United Parcel Service, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Jun 20, 2008

22-CA-027863 (N.L.R.B. Jun. 20, 2008)

JD(NY)–22–08
Secaucus, NJ
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
NEW YORK BRANCH OFFICE
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.
and Case No. 22-CA-27863
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 177
Saulo Santiago, Esq., Newark, NJ,
for the General Counsel
Edward P. Lynch, Esq., (Day Pitney, LLP),
Morristown, NJ, for the Respondent
Edward O’Hare, Esq., (Zazzali, Fagella, Nowak,
Kleinbaum & Friedman), Newark, NJ, for the
Charging Party
DECISION
Statement of the Case
MINDY E. LANDOW, Administrative Law Judge: Based upon a charge filed on March
15, 2007 and an amended charge filed on July 31, 20071 by Teamsters Local 177 (the Union),
in Case No. 22-CA-27863, a complaint and amended complaint were issued against United
Parcel Service, Inc., (Respondent) on July 31 and November 28, respectively.
The complaint, as amended, alleges essentially that on or about February 9, the
Respondent, by Tracy Celmer, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by stating that a warning letter
issued to employee Ernest Griffin would not be rescinded because of the protected conduct of
his shop steward, and that Respondent further violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by
refusing to rescind said warning letter. 2 The Respondent’s answer denied the material
allegations of the complaint and posed the affirmative defense that the matter should be
deferred to the parties’ grievance arbitration process.
A hearing on the allegations of the complaint was held before me on February 5, 2008 in
Newark, New Jersey.
On the entire record,3 and considering the briefs filed by the parties, I make the following

1 All dates herein refer to 2007 unless otherwise specified.
2 On July 31, the Regional Director for Region 22 dismissed that portion of the charge alleging that
Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act and issued complaint on the remaining allegation. As
a result of the Union’s appeal of the dismissal of the 8(a)(3) allegation, the Regional Director revoked his
decision to dismiss that portion of the charge on October 29.
3 To the extent a determination of the facts involved herein requires an assessment of the credibility
of the witnesses, or findings of fact based upon competing versions of events, certain apparent or non
apparent conflicts in the evidence may not be specifically addressed herein. My findings are based upon
a review of the entire record. I have additionally carefully observed the demeanor of the witnesses,
including whether they testified in a forthright or evasive manner, and have also considered their apparent
Continued
JD(NY)–22–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
Findings of Fact
I. Jurisdiction
Respondent, a corporation, with an office and place of business at 493 County Avenue,
Secaucus, New Jersey, is engaged in the transportation of packages and goods. During the
past year, Respondent has derived gross revenues in excess of $50,000 from the transportation
of packages and goods from the State of New Jersey directly to points outside the State of New
Jersey. Respondent admits and I find that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act. Respondent additionally admits, and I find, that
the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
A. Background
The Union represents a unit of employees including drivers, sorters, loaders, porters,
office clerical employees, mechanics and other classifications of employees employed by the
Respondent. The most recent collective-bargaining agreement between the parties is effective
from August 1, 2002 to July 31, 2008.
Respondent operates numerous package delivery centers including the one involved
herein, the Hackensack Center located in the Meadowlands Building in Secaucus, New Jersey,
which was also referred to in the record as the Secaucus facility. Approximately 43 package
delivery drivers are employed in and from that facility.
Ernest Griffin is a package delivery driver assigned to the Hackensack Center who has
worked for Respondent for 20 years. Celmer is the facility’s Business Manager and Michael
Matteo occupies the position of Dispatch Planning Supervisor. Chris Eltzholtz has worked as a
driver for Respondent for over 16 years and is the Union shop steward for the facility. He has
served in this capacity for approximately ten years.
B. The Disciplinary Meetings
On February 9, Respondent held its daily Pre-Working Communication (PWC) meeting
with employees. This meeting typically consists of a short informative talk, presented by a
supervisor, to discuss subjects such as safety, training and other matters of importance to the
drivers. At that time, the names of employees with whom management wishes to meet are
announced, and they are expected to report to the office after the meeting concludes. On that
morning, Griffin was summoned and, accompanied by Shop Steward Eltzholtz, reported to
Business Manager Celmer’s office. Dispatch Planning Supervisor Matteo was also present.4
_________________________
interests, the consistency and inconsistency of their testimony, and the corroboration or lack of it by other
witnesses and events. I have additionally considered inherent probabilities and reasonable inferences
drawn from the record as a whole. To the extent my credibility resolutions are not specifically discussed
below, testimony in contradiction to my factual findings has been considered, but discredited.
4 The office where the meeting was conducted is a small one, approximately 9 x 10 feet in size.
There is a manager’s desk and desk chair, and behind them a credenza with file cabinets and a
computer. Against the front wall of the office are two side chairs, separated by a small table. On one side
of the manager’s desk, against the wall is another side chair and file cabinet.
JD(NY)–22–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss a delivery scan audit performed the prior day
on Griffin’s truck which indicated that he had failed to deliver a package to 14 Mill Street in Lodi,
New Jersey. 5 Disciplinary meetings with package car drivers for such discrepancies are not
uncommon, and Eltzholtz has, as shop steward, represented employees in connection with
such issues on numerous occasions. The record also reflects that Griffin had been summoned
to meetings to discuss similar infractions on four or five occasions.
Celmer told Griffin that he would be receiving a warning letter for the missed scan.
Eltzholtz requested to see the delivery records. Celmer stated that six packages had been
scanned for that location. At first, Eltzholtz found only four deliveries, but Griffin explained that
he had missed two packages during his initial stop and that he had returned to that location later
in the day.6 After looking through the records, Eltzholtz found two additional delivery scans for
14 Mill Street and pointed that out to Celmer. She took the delivery records and began
comparing the tracking numbers. According to Celmer, the six deliveries listed in the records
failed to reflect the missing package, and Eltzholtz asked how she definitely knew it was on
Griffin’s truck.7
Griffin was protesting during this exchange, stating that he did his job; that there had
been six packages and he had delivered all six. Celmer was on her computer, tracking the
package numbers. Griffin and Eltzholtz were continuing to talk, and Griffin was continuing to
insist that he had made all his deliveries. Then Celmer asked Griffin how did she know that he
did not steal the package. According to both Eltzholtz and Griffin, Celmer made a direct
accusation relating to Griffin’s possible theft of the package. 8
Upon hearing Celmer’s comments, Griffin stood up and stated that he was not a thief.
He argued that in 20 years, he had never been accused of stealing. Griffin pulled various items
from his pockets, said he had his “own stuff” and did not need anyone else’s. According to
Celmer, Griffin approached her desk and came to the side of her chair, turned to Matteo and
protested that he (Matteo) knew him and that he did not steal.

5 A scan audit is made of the packages on a driver’s truck in the morning before deliveries are made
for the day. The driver is then required to scan packages as they are delivered. When the driver returns at
the end of the work day, the scan audit is compared to the delivery scans made by the driver, to ensure
that packages have been delivered to the appropriate address.
6 Page 14 of Griffin’s delivery records showed four packages delivered to 14 Mill Street and page 7 of
his records showed two more packages delivered to that address.
7 According to Respondent, Griffin had improperly scanned one delivery twice.
8 Eltzholtz has a practice of taking notes of disciplinary meetings and maintains such notes in a small
booklet. Celmer acknowledged that Eltzholtz was taking notes on this occasion. Eltzholtz’s
contemporaneous notes read: “How does she know if he did not steal package.” Both Celmer and Matteo
phrase Celmer’s comments differently. According to Celmer she told him that this “creates a very big
problem for our customers, for us as a company. And I asked him, you know, what happened to it, did the
pre-loader take it, did it get lost somewhere in the building, did the customer take it, did he take it.” I do
not credit this version, as I find it unlikely that Celmer would be openly speculating about errors made by
others in this meeting which ostensibly had been called to address a mistake and issue discipline to
Griffin. In any event, as the testimony of all witnesses and subsequent events makes clear, Griffin
interpreted Celmer’s comments as an accusation of theft. In fact, under cross-examination, Celmer
acknowledged that Griffin had been calm up to that point, and that both Griffin and Eltzholtz articulated to
her that they understood Celmer to have accused Griffin of stealing. I further note that there is no
evidence that Celmer did anything to dispel this notion during the course of events that ensued.
JD(NY)–22–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
Celmer told Griffin to step back and sit down; but he did not follow her directive and
continued to remonstrate. Eltzholtz told him to take a seat as well. Eltzholtz turned to Matteo
and said that what Celmer said was not right, and Matteo said that he didn’t think Celmer had
meant it the way she said it. Celmer again told Griffin to sit down. Griffin continued to insist that
he had not stolen anything. At that point Celmer told Griffin that he would be receiving additional
warning letters for poor attendance and insubordination and ended the meeting.9
According to Eltzholtz, he and Griffin then left the office. Eltzholtz was trying to calm
Griffin down, and told him that he would contact the Union office about the warning letters. A
short while later, Celmer summoned the two men back to her office. Celmer entered the office
first, and by the time Eltzholtz got there she was sitting as her desk. Griffin was still upset, and
repeated the phrase, “I’m hot.” As Eltzholtz walked through the door, he turned to Griffin, who
was behind him, and said, “Ernie, I’d be hot too, if someone accused me of stealing.” As
Eltzholtz testified, Celmer then became angry and stated that she had been going to rescind the
warning letter for insubordination but because he (referring to Eltzholtz) had “opened his
mouth,” Griffin would be receiving it. Eltzholtz’s notes state: “Came back in & she was going to
take the W/L away but I opened mouth.”10 In a similar vein, Griffin testified that Celmer said,
“Well, I was going to take away the insubordination warning letter but your shop steward got you
that one, too.”
According to Celmer’s account of the initial meeting Griffin did not sit down, but he did
eventually step back. Feeling intimidated by his conduct in her small and crowded office, she
exited first, walking past Griffin, and went onto the pedestrian walkway where one of the
supervisors was standing. Griffin left the office after her, and went to the “belt” where his
package car was parked and continued to rant in front of other employees who were working in
the area. As Celmer testified: “[h]e was very loud and boisterous. He was grandstanding in front
of other employees. And as soon as he had their full attention he continued in a more boisterous
fashion.” According to Celmer, she was about 50 feet away from Griffin and heard his
comments. He was saying, “you come in here, you just try to do your job. You’re just trying to
work hard and you get accused of being a thief and being a liar.” Celmer walked over to Griffin
and told him he could not be out there behaving in that fashion and instructed him to return to
her office. They returned to the office, and Eltzholtz and Matteo, who had been standing nearby,
joined them.
As Celmer testified, as they were walking into the office, she asked Griffin if he wanted
to sit down and discuss this professionally, and stated that she would be willing to take away the
warning letter for insubordination. Griffin was rocking back and forth on his feet; seeming very
agitated and told Celmer to “do what you got to do.” He accused Celmer of calling him a liar and
a thief. Celmer testified that Griffin did not calm down; nor did he sit down. Eltzholtz then
addressed Griffin, stating that Celmer was calling him a liar and telling him that he was stealing,
and that he would be upset too. Celmer told Eltzholtz that he needed to stop “egging him on.”
According to Celmer, Eltzholtz made some other comments, repeating that she could not call
Griffin a liar and that he would act the same way. At this point Celmer stated that she would not
rescind the warning letter. Celmer testified that it was not because of anything Eltzholtz had
said, but because Griffin would not calm down. She denied telling Eltzholtz that her decision to

9 It appears from the record that Griffin was not issued a warning letter for poor attendance.
10 As discussed in further detail below, Eltzholtz’s attribution of Celmer’s words was not recorded
using marks indicating that it was a direct quotation (“…”). Respondent relies upon this point to challenge
Eltzholtz’s credibility and the veracity of this entry in his log.
JD(NY)–22–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
issue the warning letter had anything to do with what he said.
According to Matteo, after Celmer ended the first meeting, he and Eltzholtz remained
behind. He heard Griffin’s voice, describing it as “animated,” as he continued to protest that he
did not steal, and he came to do a job. Celmer directed everyone to return to the office and
Matteo entered and stood by Celmer’s desk. According to Matteo, Griffin was still angry and
continued to insist that he had delivered the packages, and had not stolen them. Celmer told
Griffin that he needed to calm down and Eltzholtz said that he did not blame the guy, because
you are accusing him of stealing. Eltzholtz added that he’d be mad too, if it were him. Matteo
quotes Celmer as stating to Eltzholtz: “If you keep egging him on, I’m going to have to give him
a warning letter for improper behavior.”
After this meeting concluded both Griffin and Eltzholtz exited the office and went to their
trucks, which were the only ones left in the dock. A few minutes later, Eltzholtz observed Celmer
standing by Griffin’s truck. Although he could see the two of them, he did not hear what was
said. Griffin testified that during the exchange Celmer told him that his shop steward was getting
him the warning letters. Later that evening Eltzholtz ran into Griffin at the facility and asked him
what had occurred during the discussion with Celmer at the truck. Griffin told him that Celmer
had repeated her earlier statement that he was getting the warning letter because of what
Eltzholtz had said. Celmer denied walking out to Griffin’s truck and further denied making any
such comment to him.
On March 1, Griffin received two warning letters. One referred to “your unacceptable
behavior on February 9, 2007 when you were insubordinate and wagged your finger toward the
face of a Manager. This is unacceptable behavior.” The second concerned “your failure to follow
the proper delivery methods by not scanning a package for 14 Mill St. Lodi on February 9,
2007.”
III. Analysis and Conclusions
A. The Deferral Issue
In its answer to the complaint, and again at hearing and in its post-hearing brief,
Respondent contends that the instant matter should be deferred to arbitration pursuant to the
principles of Collyer Insulated Wire Company, 192 NLRB 837(1971) and United Technologies
Corp., 268 NLRB 557 (1984).
It appears from the record that Respondent and the Union have had a long bargaining
history. Both the National Master United Parcel Agreement (NMA) and the Local 177
Supplement, which apply to the circumstances herein, contain broad grievance and arbitration
provisions. Article 4 of the NMA contemplates that the responsibilities of job stewards shall
include: “The investigation and presentation of grievances with the Employer or the designated
company representative in accordance with the provisions of the collective-bargaining
agreement.” In relevant part, Article 4 also provides:
Stewards and/or alternate stewards shall not be subject to discipline for performing any
of the duties within the scope of their authority as defined in this Section, in the manner
permitted by this Section. Recognizing the importance of the role of the Union Steward
in resolving problems or disputes between the Employer and its employees, the
Employer reaffirms its commitment to the active involvement of union stewards in such
processes in accordance with the terms of this Article.
JD(NY)–22–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
Further, Article 4 makes clear that, “[t]he Employer recognizes the employee’s
right to be given requested representation by a steward, or the designated alternate, at such
time as the employee reasonably contemplates disciplinary action.”
In addition, Article 21, entitled “Union Activity,” provides in pertinent part as follows:
Any employee member of the Union acting in any official capacity whatsoever shall not
be discriminated against for acts as such officer of the Union so long as such acts do not
interfere with the conduct of the Employer’s business, nor shall there be any
discrimination against any employee because of union membership or activities. . .
Article 47 of the Local 177 Supplement, entitled “Discharge,” specifically references
warning letters:
Section 1
The following shall be causes for immediate suspension or discharge of an employee:
drinking, or proven or admitted dishonesty.
Section 2
In all other cases involving the discharge or suspension of an employee, the Company
will give three (3) working days’ notice to the employee of their discharge or suspension
and the reason therefore. Such notice shall be also given to the Shop Steward and the
Local Union office. Any warning notice shall not remain in effect more than twelve (12)
months.
On April 1, 2005, Respondent and the Union appeared before Arbitrator Carol
Wittenberg to arbitrate a grievance brought under the collective-bargaining agreement
concerning the Union’s challenge to the company’s issuance of a warning letter to an employee
on a matter unrelated to the instant proceeding. Of note to the instant case, however, was the
issue presented to the arbitrator which was whether, under the collective-bargaining agreement,
warning letters “standing alone” could be arbitrated, or whether they were subject to arbitration
only when subsequent more severe discipline, i.e. suspension or discharge, was issued and
based in part on progressive discipline stemming from the earlier warning letter. In that instance,
the Union took the position that it was entitled to arbitrate the warning letter. The Employer
argued to the contrary: that a warning letter standing alone was not arbitrable, and that,
consistent with Article 47, the only disciplinary matters which may be referred to arbitration are
discharge and suspension.
In an opinion and award dated July 16, 2005, Arbitrator Wittenberg held that warning
letters, standing alone, may not be arbitrated. In so concluding, the arbitrator looked to the
language of the collective-bargaining agreement, the history and practice of the parties since at
least 1990 and the Union’s apparent agreement to the parties’ rebuttal procedure,11 which was
found by the Arbitrator to provide an adequate remedy should the employee in question be
subject to more severe discipline. 12

11 The Union and the Employer have agreed upon a procedure which allows an employee to “rebut”
a warning letter, which in effect enables the Union to contest it at a later date should the employee suffer
more severe progressive discipline.
12 As the arbitrator stated: “Under the parties’ procedure, a warning letter is either removed from the
Continued
JD(NY)–22–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
Respondent contends that the allegations of the complaint are covered by the foregoing
contractual provisions and are subject to grievance and arbitration under the conditions adopted
by the parties, as described by Arbitrator Wittenberg. Both the General Counsel and the Union
argue, to the contrary, that the matter is not amenable to deferral.
It is well-settled that the Board has “considerable discretion to defer to the arbitration
process when doing so will serve the fundamental aims of the Act.” Wonder Bread, 343 NLRB
55, 55 (2004) (citations omitted). As the Board has held, deferral is appropriate when the
following factors are present:
[T]he dispute arose within the confines of a long and productive collective-bargaining
relationship; there is no claim of employer animosity to the employees’ exercise of
protected statutory rights; the parties’ agreement provides for arbitration of a very broad
range of disputes; the arbitration clause clearly encompasses the dispute at issue; the
employer has asserted its willingness to utilize arbitration to resolve the dispute; and the
dispute is eminently well suited to such resolution.
Id. (citing United Technologies Corp., 268 NLRB 557, 558 (1984))
In support of its argument that deferral is appropriate, Respondent argues that no claim
of employer animosity to employee exercise of protected rights has been asserted in this case.
Further, Respondent contends that: “UPS has expressed its willingness to arbitrate the issue of
these letters as provided for in the collective bargaining agreement and as Arbitrator Wittenberg
found –once a subsequent disciplinary action has been taken” (emphasis supplied). In support
of its position, Respondent relies upon August A. Busch & Company of Massachusetts, Inc.,
309 NLRB 714, 716 (1992), where the Board found that while the contract at issue did not
obligate either party to resort to the grievance and arbitration procedures, it was the availability
of that machinery which triggered the deferral doctrine. In that case the Board determined that
the dispute was cognizable by the grievance arbitration procedure and all other factors favoring
deferral were present.13
In disagreement with the Respondent, I find that all the factors called for by Collyer,
United Technologies and their progeny are not present here. In particular, I find that the relevant
provisions of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement, as interpreted by the arbitrator (in
apparent agreement with arguments advanced by Respondent), fail to provide a mechanism to
resolve the underlying statutory issue and further fail to provide an appropriate remedy for the
alleged violations herein.
The General Counsel argues, in its brief, that Article 21 of the NMA does not apply to
Griffin insofar as this provision protects employees only insofar as they function as an officer of
the Union. I do not agree with this assertion, and find that the second clause of Article 21, which
is a general non-discrimination provision, arguably would cover Griffin in this instance.
_________________________
employee’s file or can be arbitrated as part of a suspension or discharge case. In either case, the
individual employee’s rights are protected.”
13 That instance involved a Section 8(a)(5) refusal to bargain allegation. The Board specifically noted
that there was no evidence or allegation of employer animosity toward the employees’ exercise of
protected rights. In that regard, the Board drew a distinction to the circumstances presented by Kenosha
Auto Transport Corp., 302 NLRB 888 fn. 2 (1991) where it was held that deferral of an alleged Section
8(a)(5) allegation was inappropriate in light of allegations of 8(a)(3) and independent 8(a)(1) violations.
JD(NY)–22–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
Nevertheless, I further conclude that the dispute is not amenable to resolution through the
collective-bargaining process. In particular, Arbitrator Wittenberg has specifically ruled that
“stand alone” warning letters are not arbitrable. Thus it would appear that the issue of whether
Respondent’s issuance of (or, as presented by the General Counsel, its failure to rescind) the
warning letter stemmed from Griffin’s insubordination or because of protected conduct cannot
be considered under the collective-bargaining agreement. I note that Respondent does not take
the position that this issue could or should be considered by the case in its present posture, but
argues only that the warning letter could be arbitrated in conjunction with subsequent discipline,
in the event any should any be issued to Griffin.
In a variety of contexts, the Board has held that deferral is not appropriate where the
issue involved is not arguably covered under the contract. See Pepsi Cola Co., 330 NLRB 474
(2000) (deferral not appropriate where arbitrator decided case on procedural grounds without
consideration of the merits); see also Stephens Graphics, Inc., 339 NLRB 457, 461 (2003)
(deferral of Section 8(a)(1) charge not appropriate where there was no specific contractual
provision covering the dispute and there was no assurance that the alleged Section 7 rights
were covered by the contract); Western Massachusetts Electric Co., 228 NLRB 607, 610
(1977), enf. denied on other grounds, 573 F.2d 101 (1st Cir. 1978) (no deferral where arbitrator
determined unilateral suspension of employee benefit not arbitrable).
Here, while the arbitrator found that the parties’ agreed-upon procedure protected
employee rights under the collective-bargaining agreement, this finding does not answer the
question of whether employees’ statutory rights are adequately protected by such a procedure.
Because it appears, (and no party contests otherwise), that the issuance of the warning letter to
Griffin would not be arbitrable under the contract, as interpreted by the arbitrator, such a factor
strongly militates against deferral.
I further note that the Board has declined to defer in instances where an appropriate
remedy cannot be fashioned through the arbitral forum. For example, in Clarkson Industries,
312 NLRB 349, 351 (1993), the Board considered whether alleged violations of Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) should be deferred to arbitration. That case involved a warning issued to a shop steward
and an alleged threat to hold that steward to a higher standard of conduct than that demanded
of other employees. In that case, the shop steward was arguably covered by contract language
prohibiting discrimination on the basis of union membership or activity. However, the arbitration
provision provided that the arbitrator “shall not have the right or authority to subtract to or alter
any provision of this Contract, nor may the arbitrator make any recommendations for future
actions by the company or the Union.” The Board found that this provision would prevent an
arbitrator from imposing the functional equivalent of a “cease and desist” remedy, which is
directed at future actions. The arbitrator would be, therefore, precluded from fashioning an
appropriate remedy for the alleged threat and, as the Board held, deferral was not warranted.
See also Ramey Supermarkets, 314 NLRB 9,10 (1994), where the Board affirmed the
administrative law judge’s refusal to defer a discharge case to arbitration under Collyer because
the contract’s grievance arbitration procedure limited back pay awards to 20 days.14
Similarly, in this instance, the contractual forum fails to offer a remedy which would be

14 The Eighth Circuit reversed the Board’s decision on the ground that the Board erroneously failed
to analyze the case under United Technologies, supra. Applying those factors, the Eighth Circuit
concluded that deferral was appropriate, and further found the scope of available remedies was relevant
but not dispositive. NLRB v. Roswil, Inc. d/b/a Ramey Supermarkets, 55 F.3d 382, 388-389 (8th Cir.
1995).
JD(NY)–22–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
consistent with the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, it appears that an arbitrator would be
precluded from issuing an award pertaining to the propriety of the warning letter issued to Griffin
or to direct the Respondent to take any remedial action with regard thereto. In this regard, the
Respondent’s stated position that the warning letter may be arbitrated in the event it forms the
basis for some future discipline offers nothing by way of remedy to any unfair labor practices
which may be found herein.15
With regard to whether the alleged 8(a)(1) statement could or should be subject to
deferral, “[t]he Board has consistently held that it will not defer one issue if it is closely related to
another issue that is not deferrable.” Clarkson Industries, supra at 352 (citing Everlock
Fastening Systems, 308 NLRB 1018 fn. 8 (1992); 15th Avenue Iron Works, 301 NLRB 878, 879
(1991) enfd. 964 F.2d 1330 (2d Cir. 1992)). Here too, the alleged Section 8(a)(1) statement
arises from the same set of circumstances and is entwined with the Respondent’s alleged
unlawful failure to rescind the warning letter. To defer this aspect of the complaint to arbitration,
therefore, would result in precisely the sort of “piecemeal” approach disfavored by the Board.
In support of its argument for deferral, Respondent cites to United Technologies
Corporation, supra at 560. There, the Board overruled existing Board precedent and held that it
would be appropriate, given certain conditions, to defer alleged violations of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act. It is true, as Respondent contends, that in that case, “the dispute center[ed] on a
statement a single foreman made to a single employee and a shop steward…” The Board found
that the facts of that case made it “eminently well suited for deferral.” Id. In United Technologies,
however, the threat alleged to be violative of Section 8(a)(1) was “clearly cognizable” under the
broad grievance arbitration provisions of the parties’ collective-agreement. In the instant case,
by contrast, there is no support for the proposition that it the grievance arbitration process could
be invoked either to address or to offer a meaningful remedy for the dispute in question. As
discussed above, Respondent has predicated is argument for deferral on contractual provisions
which may become applicable only should unforeseen events come to pass. And, as noted
above, Respondent has consistently taken the position that “stand alone” warning letters are not
arbitrable which, in my view, not only fails to evince a willingness to arbitrate the instant dispute
but suggests exactly the opposite.16
Accordingly, based upon the foregoing, I find that the allegations of the complaint are not
suitable for deferral under Collyer, United Technologies and their progeny, and will proceed to
evaluate the merits of the case.
B. Applicable Legal Principles
Under Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act), it is an unfair labor
practice for an employer to “interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed” by Section 7 of the Act. 17 Section 8(a)(3) provides that it shall be an unfair

15 As noted above, the warning letter expires after a 12-month period. That fact, however, goes to
the scope of the remedy for the alleged unfair labor practices, not to whether the Respondent’s conduct
was, in fact, violative of the Act in the first instance or whether the contract contemplates a remedy which
would meet statutory prerogatives.
16 I further note that, contrary to Respondent’s suggestion, this case does present claims of employer
animosity to the employee exercise of rights which are protected under the Act.
17 Section 7 of the Act provides, in relevant part, that “employees shall have the right to self
organization, to form, join or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
Continued
JD(NY)–22–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
labor practice for an employer to “discriminate in hiring, or any term of condition of employment,
[or] to encourage or discourage membership in a union.” Any conduct found to be a violation of
Section 8(a)(3) would also discourage employees’ Section 7 rights, thereby constituting a
derivative violation of Section 8(a)(1). Chinese Daily News, 346 NLRB No. 81, slip op. at 28
(2006).
As noted above, the complaint alleges that Respondent refused to rescind the warning
letter issued to Griffin because of the protected conduct of his shop steward.18 Respondent has
asserted that its refusal to rescind the warning letter stemmed, not from Eltzholtz’s protected
conduct, but from Griffin’s insubordination. Thus, under the General Counsel’s theory of the
case, and Respondent’s corresponding defenses to the allegations of the complaint, the
reasons for Respondent’s actions in disciplining Griffin are in dispute. The General Counsel, in it
brief, argues that the instant case should be evaluated under the principles set forth in Wright
Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989
(1982). Similarly, Respondent argues that under a Wright Line analysis, the complaint should
be dismissed. Inasmuch as the parties have placed the employer’s motivation at issue, I find
that an analysis under Wright Line is appropriate. In addition, however, because I also have
concluded that Griffin’s conduct, or alleged misconduct, was intertwined with protected activity,
the circumstances of this case render it amenable to analysis under the factors set forth Atlantic
Steel, 245 NLRB 814 (1979). See Felix Industries, 331 NLRB 144, 146 (2000), enf. denied and
remanded, 251 F.3d 1051(D.C. Cir. 2001), on remand Felix Industries, Inc., 339 NLRB 195
(2005), as will be discussed below.
C. Application of the Wright Line Standards
In cases which turn on employer motivation, to establish a violation of the Act under
Section 8(a)(3) the General Counsel must first show, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that the employee engaged in protected concerted activity, the employer was aware of that
activity, and the activity was a substantial or motivating reason for the employer's action. Wright
Line, supra; Naomi Knitting Plant, 328 NLRB 1279, 1281 (1999). Proof of an employer's motive
can be based upon direct evidence or can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, based on
the record as a whole. Ronin Shipbuilding, 330 NLRB 464 (2000); Robert Orr/Sysco Food
Services, 343 NLRB 1183 (2004); enfd. mem. 179 LRRM (BNA) 2954 (6th Cir. 2006); Embassy
Vacation Resorts, 340 NLRB 846, 848 (2003). The Board has long held that, where adverse
action occurs shortly after an employee has engaged in protected activity, an inference of
unlawful motive is raised. See McClendon Electrical Services, 340 NLRB 613, fn. 6 (2003)
(citing La Gloria Oil, 337 NLRB 1120 (2002), enfd. mem. 71 Fed Appx. 441 (5th Cir. 2003)
(Table)).
Once the General Counsel has made out the elements of a prima facie case, the burden
of persuasion then shifts to the employer to “demonstrate that the same action would have
taken place even in the absence of the protected conduct.” Septix Waste, Inc., 346 NLRB No.
50 (2006); Williamette Industries, 341 NLRB 560, 563 (2004); Wright Line, supra. To meet its
Wright Line burden, “[a]n employer cannot simply present a legitimate reason for its action but
must persuade by a preponderance of the evidence that the same action would have taken
place even in the absence of the protected activity.” W.F. Bolin Co., 311 NLRB 1118, 1119
(1993), petition for review denied 70 F.3d 863 (6th Cir. 1995), enfd. mem. 99 F.3d 1139 (6th Cir.
_________________________
other mutual aid or protection.”
18 The complaint does not allege that the discipline issued to Griffin was due to his own protected
conduct.
JD(NY)–22–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
11
1996). See also Manno Electric, Inc., 321 NLRB 278, 280 fn. 12 (1996).
As noted above, a prerequisite for finding a violation under Section 8(a)(3) of the Act is
protected conduct. Here, I find that the General Counsel has established that both Griffin and
Eltzholtz were engaged in union activity and conduct otherwise protected under the Act.
The Board historically has held that processing and presenting grievances is concerted
activity protected by Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. Bowman Transportation, Inc.,134 NLRB
1419 (1961). This is true even when the grievance in question is not formally stated or does not
take place under the auspices of a contractual grievance procedure. Clara Barton Terrace
Convalescent Center, 225 NLRB 1028, 1033 (1976)(and cases cited therein). The term
“grievance,” as used in Section 9(a) of the Act, refers “to both disputes over interpretation and
application of a collective-bargaining agreement and those matters delimited in Section 9(a) of
the Act: rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment.” Top
Mfg., 249 NLRB 424 (1980). Here, the meetings in question were held pursuant to delineated
contractual provisions for the purpose of discussing discipline to be issued to a bargaining unit
employee. Clearly, both Eltzholtz and Griffin were thereby engaging in union and concerted,
protected activities by virtue of their participation in such meetings.
Moreover, in Union Fork & Hoe Co., 241 NLRB 907 (1979), the Board reaffirmed the
principle that in presenting and processing grievances shop stewards retain the protection of the
Act except for extreme misconduct in the performance of their union duties.
As discussed above, the circumstances which led to the meeting in Celmer’s office on
February 9 are essentially not in dispute. Griffin was called into the office to discuss and receive
a written warning for a discrepancy between a scan audit and his delivery records. It is also
essentially undisputed that during the course of this meeting, Eltzholtz, acting in his
representational capacity, asked to review the company records and questioned whether such
discipline was warranted. It is also not disputed that when Griffin was accused of theft, a
dischargeable offense, he became distressed and argumentative and refused to follow Celmer’s
instructions to step back and sit down. Celmer ended the meeting.
The central feature of the instant dispute concerns what happed subsequent to this initial
meeting. The General Counsel and the Charging Party contend that Celmer refused to rescind
Griffin’s insubordination warning because of Eltzholtz’s protected conduct. Respondent,
contends that the reason for the refusal to rescind the warning was due to Griffin’s continued
insubordinate behavior. In this regard, Respondent relies upon Onyx Environmental Services,
LLC., 336 NLRB 902, 905-906 (2001), where the Board affirmed an administrative law judge’s
conclusion that a suspension of an employee was not unlawful when it occurred in response to
that employee’s use of profane language and threatening conduct.19
For the reasons discussed below, I find that Eltzholtz’s entire course of conduct and, in
particular, his intervention during the second meeting, was not only sanctioned by the express
terms of the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement (as described above) but also continued to

19 The events in question in that case occurred when the employee in question went to a
supervisor’s office to request his personnel file. The administrative law judge concluded that this was not
protected conduct because the employee was not asserting a protected right under Section 7 or acting on
behalf of others, but was engaging in conduct which was individual in nature which was, further, not a
continuation of prior protected conduct.
JD(NY)–22–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
12
warrant the protections of the Act.20 I further find that the General Counsel has met its burden of
showing that this protected conduct was a motivating or substantial factor leading to
Respondent’s refusal to rescind Griffin’s warning for insubordination.
D. Credibility Determinations
Respondent argues that neither Eltzholtz nor Griffin can be credited. With regard to
Eltzholtz, Respondent cites to purported discrepancies in his testimony. As Respondent notes,
Eltzholtz testified that Celmer, “. . . basically said that I was going to take the warning letter for
insubordination, but because he opened his mouth, you’re getting it.” Respondent further notes
that in his pre-trial affidavit, Eltzholtz similarly stated that Celmer said, “I was going to take away
the letter for insubordination but because he opened his mouth, you still have a warning letter.”
According to Respondent, the references to “you” and “he” in Eltzholtz’s testimony and affidavit
demonstrate that Celmer’s comment was addressed to Griffin. Respondent then points to the
fact that, during his cross examination, Eltzholtz initially testified that Celmer addressed Griffin,
but then equivocated on this point, stating that Celmer, “. . .said it to both of us, I guess.”
Respondent thus challenges the veracity of Eltzholtz’s testimony and the reliability of his
memory. I find Respondent’s arguments in this regard to be unpersuasive. This is nothing more
than a minor inconsistency. Moreover, as Respondent apparently concedes, Eltzholtz’s
testimony was consistent with his pre-trial affidavit, and his apparent indecision on cross-
examination regarding whether Celmer addressed her comments to Griffin or to both men is
insufficient to rebut it. Moreover, Eltzholtz’s testimony on this issue generally is consistent with
the underlying facts and the inherent probabilities of the situation.
Respondent additionally challenges the notations made in Eltzholtz’s notebook on two
grounds. One concerns the fact that the first comment attributed to Celmer in conjunction with
the February 9 meeting appears in quotation marks, while the second does not. Respondent
also contends that a physical examination of the document indicates that Eltzholtz fabricated the
second statement, and made the notation after-the-fact, to generate support for the charge.21
Again, I find these arguments to be unconvincing. As an initial matter, Eltzholtz credibly
explained that he took his notes regarding the second statement made by Celmer in a hurry, as
he was exiting the room.22 This explanation makes sense, and corroborates Eltzholtz’s account
of events to the extent he testified that the second meeting was of a very brief duration.
Moreover, with regard to Eltzholtz’s credibility in general, I find that as a long-term employee of
the Respondent and the shop steward, he would have no reason to fabricate statements
attributable to Celmer, especially where the interaction in question had been witnessed by
another manager. Indeed, such falsehoods would surely work against Eltzholtz’s interests both
as an employee and with regard to the future representation of employees at the facility.23 I
additionally found that, for the most part, Eltzholtz testified in a forthright manner and withstood
a vigorous cross-examination by Respondent’s counsel.

20 My analysis of Eltzholtz’s conduct is set forth in Section III. E. below.
21 In particular, Respondent argues that the second statement attributed to Celmer looks as though it
had been written in a narrow space which was left between Eltzholtz’s log entry for February 9 and one
for a subsequent meeting with management on February 13.
22 As Eltzholtz testified: “Probably because I was walking out of the office when I was writing that
down, I was just in a hurry, because we were in the office for the second time, 10 to 15 seconds.”
23 The Board has found that “the testimony of current employees which contradicts statements of
their supervisors is likely to be particularly reliable because these witnesses are testifying adversely to
their pecuniary interests . . .” Flexsteel Industries, 316 NLRB 745 (1995) (citations omitted). See also
Advocate South Suburban Hospital, 346 NLRB 209, 209 fn. 1 (2006).
JD(NY)–22–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
13
Respondent challenges Griffin’s credibility by noting certain inconsistencies between the
record and his pre-trial affidavit. Certain of these inconsistencies are inconsequential, such as
whether Celmer actually used Eltzholtz’s name or referred to him as the shop steward. There
are other, more significant inconsistencies which pertain to his accounts of the first and second
meetings with Celmer. As Respondent notes, paragraph five of Griffin’s pre-trial affidavit deals
with the second meeting. Nowhere in that paragraph is any discussion of whether Celmer stated
anything to Griffin about issuing him a warning letter or not removing a warning letter because of
the conduct of the shop steward. Rather, Griffin’s references to such statements occur in his
description of what occurred subsequently, when he spoke with Celmer at his truck. This is a
significant discrepancy from Griffin’s testimony at the hearing, to be sure, but based upon my
observation of Griffin’s testimony and the record as a whole, I do not find it a sufficient basis to
discredit Griffin’s testimony in its entirety.24 Griffin explained this omission by contending: “You
got to remember, sir, a lot of this stuff is lumped in together, that’s what I did.” I credit that
explanation, because it is consistent with Griffin’s demeanor and his manner of testimony
generally. Griffin appeared to make an effort to testify truthfully, to the best of his recollection.
He, too, was subjected to a rigorous cross-examination and he was respectful and cooperative
throughout.
In contrast, I find that Celmer was not a credible witness in many respects. As an initial
matter, I fail to credit her testimony regarding the nature and extent of Griffin’s alleged
insubordinate behavior. By way of example, Celmer testified that after walking out of her office
after the first meeting, Griffin proceeded to the belt where his package car was situated,
grandstanding for his coworkers in a loud and boisterous manner. It is inherently improbable, in
my view, that had Griffin been acting in such an uncontrolled and inappropriate manner, as
described by Celmer, that she would have wanted him to return to her small office, where she
had previously found his conduct to be intimidating. I additionally find it inherently improbable
that Celmer would have then broached the subject of rescinding the warning for insubordination
had Griffin been acting in such a fashion.25 It is far more likely that the level of discipline issued
to him would have increased in its severity in such an instance. Further, the warning letter
issued to Griffin describes his misconduct as consisting of insubordination and “wagg[ing] [his]
finger toward the face of a Manager.” There is no reference to grandstanding or loud or
boisterous conduct in the presence of other employees, or any other conduct generally
disruptive of the work environment, conduct which surely would have been subject to discipline
had it occurred. Accordingly, for the above reasons, I fail to credit Celmer’s account in this
regard.26
In the same vein, I do not credit Celmer’s version of what transpired once the parties
reconvened in her office. Again, there is no specific reference to any misconduct on the part of
Griffin, as testified to by Celmer, in the warning letter that was issued to him. In this regard, I
note that Matteo acknowledged, contrary to Celmer, that she made an express connection
between Griffin’s discipline and the activities of his shop steward when she said to Eltzholtz: “If
you keep egging him on, I’m going to have to give him a warning letter.” This testimony is
fundamentally corroborative of that offered by Eltzholtz and Griffin, and is evidence that it was

24 See Gold Circle Department Stores, 207 NLRB 1005, 1010 fn. 5 (1973).
25 I additionally note that although Matteo testified that Griffin’s voice was “animated,” he did not
report any disruptive behavior on Griffin’s part.
26 In support of its contentions that Respondent’s accounts of Griffin’s alleged insubordinate behavior
are fabricated, the General Counsel further points to the fact that Celmer did not contact security and that
Griffin was allowed to take his truck on the road that day.
JD(NY)–22–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
14
Eltzholtz’s advocacy, rather than Griffin’s behavior, which prompted Celmer’s decision to
proceed with the warning for insubordination.
I further credit Griffin’s testimony about his subsequent conversation with Celmer at his
truck. Again, I find that, as a 20 year employee, it would not be in his interest to fabricate false
testimony regarding statements made by his manager.27 I further note that Griffin’s account is at
least partially corroborated by Eltzholtz, who witnessed the two speaking, although he did not
overhear what was said.
Thus, I find that the General Counsel has established that Eltzholtz’s protected conduct
in his role as Griffin’s shop steward was a substantial or motivating factor in Respondent’s
determination not to rescind the warning letter issued to Griffin for insubordination. Based upon
my assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, coupled with the inherent probabilities of the
situation, I find that Respondent has failed to meet its burden of proving by a preponderance of
the evidence that it would have issued the warning to Griffin in the absence of Eltzholtz’s
protected conduct. Thus, under the Wright Line analysis urged by both the General Counsel and
the Respondent, I find that by failing to rescind Griffin’s warning for insubordination, Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
E. The Atlantic Steel Criteria
Even if I were to accept the fundamental premise of Respondent’s defense, that Griffin
was disciplined due to his behavior and not as a result of anything Eltzholtz might have said or
done, I would still be constrained to find that Respondent violated the Act. There is no dispute
that the warning letter at issue herein grew out of events at the February 9th meetings with
Celmer and Matteo concerning a perceived scanning error, for which Griffin was subject to
discipline. As discussed above, I have found that both Eltzholtz and Griffin were engaging in
protected conduct during these meetings. Thus, even under Respondent’s theory of the case,
the imposition of discipline can be found lawful only if Griffin’s conduct is found to have lost the
protections of the Act. Inasmuch as Respondent has contended that Griffin’s conduct was
provoked by Eltzholtz, I will undertake an analysis of his conduct under the Atlantic Steel
criteria, as well.
The Board has long held that, “in the context of protected concerted activity by
employees, a certain amount of leeway is allowed in terms of the manner in which they conduct
themselves. Although flagrant, opprobrious conduct may sometimes cause an employee’s
concerted activity to lose the protection of the Act, impropriety alone does not strip concerted
conduct of statutory protection.” Aroostook County Regional Ophthalmology Center, 317 NLRB
218, 220 (1995), enf. denied in part, 81 F. 3d 209 (D. C. Cir. 1996) (footnotes and citations
omitted). Here, I find that neither Eltzholtz nor Griffin engaged in conduct which would have
caused either of them to lose the protections of the Act or for any such misconduct to have been
lawfully imputed to Griffin.
Under Atlantic Steel, supra, four factors are analyzed to determine whether conduct has
lost the protection of the Act: (1) the place of the discussion; (2) the subject matter of the
discussion; (3) the nature of the employee’s outburst and (4) whether the outburst was, in any
way, provoked by an employer’s unfair labor practices. Addressing the first factor – the place of

27 As noted above, in Griffin’s pre-trial affidavit, he discusses this conversation, alleging that Celmer
stated to him that “your shop steward got you another warning letter, the one I was going to take away,
insubordination.”
JD(NY)–22–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
15
the discussion—I note that the conduct at issue occurred at a meeting, called by Respondent, in
a private office outside the earshot of other employees,28 to discuss discipline to be issued to a
bargaining unit member. Clearly, this meeting was an appropriate forum to discuss, and to
dispute, whether such discipline was warranted.
As to the second Atlantic Steel factor – the subject matter of the discussion--
I find that Eltzholtz was acting squarely within his role as union representative by questioning
Celmer about whether Griffin had, in fact, missed a scan; by disputing her suggestion that Griffin
had stolen the package, an offense for which he could be discharged; and subsequently by
attempting to explain the basis for Griffin’s angry reaction to Celmer’s accusation, a reaction for
which he had been disciplined. Similarly, Griffin’s protestations that he had not stolen the
package, something he could well have suffered serious discipline for, was protected in this
context.
The third Atlantic Steel factor concerns the nature of the conduct at the meeting.
Addressing the initial meeting, I find that the conduct exhibited by Eltzholtz was neither
provocative nor unreasonable and was far within the bounds of conduct which has been
sanctioned by the Board as regards shop steward advocacy generally. Union Fork & Hoe,
supra; see also Severance Tool Industries, 301 NLRB 1166, 1170 (1991); Noble Metal
Processing, Inc., 346 NLRB 795, 800 (2006) (and cases discussed therein). While Griffin
admittedly became angry and refused instructions to step back and sit down, the Board has
held that “there are certain parameters within which employees may act when engaged in
concerted activities.” Consumers Power Company, 282 NLRB 130, 132 (1986). In particular, the
Board has noted that “disputes over wages, hours and working conditions are among the
disputes most likely to engender ill feelings and strong responses.” Id. In assessing whether an
employee’s protected, concerted activity loses the protection of the Act, the Board has found
that a line “is drawn between cases where employees engaged in concerted activities that
exceeds the bounds of lawful conduct in a moment of animal exuberance or in a manner not
motivated by improper motives and those flagrant cases in which the misconduct is so violent or
of such a character as to render the employee unfit for further service.” Prescott Industrial
Products Company, 205 NLRB 51, 51-52 (1973). Here, I do not believe that Griffin’s conduct
crossed that line. My conclusions in this regard are buttressed by the undisputed evidence that
Celmer considered withdrawing the warning letter for insubordination even after this conduct
occurred.
With regard to the second meeting, even if I were to credit Celmer that Griffin entered
the office, remained agitated, rocked back and forth on his feet and continued to protest that
Celmer had called him a liar and a thief, I would not find that this conduct exceeded permissible
bounds. In this regard, I note that there is no evidence that Griffin at any time during this
encounter made any threatening gestures or directed any profanity or derogatory statements
toward Celmer or any other management official. Eltzholtz’s statement to Celmer, to the effect
that he’d be angry too, if accused of theft, must be considered in context, as he was acting as
Griffin’s official representative during the meeting. I do not find this statement was insubordinate
or that it somehow sanctioned insubordinate behavior on Griffin’s part. 29

28 As noted above, I do not credit Celmer’s testimony that Griffin engaged in “grandstanding” or loud,
boisterous behavior in the presence of other employees.
29 In this regard, I additionally note that Respondent has not asserted that Eltzholtz acted in an
insubordinate manner during either meeting.
JD(NY)–22–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
16
As regards the fourth Atlantic Steel factor, whether the conduct at issue was provoked
by the Respondent’s unfair labor practices, I note that the General Counsel has not alleged that
the initial announcement of the warning letter was unlawful. I find therefore that any unfair labor
practices here occurred after the fact, as a consequence of Eltzholtz’s advocacy, and were not a
precipitating factor.
On balance however, the application of the Atlantic Steel criteria strongly suggests that
neither Eltzholtz nor Griffin lost the protections of the Act by any of their conduct on February 9.
Thus, the very conduct to which Respondent attributes the issuance of the Griffin’s warning for
insubordination was and remained, in and of itself, protected conduct. Under its own theory of
the case, therefore, Respondent’s defense to the allegations of the complaint lacks merit.
Based upon the foregoing, I conclude that Respondent’s refusal to rescind Griffin’s
warning letter for insubordination violated Section 8(a)(1) and(3) of the Act.
I further find that Celmer’s statement to Griffin that, his receipt of the warning letter for
insubordination was because of the activities of his shop steward reasonably tended to coerce,
restrain and interfere with Griffin’s right to seek Union representation and therefore
independently violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, as alleged.
Conclusions of Law
1. United Parcel Service, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(2), 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Teamsters Local 177 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. By stating that a warning letter issued on March 1 to Ernest Griffin would not be
rescinded because of the protected conduct of his Union representative, Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By failing and refusing to rescind the warning letter for insubordination issued to
Ernest Griffin on March 1, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
Remedy
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find
that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
The Respondent, having discriminatorily disciplined Ernest Griffin must, to the extent it
has not already done so, rescind the March 1 warning letter for insubordination, remove all
references to such discipline from Griffin’s personnel file and notify him in writing that it has
done so and that the discipline will not be used against him in any way.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended30

30 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the
Continued
JD(NY)–22–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
17
ORDER
The Respondent, United Parcel Service, Inc., Secaucus, New Jersey, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Telling employees that discipline will not be rescinded because of the protected
conduct of their Union representatives,
(b) Disciplining employees because of the protected conduct of their Union
representatives,
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, remove from its files any
reference to the unlawful discipline issued to Ernest Griffin, and within 3 days thereafter notify
the Griffin in writing that this has been done and that the discipline will not be used against him
in any way.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in Secaucus, New
Jersey copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”31 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 22 after being signed by the Respondent’s
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60
consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that, during the
pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility
involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a
copy of the notice to all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent
at any time since February 9, 2007.
_________________________
findings, conclusions, and recommended 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.
31 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.”
JD(NY)–22–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
18
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn
certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that
the Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C., June 20, 2008.
____________________
Mindy E. Landow
Administrative Law Judge
JD(NY)–22–08
Secaucus, NJ
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 tell our employees that discipline will not be rescinded because of the protected conduct
of their Union representatives.
WE WILL NOT discipline or otherwise discriminate against employees because of the protected conduct
of representatives of Teamsters Local 177 or any other Union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, remove from its files any reference to the
unlawful discipline issued to Ernest Griffin, and WE WILL within 3 days thereafter notify the Griffin in
writing that this has been done and that the discipline will not be used against him in any way.
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor Relations
Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it investigates and
remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under the Act and how to file a
charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s Regional Office set forth below. You may
also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
20 Washington Place, 5th Floor
Newark, New Jersey 07102-3110
Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
973-645-2100.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST
NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS
NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, 973-645-3784.