if she rejoined that they would give her better representation than she
had at that moment. Pixley replied that he was “kind of surprised that—that they were going to
do something like that” (Tr. 142). Bigham indicated that she was undecided and mentioned that

JD–60–06

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
9

she would seek advice from the district or regional offices as to the direction to take.

Clearly Pixley’s testimony, although credible, has no probative value regarding either the
April 2005 alleged incident with Gibson, or the June 27 incident with Ditterline. Although
Bigham mentioned Pixley as one of several carriers to whom she told about the Gibson incident,
she testified that she told Pixley that she had signed the papers, that Gibson was not going to
file the grievance and that she had asked to have the papers returned (Tr. 31). Pixley’s
testimony in no way relates to that scenario. His testimony apparently relates to the Ditterline
incident. Presumably it is he to whom Bigham is referring when she testified that she said
something to another carrier (Tr. 44). Of course Pixley’s testimony regarding what he was told
by Bigham is not only significantly different from her testimony, it is based not at all on what he
heard or observed, but solely on what Bigham told him, and therefore is of no probative value.

I do find Pixley’s testimony significant for his response that he was surprised that “they”
were doing something like that. I agree. Neither Gibson nor Ditterline appeared to have the
demeanor of vindictive individuals. Pixley testified that the Respondent has filed and
prosecuted grievances both at his request, and when the Respondent acted on its own,
believing that Pixley’s rights under the collective-bargaining agreement had been violated. It is
undisputed that the Respondent has also pursued grievances for Bigham as a member and a
nonmember.

Jack Buckman testified on behalf of the Respondent. Buckman is the Respondent’s
treasurer and it was he who asked Gibson if the Respondent could be reimbursed by Bigham
for legal fees. Buckman credibly testified that Gibson’s only answer was that he would have to
check on that. Buckman’s testimony corroborates Gibson’s testimony and Gibson’s replies are
consistent with that of an individual who had no experience with unfair labor practice
proceedings. I find no reason not to fully credit the testimony of Gibson and Buckman.

Based on the foregoing credibility determinations and the record as a whole, I find that
the Respondent, the National Association of Letter Carriers, Branch 410, did not violate Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act as alleged in the complaint. Accordingly, I recommend that the complaint
be dismissed.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Respondent, the National Association of Letter Carriers, Branch 410, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

2. The Respondent is subject to the National Labor Relations Board’s jurisdiction
pursuant to Section 1209 of the Postal Reorganization Act.

3. The Respondent did not violate the National Labor Relations Act in any manner
alleged in the complaint.

On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended3
3 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–60–06

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
10

ORDER
The complaint is dismissed.

Dated, Washington, D.C. August 17, 2006

____________________
John T. Clark
Administrative Law Judge