United States Postal Service, (2017)
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. 20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can be included in the bound volumes.
United States Postal Service and Branch 256, National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC), AFL– CIO. Cases 07–CA–145159 and 07–CA–159684
June 12, 2017
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MISCIMARRA AND MEMBERS PEARCE AND MCFERRAN
On December 2, 2016, Administrative Law Judge Christine E. Dibble issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, to which the General Counsel filed an answering brief and the Respondent filed a reply brief. The General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a supporting brief, to which the Respondent filed an answering brief and the General Counsel filed a reply brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions,1 cross-exceptions, and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,2 and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order as modified and set forth in full below.3
1 There are no exceptions to the judge’s finding that the Respondent unlawfully delayed in responding to the Union’s request for the names and work locations of light-duty status employees.
2 In adopting the judge’s finding that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) as alleged, we do not rely on the judge’s citations to Alcan Rolled Products, 358 NLRB 37 (2012), and Postal Service, 359 NLRB 1052 (2013), decisions that issued at a time when the Board lacked a quorum. See NLRB v. Noel Canning, 134 S.Ct. 2550 (2014).
In adopting the judge’s finding that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by unreasonably delaying furnishing information about light-duty employees’ work restrictions, we do not rely on the judge’s suggestion that the Respondent “waived” its right to bargain over how to protect employees’ confidential medical information. Instead, we find that the Respondent failed to adhere to the process for handling requests for employee medical information set forth in its negotiated agreement with the Union. See, e.g., River Oak Center for Children, 345 NLRB 1335, 1336 (2005), enfd. mem. 273 Fed.Appx. 677 (9th Cir. 2008).
3 On exception, the General Counsel contends that the judge erred by declining to recommend a broad cease-and-desist order and by failing to extend the order to apply to “any other labor organization.” Contrary to the General Counsel’s contentions, we find that the judge’s recommended remedial Order, including district-wide notice posting, is necessary and sufficient “‘to dissipate fully the coercive effects of the unfair labor practices found.’” Federated Logistics & Operations, 340 NLRB 255, 256 (2003) (quoting Fieldcrest Cannon, Inc., 318 NLRB 470, 473 (1995)), enfd. 400 F.3d 920 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
We shall modify the judge’s recommended Order to conform to the Board’s standard remedial language, and we shall substitute a new notice to conform to the Order as modified.
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Respondent, United States Postal Service, in the Flint installation and the facilities it encompasses and the Detroit District, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall
Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Branch 256, National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC), AFL– CIO (the Union) by failing and refusing to furnish and/or by unreasonably delaying in furnishing it with requested information that is relevant and necessary to the Union’s performance of its function as the collective-bargaining representative of the Respondent’s unit employees.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) To the extent it has not already done so, furnish to the Union in a timely manner the information requested by the Union on October 22, 2014, and July 25, 2015.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facilities within the Detroit District, including the Flint installation and the facilities it encompasses, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”4 Copies of the notice, on forms 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 are customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, notices shall be distributed electronically, 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.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director for Region 7 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.
Dated, Washington, D.C. June 12, 2017
4 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.”
365 NLRB No. 92
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Philip A. Miscimarra, Chairman
Mark Gaston Pearce, Member
Lauren McFerran, Member
(SEAL) 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 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 with the Union by failing and refusing and/or by unreasonably delaying in furnishing it with requested 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 you in the exercise of the rights listed above.
WE WILL furnish to the Union in a timely manner the information it requested on October 22, 2014, and July 25, 2015, to the extent we have not already provided it.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
The Board’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/07–CA–145159 or by using the QR code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.
Jennifer Y. Brazeal, Esq., for the General Counsel. Roderick D. Eves, Esq., for the Respondent.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
CHRISTINE E. DIBBLE, Administrative Law Judge.1 This case was tried in Detroit, Michigan, on April 18 and 19, 2016.2
Branch 25, National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL–CIO (Charging Union) filed charges in Cases 07–CA–145159 and 07–CA–159684 on January 26, 2015, and September 8, 2015, respectively. (GC Exhs. 1(a) to 1(aa).)3 The General Counsel issued the complaint and notice of hearing for case 07–CA– 145159 on May 20; and issued the complaint and notice of hearing for case 07–CA–159684 on December 31.4 The United States Postal Service (Respondent) filed timely answers to both complaints denying all material allegations.
The consolidated complaint alleges that (1) from about October 22, 2014, to about November 14, 2014, Respondent unreasonably delayed in furnishing the Charging Union “with the following information for ‘all Flint installation employees with light-duty status’ including their: names, location, restrictions (written request to Postmaster), date restrictions began; and all information concerning reasonable accommodation hearings for each”; (2) from about October 22, 2014, to about February 11, Respondent unreasonably delayed in informing the Charging Union that the requested information, with respect to Joelle Hindbaugh does not exist; (3) from about October 22, 2014, to about February 20, Respondent unreasonable delayed in furnishing the Charging Union with the requested information as
1 At the start of the trial, the counsel for the General Counsel made a motion to consolidate cases 07–CA–145159 and 07–CA–159684. Respondent supported the motion to consolidate. I granted the General Counsel’s motion.
2 All dates are in 2015, unless otherwise indicated.
3 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.
4 On May 26 and 28, the General Counsel issued errata to the complaints and notices of hearings...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP