American Postal Workers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 18, 1980

250 N.L.R.B. 761 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

AMERICAN POSTAI. WORKERS
American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO, Mem-
phis Local (United States Postal Service) and
Talmadge G. Tolson, Sr. Cases 26-CB-1457(P)
and 26-CB-1468(P)
July 18, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND TRUESDALE
On March 13, 1980, Administrative Law Judge
George Norman issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel
filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and Re-
spondent filed an answering brief to the General
Counsel's exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order,' as
modified herein.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi-
fied below, and hereby orders that the Respondent,
American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO,
Memphis Local, its officers, agents, and representa-
tives, shall take the action set forth in the said rec-
ommended Order, as so modified:
1. Substitute the following as paragraph 2(a):
The General Counsel excepts to the failure of the Administrative
Law Judge to include a make-whole remedy for all employees who lost
benefits as a result of Respondent's adoption and enforcement of its
policy of disapproving schedule change requests We find merit in this
exception. The Administrative Law Judge found that Respondent violat-
ed Sec B(bX(lA) and (2) by adopting this policy and by refusing to ap-
prove requests for changes of schedule for employees Talmadge G
Tolson, Sr., William Henry, Earl L. McGehee. Lee P Sharpe, and other
employees during the period the policy was in effect. However. he rec-
ommended only that Resxpondent make whole Tolson There is some evi-
dence in the record that Henry. McGehee. and Sharpe also lost benefits
as a result of Respondent's unlawful policy. In these circumstances, we
find that a make-whole remedy as to the four named individuals is appro-
priate, and we will modify the Administrative Law Judge's remedy. rec-
ommended Order, and notice accordingly However, we disagree with
the General Counel's contention that "other employees" sho,uld be in-
cluded in the make-whole remedy. In our view, the inclusion of a remedy
for employees who were not named in the complaint and whose status
was not litigated at the hearing is in the instant case contrart to estah-
lished Board precedent and enables the General Counsel to engage im, an
unwarranted fishing expedition at the coimpliance stage of this proceed
ing
250 NLRB No. 105
"(a) Make whole Talmadge G. Tolson, Sr., Wil-
liam Henry, Earl L. McGehee, and Lee P. Sharpe
for all losses they suffered, if any, as a result of the
discrimination against them by reason of Respond-
ent's refusal to approve their requests for changes
of schedule, in the manner provided in 'The
Remedy."'
2. Insert the following as paragraph 2(d) and re-
letter the subsequent paragraphs accordingly:
"(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available
to the Board or its agents, for examination and
copying, all records, reports, work lists, and other
documents necessary to analyze the amount due
under the terms of this Order."
3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Agency of the United States Government
Pursuant to the Order of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board and in order to effectuate the policies
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
we hereby notify you that:
WE WlIl. NOT threaten employees of the
United States Postal Service, Bulk Mail
Center, Memphis, Tennessee, with refusal to
approve requests for change in schedule unless
they join the union.
WE WIL . NOT attempt to cause the United
States Postal Service to disapprove a request
for change of schedule for any employee.
WE WIL.L NOT force and require any em-
ployee to join or pay dues to the Union by
threatening to disapprove a request for change
of schedule.
WE WIE L NOT institute a policy of disap-
proving requests for change of schedule and
telling employees represented by the Union
that such policy is being enforced because an
employee filed an unfair labor practice charge
with the National Labor Relations Board
against the Union.
WE WILL make whole employees Talmadge
G. Tolson, Sr., William Henry, Earl L. McGe-
hee, and Lee P. Sharpe for all losses they suf-
fered, if any, with interest, as a result of our
refusal to approve requests for changes of
schedule because an employee wvas not a
member of the Union and because an employ-
ee had filed an unfair labor practice charge
7hl
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with the National Labor Relations Board
against the Union.
WE witl.. notify the United States Postal
Service, Bulk Mail Center, Memphis, Tennes-
see, not to give effect to the checkoff authori-
zation coercively obtained from employee Wil-
liam Henry.
WE WILL reimburse employee William
Henry for all dues checked off under said
checkoff authorization.
AMERICAN POSTAI WORKERS UNION,
AFL-CIO, MEMPHIS LOCAL
DECISION
SIAITMINTI OF THI CASE
GEOR(iG NORMAN, Administrative Law Judge: A
hearing in this proceeding was held in Memphis, Tennes-
see, on June 6 and 7, 1979, on a consolidated complaint
of the General Counsel against American Postal Workers
Union, AFL-CIO, Memphis Local, herein called the Re-
spondent or the Union. The consolidated complaint
issued on February 12, 1979, based on charges filed on
December 21, 1978, and January 23, 1979, by Talmadge
G. Tolson, Sr., acting individually. The complaint alleges
in substance that in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and
(2) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
Union refused to condone and agree to requests of
Tolson and other employees for temporary changes in
work schedules submitted to Respondent by said em-
ployees.
The Union's answer admitted certain allegations but
denied the substantive allegations of the complaint and
the commission of any unfair labor practices.
All parties were represented by counsel and were af-
forded full opportunity to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues,
and to engage in oral argument. Post-hearing briefs have
been received from the General Counsel and from the
Respondent. Those briefs have been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record and from my observation of
the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, I make
the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCL.USIONS
I. THE EMPLOYER'S BUSINESS
The Employer, United States Postal Service, herein
called USPS, is now and has been at all times material
herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The Board
has jurisdiction over this matter by virtue of Section
1209 of the Postal Reorganization Act. The facility in-
volved in this proceeding is the Bulk Mail Center locat-
ed at 1921 Elvis Presley Boulevard, Memphis, Tennes-
see.
11. ITH I.ABOR ORGANIZATION INVOL.VEI)
The Union is now, and has been at all times material
herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the National Labor Relations Act.
III. 'I'H AI.I E(EI) U
N FAIR I.ABOR PRACTICIFS
A. The Issues
Did Respondent violate Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act
by:
1. Telling an employee represented by Respondent
that in the future it would not approve requests for
changes in schedule for the employee unless he became a
member of Respondent.
2. Refusing to approve a request for change of sched-
ule for employee Talmadge G. Tolson, Sr., in October
1978.
3. Telling an employee represented by Respondent
that it would not, in the future, approve requests for
schedule change for him unless he became a member of
the Union (November and December 1978).
4. Adopting a policy of disapproving requests for
changes of schedule on or about January 12, 1979, and
by telling employees represented by Respondent that
such policy was being enforced because an employee had
filed an unfair labor practice charge against the Union
with the National Labor Relations Board.
Did Respondent violate Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of
the Act by:
1. Attempting to cause the United States Postal Serv-
ice to disapprove a request for change of schedule for
employee Talmadge G. Tolson, Sr. (December 1978).
2. Forcing and requiring employee William Henry to
join and pay dues to Respondent by threatening to disap-
prove Henry's request for changes of schedules (Novem-
ber or December 1978).
3. Commencing on or about January 12, 1979, and
continuing to about February 7, 1979, refusing to ap-
prove requests for changes of schedule from employee
Talmadge G. Tolson, Sr., William Henry, Earl L.
McGehee, and Lee P. Sharp, and other employees repre-
sented by Respondent.
B. Background
As previously indicated, United States Postal Service
operates the Bulk Mail Center at 1921 Elvis Presley Bou-
levard in Memphis. Respondent has been bargaining rep-
resentative of employees employed in the Clerk, Mainte-
nance and Motor Vehicle Crafts, at the Center.
Beginning in July or August 1978, Respondent and
USPS agreed that thereafter they would utilize a new
form, designated PS Form 3189, for the purpose of proc-
essing employee requests for temporary changes in work
schedules. Respondent and USPS further agreed that
thereafter Respondent must condone and agree to em-
ployer requests for temporary changes in work schedules
before such requests may be approved by the USPS. 1 By
' Unit employees at the Bulk Mail Center asked approval for schedule
changes to avoid a loss o
e
f &working time due to attendance at military re-
Continued
7h62
AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS
giving its approval to requests for temporary schedule
changes, Respondent asserts that it will not claim over-
time for out-of-schedule time work as a result of the re-
quests.
1. Respondent denies request of employee
Talmadge G. Tolson, Sr.
In October 19782 employee Talmadge G. Tolson, Sr.,
a member of the U.S. Naval Reserve, attended drills at
the Naval Reserve Center in Memphis one weekend each
month. Tolson's off-duty days at BMC have been Tues-
day and Wednesday. On July 30, Tolson approached the
Union's steward, Stanley Harris, and asked him to sign a
form 3189 in which Tolson was requesting that his off-
duty days be changed from Tuesday and Wednesday to
Saturday and Sunday during the work period August 12
through 18 for the purpose of attending "monthly mili-
tary drill weekend." Harris told Tolson that the Union's
craft director, Joe Myles, was the only person authorized
to sign the form on behalf of the Union. Tolson then ap-
proached Myles and asked him to sign the form. Myles
responded by asking Tolson if he was a member of the
Union. Tolson replied that he was not. Myles then said,
according to Tolson, "You need to join the Union."
Tolson made no reply to Myles comment. Myles stated
further that he was going to sign it this time but unless
Tolson joined the Union he could not sign it in the
future. 3
Tolson testified that, because of budgetary reasons, he
was not required to attend drills during the month of
September but that, sometime during the first week of
October, he approached Myles and handed Myles a new
request for change of schedule so that he could attend
drill schedules for the month of October. Tolson said
that when he submitted the October request to Myles,
Myles asked Tolson if he had "joined the Union yet."
Tolson replied "No," and Myles then asked him if he
were going to join the Union. When Tolson said that he
was not, Myles returned the request form to Tolson
without signing it.
Tolson then submitted the request to his immediate su-
pervisor and informed him that Myles had refused to
sign it. Shortly thereafter Tolson was informed that
USPS had disapproved the request because the Union
had not signed it. Notwithstanding, on October 22,
Tolson attended a portion of the reserve drill scheduled
for the month of October, using eight tenths of a hour of
annual leave for that purpose.
Myles admitted that he refused to sign Tolson's re-
quest for October. He said that when Tolson submitted
the October request form for his signature, Tolson told
him "there is nothing I could do for him nor the Union
could do for him." When questioned as to why he did
not approve the request he testified as follows:
serve and national guard drills These drills are normally conducted one
weekend each month
2 Unless otherwise indicated. all events referred to herein occurred in
1978
a In the blank marked sles;ard's signature appears the handwritten
statement "for George Whiten by S Harris" Myles denied that the form
was submitted to him. testifying that he sas in Nashille. Tennessee, on
July 30
Well, I guess because of the irrationality of mine,
not thinking at the time, you know. From his state-
ment, it seemed that there was nothing I could do
for him nor the Union could do for him, and yet he
still needed a signature for the change, but he was
saying there was nothing that I could do for him, so
When asked why a statement like that caused him not to
approve when he should have approved the request,
Myles replied:
With that type of frustration, I guess it was just a
momentary impulse to, you know, get back at that
time. But then again, like I said, it \was not due to
his not being a member of the Union.
2. The denial of Tolson's request in December
On December 3, Tolson completed and signed a re-
quest for a temporary change in his off-duty days to Sat-
urday and Sunday, December 9 and 10; again for mili-
tary drill weekend. This time he submitted the request
directly to USPS.
USPS superintendent of building and equipment at the
Bulk Mail Center, Aubrey R. Friday, testified that he
took Tolson's December request to Myles and asked
Myles to sign it, but Myles refused. Friday said he re-
minded Myles the request was for military service but
Myles still denied it. Friday then asked Myles if Myles
would sign the same request if the request were submit-
ted by the union steward, "Punchy" Turner. Myles said
that he would. When Friday asked Myles "what was the
difference," Myles replied that Turner was a member of
the Union.
Friday then took Tolson's request to Durwood Harris
who, at the time, was director of maintenance at the
Center. He told Harris of the conversation he had with
Myles and both agreed that Friday would sign the 3971
form.
4
3. The Union files a grievance
Following the USPS approval of Tolson's request for
a change of schedule for December, the Union filed a
grievance in protest of USPS approval of Tolson's re-
quest. The grievance was filed a few days after Friday's
conversation with Myles regarding Tolson's December
request.
Myles denied that Friday asked him to sign Tolson's
request for December. He testified that, while Friday
and other supervisors told him that he could not reject
Tolson's request because Tolson was not a member of
the Union, he told each of them that he agreed he could
not deny the request because of Tolson's nonmember-
ship. 5
' The 3917 form. unlike the 3189 form that requires the signature of a
union representative was used by USPS to indicate its approval of re-
quest for schedule changes and the effect of signing that form was to
demonstrate that USPS approved Tolson's December request despite the
refusal of the Union to sign It.
s To the exitrcl that Myles' testimony Is inc, nsistlent ,ith that of
Friday. Harris. or Tolson I do not credit it Friday. Harris and Tolson
Continued
763
DECISIONS ()F NATIONAL LABOR REI.ATIONS B()OARI)
Durwood Harris testified that after he approved unilat-
erally Tolson's request of December 3, Myles came to
his office and protested. Harris told Myles that it was his
understanding that Myles was denying the request for
the change in off days because Tolson was not a member
of the Union. Harris told Myles that under the contract
the Union had a responsibility to represent all members
of his craft whether they were members of the Union or
not. Myles responded that he would represent them in
grievance procedures but would not and could not ap-
prove a change in off days because of instructions from
Whitten that he would not approve changes in off days
for nonunion members. Harris then told him that he
would continue with his decision and that Myles could
take it through the grievance procedure to get it settled.
Harris also told Myles that if it were determined that he
had to pay overtime because of the change in off days he
would pay it.
Howard Brabant, a tour superintendent at the Bulk
Mail Center, testified that, following the decision of
USPS to approve Tolson's December request unilateral-
ly, he met Myles in the workroom. Myles told Brabant
that he was going to have to stop approving requests for
changes in schedules without a union steward's signature.
When Brabant inquired who he meant, Myles responded
that he meant Talmadge Tolson. Brabant then asked
Myles why he did not want to sign a change of schedule
request for Tolson and Myles replied "because he is not
a Union member." Brabant then said that until there
were "further orders" USPS would approve schedule
changes for military leave "even if the steward didn't."
The Union's grievance concerning the unilateral approv-
al of Tolson's request was settled on December 28 on the
basis that USPS would no longer approve requests for
temporary schedule changes unless such request had pre-
viously been approved by the Union. The settlement did
not include payment of overtime to Tolson.
4. Employee William Henry
Employee William Henry testified that for the past 4
years he had been attending monthly drills at Little Rock
Air Force Base in Arkansas, approximately 145 miles
from Henry's home. Because of the distance, Henry left
home on Friday and returned on Sunday. Henry's off-
duty days at the Bulk Mail Center were Friday and Sat-
urday for the past year. Henry stated that in late 1978 he
submitted a request for a change of schedule to Myles
for the purpose of attending military drills. When Myles
was handed the form he told Henry he was not going to
sign it, remarking that Henry was not a member of the
American Postal Workers Union, but he did sign the
form later. Henry told Myles that he belonged to an-
other Union and that was the reason he did not join the
Respondent. Myles then told him to get an application.
Henry made application to join the Union. When
asked on direct examination why he made application to
join the American Postal Workers Union, he said he was
under pressure, that "they kept on saying that I was not
a member of the American Postal Workers Union and
testified in a calm, consistent and otherwise credible manner Myles testi-
fied less openly and in a guarded, argumenllaiste mannlller
weren't going to sign no more request form, if I didn't
join the Union." When asked who he meant by "they"
he answered "Mr. Myles," Henry said the only reason he
joined Respondent was to get his change of schedule re-
quest approved by Respondent. 6
5. Respondent ceases agreeing to any requests for
schedule changes
On January 12, 1979, Union President George Whitten
sent a letter to Respondent's stewards at the Bulk Mail
Center. It read:
There has been an unfair labor practice filed against
the Local APWU concerning schedule changes.
The statement was that we would not approve any
change for someone who is not a member. This is
not true because the individual who made the
charge has had his changed before and after this
charge. Since this has come up, I feel that we
should cease agreeing to any schedule change for
anyone for the time being.
Whitten testified that the purpose of the letter was to
cease approving requests or changes of schedule until a
final resolution of the Tolson case came before the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board. He said that he alone
made the decision to take that action and he did not seek
approval of it from the Union's membership. He further
stated that he put the policy in effect because of charges
of unfair labor practices and "I didn't want anything else
to come up to show where we might-say the situation
came about again with somebody else and whether they
are a member or non-member, saying we were being dis-
criminatory against them. And I think we stopped it for
everybody for the time being and we wouldn't be dis-
criminating about disapproving for this one, and approv-
ing for this one." When asked why he did not put in a
policy of blanket approval rather than blanket disapprov-
al which would accomplish the same purpose, Whitten
said he just did not think.
On February 7, 1979, Whitten sent two letters to stew-
ards at the Bulk Mail Center. Whitten testified that it
was his intention in sending the letters to instruct stew-
ards to resume approving request for schedule changes
after consulting with an attorney. One of the letters
stated "no one will be denied schedule change because
they did not belong to the Union," and the other read
"As always, no one will be denied a schedule change be-
cause they did not belong to the Union."
Discussion and Conclusion
The Act guarantees that once a labor organization
enters into a collective-bargaining relationship with an
employer it is bound to represent the employees in the
unit fairly and equally, regardless of their membership or
nonmembership in a union. The statement by the Union's
craft director, Joe Myles, in response to Talmadge Tol-
son's request of him to sign the form for a change in
l' In his lestinimony Myles did lno dcny Ihe remarks attributed to him by
Henry
764
AMERICAN P()STAL WORKERS
schedule, that Tolson needed to join the Union and that
he was going to sign it this time but unless Tolson joined
the Union he could not sign it in the future, is in direct
conflict with that portion of the Act which requires a
Union to represent the employees in the unit fairly and
equally, regardless of union membership or nonmember-
ship. Myles' statement is a threat to breach that duty of
equal representation and is violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A)
in that it was clearly a coercive attempt to restrain
Tolson in his right to be free to join or not join the
Union; to continue working in either case; and expect
fair representation. Highway and Local Motor Freight Em-
ployees Local Union No. 667, affiliated with the Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America (Owens-Corning Fiberglas
Corporation), 228 NLRB 398 (1977); General Teamsters.
Chauffeurs and Helpers Local Union No. 298, a/w Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs., Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America (Schumacher Electric Corpo-
ration), 236 NLRB 428 (1978).
In October, Tolson again submitted a request form for
schedule change to Myles. Whereupon, Myles asked
Tolson if he had joined the Union yet. Upon receiving a
negative reply, Myles asked him if he were going to join
the Union. Tolson said that he was not. Myles then re-
turned the request form to Tolson without signing it. Be-
cause of the union representative's refusal to sign, the
employer, USPS, disapproved Tolson's request, resulting
in Tolson using eight-tenths of an hour of annual leave
for that purpose.
I reject Myles' explanation for refusing to sign Tol-
son's request for lack of merit. In December, Myles re-
fused to sign Tolson's request when it was presented to
him by UPS superintendent, Aubrey R. Friday. Myles
admitted that he did not sign the request because Tolson
was not a member of the Union.
William Henry testified that Myles told him that he
would not sign Henry's request in the future if Henry did
not join the Union. Myles also threatened to withhold
Henry's request of November 1978, and then later signed
the request. Henry's testimony was not controverted by
Myles. I find that Myles' conduct, described above, con-
cerning Tolson and Henry constitutes threats by the
Union to refuse to represent members of the bargaining
unit because they are not members of the Union in viola-
tion of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Hughes Aircraft
Company, 159 NLRB 1080 (1966).
Myles' threats to Tolson were followed by his refusal
to approve Tolson's request of October and December.
Myles knew that such refusal would cause the employer
to refuse to grant the requests. And, when the employer
told Myles that it was approving Tolson's December re-
quest, Myles attempted to get the employer to change
his position and to deny Tolson's request. When the em-
ployer refused to change his position, Myles filed a
grievance against the employer. In the latter part of De-
cember the Union prevailed upon the employer to enter
into an agreement which provided that thereafter the
employer would not approve any request for schedule
changes unless the changes were first approved by the
Union. A few days after the resolution of the Union's
grievance concerning Tolson, the Union issued an Order
to its stewards to deny all requests for schedule changes
That Order remained in effect until February 7, 1979,
after which Respondent Union began approving all re-
quests including those of Tolson.
The Union's conduct had the effect of causing the em-
ployer to deny an employee a benefit to which the em-
ployee was otherwise entitled. The Union's denial to ap-
prove the request of Tolson for changes and its order re-
sulting in the refusal to approve anyone's request consti-
tute violations of 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act. Myles'
conduct and the Union's Order, as previously stated,
caused the Company to discriminate with regard to the
employment conditions of Tolson and other employees.
That discrimination reasonably tended to encourage
membership in Respondent Union and to restrain and
coerce employees in the exercise of their rights guaran-
teed by Section 7 of the Act. Federation of Telephone
Workers of Pennsylvania. Local 58 (Bell Telephone Compa-
ny of Pennsylvania), 194 NLRB 461 (1971); United
Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers of' America.
Local 374 (Uniroyal, Inc.), 205 NLRB 117 (1973).
William Henry was forced, under the threat by Myles
that he would not approve his request for schedule
changes, to join and support Respondent although Henry
expressly wished to remain a member of the National
Association of Letter Carriers. By that conduct, Re-
spondent violated Section 8(b)(l)(A) and (2) of the Act.
It coerced Henry to join and pay dues to Respondent in
violation of Henry's Section 7 rights to remain a member
of the National Association of Letter Carriers. See Inter-
national Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers,
Local 601, AFL-CIO (Westinghouse Electric Corporation),
180 NLRB 1062 (1970).
CONcI USlONS OF LAW
1. Respondent American Postal Workers Union, AFL-
CIO, Memphis Local, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. United States Postal Service is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act. The Board has jurisdiction over this matter
by virtue of Section 1209 of the Postal Reorganization
Act.
3. By threatening employees Talmadge G. Tolson, Sr.,
and William Henry that Respondent would not approve
requests for schedule changes unless they became mem-
bers of Respondent, Respondent violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
4. By attempting to cause the employer to disapprove
a request for change of schedule for employee Talmadge
G. Tolson, Sr., Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A)
and (2) of the Act.
5. By refusing to approve the request for change of
schedule for employee Talmadge G. Tolson, Sr., because
he was not a member of Respondent. Respondent violat-
ed Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
6. By forcing and requiring employee William Henry
to join and pay dues to Respondent by threatening to
disapprove Henry's request for change of schedule, Re-
spondent violated Section 8(b)( )(A) and (2) of the Act.
7h5
I)FCISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
7. By adopting a policy of disapproving requests for
change of schedule and by telling employees represented
by Respondent that such policy was being enforced be-
cause an employee had filed an unfair labor practice
charge against Respondent with the National Labor Re-
lations Board, Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of
the Act.
8. By refusing to approve requests for change of
schedule for employees Talmadge G. Tolson, Sr., Wil-
liam Henry, Earl L. McGehee, and Lee P. Sharpe, and
other employees represented by Respondent during the
period January 12 to February 7, 1979, Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
which will effectuate the policies of the Act.
I will recommend that Respondent make Talmadge G.
Tolson, Sr., whole for loss of wages incurred as a result
of the Respondent's conduct causing Tolson to take
annual leave as a result of Respondent's refusal to ap-
prove Tolson's request for change of schedule, with in-
terest thereon to be computed in the manner prescribed
in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950); and
Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). See,
generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716
(1963).
I shall also recommend that Respondent notify the
Employer not to give effect to the checkoff authoriza-
tion obtained through coercion from employee William
Henry and to reimburse Henry for all the dues collected
from him with interest in the manner provided above.
International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine
Workers, Local 601, AFL-CIO (Westinghouse Electric
Corporation), supra.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law and the entire record and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 7
The Respondent, American Postal Workers Union,
AFL-CIO, Memphis Local, Memphis, Tennessee, its of-
ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening employees of the Company with refus-
al to approve requests for change of schedule unless they
join Respondent.
I In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the find-
ings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and
become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto
shall be deemed waived for all purposes
(b) Refusing to approve request for change of schedule
for employees unless they join Respondent.
(c) Forcing and requiring employees to join and pay
dues to Respondent by threatening to disapprove said
employees' request for change of schedule.
(d) Instituting a policy of disapproving requests for
change of schedule and telling employees that such
policy was being enforced because an employee filed an
unfair labor practice charge against Respondent with the
National Labor Relations Board.
(e) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc-
ing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed
by Section 7 of the Act except to the extent that such
rights may be affected by an agreement requiring mem-
bership in a labor organization as a condition of employ-
ment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make Talmadge G. Tolson, Sr., whole for loss of
pay he suffered by taking annual leave by reason of this
discrimination against him in the manner provided in the
section entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Notify United States Postal Service, Bulk Mail
Center, Memphis, Tennessee, not to give effect to the
checkoff authorization obtained through coercion from
William Henry.
(c) Reimburse William Henry for all dues checkoff
under said authorization in the manner provided above in
the section entitled "The Remedy."
(d) Post at its offices and meeting places in Memphis,
Tennessee, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix,"8 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Re-
gional Director for Region 26, shall, after being duly
signed by Respondent's representative be posted immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to members are custom-
arily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure
that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(e) Forward signed copies of said Appendix to the Re-
gional Director for posting by United States Postal Serv-
ice, Bulk Mail Center, Memphis, Tennessee, it being will-
ing, at all locations where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 26, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
8 In the event the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted
by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pur-
suant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
766