Postal Service

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 14, 1991

301 N.L.R.B. 709 (N.L.R.B. 1991)

709
301 NLRB No. 104
POSTAL SERVICE
1 We deny as lacking in merit the Respondent’s motion for suppression of
the names of Postal Service employees from publication.
The Respondent’s motion was accompanied by a sealed envelope containing
a letter from a local prosecutor. The Respondent requested that we return the
letter to the Respondent if we chose not to ‘‘review’’ it. The Respondent’s
representations concerning the letter in no way support its argument for sup-
pression of names, and the Respondent did not, in any event, clearly proffer
it in connection with that argument. We have not opened the envelope. In our
discretion, we have decided to grant the Respondent’s request because the let-
ter is not part of the record on which we have decided any issue in this case
and because there is no prejudice to any party in our returning it.
2 We note that the disclosure of information relevant to the Union’s proper
performance of its duties as collective-bargaining representative of unit em-
ployees is permitted, rather than mandated, by the Privacy Act.
We further note the correct cite to Pfizer, Inc., is 268 NLRB 916 (1984),
enfd. 763 F.2d 887 (7th Cir. 1985).
3 The complaint alleges, and the judge found, that the Respondent refused
to disclose relevant information to the Union. We agree. The Union grieved
employee Arthur Fiore’s notice of proposed removal that specified the dis-
cipline was based on falsification of his employment application and his past
disciplinary record. Specifically, the relevant information consists of all docu-
ments relating to the allegation, investigation, and disposition of the super-
visors’ alleged falsification of Postal Service documents, as well as the com-
plete disciplinary file where the Respondent found the supervisor guilty of fal-
sification or in some way used the disciplinary history in determining the su-
pervisor’s guilt or innocence regarding the falsification allegation. We shall
modify the recommended Order to require the disclosure only of relevant in-
formation. Any disputes regarding which documents, or portions thereof, must
be disclosed may be resolved at the compliance stage of this proceeding.
United States Postal Service and North Jersey Area
Local, American Postal Workers Union, AFL–
CIO. Case 22–CA–16616(P)
February 14, 1991
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
CRACRAFT AND OVIATT
On August 31, 1990, Administrative Law Judge Ste-
ven Davis issued the attached decision. The Respond-
ent filed exceptions, a supporting brief, and a motion
to suppress evidence; and the General Counsel filed an
opposition to the Respondent’s motion to suppress evi-
dence.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions1 and brief and has de-
cided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,2 and con-
clusions and to adopt the recommended Order as
modified.3
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified below and orders that the Respondent, United
States Postal Service, Paterson, New Jersey, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the ac-
tion set forth in the Order as modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(a).
‘‘(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with North Jer-
sey Area Local, American Postal Workers Union,
AFL–CIO, by refusing to furnish it the requested, rel-
evant information from the case files of supervisors
Robert Bevans, George Faulkner, and Robert
Malewich, and the decision for supervisor George
Faulkner, which relate to disciplinary proceedings
against them.’’
2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a).
‘‘(a) On request, furnish the Union the relevant in-
formation from the case files of supervisors Robert
Bevans, George Faulkner, and Robert Malewich, and
the decision for supervisor George Faulkner, which re-
late to disciplinary proceedings against them.’’
3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the ad-
ministrative law judge.
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 the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with North Jersey
Area Local, American Postal Workers Union, AFL–
CIO, by refusing to furnish it the requested, relevant
information from the case files of Supervisors Robert
Bevans, George Faulkner, and Robert Malewich, and
the decision for Supervisor George Faulkner, which re-
late to disciplinary proceedings against them.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, on request, furnish the Union the relevant
information from the case files of Supervisors Robert
Bevans, George Faulkner, and Robert Malewich, and
the decision for Supervisor George Faulkner, which re-
late to disciplinary proceedings against them.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICES
Julie L. Kaufman, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Frances Bartholf, Esq., of Windsor, Connecticut, for the Re-
spondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
STEVEN DAVIS, Administrative Law Judge. Pursuant to a
charge filed by North Jersey Area Local, American Postal
Workers Union, AFL–CIO (the Union), a complaint was
issued against United States Postal Service (Paterson Office)
(Respondent) on December 22, 1989.
The complaint alleges essentially that the Respondent has
unlawfully failed and refused to provide information re-
quested by the Union. The information sought were the case
710 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 In one case, the arbitrator decided that a contractual provision providing
for the disclosure of information to the union for the processing of a grievance
concerning attendance violations required the Postal Service to turn over at-
tendance records of his supervisor. In the other case, the arbitrator held that
discipline given to supervisors for falsification of time records is relevant to
a similar offense committed by a bargaining unit employee.
files of three supervisors who were disciplined for allegedly
falsifying certain postal documents. The Union asserts that
such information was needed in order to assist it in the prep-
aration and presentation of an arbitration case involving an
employee who was disciplined for falsification of his appli-
cation for employment.
Respondent’s answer denied the material allegations of the
complaint and alleged certain affirmative defenses.
On February 7, 1990, a hearing was held before me in
Newark, New Jersey. On the entire case, including my obser-
vation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after consider-
ation of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and Re-
spondent, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent provides postal services for the United States
of America and operates various facilities throughout the
United States in the performance of that function, including
its facility in Paterson, New Jersey, the site involved here.
Respondent admits, and I find, that the Board has jurisdiction
over it and this matter by virtue of section 1209 of the Postal
Reorganization Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION
The complaint alleges that the Union, the North Jersey
Area Local of the American Postal Workers Union, AFL–
CIO is a labor organization, and that it has been the exclu-
sive representative of employees in an appropriate unit. Re-
spondent denied those allegations.
However, Respondent’s answer stated that the North Jer-
sey Area Local is a limited agent of the American Postal
Workers Union, AFL–CIO (APWU) for the limited purpose
of filing and processing grievances through step 2 of the con-
tractual grievance procedure set forth in the parties’ collec-
tive-bargaining contract. In addition it was stipulated that the
North Jersey Area Local is the contractually authorized agent
for those purposes, including the events which occurred in
this proceeding. It was further stipulated that the APWU is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
Gary Weightman, the director of industrial relations for the
North Jersey Area Local, testified that that Local is affiliated
with the APWU, and has 3600 members. Employees partici-
pate in the affairs of the Local, which exists for the purpose
of representing employees and does represent employees in
such matters as grievances, wages, hours, and conditions of
employment.
Based on the above facts, and that it is not necessary to
this case to find that the Charging Party is a labor organiza-
tion, I find and conclude that the APWU is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act and that
the Charging Party is an agent of the APWU.
III. THE COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING UNIT
The complaint alleges that the Union has been the exclu-
sive representative of the following employees:
All maintenance employees, special delivery employees,
motor vehicle employees and postal clerks employed by
Respondent including its Paterson, New Jersey location.
Respondent’s answer denied that allegation of the com-
plaint.
The collective-bargaining agreement between Respondent
and the APWU states that the Respondent recognizes the
APWU as the ‘‘exclusive bargaining representative of all
employees in the bargaining unit for which each has been
recognized and certified at the national level’’: APWU—
Maintenance Employees; APWU—Special Delivery Mes-
sengers; APWU—Motor Vehicle Employees; and APWU—
Postal Clerks.
Based on the above, I find that the collective-bargaining
unit as set forth in the complaint is accurate.
IV. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
On September 25, 1989, postal clerk, Arthur Fiore, re-
ceived a ‘‘Notice of Proposed Removal,’’ which stated that
Respondent intended to terminate his employment. The rea-
son for the removal was his alleged falsification of the appli-
cation for employment, called a 2591 form.
The notice stated that when he completed the application
in 1984, he falsely stated that he had not been convicted of
a crime or currently faced charges. The notice further stated
that an investigation by a postal inspector disclosed that he
had been convicted a total of four times in 1974 and 1975,
and that in 1977 a bench warrant was issued for his arrest,
which is still outstanding.
The notice of proposed removal also provided that his past
disciplinary record will be considered ‘‘in arriving at a deci-
sion if the charge [of falsification of the application] is sus-
tained.’’ Fiore’s past discipline included a letter of warning
and a 7-day suspension for failure to follow instructions, and
two 7-day, and one 14-day suspensions for failure to meet
the attendance requirements of his position.
Union Official Weightman timely filed a grievance in
Fiore’s behalf, and made a request for information for the
case files of three supervisors: (a) Robert Bevans, fired for
falsification of postal documents; (b) George Faulkner; and
(c) Robert Malowich, fired and reinstated for improperly fill-
ing out postal documents. Weightman testified that he re-
quested those documents because he became aware of two
decisions in which arbitrators compared the discipline given
to employees and supervisors, and sought to use a disparate
treatment argument in the arbitration of Fiore’s grievance.1
The request for information was denied by Respondent on
the ground that the requested documents were not deemed
‘‘relevant or necessary’’ because they involved nonbar-
gaining unit employees.
Fiore’s grievance was processed further without the re-
quested information, and the grievance was denied.
Weightman testified that the requested documents have not
been provided.
Respondent’s supervisor Karpjak testified that Respondent
requires truthfulness from its bargaining unit employees and
711POSTAL SERVICE
supervisors in completing applications for employment and
other postal documents.
The parties’ collective-bargaining agreement covering unit
employees such as Fiore provides that ‘‘no employee may be
disciplined or discharged except for just cause.’’ The agree-
ment also provides for an extensive grievance-arbitration pro-
cedure.
Different rules apply to the discipline of supervisors. Sec-
tion 650 of the U.S. Code states that adverse actions such
as discharges of supervisors may be taken (a) because lesser
measures have not resulted in the correction of deficiencies
in behavior or performance or (b) because of the gravity of
the offense.
The procedure followed, in the case of a discharge of a
supervisor, is that a notice of proposed removal, with rea-
sons, is issued to which the supervisor may respond. A hear-
ing is held at which the supervisor is entitled to representa-
tion. The hearing officer issues a step I decision following
the hearing, to which the supervisor may appeal to the post-
master general. The case is reviewed and a step II decision
is issued. That decision is final.
B. The Three Supervisors’ Cases
Hugo Gumbs, Respondent’s divisional manager of labor
relations, testified about these cases. All adverse actions
against supervisors are reviewed at the divisional level of Re-
spondent.
Robert Bevans—Bevans was accused of falsifying the
timecard of an employee involving 45 minutes, during which
he certified that the worker was working, when in fact the
employee was at lunch. A notice of proposed removal was
issued to Bevans. Bevans believed that the employee was
working, when in fact she was at lunch. Respondent with-
drew the case as it did not have a reasonable belief that
Bevans knowingly falsified the timecard.
Bevans had no record of prior discipline or adverse action,
and there was no evidence that he falsified his application for
employment.
George Faulkner—Faulkner was issued a notice of pro-
posed removal for four offenses: being absent without leave;
failure to appear at the time and attendance proceedings; at-
tempt to obtain payment for hours not worked; and unauthor-
ized absence from his work area.
Faulkner’s prior discipline consisted of a letter of warning
for failure to follow instructions. There was no evidence that
he falsified his application for employment.
Robert Malowich—Malowich was charged with three of-
fenses: falsification of post office department (POD) form
57; off-duty conduct; and failure to adhere to Respondent’s
standards of conduct.
The POD 57 form is a document completed by the appli-
cant for employment after his application is filed. That form
is no longer used by Respondent, having been replaced by
form 2591, which Fiore was accused of falsifying. Form 57
requests that the applicant list his prior employment, and the
Respondent uses it to investigate the applicant’s past record.
Apparently the form contains a statement concerning arrests.
At the time that Malowich completed the form in 1967 or
1968, he advised Respondent that he had an arrest record.
Twenty years later, in 1988, Respondent received a report
from its postal inspectors that Malowich had a prior arrest
record. Without searching its records to determine whether
Malowich had so advised Respondent, which he had 20 years
before, Respondent issued this falsification charge against
him. On being told that Malowich had disclosed his prior ar-
rest record 20 years before, Respondent dismissed that alle-
gation against him. Malowich had no prior discipline in his
record.
Analysis and Discussion
The General Counsel argues that the Union is entitled to
the three supervisors’ files because they are relevant and nec-
essary to the Union’s case to show that Fiore was treated in
a disparate manner.
Respondent argues that the information sought, involving
the alleged misconduct and discipline of supervisors, is not
relevant to the discipline of bargaining unit employees. It
further contends that even if relevant, the information sought
is overly broad, and documents concerning discipline of su-
pervisors is confidential and privileged from disclosure, and
would violate the Privacy Act. Respondent finally asserts that
if a violation is found, the proper remedy is an order requir-
ing the parties to bargain over what information should be
provided.
There can be no question of the general obligation
of an employer to provide information that is needed by
the bargaining representative for the proper perform-
ance of its duties. [NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385
U.S. 432, 435–436 (1967).]
The information requested here relates to supervisors—in-
dividuals outside the bargaining unit. In such circumstances,
the union must show that the information sought is relevant.
Pfizer, Inc., 268 NLRB 916, 918 (1984). The standard for
determining the relevancy of the requested information is a
‘‘liberal discovery-type standard.’’ NLRB v. Acme Industrial,
supra at 437. That standard ‘‘merely requires that the infor-
mation have some bearing on the issue between the parties.’’
Postal Service, 289 NLRB 942 (1988), enf. 888 F.2d 1568
(1989).
In Postal Service, supra, certain unit employees were dis-
ciplined and discharged for violating the employer’s regula-
tions prohibiting gambling activity. The unions filed griev-
ances and requested information concerning the discipline of
supervisors who were engaged in the same activity. The em-
ployers’ restrictions on gambling apply equally to supervisors
and unit employees.
The employer refused to provide the information con-
cerning supervisors, giving many of the reasons asserted
here. The Board, finding the requested information to be rel-
evant, stated that the information ‘‘potentially has some bear-
ing on whether the unit employees were harshly, unjustly, or
disparately treated,’’ and held that the employer’s failure to
furnish it violated the Act.
The General Counsel argues that the information regarding
the discipline given the three supervisors for allegedly fal-
sifying Postal Service documents has some bearing on
Fiore’s grievance involving discipline for falsifying his appli-
cation for employment. The Union, in seeking such informa-
tion, seeks to show that Fiore was given harsher discipline
than, and was thus treated in a disparate manner, from the
supervisors who were charged with falsification of docu-
ments.
712 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent argues that any discipline received by super-
visors for allegedly falsifying Postal Service documents is
not relevant to Fiore’s grievance, since supervisors and unit
employees have ‘‘different responsibilities, are judged by dif-
ferent criteria and, therefore are not similarly situated for
purposes of discipline.’’ Postal Service, supra.
The Board, in rejecting this argument in Postal Service,
supra, found that the prohibitions on gambling activity apply
equally to supervisors and unit employees. While conceding
that the employer properly may have had legitimate reasons
for imposing different degrees of discipline on supervisors
and unit employees for similar misconduct, such a difference
in discipline was solely based on the supervisory and non-
supervisory status of the participants. The Board stated that
given the nature of the prohibition and its applicability to
both groups, the mere fact that supervisory and unit employ-
ees were involved does not automatically mean that different
degrees of discipline were required to be given. The Board
therefore reasoned that it could not be contended that the re-
quested information has no bearing on the grievances of the
unit employees.
On this point, the Board cited with approval Department
of Defense Dependent Schools, 28 FLRA No. 33 (1987), a
decision of the Federal Labor Relations Authority. Directly
on point with respect to the instant issue, the FLRA:
found information on adverse actions taken against su-
pervisors for making false statements necessary to the
union’s representational responsibilities. The union
sought the information as evidence of disparate treat-
ment given to unit employees for engaging in the same
misconduct as the supervisors, i.e., making false state-
ments. [Postal Service, supra, 289 NLRB at 943 fn 8.]
Thus, John Karpjak, the director of city operations, testi-
fied that Respondent requires truthfulness from its employees
in completing applications for employment and other Postal
Service documents, and that this truthfulness requirement ap-
plies to supervisors and unit employees. Similarly, Hugo
Gumbs, the divisional manager of labor relations, stated that
Respondent’s standard of conduct is that employees are sup-
posed to be honest and trustworthy. It, therefore, may be ar-
gued that the same rule concerning falsification of docu-
ments, and honesty in the completion of Postal Service
records, has been violated—by Fiore and by the supervisors.
The arbitration decisions received in evidence at the hearing
demonstrated that arbitrators in Postal Service cases have
considered information concerning supervisors to be relevant
in determining the issue of disparate treatment given to unit
employees. Respondent may explain to the arbitrator the rea-
sons for the difference in discipline given to the two groups.
In this connection, Respondent argues that the use of in-
formation concerning discipline of supervisors would have
the practical effect of allowing the Union to dictate how su-
pervisors are to be treated. This misses the point. A finding
that such information is relevant does not lead to the conclu-
sion that such a comparison between the discipline given to
the two groups must cause the Postal Service to alter its dis-
cipline of supervisors. The discipline given to supervisors
would be examined by an arbitrator who would consider the
arguments of Respondent with respect to why the discipline
of supervisors should differ from that given to unit employ-
ees.
Respondent further argues that the information sought is
not relevant because the request seeks documents unrelated
to the falsification of an application for employment, which
Fiore was charged with. I disagree. Bevans was accused of
falsifying an employee’s timecard. Faulkner was charged
with an attempt to obtain payment for hours not worked,
which apparently involves an alleged falsification of a Postal
Service certification of hours worked. Malowich was accused
of falsification of a document used to support an application
for employment. Accordingly, all the documents sought re-
late to dishonesty or falsification of Postal Service docu-
ments, which is the precise charge faced by Fiore.
Respondent correctly argues that Fiore’s discipline was
based on the falsification charge and his previous discipline
record. It reasons that since the three supervisors did not
have comparably poor past discipline records, the informa-
tion sought could not be relevant to his discipline. These
facts, too, may be brought to the arbitrator’s attention. But
for the purposes of the complaint here, the information
‘‘need not necessarily be dispositive of the issues between
the parties, it need only have some bearing on it.’’ Pfizer,
Inc., supra, 268 NLRB at 918. ‘‘This discovery-type standard
decided nothing about the merits of the union’s contractual
claims.’’ Acme Industrial, supra, 385 U.S. at 437.
I accordingly find and conclude that the General Counsel
has established the relevance of the requested information.
Respondent argues that even assuming the relevance of the
documents sought, such information may not be produced
because it is confidential and privileged from disclosure. It
asserts that the preservation of the loyalty of its supervisors
outweighs the Union’s interest in obtaining the information
sought. It correctly argues that in Postal Service, supra, the
Board rejected the employer’s claim of confidentiality on the
ground that the employees who were involved with the gam-
bling activity were aware of the supervisors’ participation in
such activity, and that the supervisors who engaged in that
activity already had compromised their loyalty and under-
mined their authority to enforce their employer’s rules. How-
ever, that does not answer the question. Respondent argues
that its supervisors may be subject to ‘‘the threatening possi-
bility of embarrassment and harassment amounting to a kind
of ‘blackmail.’’’ There is no evidence to support such a fear.
In this case, the charges against Bevans and Malowich were
withdrawn after investigation by Respondent, and it does not
appear that the Union would be able to ‘‘threaten’’ those su-
pervisors with information relating to charges having no
merit. In addition, the charge against Faulkner, as with any
supervisor charged with misconduct, would be considered on
its merits by Respondent after the alleged impropriety be-
came known by it. If individual unit employees or the Union
engaged in improper conduct with respect to information it
obtained for its use in a grievance proceeding, Respondent
could effectively deal with that. In addition, there is no
showing that the supervisors expected the requested informa-
tion to remain confidential or that the Respondent made a
commitment to them to keep the information confidential.
The charge made against the supervisors, falsification of
Postal Service documents, is a very serious accusation as to
which the supervisors could have no expectation of confiden-
tiality.
713POSTAL SERVICE
2 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 objec-
tions 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 Rela-
tions Board’’ shall read ‘‘Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States
Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.’’
Accordingly, I find and conclude that Respondent’s inter-
est in keeping the information confidential does not outweigh
the Union’s interests in having the information disclosed.
Respondent finally argues that disclosure of the informa-
tion would violate the Privacy Act of 1974. Respondent as-
serts that the Privacy Act protects any record contained in a
Postal Service system of records from disclosure without
prior written consent of the individual to whom the record
pertains, unless that disclosure meets certain exceptions, in-
cluding the routine use exception:
Pursuant to the National Labor Relations Act, records
from this system may be furnished to a labor organiza-
tion upon its request when needed by that organization
to perform properly its duties as the collective bar-
gaining representative of postal employees in an appro-
priate bargaining unit.
Respondent argues that the information sought is irrelevant
to Fiore’s grievance. I have found that such information is
relevant for that purpose. Accordingly, the disclosure of such
information is mandated by the Privacy Act because its use
is precisely for such purposes recognized by the Privacy
Act—the ability of the Union to properly perform its duties
as the collective-bargaining representative of the unit em-
ployees.
I accordingly find and conclude that Respondent has vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing and refusing to fur-
nish the requested information to the Union.
Respondent finally argues that even assuming that a viola-
tion is found, the proper remedy is to require it to bargain
with the Union in order to make ‘‘mutually satisfactory ar-
rangements for the appropriate disclosure of confidential in-
formation.’’ Inasmuch as have found that the information
sought is not confidential, and that the refusal to furnish it
to the Union violated the Act, an appropriate remedy would
be undermined by requiring the parties to bargain over
whether documents should be produced.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Board has jurisdiction over Respondent by virtue
of section 1209 of the Postal Reorganization Act.
2. The APWU is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act, and the Charging Party is an
agent of the APWU.
3. At all relevant times, the APWU has been the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the following employ-
ees of Respondent in an appropriate bargaining unit within
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All maintenance employees, special delivery mes-
sengers, motor vehicle employees and postal clerks em-
ployed by Respondent including its Paterson, New Jer-
sey location.
4. By refusing to furnish information requested by the
Union concerning the disciplinary records of Supervisors
Robert Bevans, George Faulkner, and Robert Malowich, the
Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act.
5. The unfair labor practices set forth above are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and
desist and that it take certain affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on
the entire record, I issue the following recommended2
ORDER
The Respondent, United States Postal Service (Paterson
Office), Paterson, New Jersey, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Union, New
Jersey Area Local, American Postal Workers Union, AFL–
CIO, by refusing to furnish it with the requested case files
of Supervisors Robert Bevans, George Faulkner, and Robert
Malowich, and the decision for Supervisor George Faulkner,
which relate to disciplinary action taken against them.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, furnish the Union with the requested case
files of Supervisors Robert Bevans, George Faulkner, and
Robert Malowich, and the decision for Supervisor George
Faulkner, which relate to disciplinary action taken against
them.
(b) Post at its facility in Paterson, New Jersey, copies of
the attached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’3 Copies of the no-
tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
22, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized rep-
resentative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in con-
spicuous places including all places where notices to employ-
ees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the 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 the Respondent has
taken to comply.