United States Postal Service

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Nov 25, 2008

28-CA-021792 (N.L.R.B. Nov. 25, 2008)

JD(SF)–49–08
Albuquerque, NM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
SAN FRANCISCO BRANCH OFFICE
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
and Case 28-CA-21792
AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS UNION,
LOCAL UNION NO. 380, AFL-CIO
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
and Cases 28-CA-21815
28-CA-21816
AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS UNION,
LOCAL UNION NO. 434, AFL-CIO
Chris J. Doyle, Esquire, of Phoenix, Arizona
for the General Counsel.
Ken Fajardo, American Postal Workers Union
Local 380 of Albuquerque, New Mexico
for the Charging Party Local 380.
Jane Crowder, American Postal Workers Union,
Local 434 of Roswell, New Mexico,
for the Charging Party Local 434.
Peter Henry, Esq., of Dallas, Texas and
Richard Mosher, Esq., of Washington, D.C.
for the Respondent.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
JOHN J. MCCARRICK, Administrative Law Judge: This case was tried in Albuquerque,
New Mexico on June 17 to 19, 2008, upon the Complaint in case 28-CA-21792 issued on
May 5, 2008 by the Regional Director for Region 28, the Order Consolidating Cases and
Consolidated Complaint in cases 28-CA-21815 and 28-CA-21816 issued by the Regional
Director for Region 28 on May 8, 2008, and the Order Consolidating Cases 28-CA-21792 with
cases 28-CA-21815 and 28-CA-21816 issued by Associate Chief Judge Mary Miller Cracraft on
May 30, 2008.
JD(SF)–49–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
The May 5, 2008 Complaint alleges that the United States Postal Service (Respondent)
violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by delaying furnishing the American Postal Workers Union,
Local 380 (Local 380) with information it requested. The May 8, 2008 Consolidated Complaint
alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by delaying in furnishing information
requested by American Postal Workers Union, Local 434 (Local 434). By virtue of the alleged
extensive history of unfair labor practices committed by Respondent, General Counsel seeks a
broad Order requiring Respondent to cease and desist from engaging in further violations of the
Act against the Unions herein and any other labor organizations that represent Respondent’s
employees at facilities within the Respondent’s Albuquerque District.
Respondent filed a timely Answer to the both the May 5 Complaint and the May 8
Complaint stating it had committed no wrongdoing and that a broad Order is not warranted
herein.
Findings of Fact
Upon the entire record herein, including the briefs from the Counsel for the General
Counsel (CGC) and Respondent, I make the following findings of fact.
I. Jurisdiction
In its Answers Respondent admitted it provides postal services for the United States of
America, and in the performance of that function, has operated various facilities throughout the
United States, including facilities located in Albuquerque, Roswell, and Cloudcroft, New Mexico.
Based upon the above, the Board has jurisdiction over Respondent under Section 1209
of the PRA.
II. Labor Organization
Respondent admitted and I find that the National Union, and Locals 380 and 434 are
labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. The Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
A. The Facts
1. Case 28-CA-21792
It is admitted that the employees of Respondent described in the parties’ collective
bargaining agreement,1 including employees employed at Respondent’s Albuquerque,
Cloudcroft, La Luz, and Roswell, New Mexico facilities constitute an appropriate unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act and the Postal
Reorganization Act. It is also admitted that since about 1971 the National Union has been the
designated collective bargaining representative of the unit employees and that the National
Union has designated Locals 380 and 434 as its designees for the purposes of conducting
various functions as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of unit employees.

1 GC Exh. 18.
JD(SF)–49–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
Yolanda Vallejos (Vallejos) was employed at Respondent’s Airport Station as a Lead
Window Clerk/Sales and Service Associate. On about December 31, 2007, Vallejos was
terminated for embezzlement of funds.2 On about January 11, 2008, Local 380 filed a
grievance on Vallejos’ behalf. A step-2 grievance was filed on January 17, 20083 and a step-2
grievance meeting was conducted on January 18, 2008. On January 17, 2008, Local 380
Steward Al Urquidez submitted an information request to Respondent through Respondent’s
Airport Station Manager Customer Services Suzy Yarbro (Yarbro). The information requested
included:4
1. Proof that Grievant was aware of all rules/regulations cited in NOR.
2. Proof that Grievant was aware of the disciplinary consequences for violating
said rules/regulations.
3. Proof of “progressive discipline” in respects to NOR, i.e.- official
discussion(s), LOW(s), LOS(s), etc.
4. Proof that Grievant has been trained on all POS, NCR, back office training,
etc, in order to fulfill her duties as Lead Sales and Service Associate.
5. Copies of any and all discipline incurred by other employees throughout the
ABQ installation for “Improper Conduct”. To include, but not limited to: Campbell,
Kathy: Baldwin, Peter, etc.
Under the terms of the party’s collective bargaining agreement5 Charging Party had to file its
appeal to arbitrate within 15 days of a step-2 denial.
On January 26, 2008,6 Yarbro replied7 to Local 380’s information request by stating that
some of the information requested was not at the local office and so the request was being
forwarded to the district office. It was noted that the information requested in item 5 could take
several days to fulfill, however, six pages of Vallejos’ training records were provided. The
information concerning the Campbell discipline was located in another Albuquerque office. On
February 28, 2008,8 Respondent provided two pages of information concerning the removal of
Kathy Campbell in a letter dated February 21, 20089 and in a two page letter dated
February 25, 200810 and also mailed on February 28, 2008, Yarbro noted that Vallejos had
attended training courses. In response to Local 380’s information request at item 1, the
response reflected that Vallejos had been trained in 26 different courses and had been in her
position for over 12 years; with respect to information request 2 Respondent noted that Vallejos
had received much training; with respect to item 3 Respondent stated that they were unaware of
any previous discussions with Vallejos; with respect to item 4 Respondent said they had
previously supplied all training records; and with respect to item 5 it was noted that the Kathy
Campbell records had been provided and there was no information related to a similar violation
concerning Peter Baldwin.

2 GC Exh.19.
3 GC Exh.20.
4 GC Exh.12.
5 GC Exh.18.
6 While Yarbro’s letter is dated January 23, 2008, it was not placed into the mail until
January 26, 2008. See GC Exh.21.
7 GC Exh.13.
8 GC Exhs. 22 and 23.
9 GC Exh.14.
10 GC Exh.15.
JD(SF)–49–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
On March 3, 2008,11 Respondent through Respondent’s Albuquerque City Labor
Relations Specialist Edward Arvizo (Arvizo) again responded to Local 380’s information request.
Arvizo summarized that Respondent had provided Vallejo’s training records, the Campbell
removal, that Vallejos’ long history as a window clerk and her extensive training records were
responsive to Local 380’s information requests 1 and 2, that there was no history of progressive
discipline of Vallejos in this case and that there was no discipline of Baldwin for a similar
offense.
2. Cases 28-CA-21815 and 28-CA-21816
Wendy Giles (Giles) worked as a Retail Sales Associate/Window Clerk at Respondent’s
Roswell, New Mexico postal facility. Local 434 filed a grievance on Giles’ behalf concerning her
rates of pay. Local 434 President Jane Crowder (Crowder) filed an information request12 in the
Giles grievance on February 14, 2008, requesting copies of PS Forms 1723 for all window
clerks from January 1, 2008 to the present. According to Roswell Customer Service Supervisor
Larry Fierro (Fierro), he provided the requested form to Crowder on February 15, 2008.13
Crowder denied that Fierro gave her the requested forms on February 15, 2008. According to
Crowder she spoke with Fierro on February 21, 2008 at the Roswell facility and he said that he
had almost completed the Giles information request. The absence of a signed receipt for the
information until March 11, 2008 together with Crowder’s unrebutted testimony that Fierro said
the information request was almost completed on February 21, 2008, leads me to credit
Crowder’s testimony. On March 11, 2008,14 Respondent provided the requested forms,
consisting of one page. On March 13, 2008, the step one grievance was filed and settled.
Jason Haas (Haas) worked in Respondent’s Cloudcroft facility as a Part time Flex Clerk.
Hass received a 14 day suspension15 on January 18, 2008, for failing to follow instructions. On
January 29, 2008, Crowder called La Luz, New Mexico Postmaster Christopher Beatrice
(Beatrice) and explained that Haas had been disciplined and she needed documents from the
La Luz office to investigate Haas’ discipline. Crowder said she could come to La Luz the
following day to look at the time cards and records. Beatrice told Crowder to file an information
request. Crowder filed an information request16 on January 29, 2008 with Beatrice requesting
all time cards and copies of all PS Form 1723s for Kathleen Schnepple for October 1, 2007
through January 18, 2008. On January 29, 2008, Beatrice sent Crowder a letter asking for the
relevance of the requested information in the Haas case.17 On January 31, 2008 Crowder
wrote to Beatrice and explained the relevance of the requested information.18 A step one
grievance was filed for Haas on January 31, 2008 and a step two grievance was filed on
February 15, 2008. On February 5, 2008,19 Beatrice responded that the information would take

11 GC Exh.17.
12 GC Exh.10.
13 R Exh. 110 at 3. R Exh. 110 is a summary of information requests filed by various unions.
While R Exh. 110 purports to establish that Fierro provided Crowder with the requested
information on February 15, 2008, there was no receipt signed by Crowder for the information
until March 11, 2008. See GC Exh. 11.
14 GC Exh.11.
15 GC Exh.24.
16 GC Exh.3.
17 GC Exh.4.
18 GC Exh.5.
19 GC Exh.7.
JD(SF)–49–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
some time to compile. On February 28, 2008, Respondent provided about 51 pages of
requested records20. It took Beatrice 3.25 hours to locate and copy the requested records.21.
B. Analysis
The Supreme Court has held that employers have a duty to furnish relevant information
to a union representative during contract negotiations. NLRB v. Truitt Manufacturing Co., 351
U.S. 149 (1956). This obligation extends beyond contract negotiations and applies to
administration of the contract, including grievance processing. NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co.,
385 U.S. 432 (1967); Ormet Aluminum Mill Products, Inc., 335 NLRB 788, 790 (2001); Postal
Service, 332 NLRB 635 (2000) In order for the obligation to furnish information to attach there
must be a request made and the information requested must be relevant to the union’s
collective bargaining need. Saginaw Control & Engineering, Inc., 339 NLRB No. 76 (2003). An
ambiguous request may not be denied by an employer rather the employer is under an
obligation to seek clarification. International Protective Services, Inc., 339 NLRB No. 75 (2003).
In the instant case there is no contention that the information sought was irrelevant.
Further an unreasonable delay in furnishing relevant information is a violation of Section
8(a)(5). The Board recently summarized the standard that it employs in assessing a claim of
unreasonable delay:
In determining whether an employer has unlawfully delayed responding to an
information request, the Board considers the totality of the circumstances
surrounding the incident. Indeed, it is well established that the duty to furnish
requested information cannot be defined in terms of a per se rule. What is
required is a reasonable good faith effort to respond to the request as promptly
as circumstances allow. In evaluating the promptness of the response, the Board
will consider the complexity and extent of information sought, its availability and
the difficulty in retrieving the information. [Internal quotation marks and citations
omitted.] West Penn Power Co., 339 NLRB 585, 587 (2003), enfd. in pertinent
part 349 F.3d 233 (4th Cir. 2005).
In Regency Service Carts, Inc., 345 NLRB No. 44 slip op. at page 4 (2005), the Board
found a 16-week delay in furnishing information unreasonable. The Board has found delays of
14 weeks, Pan American Grain, 343 NLRB No. 47 (2004), 6 weeks, Bundy Corp., 292 NLRB
671 (1989) seven weeks, Woodland Clinic, 331 NLRB 735, 737 (2000), 6 weeks, Bituminous
Roadways of Colorado, 314 MLRB 1010 (1994), 5 weeks, Postal Service, 332 NLRB 635
(2000), 3 weeks, Aeolian Corporation, 247 NLRB 1231 (1980), 20 days, Butcher Boy
Refrigerator Door Company, 127 NLRB 1360 (1960) and 2 weeks, Capitol Steel & Iron Co., 317
NLRB 809 (1995) unreasonable.
In Postal Service, 352 NLRB No. 122 (2008), a two-member Board panel found a two-
month delay in furnishing information permissible where the union did not pursue the
information request from a new manager who did not fully understand the information request
system. After a vaguely worded unfair labor practice charge was filed, the union refused to
specify what information they sought. For two months the union showed no interest in the
requested information, then refused to tell the respondent what information they wanted.

20 GC Exh.8.
21 GC Exh.9.
JD(SF)–49–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
In Capitol Steel and Iron Co., supra, the Board concluded a two-week delay was
unreasonable where the information requested was simple, the information was close at hand,
the respondent was able to put together the information together in a short time period and
during those two weeks, a strike had begun which the Board concluded warranted extra effort
by respondent.
Albuquerque District Human Resource Manger Christopher Castro (Castro) regularly sends
form letters to union officials that ask if there are any information requests that have no been
fulfilled.22 Respondent contends that the Charging Parties somehow engaged in delaying
tactics by not responding to Castro’s form letters. In support of this position Respondent cites
Postal Service, 352 NLRB No. 122 (2008). Castro’s form letters to union officials can not shift
the responsibility for producing information to the union. At any given time there are hundreds
of information requests pending. Without specifying a particular information request in the form
letters, Respondent cannot suggest that the unions’ failure to reply constitutes the sort of lack of
cooperation that the union demonstrated in Postal Service, 352 NLRB No. 122 (2008).
In case 28-CA-21792, while all of the information on the Vallejos grievance was not
produced until 42 days had elapsed, the initial information, consisting of Vallejos’ training
records was given to the union in 9 days and was responsive to union requests 1, 2 and 3.
Respondent did not have any information regarding request 4 and the information responsive to
request 5 was not created or maintained at Yarbro’s facility. The Campbell disciplinary report
had been created by a manager who had been transferred from the facility where the report was
located. Ultimately the Campbell disciplinary report was found in an unmarked file cabinet.
Under all of the circumstances, including the prompt delivery of the main portion of the
requested information in 9 days and the difficulty in locating the Campbell disciplinary report, the
provision of all of the information requested in 42 days was a good faith effort by Respondent
and did not constitute an unreasonable delay. I will dismiss this portion of the complaint.
In the Giles grievance in case 28-CA-21815, it took Respondent 28 days to provide the
requested forms, consisting of one page. There is no evidence that this information was difficult
to locate. The information request was in the context of a pending grievance that had
contractual time limits on appeals to the next step. I find that in this case 28 days was an
unreasonable delay in providing one page of information, particularly since the Charging Party
needed the evidence to assess whether to pursue a pending grievance. By failing to timely
provide the requested information, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
In the Haas grievance in case 28-CA-21816, it took Respondent 30 days to provide
Charging Party with the information it had requested. The record reflects that the information
was readily available at the La Luz, New Mexico Post Office and it took only 3.25 hours to locate
and copy the 51 pages of requested records. Had Beatrice spent only 30 minutes a day looking
for the records they could have been retrieved in six days. If he had spent an hour a day, the
records could have been provided to the Charging Party in three days. Given that the
information request was made in the context of a pending grievance, time was of the essence.
I find that 30 days was an unreasonable delay in providing the requested information. By failing
to timely provide the requested information, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the
Act.

22 R Exhs. 207-210.
JD(SF)–49–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
C. Request for Broad Remedy
General Counsel contends that Respondent’s proclivity to violate the Act by failing to
provide information in a timely fashion, as demonstrated by cited Board and Court orders as
well as the three cases herein, warrants a broad cease and desist order. General Counsel
seeks a remedial order requiring Respondent to cease and desist from engaging in further
violations of the Act against the Charging Party Union and any other labor organization that
represents Respondent’s employees at facilities within the Albuquerque District and to post a
Notice to Employees at all facilities within the Albuquerque District. Respondent argues that a
broad order is inappropriate as a result of Respondent’s good faith efforts to comply with
previous Board and Court decisions and because the violations herein are isolated and
unconnected to any unlawful policy.
Respondent has administratively divided its postal operations throughout the United
States into several districts, including the Albuquerque District which includes post offices in the
State of New Mexico and the eastern portion of Arizona. Matthew Lopez is District Manager for
the Albuquerque District. The Albuquerque District consists of the Albuquerque Installation (the
City of Albuquerque) run by a Postmaster and the District’s 295 Associate Offices. The
Albuquerque Installation is further broken down into 12 Postal Stations throughout the City of
Albuquerque and the Processing and Distribution Center. The 12 Postal Stations are operated
by Station Managers who report to the Albuquerque Postmaster. The Albuquerque Postmaster
reports to the Albuquerque District Manager. The Processing and Distribution center is run by a
Plant Manager who reports directly to the Albuquerque District Manager. The 295 Associate
Offices are operated by Postmasters who reports to one of three Post Office Operations
Managers, who in turn report to the Albuquerque District Manager.
Respondent has implemented a system of auditing information request logs in its
Albuquerque District post offices. The record reflects that in the period August 2006 to
June 2008 the Albuquerque District received 2339 information requests.23 In 2003, 2005, 2006
and 2007 the Albuquerque District has provided its managers with training concerning their legal
responsibilities to provide unions with information promptly. Since August 2006 the
Albuquerque District has implemented a new program for City of Albuquerque facilities to
ensure prompt replies to union information requests.
In Hickmott Foods, 242 NLRB, 1357(1987), the Board stated that a broad cease-and-
desist order is warranted “when a respondent is shown to have a proclivity to violate the Act or
has engaged in such egregious or widespread misconduct as to demonstrate a general
disregard for the employees' fundamental statutory rights.” A proclivity to violate the Act is
shown where a respondent has a history of similar violations of the Act. Postal Service,
339 NLRB 1162, 1163 (2003).
Respondent has a long and checkered history throughout the United States and in the
Albuquerque District particularly of violating the Act, including refusing to furnish information in a
timely fashion.24
Respondent contends that it complied in a timely fashion in 99.9% of all information
requests since GC has failed to prove any violations of the Act other than the two found above.

23 R Exh. 201.
24 See cases cited in Postal Service, 352 NLRB No. 115, slip op. at 49 (2008); Postal
Service, 345 NLRB 409, fn 12 (2005).
JD(SF)–49–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
Respondent reasons, therefore, that any violations found herein are de minimus. Respondent’s
logic fails to take into account the Board’s finding in Postal Service, 345 NLRB 409 (2005) and
Postal Service, 345 NLRB 426 (2005) where the Board issued broad orders and dismissed the
dissent’s contention that violations of the Act at individual post offices are “decidedly parochial”
given the massive, far-flung and decentralized operations of the Post Office nationally. Rather
the majority noted that:
[M]ore than a decade of repeated violations in various areas and at various
facilities indicate that, absent effective orders aimed at higher management, not
only are information request violations likely to recur in those places but it is also
reasonably foreseeable that, as in Albuquerque, other unfair labor practices will
be committed by local officials who have demonstrated their disregard for the Act
and prior Board orders.25
Again in Postal Service, 345 NLRB 426 (2005) the Board noted that the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit had issued a broad order against the Respondent based upon a settlement
agreement resolving information request violations occurring at the Respondent's Albuquerque
facilities. 26
In issuing a broad order against Respondent in Postal Service, 345 NLRB 409, 410
(2005) the Board considered seven factors: Respondent had committed 8(a)(5) violations by
failing to furnish information twice in two years at the same facility and in the case before the
Board had refused to furnish information four times; the violations occurred after the Board had
issued narrow cease and desist order which suggested the inadequacy of the order to deter
future violations; when the information requests related to grievance investigations, the
Respondent’s repeated unlawful refusals to provide the information have the potential to hide
other misconduct; Respondent presented a weak defense of its actions; the violations had to be
considered against two decades of repeated information request violations by Respondent at
several locations nationwide; the Board had issued broad cease-and-desist orders against
Respondent for similar repeated information request violations at its Houston area facilities; and
the Board issued a concurrent decision against Respondent for the same violation.
Here the Board and 10th Circuit Court of Appeals have issued decisions against
Respondent involving the same Albuquerque District in NLRB v. USPS, Case No. 02-9587
(unpublished consent judgment entered January 8, 2003); Postal Service, 350 NLRB
No. 43 (2007); Postal Service, 345 NLRB 426 (2005). Now within two years of the Board’s last
decision, in this case Respondent, in its Albuquerque District, has committed two additional
violations of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act in unreasonably delaying to furnish information. The
most recent violations occurred after the Board has most recently issued a narrow cease and
desist order in Postal Service, 350 NLRB No. 43 (2007). In this case both violations occurred in
the context of grievance investigations, suggesting the potential to hide other misconduct.
Respondent’s defense of the two violations was weak. The violations must be considered
against two decades of repeated information request violations by Respondent at several
locations nationwide. The Board has issued a broad order in the past against Respondent at its
Albuquerque District facilities in Postal Service, 345 NLRB 426 (2005).

25 Postal Service, 345 NLRB 409, fn 19 (2005).
26 NLRB v. USPS, Case No. 02-9587, unpublished consent judgment entered
January 8, 2003.
JD(SF)–49–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
Respondent’s contention that its self-help remedial efforts in the Albuquerque District
obviate the need for a broad order must be tempered by the reality of the repeated violations at
two of its facilities despite its voluntary measures. As the Board noted in Postal Service, 345
NLRB 409, 411 (2005):
Obviously, the Respondent's voluntary measures failed to completely eliminate
information request violations at the Waco facility involved here. Further, while
we applaud any effort to prevent the recurrence of unlawful behavior, the
Respondent's history of past failures to address endemic resistance to these
requests in various localities strongly suggests that neither self-help measures
nor another narrowly-drawn Board cease-and-desist order will suffice to remedy
this situation.
In balancing all of the factors set forth by the Board in Postal Service, 345 NLRB 409
(2005), I find that a broad order is justified herein.
With respect to the General Counsel’s request that the order herein apply to Charging
Party Union and any other labor organization that represents Respondent’s employees at
facilities within the Albuquerque District and that Respondent should post a Notice to
Employees at all facilities within the Albuquerque District, I find that this remedy is overbroad.
The complaint allegations herein are limited to only the Charging Party. It would not be
appropriate to apply the order to other unions.
Moreover, in most of the cases involving Respondent, the Board’s order has been
limited to the facilities where the violations occurred. Postal Service, 339 NLRB 400 (2003);
Postal Service, 345 NLRB 409 (2005); Postal Service, 345 NLRB 426 (2005); Postal Service,
350 NLRB No. 43 (2007); Postal Service, 352 NLRB No. 115 (2008). The only case cited
herein requiring a district wide posting, Postal Service, 339 NLRB 1162 (2003), involved the
Board’s finding that Respondent had made no affirmative steps to control its district wide
misconduct on a district wide basis.
Here there is a history of Respondent’s violations of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act in various
offices throughout the Albuquerque District. NLRB v. USPS, Case No. 02-9587 (unpublished
consent judgment entered January 8, 2003); Postal Service, 350 NLRB No. 43 (2007); Postal
Service, 345 NLRB 426 (2005). Unlike the Houston area case, Postal Service, 339 NLRB 1162
(2003), here Respondent has made efforts to comply with the Board’s orders and the Act’s
mandate to provide information in a timely fashion on a District wide basis. Respondent has
implemented a system of auditing union information request logs in its Albuquerque District post
offices. The record reflects that in the period August 2006 to June 2008 the Albuquerque
District received 2339 information requests.27 In 2003, 2005, 2006 and 2007 the Albuquerque
District has provided its managers with training concerning their legal responsibilities to provide
unions with information promptly. Since August 2006 the Albuquerque District has implemented
a new program for City of Albuquerque facilities to ensure prompt replies to union information
requests. Given this effort to comply, I find that a District-wide order at this time is not
warranted.
Conclusions of Law
1. The United States Postal Service is now, and at all times herein, has been an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.

27 R Exh. 201.
JD(SF)–49–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
2. The American Postal Workers Union, Local Nos. 380 and 434, AFL-CIO are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By failing and refusing to provide the Unions in a timely manner with the information
it requested on January 29, 2008 and February 14, 2008, as found herein, the information being
relevant and necessary to the Unions as the collective bargaining representatives of the
employees in the appropriate unit, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) 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.
Because the Respondent has a proclivity for violating the Act, (see, e.g., Postal Service,
350 NLRB No. 43 (2007); 345 NLRB 426 (2005); 339 NLRB 1162 (2003) and because of the
serious nature of the violations, I recommend issuance of a broad Order requiring the
Respondent to cease and desist from infringing in any other manner on rights guaranteed
employees by Section 7 of the Act. Hickmott Foods, 242 NLRB 1357 (1979).
ORDER
Based upon the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and on the basis of the entire
record herein, I issue the following recommended Order.28
The Respondent United States Postal Service, La Luz and Roswell, New Mexico, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with the American Postal Workers Union, Local
Nos. 380 and 434, AFL-CIO by failing and refusing to timely provide requested information that
is relevant and necessary to the Union as the collective-bargaining representative of those unit
employees described in the existing collective-bargaining agreement and found appropriate for
the purposes of collective-bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Furnish the Unions in a timely manner with the information requested.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its La Luz and Roswell, New
Mexico, post offices copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.” 29 Copies of the notice,

28 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Section
102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections shall be waived for all
purposes.
JD(SF)–49–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
11
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 28, after being signed by the
Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon
receipt 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 facilities 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 such closed facilities at any time since
January 29, 2008.
(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.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed insofar as it alleges
violations of the Act not specifically found.
Dated, Washington, D.C., November 25, 2008.
____________________
John J. McCarrick
Administrative Law Judge
_________________________
29 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals, the words
in the notice reading “POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD”
shall read “POSTED PURSUANT TO A JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS ENFORCING AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.”
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this Notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
WE WILL NOT refuse to promptly furnish information requested by the Union that is relevant
and necessary to the Union’s performance of its duties as your collective bargaining
representative.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
(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.
2600 North Central Avenue, Suite 1800
Phoenix, Arizona 85004-3099
Hours: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
602-640-2160.
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,
602-640-2146.
THIS NOTICE AND THE DECISION IN THIS MATTER ARE PUBLIC RECORDS
Any interested individual who wishes to request a copy of this Notice or a complete copy of the
Decision of which this Notice is a part may do so by contacting the Board’s Offices at the
address and telephone number appearing immediately above. The final decision and this notice
are available in either English or Spanish.