United States Postal Service

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Jun 22, 2012

07-CA-071165 (N.L.R.B. Jun. 22, 2012)

JD(NY)–19–12
Lansing, MI
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
NEW YORK BRANCH OFFICE
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
and Case No. 7-CA-71165
BRANCH 122, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS, AFL-CIO
Eric Cockrell, Esq., Counsel for the General Counsel.
David Wightman, Esq., Counsel for the Respondent.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
Joel P. Biblowitz, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard by me on May 7,
2012 in Lansing, Michigan. The Complaint herein, which issued on March 28, 2012, and was
based upon an unfair labor practice charge that was filed on December 21, 20111 by Branch
122, National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, alleges that the
United States Postal Service, herein called the Respondent, violated Section 8(a)(1)(5) of the
Act by unreasonably delaying in providing the Union with information that it requested of the
Respondent, which information was necessary for, and relevant to, the Union as the collective
bargaining representative for certain of its employees who were represented by the Union in the
Lansing, Michigan area.
I. Jurisdiction and Labor Organization Status
Respondent admits, and I find, that the Board has jurisdiction over Respondent by virtue
of Section 1209 of the PRA, and that the Union has been a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. Findings of Fact
The National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO, herein called the National Union,
has been the exclusive representative of letter carriers at various postal facilities throughout the
United States; the National Agreement contains a grievance-arbitration provision, as well as a
provision requiring the Respondent to provide the Union with information relevant to grievances
and arbitrations. The Union has been the designated servicing representative for the National
Union for letter carriers at the Lansing, Michigan processing and distribution center, and, in that
capacity, represents approximately three hundred and fifty employees at nine facilities in the
area, known as the Greater Michigan District. This hearing involves the following information
requests which, it is alleged, the Respondent unreasonably delayed in providing the Union with
the information it requested, in violation of Section 8(a)(1)(5) of the Act:
(a) On September 10 the Union, in writing, requested that Respondent provide it with the
criteria used to deny bargaining unit carrier JoAnn Sauceda limited work duty, copies of

1 Unless indicated otherwise, all dates referred to herein relate to the year 2011.
JD(NY)–19–12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
Sauceda’s 2499 form and form 50, and related information;
(b) On October 4, 2011, the Union, in writing, requested the overtime alerts, employee
everything reports and bid slips for bargaining unit employees Aaron Ostrander and
Mary Flood;
(c) On October 20, 2011, the Union requested, in writing, a time study, Form 3999, done
over the course of the preceding two weeks, for carrier Brian Conklin, and related notes;
(d) On October 28, 2011, carrier Linda Stadal’s 3971 documents for pay period 21;
(e) On October 29, 2011, the names of all Postal Support Employees (PSEs) at the
facility, their pay level, job title, and related information, and any open positions in that
classification; and,
(f) On November 4, 2011, employee everything reports for carriers listed on Labor
Distribution Code (LDC) reports.
At the commencement of the hearing, Counsel for the General Counsel and the
Respondent stipulated to the requests referred to above in (a), (b) and (c) and Respondent’s
Answer admits to the allegations contained in paragraphs (d), (e) and (f). Respondent’s Answer
also admits that the information requested in (a) through (f) above was relevant to, and
necessary for, the Union as the servicing agent of the collective bargaining agent of the unit
employees, with the exception of the information requested on October 20, referred to above in
paragraph (c). Finally, Respondent’s Answer admits that the information requested on
September 10, referred to in paragraph (a), was provided on February 8, 2012, the information
requested on October 29, referred to in paragraph (e), was provided on November 18, and the
information requested on November 4, referred to in paragraph (f), was also provided on
November 18, while denying that the delay in providing this information was unreasonable.
Respondent denies that the information referred to in paragraph (b) was provided on about
February 18, 2012, the information referred to in paragraph (c) was provided on about
November 3, and the information referred to in paragraph (d) was provided on about November
18.
Patricia Bates, Union President and Steward, Andrea O’Hearon, Vice President and Steward,
and Kimberly Craig, Steward, testified about these information requests.
(a) Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, together with the Respondent’s Answer, I
find that the information requested by the Union for bargaining unit employee Sauceda on
September 10, was relevant to, and necessary for the Union as the servicing agent for the unit
employees, and that this information was not provided to the Union until February 8, 2012.
(b) Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, together with the Respondent’s Answer, I
find that the information requested by the Union for bargaining unit employees Ostrander and
Flood on October 4 was relevant to, and necessary for, the Union as the servicing agent for the
unit employees, and pursuant to Craig’s uncontradicted testimony, this information was provided
to the Union on about October 27. She also testified that, in her experience, this information
usually takes “a couple of days at the most” to comply with, but the Respondent never explained
why it took seventeen days for it to supply with the Union with this information.
(c) Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, I find that the information requested by the
Union for bargaining unit employee Conklin was made on October 20. This information request
JD(NY)–19–12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
asks for “Brian Conklin’s 3999 done on R. 1536 within the last 2 weeks by Todd Davis” together
with all notes and other paperwork. Form 3999 is a time study performed by the Respondent on
a letter carrier’s route, such as Conklin’s, sometimes for the purpose of adjusting a route. Based
upon the uncontradicted testimony of Bates and Craig, I find that this information was necessary
and relevant to the Union as the servicing agent of these unit employees. Bates testified that, in
the past, when she has requested 3999s she received them within one to fourteen days. Craig
testified that Davis is Conklin’s supervisor and a grievance was filed by the Union regarding this
time study that was performed by Davis. Bates was given this information on November 3, but
she was never given an explanation by the Respondent about why they had not provided the
information at an earlier time.
(d) Respondent’s Answer admits that this information request for bargaining unit
employee Linda Stadal was made on October 28 and that it was relevant to, and necessary for,
the Union as the servicing agent for the bargaining unit. Bates testified that in her experience,
the information requested in this October 28 request was usually complied with “within a couple
of days.” Craig testified that she received this information on November 18, but the Respondent
never explained why it was not provided sooner.
(e) Respondent’s Answer admits that this information request for bargaining unit
employees was made on October 29, that it was necessary for, and relevant to, the Union as
the servicing agent for the bargaining unit, and that it was given to the Union on November 18,
although the Information Request states that it was received by the Union on November 17.
O’Hearon testified that, in the past, these information requests were responded to within a day
or two; however, no explanation was given by the Respondent for the delay.
(f) Respondent’s Answer admits that this information request for employee everything
reports for bargaining unit employees was made on November 4, that it was necessary for, and
relevant to, the Union as the servicing agent for the bargaining unit employees, and that it was
given to the Union on November 18. Craig testified that she had previously requested this
information from the Respondent two or three times a week and Respondent usually complies
with the requests within two or three days. Respondent never explained why it took fourteen
days to comply with this request.
III. Analysis
The law is clear that when the collective bargaining representative of unit employees
makes a request for information that is relevant to it as a bargaining representative, that
information must be provided to the requesting union, and within a reasonable time. In Detroit
Newspaper Agency, 317 NLRB 1071, 1072 (1995), the Board stated: “Once a union has made a
good-faith request for information, an employer must provide relevant information reasonably
promptly in useful form.” Similarly, in Amersig Graphics, Inc., 334 NLRB 880, 885 (2001), the
Board stated: “An employer must respond to the information request in a timely manner. An
unreasonable delay in furnishing such information is as much a violation of Section 8(a)(5) of
the Act as a refusal to furnish the information at all.” As the information requests that Bates,
Craig and O’Hearon made were necessary and relevant to the Union as the servicing agent for
the National Union of the Respondent’s letter carriers in the Lansing, Michigan area, the
ultimate issue herein is what constitutes an unreasonable delay. In West Penn Power Co., 339
NLRB 585, 587 (2003), the Board stated:
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
JD(NY)–19–12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
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 evaluation 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.
Bates, Craig and O’Hearon each testified without contradiction, that in the past the
information requests that they made to the Respondent between September 10 and November
4 were usually responded to in between one to three days; in only one of the requests, the one
dated October 20 regarding the Form 3999 performed on Conklin, was the usual retrieval time
from one to fourteen days. The Earthgrains Company, 349 NLRB 389, 400 (2007). Five of the
six requests were responded to in from fourteen to twenty three days without any explanation by
the Respondent for the delay. Although the timing of these responses were not extreme, they
were longer than they had to be and were not as prompt as circumstances allowed, and they
therefore violated Section 8(a)(1)(5) of the Act, as did the five month delay in responding to
request (a).
Conclusions of Law
1.The Board has jurisdiction over the Respondent pursuant to Section 1209 of the PRA.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)(5) of the Act by responding to the Union’s
information requests from September 10, 2011 to November 4, 2011 in an untimely manner.
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. In that regard, I recommend that Respondent be ordered to
respond to the Union’s relevant information requests in a timely manner, and that it post a notice
at its Greater Michigan district facilities stating that it will do so.
Upon these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended2
ORDER
The Respondent, United States Postal Service, its officers, agents, successors and
assigns, shall
1.Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to provide timely responses to Union requests for information that are
necessary for, and relevant to, the Union’s performance of its duties as the exclusive collective
bargaining representative of certain of the Respondent’s employees.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in the

2 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations,
the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the
Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all
purposes.
JD(NY)–19–12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
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) Upon receipt of information requests from the Union that are necessary for, and
relevant to the Union as the collective bargaining representative of certain of its employees,
provide the Union with the information in a reasonable and timely manner.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facilities in Lansing, Michigan
copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”3 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 7, 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
September 10, 2011.
(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 22, 2012.

___________________________
Joel P. Biblowitz
Administrative Law Judge

3 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the
notice reading “Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted
Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
JD(NY)–19–12

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 provide timely responses to requests from Branch 122, National
Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO (“the Union”) for information that is necessary for and
relevant to the Union’s performance of its duties as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of certain of our employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain or coerce you in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL promptly provide the Union with the relevant information that it requests and, if we are
unable to locate any of the requested information, WE WILL explain the reasons for the
unavailability to the Union.
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.
477 Michigan Avenue, Federal Building, Room 300
Detroit, Michigan 48226-2569
Hours: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
313-226-3200.
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, 313-226-3244.