United States Postal Service,

Docket Number:07-CA-160663
 
FREE EXCERPT

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 434, National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC), AFL– CIO. Case 07–CA–160663

March 24, 2017

DECISION AND ORDER

BY ACTING CHAIRMAN MISCIMARRA AND MEMBERS PEARCE AND MCFERRAN

On September 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. The General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a supporting brief, to which the Respondent filed an answering brief. Both the Respondent and the General Counsel filed reply briefs.

The National Labor Relations 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,1 and conclusions,2 and to adopt the recommended Order as modified.3

ORDER

The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge as modified below and orders that the Respondent, United States Postal Service, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and the Detroit District, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified.

1 The Respondent has 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.

2 In affirming the judge’s unfair labor practice findings, we do not rely on her citations to Alcon Rolled Products, 358 NLRB 37 (2012), and NACCO Material Handling Group, Inc., 359 NLRB 1192 (2013), which were issued by panels subsequently found invalid by NLRB v. Noel Canning, 134 S.Ct. 2550 (2014). We also do not rely on her citation to Postal Service, 354 NLRB 412 (2009), which was decided by a two-member Board. See New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB, 560 U.S. 674 (2010).

3 We find that the judge’s recommended remedial Order, including district-wide notice posting, is necessary and—contrary to the General Counsel—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 more closely conform to the violations found.

Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a).

“(a) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, furnish to the Union a copy of the R02 report it requested on or about July 21 and July 31, 2015.”

Substitute the attached notice for that of the administrative law judge.

Dated, Washington, D.C. March 24, 2017

______________________________________

Philip A. Miscimarra, Acting 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 and in good faith with Branch 434, 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 collectivebargaining representative of our unit employees at our

365 NLRB No. 51

2

Detroit District facilities, including the Ann Arbor, Michigan installation.

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, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, a copy of the R02 report it requested on or about July 21 and July 31, 2015.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

The Board’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/07-CA-160663 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.

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

Jennifer Y. Brazeal, 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 April 18, 2016. Branch 434 (Charging Union), National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL–CIO filed a charge in Case 07–CA–160663 on September 23, 2015.1 The General Counsel issued the complaint on December 18 and issued an amendment to the complaint on March 18, 2016.2 The United States Postal Service (Respondent) filed a timely answer denying all material allegations. (GC Exhs. 1(a) to 1(k).)3

The complaint alleges that (1) since about July 21, Respondent has failed and refused to furnish Charging Union with information it requested on or about July 21 and July 31; and (2) from about June 27 to about October 16, Respondent unreasonably delayed in furnishing the Charging Union with infor

1 All dates are in 2015, unless otherwise indicated.

2 There was a minor revision to the amendment of the complaint, adding the location where Respondent’s named supervisors were assigned.

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.

mation it requested on about June 27, August 24, and September 5.4

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

FINDINGS OF FACT

I. JURISDICTION

Respondent provides postal service for the United States and operates facilities 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 (NALC), AFL–CIO (National Union) have been labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES

  1. Overview of Respondent’s Operation

    Respondent processes and delivers mail nationwide, and is organized into seven distinct Regions: Northeast, Eastern, Great Lakes, Capital Metro, Southern, Western, and Pacific. Each Region is divided into Districts; and the Districts consist of postal locations that are grouped into an installation. Installations are comprised of a number of postal facilities within a certain city. The Great Lakes Region, which is involved in this case, has seven Districts: Detroit, Lakeland, Greater Michigan, Greater Indiana, Gateway, Central Illinois, and Chicago. The District and postal facility at issue are: the Detroit District and the Ann Arbor main post office. The Detroit District oversees installations in Ann Arbor, Flint, and Jackson. The Ann Arbor installation is comprised of three postal stations.

    David Williams (Williams) is Respondent’s chief operating officer and executive vice president. Great Lakes area manager, Jacqueline Krage Strako (Strako) reports directly to Williams.5 At all material times, Lee Thompson (Thompson) was the Detroit district manager. Zandra Bland (Bland) was station manager at the Liberty Station. During the relevant period: Diane LeVeque was the Ann Arbor postmaster; Tracy VanBuren (VanBuren) was an acting supervisor at the Ann Arbor facility; and Virgil Roddy (Roddy) was the supervisor of customer service at the Ann Arbor postal location. Crystal Curtis (Curtis) is Respondent’s district complement coordinator. Since August 2013, Andrea Porter has been the Detroit request for information coordinator.

    4 These allegations are alleged in pars. 10 and 11 of the complaint.

    5 I have taken judicial notice of Respondent’s administrative structure as set forth on its website. See http://about.usps.com/who-weare/leadership/hq-org-photos?v=51416. F.R.E. 201(b); Doron Precision Systems, Inc. v. FAAC, Inc., 423 F.Supp. 2d 173, 179 fn.8 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (“a court may take judicial notice of information publicly announced on a party’s website, as long as the website’s authenticity is not in dispute and it’s capable of accurate and ready determination.”)

    POSTAL SERVICE 3

    The following constituted a unit appropriate for the purposes of...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP