Mail Handlers Local 311 (Postal Service)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 23, 1993

311 N.L.R.B. 1343 (N.L.R.B. 1993)

1343
311 NLRB No. 185
MAIL HANDLERS LOCAL 311 (POSTAL SERVICE)
1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an admin-
istrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear prepon-
derance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incor-
rect. 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.
1 The cited sections refer to the Uniform Local Union Constitution
of the National Postal Mail Handlers Union. Art. IV, sec. 5, Duties
of Officers, lists the duties of the local president. Par. 8 thereunder
specifies that ‘‘S/he shall insure that the affairs and business of this
Local Union are being properly conducted’’; par. 12 provides that
‘‘S/he shall be charged with the responsibility of protecting the craft
jurisdiction of this Local Union’’; and par. 25 states that ‘‘He shall
be responsible for authorizing payment of all bills incurred by the
local subject to the provisions of subsection 24 herein.’’
Continued
Mail Handlers Local Union No. 311 (Postal Service)
and Charles E. Hunt. Case 16–CB–4101(P)
August 23, 1993
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
DEVANEY AND RAUDABAUGH
On March 24, 1993, Administrative Law Judge Ger-
ald A. Wacknov issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and
the General Counsel filed an answering brief.
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 rul-
ings, findings,1 and conclusions and to adopt the rec-
ommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, Mail Handlers Local Union
No. 311 (Postal Service), Dallas, Texas, its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall take the action set
forth in the Order.
Elizabeth Kilpatrick, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Marvin Menaker, Esq., of Dallas, Texas, for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GERALD A. WACKNOV, Administrative Law Judge. Pursu-
ant to notice, a hearing in this matter was held before me
in Fort Worth, Texas, on January 26, 1993. The charge was
filed by Charles E. Hunt, an individual, on June 11, 1992.
Thereafter, on July 22, 1992, the Regional Director for Re-
gion 16 of the National Labor Relations Board (the Board)
issued a complaint and notice of hearing alleging a violation
by Mail Handlers Local Union No. 311 (the Respondent or
the Union) of Section 8(b)(2) of the National Labor Relations
Act (the Act). The Respondent’s answer to the complaint,
duly filed, denies the commission of any unfair labor prac-
tices.
The parties were afforded a full opportunity to be heard,
to call, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to intro-
duce relevant evidence. Since the close of the hearing, briefs
have been received from counsel for the General Counsel
and counsel for the Respondent.
On the entire record, and based on my observation of the
witnesses and consideration of the briefs submitted, I make
the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The United States Postal Service (the Employer) provides
postal services for the United States and operates various fa-
cilities throughout the United States in performance of that
function, including its General Mail Facility in Dallas, Texas,
the facility involved in this proceeding.
It is admitted, and I find, that the Board has jurisdiction
over the Employer and this matter by virtue of section 1029
of the Postal Reorganization Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
It is admitted, and I find, that the Respondent is, and at
all material times has been, a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
The principal issue raised by the pleadings is whether the
Union violated Section 8(b)(2) of the Act by attempting to
cause the Employer to take disciplinary action against
Charles Hunt, a union steward, in retaliation for his involve-
ment in internal local union affairs.
B. The Facts
The facts are not in material dispute. Charles Hunt, the
Charging Party, has been a union steward for a number of
years. In 1992, prior to a union election in which Hunt was
seeking the elected office of local union treasurer, he com-
menced the circulation of a petition among union members
who worked at the Employer’s General Mail Facility in Dal-
las, Texas. Hunt testified that he did not circulate the petition
during working time; rather, he gave it to several employees
who, in turn, circulated it and returned it to him thereafter.
The petition, which was signed by approximately 124 union
members who work at that facility, is as follows:
NATIONAL POSTAL MAIL HANDLERS
UNION LOCAL 311 DALLAS BRANCH
The undersigning persons charge that this Local Union
through its Officers has violated this Union’s Constitu-
tions [sic] as it relate [sic] to Section 5 A 8, 12, 25 and
Section 6 F.1
1344 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sec. 6, executive board, of the aforementioned article, at par. F,
provides that ‘‘It shall be the duty of the Executive Board to insure
that the affairs and business are being properly conducted.’’
These signatures give witness that Clerk Craft Em-
ployee [sic] perform Mail Handlers duties on a daily
basis.
Generally speaking, the gravamen of Hunt’s complaint was
that the Local Union president and executive board were not
acting in the best interests of the Union, because Hunt be-
lieved that the Union had been remiss in not timely paying
certain real property taxes on the building it owned, thus in-
curring a penalty from the county. Further, unrelated to the
property tax matter, Hunt believed that neither the Local
president nor the executive board had been sufficiently dili-
gent in protecting the Union’s jurisdiction (mail handling)
against encroachment from clerks, who belong to a different
collective-bargaining unit at the Dallas facility.
On April 14, 1992, in furtherance of his intraunion activi-
ties, Hunt filed charges with the National Union against the
Local Union president and executive board. The charges al-
lege the same matters as discussed above, and reference the
aforementioned petition; however, Hunt neglected to enclose
the petition with the charges. Thereupon, the National Union
recording secretary requested a copy of the petition con-
taining the signatures of the subscribing union members, and
Hunt submitted it on April 24, 1992.
The petition was apparently forwarded to Local Union
President Harold Emanuel by the National Union, and on
May 19, 1992, Emanuel sent the following letter to Delward
Stracner, manager of labor relations for the Employer’s Dal-
las division, enclosing a copy of the petition containing the
signatures:
It has come to my attention that one of the employ-
ees, namely Charles E. Hunt of the Dallas GMF Post
Office is engaged in internal union politics. He, of
course, has an absolute right to engage in internal union
politics, but my concern is that he is doing this during
business hours while he is on the clock. He has pre-
sented the Union with a petition containing approxi-
mately 124 names, and I have been advised that all of
them were approached and signed during working hours
at the Postal Service.
The Union does not condone a violation of the Na-
tional Agreement that there will be no union business
conducted on postal service time, except as set out in
the National Agreement.
I give you this information so that you may take
whatever you deem to be appropriate action.
Delward Stracner, labor relations manager for the Employ-
er’s Dallas, Texas division, to whom the aforementioned let-
ter was sent, testified that he deals with Emanuel on a reg-
ular basis regarding labor relations matters. Further, Stracner
testified that in accordance with the provisions of the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement, neither the shop steward nor em-
ployees may engage in any union business during scheduled
worktime except for grievance-related matters; and in this
event permission to discuss such matters must be obtained
from both the employee’s and the steward’s supervisor. Fur-
ther, the circulation and/or signing of union-related petitions
involving internal union matters during scheduled worktime
is not permitted under any circumstances, and employees en-
gaging in such activities are subject to reprimand and dis-
cipline. Stracner testified that on receiving the letter he
turned it over to the facility manager because the letter, ac-
cording to Stracner, was evidence of ‘‘misconduct.’’ No ac-
tion was taken against Hunt, and Stracner never spoke to
Emanuel about the matter.
Emanuel, president of the Union, testified that he was con-
cerned about the possibility of discipline against the employ-
ees who signed the petition, and he ‘‘wanted to make sure
that no action was in turn brought by the Postal Service
against those employees, including Mr. Hunt. That was my
main reason.’’ Further, he wanted to make sure that there
would be no internal union ‘‘politicking’’ during working
hours.
Asked why he simply didn’t approach Hunt and admonish
him about such activities on working time rather than send
an accusatory letter which had the potential of causing the
Employer to take disciplinary action against Hunt and the
124 signers of the petition, Emanuel stated that ‘‘I couldn’t
satisfy Mr. Hunt, so I had no other way to—but to take the
course of action which I did and make sure that Mr. Hunt
understood that what he was doing was wrong.’’ Emanuel
further testified, when again asked why he did what he did,
that he wanted to show Hunt that he was in the wrong: ‘‘Pol-
itics was the motive there. They were using [the petition] as
a means of pyramiding Mr. Hunt into the position of treas-
urer.’’
On July 12, 1992, Emanuel responded to the charges filed
by Hunt with the National Union, explaining the Local
Union’s position. He concluded the letter by stating:
Mail Handlers who have questions about the handling
of the Union affairs, whether about taxes, jurisdiction
or anything else, should come to the Union meetings
and bring the matters up on the floor at the meeting,
or contact the Local President, Harold L. Emanuel rel-
ative to your concerns, it would be easier to give the
answers to resolve legitimate questions. Having Mail
Handlers sign a petition based upon representations by
a person who then later changes the purpose of the peti-
tion is not the proper way to conduct business affairs
of the Union.
On August 5, 1992, the National president dismissed the
charges, and stated that ‘‘The charges by Brother Hunt con-
tain bald, unsubstantiated allegations of wrongdoing.’’
C. Analysis and Conclusions
The Respondent maintains that Emanuel’s motive for
sending the letter to the Employer was to protect the employ-
ees ‘‘because he knew that signing a petition during working
hours would constitute a violation of the contractual prohibi-
tion against conducting union business on the clock,’’ and,
realizing the potential gravity of the situation, sought to put
an end to this type of activity. Moreover, the Respondent
seeks to excuse Emanuel’s conduct because Hunt was not
disciplined by the Employer, and he suffered no adverse con-
sequences from Emanuel’s letter; and further, while Emanuel
has the authority to remove Hunt from his position as stew-
ard, he has not done so and Hunt has remained in this posi-
1345MAIL HANDLERS LOCAL 311 (POSTAL SERVICE)
2 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommended 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.
3 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.’’
tion. Thus, the Respondent argues that the evidence shows
that Emanuel’s actions were not retaliatory against Hunt, but
rather were designed to afford those involved—Hunt, the
union members signatory to the petition, and the Union—a
measure of protection against possible repercussions by the
Employer.
Clearly the May 19, 1992 letter was designed to cause the
Employer to reprimand or discipline Hunt for circulating the
petition. Thus, the letter states, ‘‘I give you this information
so that you may take whatever you deem to be appropriate
action.’’ Having advised the Employer that the petition was
circulated during working time in contravention of estab-
lished work rules, and having invited the Employer to take
‘‘appropriate action,’’ the Respondent’s argument that
Emanuel’s motive was benign and that the letter was de-
signed to accomplish the very antithesis of its unambiguous
meaning is patently illogical and unconvincing.
I find that as alleged in the complaint, Emanuel sought to
cause the Employer to take corrective or disciplinary action
against Hunt because of Hunt’s activity in attempting to dis-
credit Emanuel and his administration in furtherance, appar-
ently, of Hunt’s political agenda in seeking the office of
union treasurer. While Emanuel may have been understand-
ably piqued with Hunt by what he considered to be know-
ingly false and politically motivated allegations against
Emanuel and his administration, nevertheless a labor organi-
zation is prohibited from attempting to interfere with the em-
ployment relationship of its members for any reason other
than the member’s failure to pay dues pursuant to a valid
union-security clause; clearly that was not Emanuel’s motiva-
tion here.
Such conduct by Emanuel, discussed above, is violative of
Section 8(b)(2) of the Act, as alleged. Toledo World Termi-
nals, 289 NLRB 670, 703 (1988); Operating Engineers
Local 675 (Multi-Craft Installation), 271 NLRB 1227 (1984).
Contrary to the Respondent’s contention, the fact that Eman-
uel was not successful in this endeavor does not preclude the
finding of a violation. See Postal Service, 240 NLRB 1198,
1204 (1979), enfd. as modified 618 F.2d 1249 (1980);
Groves-Granite, 229 NLRB 56, 64 fn. 42 (1977).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Board has jurisdiction over the Employer, the
United States Postal Service, and this matter by virtue of sec-
tion 1209 of the Postal Reorganization Act.
2. The Respondent is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(2) of the Act
by attempting to cause the Employer to discriminate against
Charles E. Hunt in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has violated the Act by
unlawfully attempting to cause the Employer to take discipli-
nary action against employee Charles E. Hunt, the Respond-
ent shall be required to cease and desist from such conduct.
The Respondent shall also be required to post an appro-
priate notice attached hereto as ‘‘Appendix.’’
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on
the entire record, I issue the following recommended2
ORDER
The Respondent, Mail Handlers Local Union No. 311
(Postal Service), Dallas, Texas, its officers, agents, and rep-
resentatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Attempting to cause the United States Postal Service
to take disciplinary action against any employee because of
his or her involvement in internal union matters.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining and coercing
members in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section
7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Request, in writing to the Employer, that the May 19,
1992 letter and attached petition be disregarded, removed
from the personnel file of Charles Hunt, and returned to the
Union.
(b) Post at its union office or union hall copies of the at-
tached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’3 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 16, after
being signed by Respondent’s authorized representative, shall
be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to members are custom-
arily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent
to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps Respondent has taken
to comply.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
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 vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us
to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause the United States
Postal Service to take disciplinary action or any other action
against Charles Hunt which may effect his employment rela-
tionship, because such employee has engaged in internal
union activities.
WE WILL NOT retaliate against any union member for his
or her involvement in internal union matters, including inter-
1346 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nal union politics, by attempting to cause the Postal Service
to take disciplinary action against such union members.
WE WILL NOT write letters to the United States Postal
Service advising the Postal Service of employees’ alleged
unauthorized union activity during working time as a means
of retaliating against union members for engaging in internal
union matters, including internal union politics.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or co-
erce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them
in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a
labor organization as a condition of employment as author-
ized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL request, in writing, that the Postal Service dis-
regard the letter written by the Union regarding the
intraunion activity of Charles Hunt, and that it remove such
letter and attached petition from Hunt’s personnel file.
MAIL HANDLERS LOCAL UNION NO. 311