United States Postal Service

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Nov 25, 2014

28-CA-108760 (N.L.R.B. Nov. 25, 2014)

JD(SF)–58–14
Albuquerque, Roswell, Santa Fe,
and Silver City, New Mexico
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–108760
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER
CARRIERS, BRANCH 1069,
affiliated with NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF LETTER CARRIERS, AFL–CIO
and Case 28–CA–109727
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER
CARRIERS, BRANCH 989,
affiliated with NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF LETTER CARRIERS, AFL–CIO
and Case 28-CA-111887
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER
CARRIERS, BRANCH 1509,
affiliated with NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF LETTER CARRIERS, AFL–CIO
and Cases 28–CA–110542
28–CA–117755
28–CA–119047
28–CA–124588
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER
CARRIERS, SUNSHINE BRANCH 504,
affiliated with NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF LETTER CARRIERS, AFL–CIO
David T. Garza, Atty. Albuquerque, New Mexico,
for the General Counsel.
Roderick D. Eaves, Deputy Managing Counsel,
Law Department – NLRB, U.S. Postal Service,
St. Louis, Missouri, for Respondent.
JD(SF)–58–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
2
DECISION
Statement of the Case
WILLIAM L. SCHMIDT, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE. This is another case involving
allegations that the United States Postal Service (Respondent or USPS) failed to meet its
obligation under Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act (Act) by failing to
provide information, or failing to provide information in a timely manner, to its employees’
bargaining representative at various postal facilities in the State of New Mexico. The
representative involved here is the National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC). I heard this
case on June 17 and 18, 2014, at Albuquerque, New Mexico.
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed by counsel for the General Counsel and Counsel for the USPS, I
make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent USPS is subject to the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board
pursuant to Section 1209 of the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970. The USPS admits that the
National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL–CIO (NALC), and NALC Branches 504
(Albuquerque), 989 (Santa Fe), 1069 (Roswell), and 1509 (Silver City) are each labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The unfair labor practice charges trickled in over a period of time. As the General
Counsel’s office made determinations concerning the merit of the charges, the original complaint
was amended. By the time of the hearing, the operative complaint was the “Fourth Consolidated
Complaint.” GC Exh. 1(aa). Prior to the hearing, I granted Respondent’s motion to strike
paragraphs 6(e) and 6(u) from the complaint. GC Exh. 1(hh) At the hearing, I then granted
counsel for the General Counsel’s motion to amend the complaint to add a new paragraph 6(e)
and 6(u) in accord with his prehearing notice. GC Exh. 1(ff). On the second day of the hearing,
I also granted General Counsel’s motion to withdraw complaint paragraph 6(h) and the related
paragraphs, 6(p) and (x), allegations derived from the charge in Case 28–CA–124588 based on
his counsel’s representation that Respondent timely provided this information in another matter.
Tr. 312–313.
The USPS and NALC are parties to a national collective-bargaining agreement (CBA)
applicable to the city letter carriers that is effective by its terms from January 10, 2013, until May
20, 2016. NALC delegates authority to its local branches to administer the agreement at the
local level. The appointed affiliates involved in this case are Branch 504 in Albuquerque,
Branch 989 in Santa Fe, Branch 1069 in Roswell, and Branch 1509 in Silver City.
JD(SF)–58–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
3
The nine Albuquerque sites where NALC represents employees are known by the
following common names: Main Office Carrier Annex (MOCA), Five Points station, Steve
Schiff station, Pino station, Manzano station, Highland station, Foothills station, the Uptown
station, and the Airport station. This case also involves NALC’s representation activities at other
postal facilities located in Roswell, Santa Fe, and Silver City, New Mexico.
On May 24, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit approved a
Consent Order signed by the Postal Service and the NLRB. The Consent Order, in turn, subjects
the Postal Service’s facilities in the city of Albuquerque to certain orders, including the
following order at paragraph 4:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that . . . the Postal Service will identify to each labor
organization representing employees at any of the Postal Service facilities covered by this
Order one or more individuals for each of these facilities to act as the Designated
Management Official(s) (“DMO”) to whom the labor organizations and their agents shall
submit requests for information.
GC Ex. 15 (emphasis added). Following the effective date of this consent decree the Postal
Service provided NALC Branch 504 with a list of the DMO’s to whom information requests
should be sent for almost all of the covered Albuquerque stations.
Article 15 of the CBA contains the grievance-arbitration procedure the parties utilize to
resolve issues that arise under the agreement. Section 2 of article 15 sets forth the various steps
of the procedure. The process begins at Informal Step A (ISA), the preliminary that frequently
involves pregrievance information requests. That step provides that an aggrieved employee must
discuss the grievance with his immediate supervisor within 14 days of the time the employee or
the union learned of the problem. By the terms of Section 2, “the parties are encouraged to
jointly review all relevant documents to facilitate resolution of the dispute.”1 When a possible
dispute or grievance arises, the NALC agents (local officials or stewards) utilize a preprinted
union form subtitled “Request for Documentation and Steward Time to investigate possible
grievance” that frequently serves as the union’s initial request for information. The form also
provides space for the local steward or officer to detail the documents requested and spaces for
the supervisor or other local manager to acknowledge the information request.
If no resolution is reached as the ISA meeting, the union may elect to “appeal” the matter
to the next level known as Formal Step A (FSA). That appeal must be made within 7 days after
the ISA meeting. The FSA provision provides that, absent an agreement to meet later, the
“installation head or designee will meet with the steward or a union representative . . . no later
than seven . . . days following receipt of the Joint Step A Grievance Form.” See GC Exh. 36.
Section 3 of CBA article 31 (R. Exh. 11) encompasses the parties’ agreement about
sharing of information for bargaining and contract administration purposes. It provides:

1 The CBA specifically provides that the supervisor and the steward or other union
representative are empowered to resolve the issue in dispute but any resolution reached at this
level does not become precedent for any purpose.
JD(SF)–58–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
4
The Employer will make available for inspection by the Union all relevant information
necessary for collective bargaining or the enforcement, administration or interpretation of
this Agreement, including information necessary to determine whether to file or to
continue the processing of a grievance under this Agreement. Upon the request of the
Union, the Employer will furnish such information, provided, however, that the
Employer may require the Union to reimburse the USPS for any costs reasonably
incurred in obtaining the information.
Requests for information relating to purely local matters should be submitted by the local
Union representative to the installation head or designee. All other requests for
information shall be directed by the National President of the Union to the Vice
President, Labor Relations.
Nothing herein shall waive any rights the Union may have to obtain information under
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
B. The Legal Duty to Provide Information under the NLRA
Section 8(a)(5) and 8(d) obligates an employer to furnish information requested by its
employees’ bargaining representative that is relevant and necessary for the proper performance
of its representative duties. NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432, 437 (1967); NLRB v.
Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149 (1956).
The Board treats wage and related information pertaining to bargaining unit employees as
presumptively relevant because that information “concerns the core of the employer-employee
relationship.” As to this type of information, a union is not required to show the precise
relevance, unless the employer provides some effective rebuttal. However, where the
information sought does not pertain to the unit employees’ terms and conditions of employment,
the representative must demonstrate relevance as an initial matter by reference to particular
circumstances. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 311 NLRB 424, 425 (1993), quoting Curtiss-Wright
Corp. v. NLRB, 347 F.2d 61, 69 (3d Cir. 1965). The Board applies a liberal, discovery-type
standard to determine relevance. Quality Building Contractors, Inc., 342 NLRB 429 (2004).
An employer has a duty to furnish relevant information in a timely manner or adequately
explain its failure to do so. Regency Service Carts, 345 NLRB 671, 673 (2005); Beverly
California Corp., 326 NLRB 153, 157 (1998). The Board does not apply a per se rule when
deciding whether the employer timely furnished requested information. Instead, it considers the
totality of the circumstances to decide whether the employer made a “reasonable good faith
effort to respond to the request as promptly as circumstances allow.” Good Life Beverage Co.,
312 NLRB 1060, 1062 fn. 9 (1993), citing E. I. Du Pont & Co., 291 NLRB 759 fn. 1 (1988).
C. The Complaint Allegations
1. The Albuquerque Charges
1. Relevant Facts as to Complaint Paragraphs 6(d), (l), and (t): These allegations arose from
the charge filed by NALC Branch 504 in Case 28–CA–110542. The claim here is that the USPS
JD(SF)–58–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
5
unreasonably delayed furnishing Branch 504 with requested information about its reasons for
delaying the implementation of route adjustments at the Uptown station in Albuquerque.
USPS and NALC adopted a memorandum of understanding (MOU) recognizing that “it
is in the best interests of the Postal Service for letter carrier routes to be in proper adjustment.”
This MOU provides that when the regular carrier requests a special mail count and inspection,
the inspection must be completed within 4 weeks. If the mail count and inspection warrant a
route adjustment, that action must be completed within 52 calendar days after the mail count.
However, the MOU authorizes the division general manager to grant an exception to the 52-day
limit “when warranted by valid operational circumstances.” GC Exh. 20.
On June 10, 2013, Arizona District Manager John DiPeri, whose office is located in
Phoenix, Arizona, officially notified David Pratt, the Branch 504 president, that the
implementation of route adjustments at the Albuquerque Uptown station had been extended for
“valid operational circumstances” to July 13, 2013, apparently beyond the MOU’s 52-day limit.
DiPeri’s letter then set forth nine detailed reasons for granting the extension that reflect DiPeri
granted the extension primarily due to numerous difficulties associated with the computer
programs USPS uses in the route adjustment process.
A month letter, on July 9, Pratt sent a letter replying to DiPeri’s extension notice. In it,
Pratt objected to the extension and requested DiPeri to: 1) “define, in specific terms, the exact
operational effects of these circumstances in relation to our mission the delivery of U.S. Mail,” and
provide the union with any supporting documentation for this claim, and 2) provide the union with
any other supporting documentation related to any additional reasons for the extension.
DiPeri never responded. On August 2, Branch 504 filed the charge in Case 28–CA–110542.
After learning of the charge, Lerene Wiley, the human resources manager at the USPS Arizona
District, located responsive materials and sent them to Pratt in a letter dated September 6, 2013. By
that time, Pratt and the manager of the Uptown station had resolved the route adjustment at issue.
Analysis and Conclusion: The General Counsel’s brief argues that the delay between the time of
Pratt’s July 9 request and Wiley’s September 6 response constitutes undue delay. Respondent admits
in its answer that the information Pratt sought was “necessary and relevant” but it argues that it
provided the information within a reasonable time under the circumstances. Respondent argues that
Platt is to blame for the delay here because he failed to send his request to proper DMO and that he
used the wrong format. The USPS asserts that the request should have been sent to the designated
DMO for the Uptown station rather than to DiPeri as he was not the DMO for that location.2
Respondent also asserts that Pratt did not format his request for information in the customary manner
so that it would be difficult to recognize the information request at the end of his July 9 letter. 3

2 R. Exh. 20 lists the DMO’s in Albuquerque pursuant to the court’s order. It does not
contain a specific designee for the Uptown station located at 2505 Graceland in Albuquerque.
The only reference to the Uptown station in that exhibit is the designation of the Uptown station
manager as the DMO for the Kirtland AFB station located elsewhere.
3 Respondent offered examples claiming to show Pratt’s past practice of inserting the words
“letter of request” in the subject line of his letters and identifying contractual provision that
would signal an information request. Pratt denied that he had any particular past practice.
JD(SF)–58–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
6
Finally, when it did become clear that Pratt sought information the Respondent might be obliged to
provide, Wiley quickly gathered the information and forwarded it to him.
Respondent’s very narrow technical arguments lack merit. Concededly, DiPeri is not the
DMO for the Uptown station but Pratt’s request dealt with the reasons underlying the decision DiPeri
is empowered to make concerning extensions of changes to routes. But more importantly, the route
adjustment MOU gives no indication that either the local station manager or any other local manager
has the slightest official responsibility in this area. Instead, it places that responsibility in a “division
manager.” For whatever reason, DiPeri, a “district manager,” issued the extension notice here. The
differentiation between a division manager and a district manager is not explained but I find that has
no significance as DiPeri clearly granted the extension. For this reason, I further find DiPeri would
be the obvious person to whom the request should have been submitted. To hold that Pratt’s request
should have been sent to a local official who has little, if anything at all, to do with the extension
issues would only build more delay into the sharing of relevant and necessary information.
Nor do I find merit to Respondent’s claims concerning Pratt’s failure to follow some
particular request format, whether devised by him or not. In this context, it is reasonable to
presume that an official at DiPeri’s level reads his own mail, or employs a competent subordinate
to screen his mail and identify matters requiring a response. On top of that, it is clear that DiPeri
understood the route adjustment MOU sufficiently to know that the bargaining representative
must be notified. For this reason, I find it amazingly unimaginable that he would not realize that
the bargaining representative might have further questions about his extension notice, a matter of
obvious importance to the represented rank and file letter carriers.
As Respondent admits that the information sought here was relevant and necessary for
the bargaining agent to perform its representative duties, and as the bargaining agent received no
response for more than 2 months, I find Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by its
unreasonable delay in providing the information Pratt sought in his July 9 letter.
2. Relevant Facts as to Complaint Paragraphs 6(e), (m), and (u): These allegations grew out
of the charge in Case 28–CA–119047 that NALC Branch 504 filed on December 16, 2013. As
amended at the hearing, these complaint paragraphs allege that the USPS unreasonably delayed
responding to Branch 504’s written request of September 13, 2013, seeking “copies of all
contractual materials” relied upon in refusing to allow former CCA Laura Lucero to utilize her
earned annual leave. The USPS never responded to the request until January 16, 2014. Branch
504 sought the information to evaluate Lucero’s ISA level grievance at the time.
Roy Smith, Branch 504’s steward at the MOCA station, submitted his September 13
request described in the complaint paragraph 6(e) to Dennis Molnar, a USPS supervisor from
Tucson, Arizona, temporarily assigned to work at the MOCA station on Molnar’ last day of work
in New Mexico. Molnar gave the request to Customer Service Manager Al Baca who retired in
January 2014, without responding to Smith’s request.
Finally, on January 16, 2014, Edward Alvizo, a labor relations agent at the MOCA
station, wrote to Smith advising that USPS had not relied on any contractual provisions in
Lucero’s situation. Instead, he advised that as a “former” employee, “Ms. Lucero would not be
eligible to use any earned leave” because she no longer works for the USPS. However, Alvizo
offered to request the USPS accounting office in Arizona to research Lucero’s payment records
JD(SF)–58–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
7
to determine whether she receive a payment for her accrued leave when she left her position. No
explanation was provided for the failure to respond earlier.
Analysis and Conclusion: The General Counsel argues that the delay by the USPS in
responding to Smith’s request was unreasonable. In its posthearing brief, the USPS concedes
that even the delay to January 16 in this instance was unreasonable. I agree. See e.g. Pan
American Grain Co., 343 NLRB 318 (2004), enfd. in relevant part 432 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2005) (3-
month delay unreasonable); Woodland Clinic, 331 NLRB 735, 737 (7-week delay unreasonable).
Accordingly, I find that the USPS violated 8(a)(5) and (1) by its unreasonable delay in providing
information that Steward Smith requested on September 13 related to Lucero’s leave grievance.
3. Relevant Facts as to Complaint Paragraphs 6(g), (o), and (w): These allegations grew out
of the charge in Case 28–CA–117755 that Branch 504 filed on November 25, 2013. The
complaint alleges that Respondent unreasonably delayed furnishing requested information
requested by Branch 504. Respondent’s answer admits Branch 504 requested the certain
information on October 29, 2013, but avers that the USPS furnished the requested information on
November 27. In fact, the evidence shows that Respondent furnished the requested information
to Branch 504 more than a week before November 27. Regardless, Respondent denies that it
unreasonably delayed furnishing the information as claimed by the General Counsel.
Complaint paragraph 6(g) alleges that Branch 504 requested the following information on
October 29, 2013:
1. All materials management relied upon for tracking and otherwise ensuring equitable
distribution of overtime during the referenced quarter in the station [quarter 2].
2. The Station Overtime Desired List, current for the above referenced Quarter and
showing all changes in the list during the referenced quarter.
3. Management’s completed Equitable Overtime Tracking for the referenced quarter.
4. Any weekly Executive Summary or equivalent document for each week of the
referenced period.
5. The overtime hours worked and opportunities offered as posted and updated at the end
of the referenced quarter.
6. Hours Analysis report or equivalent document for all ODL carriers in the station for
the referenced period.
7. Employee All Report or equivalent documents for all ODL carriers for the referenced
period.
8. Any current Modified Job Offer or written light or limited duty assignment for any
ODL carrier on the list which affects his/her overtime work opportunities.
9. Any Supervisors Documentation of the Informal Step A Meeting form or equivalent
document.
The request was made in the form of a letter as well as a fax. Branch 504 sought this
information in connection with a “class action” grievance initially filed on July 1, 2013,
involving the distribution of overtime at the Five Points station. Branch 504 President Pratt
explained the grievance charged that management failed to properly track and equitably
distribute overtime among the station’s city letter carriers during the period from April 1 through
JD(SF)–58–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
8
June 3. The supervisor and the steward held ISA meeting on July 22 but reached no resolution.
For that reason, Branch 504 appealed the grievance to the FSA level.4
On August 23, 2013, the USPS appointed Arthur Martinez the manager of the Five Points
station. That appointment automatically made Martinez the DMO for Five Points. In addition,
the USPS relocated some or all of the supervisors who worked at Five Points when the overtime
grievance first arose.
Branch 504 faxed its overtime information request to Martinez on October 29, the same
day that his mother died. Because of his absence from work, Martinez first saw the request when
he returned to duty on November 5. As he never previously knew of the grievance, he searched
the former station manager’s records but could not locate it. His failure to find a record of the
grievance caused Martinez to question its timeliness so he emailed two of the former supervisors
seeking to learn about the grievance but he never received a reply. But when he contacted an
area labor relations representative in Arizona with responsibility for the Five Points station, he
confirmed the grievance’s existence and set about to find the information requested.
On November 8, Martinez sent a letter to Pratt explaining that he had “no information on
hand” about the grievance and requesting an extension to November 18 in which to furnish
information. GC Exh. 18. When Pratt finally responded a week later, he refused to extend the
time for furnishing the information and demanded that Martinez furnish the requested
information forthwith. Meanwhile, Martinez located the information sought and mailed it to
Pratt who signed for the documents on November 19. R. Exh. 7.
Analysis and Conclusion: The General Counsel argues that this request involved readily
accessible overtime records that should have been provided sooner than the 22 days he claims it
took in this instance. No claim is made that the materials delivered to the union on November 19
were insufficient. The Respondent argues that Martinez acted with reasonable diligence by
responding to the information request within 13 days of the time he first became aware of the
information request.
Because the material sought essentially concerned time records of unit employees and
their requests to be considered for overtime, the information was presumptively relevant to the
processing of a grievance about the equitable distribution of overtime work for those employees.
Contrary to the General Counsel assertions, I find that Martinez acted with reasonable diligence
in obtaining and furnishing the requested information to the Branch 504.
The grievance involved arose before Martinez and apparently other supervisors at the
Five Points station were appointed to their positions.5 Based on his impressive demeanor and

4 By the terms of the CBA, Branch 504 would have had 7 days in which to file its appeal.
5 My conclusion that the subordinate supervisors at Five Points were no better informed
about the overtime grievance than Martinez is based on his efforts to contact former Five Points
supervisors who had been relocated elsewhere by the time the union faxed the October 29
request. This action suggests that, like Martinez, the subordinate supervisors at Five Points were
likely new to the station and would not know about this particular grievance.
JD(SF)–58–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
9
account of his efforts to provide the requested documents, I credit Martinez’ assertion that he
simply could not locate information about this grievance locally due to the prior manager’s filing
system. With the help he eventually received from the USPS labor relation representative in
Arizona, Martinez succeeded in furnishing the information within 14 work days after Branch 504
faxed its request to the Five Points station and within 9 work days of the time Martinez first
became aware of the request.
Additionally, when Martinez first learned of the request, he diligently pursued the
grievance and the information. The fact that he promptly notified the Union that he would
require added time and request its acquiescence strongly suggests a good faith pursuit on his part.
Finally, within 2 days after the union rejected his extension request, Martinez forwarded the
information to Pratt.
Based on these circumstances, I am unable to conclude that the 14 work days it took to
accomplish all of this amounted to the lack of a good-faith effort on Respondent’s part,
especially where, as here, Martinez notified the Union on November 8 that he was engaged in
locating and compiling the requested information. Good Life Beverage Co., supra. Accordingly,
I recommend dismissal of this allegation.
2. The Roswell Charges
1. Relevant Facts as to Complaint Paragraphs 6(a),(i), and (q): These allegations grew out of
the charge filed in Case 28–CA–108760 on July 8, 2013, by Tommy Nichols, President of NALC
Branch 1069 in Roswell. Complaint paragraph 6(a) alleges that Branch 1069 requested the
following information on May 29, 2013:
1. A copy of FTC Everything Report for 5-2-13;
2. A copy of all city letter carrier 3972 since beginning of year;
3. A copy of Holiday Signup/Mandate for 5-2-13; and
4. Time to copy PS 3971s from January 1, 2013, to present.
Complaint paragraph 6(i) alleges that this information is relevant and necessary for the Union to
perform its collective-bargaining duties and paragraph 6(q) alleges that the Respondent failed
and refused to furnish the information requested. The USPS’s answer essentially admits 6(a),
admits paragraph 6(i) but denies 6(q).
This issue grew out of a May 29, 2013, request by the Roswell management that Ralph
Perez, a city letter carrier, provide documentation from a medical provider for the paid sick leave
he recently claimed. On that same day, Union President Nichols hand delivered to Ralph Griffo,
a supervisor at the Roswell Postal Annex, a copy of the Union’s standard form subtitled
“Request for Documentation and Steward Time to investigate possible grievance.”
On the form, Nichols listed the “documentation” he sought, and made requests for time to
inspect and copy other related postal records as well as time to “investigate, write up and process
a grievance.” The documents listed in the complaint are the documents Nichols sought or asked
JD(SF)–58–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
10
to inspect and copy. The form also contains a request for 4 hours of worktime to investigate the
“possible” grievance. Griffo signed and dated the form to acknowledge its receipt.6
Shortly after Nichols submitted the request, he and Griffo took overlapping leave time.
Nichols’ leave ran from June 5 through June 9; Griffo’s ran from June 8 through June 17. When
he returned on June 18 or 19, Griffo asked Nichols if he still needed the information requested on
May 29. Nichols told Griffo that he did not because he already “sent it up” meaning he had
appealed the grievance to the FSA level so the matter was now pending before Roswell
Postmaster Karla Murphy, the USPS designee.
In his appeal, Nichols noted that Supervisor Griffo had refused to meet at the ISA level, a
breach of the USPS policy requiring that supervisors meet. After Griffo explained to Murphy
what had happened, i.e., that Nichols had submitted the appeal during his absence, Murphy met
with Nichols and Griffo and insisted that they meet before the matter was brought to the FSA
level. No evidence shows that Nichols objected. She also instructed Griffo to provide the
information Nichols asked to see on May 29. Murphy said she never heard anything further
about the matter.
Nichols flatly denied that Respondent ever provided him with the information he
requested on May 29. Griffo disputes Nichols’ claim. Griffo asserted that he provided the
information, which amounted to about 100 pages in all, to Nichols along with a cover letter on
June 27. At the hearing, Griffo claimed that he could no longer provide his copy of the entire
document by that time but did provide a copy of the cover letter that appears to bear a staple
mark in the upper left corner. R. Exh. 3. In pertinent part the cover letter states:
I am providing you with the following:
1. Time to interview Ray Perez will be granted at an agreed time
2. Copy ETC Everything Report for 05/25/2013
3. Copy of all City Carrier 3972 since beginning of year
4. Copy of Holiday sign up/mandate sheet for 05/25/2013
5. You may view and copy PS 3971’s and ETC's from 01/01/13 – present

6 During his questioning at the hearing and in his brief, counsel for the General Counsel
assumed that this particular form is a joint form used by the parties at the ISA level of the
grievance procedure and argues strenuously that the absence of signatures in the spaces to
acknowledge that requested information had been provided shows that it was not, in fact,
provided. However, the form bears only the NALC logo. Other forms used in the grievance
procedure, bear the logos of both parties. In the absence of proof otherwise, of which there is
none here, I have inferred that the particular form used for the May 29 request (and other
requests) is a NALC form prepared for use by its stewards and not a joint form. Moreover,
Nichols himself admitted that Griffo never made use of the form at the ISA level and Griffo
asserted that he ordinarily prepared his own cover letter when he turned over requested
documents. Hence, I find the absence of Griffo’s signature on the form showing that he supplied
the requested documents is entirely without significance.
JD(SF)–58–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
11
6. Time to investigate, write up and process grievance will be granted at an agreed
time
I hope that the information being provided will meet the union’s need. If you feel that the
information is not responsive to the union’s request, please let me know so that we can
schedule a meeting to discuss the documents and how the Postal Service can
accommodate your needs under the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Griffo said he had no further contact from Nichols about the requested information after that.
The cover letter is addressed to “NALC” at 497 W. Basher in Roswell. That address is
the location of the Roswell Annex where Griffo and Nichols are both stationed along with other
letter carriers. Nichols always asked that union correspondence be hand delivered to him there.
Analysis and Conclusions: The General Counsel failed to prove these allegations by a
preponderance of the credible evidence. Most of the relevant facts, adduced almost entirely
through Respondent’s witnesses Griffo and Murphy, concerning the interactions between the
parties at least up to June 27 are undisputed. Apart from asserting that he received no response
at all to his information request, Nichols simply said virtually nothing about the interactions
described by Griffo and Murphy. Hence, most of those managers’ assertions are uncontradicted.
I have no independent basis on which to discredit their claims.
In this posture, the credible evidence warrants the inference that no actual grievance in
the Perez matter was ever filed and that the appeal from the matter pending at the ISA level
amounted to an appeal of the request for information and paid steward time to investigate the
potential grievance. In the absence of an actual grievance, Postmaster Murphy’s action in
returning the matter to the ISA level appears to be plausible and reasonable. Her uncontradicted
testimony merits the inference that Nichols acquiesced in this approach.
The lack of evidence that Nichols pursued this matter following its return to the ISA level
strongly suggests a lack of interest in pursuing this grievance investigation. This inference is
supported by the lack of evidence that Nichols ever ask Griffo, following their meeting with
Murphy, when the requested materials would be produced, or when he could conduct his witness
interviews and the document inspections he earlier requested. If indeed he did not actually
receive Griffo’s June 27 submission, as he claims, a mere inquiry on his part would have brought
this fact to light. Instead the only known action he took was to file a NLRB charge. That
conduct strongly suggests another motive unrelated to the actual processing of a grievance was at
work. Additionally, it has led me to credit Griffo’s claim that he actually furnished the
information on June 27 as he claims. In view of this conclusion, I will recommend the dismissal
of these allegations.
2. Relevant Facts as to Complaint Paragraphs 6(b), (j) and (r): These allegations also grew
out of the charge filed in Case 28–CA–108760. Complaint paragraph 6(a) alleges that Branch
1069 made a written request for the following information on about June 1, 2013:
JD(SF)–58–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
12
1. Documentation of clerks reassigned into the carrier craft;
2. Copies of reassignment clerks bid on vacant Tech positions or management placement;
and
3. Copies of CCA’s opting form on vacant Tech tours.7
Complaint paragraphs 6(j) and 6(r) allege, respectively, that this information is relevant and
necessary for the Union to perform its collective-bargaining duties, and that Respondent failed
and refused to furnish it to the Union. Respondent’s answer denies all three allegations.
The Union’s potential grievance leading to this information request related to the
reassignment of some employees from the clerk and maintenance crafts to carrier positions, and
their subsequent carrier assignments. On June 1, 2013, Nichols submitted the written request to
Griffo for the information detailed at the complaint paragraph 6(b). GC Exh. 7.
Griffo notified Nichols in writing that he passed the Union’s request on to Postmaster
Murphy because he did not have access to the documents involved. Nichols claims that
Respondent never provided any of the requested information to the Union.
Murphy had no recollection of ever seeing the Union’s June 1 request but asserts that,
based on documents routinely provided or available to the Union, the information sought had
been provided. Thus, according to Murphy, a notice posted at the carriers’ annex on May 10 and
provided separately to the Union, answered the first two items of the Union’s June 1 request. R.
Exh. 9. Had Nichols ever asked her directly for the information, Murphy said she would have
simply taken the May 10 notice from the bulletin board and given it to Nichols. Nichols asserts
that the May 10 notice is insufficient as the union sought the underlying documents related to the
reassignments and bids referred to in items 1 and 2 of the request.
Second, Murphy asserts that the CCA “opting form” referred to in the Union’s third
request is always attached to the weekly schedule that is routinely provided to the Union.
Nichols contradicted this assertion by Murphy.
Analysis and Conclusions: The General Counsel contends that regardless of the information
that might or might not have been available to the Union, the Respondent’s failure to provide any
substantive response to the Union’s June 1 request violated the Act.
At the outset, I find the General Counsel sustained the burden of establishing that the
documents sought by the Union on June 1 were necessary and relevant to the performance of its
duties as the collective-bargaining representative. Nichols credible testimony that his inquiry
related to questions and possible grievances pertaining to the reassignment of nonunit employees
to unit positions, the seniority acquired in the unit, and the propriety of their subsequent
assignments relates to terms and conditions of employment of the employees in the letter carriers’
unit and, as such, is presumptively relevant. SBC Midwest, 346 NLRB 62 (2005), citing NLRB v.
Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432 (1967) (“An employer’s duty to bargain collectively under the Act

7 CCA refers to the position of city carrier assistant, a noncareer position within the postal
service.
JD(SF)–58–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
13
includes an obligation to furnish information that allows a union to decide whether to process a
grievance.”) See also United States Postal Service, 337 NLRB 820 (2002). (Employer unlawfully
refused to provide union with requested information necessary in deciding whether to file and pursue
grievance). Respondent failed to rebut the presumptive relevance of the information the Union
sought on June 1.
Here, as in the Postal Service case cited above, the Union received no response to its June 1
request apart from advice from Griffo that he had passed their request on to the postmaster. The fact
that Respondent’s officials mistakenly believed the Union had access to the information it sought
because of the documents routinely shared with the Union in the regular course of business or that
were made public to the entire work force is not a defense in the circumstances here. As it turned
out, not surprisingly, the March 18 and May 10 announcements of the Respondent’s fait accompli
assignments of nonunit employees, or recently appointed unit employees, to unit positions were not
the documents Nichols sought in items 1 and 2 of the request. Rather, as Nichols explained, he
sought the documents on which the USPS officials relied in making the appointments announced in
the March and May notices. Similarly, to the degree that Respondent furnished the CCA opting
forms as it claimed, its silence following the receipt of the June 1 request for this information caused
their misunderstanding to fester up to and through the hearing. The Board long ago rejected
contentions of this nature in Ellsworth Sheet Metal, 232 NLRB 109 (1977):
. . . [W]e find that, once the request for information was received, it was incumbent on
Respondent to react in some manner to the request and that the Union was not required to
do more as a precondition to establishing its right to have the information produced.
Respondent’s conduct in this instance did not comply with that legal obligation. Accordingly, I
find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1), as alleged, by failing to respond to the
Union’s June 1 request for information.
3. The Santa Fe Charge
Relevant Facts as to Complaint Paragraphs 6(c), (k), and (s): These allegations grew out of
the charge in Case 28–CA–109727 that Branch 989 (Union) filed on July 23, 2013. Complaint
paragraph 6(c) alleges that the Union requested in writing on about June 19, 2013, and again on
July 15, 2013, that Respondent provide copies of John Quintana’s payroll summary report for
pay periods 2013-11 and 2013-12. Complaint paragraph 6(k) alleges that the information is
necessary and relevant for the Union to perform its collective-bargaining duties. Complaint
paragraph 6(s) alleges that Respondent unreasonably delayed furnishing the requested
information to Branch 989. Respondent’s answer admits that the Union requested the
information on the dates alleged in complaint paragraph 6(c). It also admits complaint paragraph
6(k) but denies complaint paragraph 6(s).
This case grew out of the investigation and processing of a potential grievance on behalf
of John Quintana, a city letter carrier in Santa Fe, related to miscellaneous charges deducted
from his pay check. On June 19, 2013, Branch 989 Steward Patricia Chavez submitted a written
information request on the Union’s standard request form to Lonnie Sanchez, an acting
supervisor at the Coronado station in Santa Fe, New Mexico, seeking the payroll summary report
for pay period 2013-11 and 2013-12 for John Quintana. Having not received the information by
July 15, Chavez submitted the same request to Eric Setter, the Coronado station manager.
JD(SF)–58–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
14
Having not received the information by July 23, Chavez filed an unfair labor practice charge on
behalf of the Union.8
On July 29, Chavez met with Wayne Redmond, a postal service supervisor, concerning
the Quintana matter. Presumably, not much could be done to resolve the matter because the
requested payroll summary reports had not been furnished. However, Chavez and Redmond
signed off on the ISA portion of the Joint Step A grievance form so the matter could be advanced
to the FSA level. GC Exh. 3.
Meanwhile, Susan Yarbro, the acting Santa Fe Postmaster at the time, learned about the
NLRB charge Chavez filed from an individual in the USPS legal department near the end of July
and began looking into the situation herself. She found that the two supervisors who had
received the information requests from Chavez in had not logged them into the local tracking
system maintained by the postmaster’s secretary in accord with the local practice. That led
Yarbro to seek the information herself from the USPS payroll department. Yarbro received
copies of the two payroll summaries on August 8 and forwarded them to Chavez via certified
mail the next day. Chavez signed for the letter containing the payroll summaries on August 13.
In the meantime, Union President Marcos Gonzales met with Santa Fe FSA designee
Jennifer Montoya on August 12 to deal with a number of grievances, including the Quintana
issue. When the Quintana matter came up, Montoya professed to have never heard about the
information request and requested a couple of days before considering the matter. Gonzales
agreed. Before they met again on August 14, Montoya spoke with Yarbro about the matter and
learned that the postmaster had just obtained a copy of the information Chavez had sought all
along. When they met again on August 14, Montoya provided copies of the two Quintana
payroll summaries to Gonzales that she obtained from Yarbro and they quickly settled the
substantive aspect of the Quintana matter after the Union agreed that the miscellaneous
deductions from Quintana’s pay were legitimate.9 However, the Union continued to press the
portion of the grievance asserting that the USPS had violated article 15 of the NALC contract by
failing to furnish the information in a timely manner.
Analysis and Conclusions: The General Counsel argues that Respondent violated 8(a)(5) and
(1) by failing to furnish the information Chavez initially requested in mid-June for nearly 2
months. In defense, Respondent contends that it was furnished in a timely manner. To support
its argument, Respondent faults Gonzales and Chavez for much of the delay because they failed

8 Chavez made a passing reference to “quite a few Step B decisions,” requiring management
to provide the union with requested information “within three business days” or send us a letter
letting us know they cannot provide the information within that time frame.
9 According to Gonzales’ account, Montoya emailed a request to the district payroll office in
Arizona seeking copies of the two payroll summaries for Quintana that Chavez had originally
requested in June. They then continued meeting for about 3 hours on other matters. By that
time, Montoya received a response to her email with the two 1-page summaries attached and
provided them to him. The account set forth above is based on a compilation of the testimony
provided by Yarbro and Montoya that I find to be mutually corroborative. Accordingly I have
credited Yarbro and Montoya on this particular point.
JD(SF)–58–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
15
to inform Yarbro of the pending request in the latter part of June at an introductory meeting she
had with them shortly after being designated as the acting Santa Fe postmaster. Hence, the
Respondent’s argument implies, the time between their meeting in late June and the end of July
when Yarbro learned of Chavez’ unfair labor practice charge should be attributed to the Union’s
failure to respond to Yarbro’s question at their late June meeting instead of Respondent’s
inattention. For that reason, Respondent’s argument continues, the measure of the delay should
start with the time Yarbro learned of the request on or around July 29. Viewed in this manner,
Respondent claims that the delay should not be considered unreasonable.
Respondent’s argument lacks merit. As it turned out, the information sought in this
instance was relatively simple. It amounted to nothing more than a request for an individual’s
detailed pay calculation for two particular pay periods that would itemize particular deductions
from his gross pay that had been lumped together on his pay slip as “miscellaneous deductions.”
Union Steward Chavez sought the information from two different supervisors who apparently
transferred to other locations within a couple of weeks after each of her requests. Regardless,
even a 2 week delay in furnishing this type of information strikes me as borderline. Moreover,
the third supervisor with whom she met at the ISA grievance level was seemingly unconcerned
with the fact that the twice-requested information had not been provided. As a consequence, the
grievance continued on to the FSA level. Through all of this, none of the three supervisors
seemingly followed an internal policy requiring them to log in the information request with the
postmaster’s secretary. Worse yet, in this instance the supervisors dealing with the problem at
the ISA grievance step level themselves would obviously lack the information necessary to
intelligently discuss the question presented by Quintana’s pay issue.
The NALC collective-bargaining agreement clearly contemplates that management honor
preliminary information requests for the purposes of evaluating potential grievances at the ISA
level. This situation illustrates the value of this requirement. Once the information was
furnished, both sides could readily agree that the deductions from the pay of the represented
employee were valid. Without the information, neither side would have been in a position to
analyze and deal with the problem at all. Had the information been timely provided, it is likely
that this matter would have been resolved promptly in June when it first arose.
Although Yarbro’s efforts eventually resulted in the resolution of the substantive aspect
of the Quintana grievance, I find that they came well after the damage to the collective-
bargaining process occurred. Accordingly, find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
by the unreasonable delay that occurred in furnishing the Chavez’ June 19 and July 15
information requests in the Quintana matter.
4. The Silver City Charge
1. Relevant Facts as to Complaint Paragraphs 6(f), (n) and (v): These connected allegations
arise from the charge Branch 1509 filed in Case 28–CA–111887 on August 21, 2013. Complaint
paragraph 6(f) alleges that on August 7, 2013, Branch 1509 requested that Respondent provide it
with a copy of the “personal attendance policy” referenced by the Silver City Postmaster Robert
Ponce during a telephone conversation with Branch 1509 President Zeke Gonzales 2 days
JD(SF)–58–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
16
earlier.10 Complaint paragraph 6(n) alleges that this information is necessary and relevant for
Branch 1509 to perform its collective-bargaining duties and complaint paragraph 6(v) alleges
that Respondent has failed and refused to furnish the requested information. Respondent’s
answer admits that the requested information is necessary and relevant but otherwise denies that
it failed to provide the requested information. The answer affirmatively alleges that Respondent
furnished the requested information on August 16.
On July 11, 2013, Gonzales received a warning letter about his work attendance. He filed a
grievance protesting the warning on July 18, 2013. (GC Exh. 25) There being no resolution at the
ISA level, Gonzales appealed his grievance and the FSA meeting was scheduled for August 8.
On August 5, 2013, NALC designated Branch 504 Vice President Angel Martinez as FSA
Representative for this grievance. Later on August 5, Martinez called Postmaster Ponce, the FSA
designee for management, on August 5 to discuss the grievance. During this call Martinez attempted
to convince Ponce to withdraw the warning letter citing procedural defects and other infirmities.
Ponce refused saying, according to Martinez, that Gonzales’ warning letter conformed to his “own
personal attendance policy.” Ponce, however, denied that he ever made a reference to any
personal attendance policy or that had relied on any such personal policy when he issued the
warning. Otherwise, the two men agreed to schedule their FSA meeting for August 20.
On August 7 Martinez faxed Ponce an information request seeking to have the so-called
personal attendance policy allegedly mentioned during their August 5 telephone exchange
provided to the Union at the FSA meeting still scheduled for August 8. Although confused by
the request, Ponce did not seek a clarification from Martinez. However, when Ponce spoke to
Martinez on August 7, they agreed to reschedule the Gonzales’ FSA meeting for August 20
because of a family medical problem requiring the postmaster’s attention on August 8.
Just before 11 a.m. on August 15, Ponce called Martinez seeking to reschedule the
Gonzales grievance FSA meeting again because of a conflict with a training session he had to
attend on August 20. Ponce sought to have the meeting changed to the following day or any
other day thereafter that week. Martinez promised to respond later that day. Ponce claims that
he never spoke to Martinez again about the Gonzales grievance.
Around 5:30 p.m. on August 15, Martinez sent Ponce an email reflecting a hostile tone
that rejected Ponce’s request for another postponement and threatening that if they did not meet
that day he would “forward the grievance to the DRT as a refusal to meet.” In addition, Martinez
insisted that Ponce furnish the information requested on August 7 and further threatened that if it was
not provided by August 19, the Union would pursue legal actions including charges with the NLRB.
When Ponce opened and read Martinez’ email on August 16, he promptly sent Martinez a
copy of the Postal Service’s “Attendance Control Guidelines” developed by the Arizona District

10 The facts establish that Postmaster Ponce and Angel Martinez, the Branch 504 vice
president, participated in the referenced telephone conversation. Although the call concerned a
grievance resulting from an attendance warning letter issued to Silver City letter carrier Zeke
Gonzales, the president of Branch 1509, NALC assigned Martinez to process this particular
grievance. No evidence shows that Gonzales participated in the relevant telephone conversation.
JD(SF)–58–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
17
Labor Relations office to assist its managers and supervisors to control unscheduled absences.
Ponce claims he relied on these guidelines at the time he issued Gonzales’ warning.
After unsuccessfully attempting to reach Martinez twice on August 19 about his unresolved
schedule conflict the following day, Ponce emailed him offering to meet on the Gonzales grievance
at anytime on August 21, 22, or 23. Ponce also noted that he had provided the information requested
by the Union and had responded to his requests for a meeting. Contrary to Ponce’s claim that he
heard nothing in response, Martinez asserts that he spoke to Ponce by telephone that day and
informed him that the Attendance Control Guidelines document provided to the Union was not the
personal attendance policy Ponce alluded to in their August 5 telephone call. On August 21,
Gonzales filed the underlying unfair labor practice charge.
Analysis and Conclusions: The General Counsel argues that Respondent violated 8(a)(5) and (1)
because it failed to inform the Union in a timely manner that the information requested does not
exist. The General Counsel cites United States Postal Service, 332 NLRB 635 (2000) in support of
the proposition he advances here. The Respondent argues that Ponce timely furnished the requested
information and that this issue resulted from Martinez’ presumptuous conclusion that the document
provided on August 16 was not the policy Ponce referred to when they spoke on August 5.
I conclude that the General Counsel failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
the Respondent, by Ponce’s conduct, acted in bad faith by failing to either provide the information
requested or by failing to inform the Union that the requested information did not exist. The Postal
Service case cited by the General Counsel is factually distinguishable from this situation.
At the outset, the General Counsel’s argument seemingly presumes that Ponce’s failure to
respond to the information request Martinez faxed on August 7 until August 16 amounted to
unreasonable delay. This argument fails to accurately account for the facts. Martinez’ August 7
request asked Ponce to provide with the described information at the FSA meeting, which was then
scheduled for August 8. No evidence shows that the information request came up at all when the
parties agreed later that day to reschedule their FSA meeting to August 20. Since Martinez’ original
request sought to have the information provided at the FSA meeting, I find that it was incumbent
upon him to request that it be provided earlier when that meeting was rescheduled. The first
indication that Martinez wanted the requested information sooner came in his August 15 email.
Ponce responded the very next day, Friday, August 16. Accordingly, I find that Ponce timely
produced the information he perceived to have been requested.
Finally, Martinez himself asserted that any attendance policy derived from anything other
than the collective-bargaining agreement or ELM Section 513 was, in his view, a “personal” policy.
No one sought to establish whether or not the guidelines document Ponce provided met Martinez’
contractually-based definition. Regardless, the test for whether Ponce provided the correct
information is not established by Martinez; it is established by the Board and the courts. In this
circumstance, I find it reasonable for Ponce to perceive the August 7 request as asking for the
material he relied upon in issuing the Gonzales’ warning especially where, as here, he claimed that
he never said he had used the word “personal” in his August 5 discussion with Martinez. As I found
Ponce to be by far the more convincing witness while testifying before me, I credit that claim and his
JD(SF)–58–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
18
further claim that he provided Martinez with the document that he relied on when he fashioned his
warning letter to Gonzales.11 For these reasons, I recommend dismissal of this allegation.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By its failure to timely provide necessary and relevant information requested by NALC
Branch 504 on July 9, 2013, and September 13, 2013, for the performance of collective-
bargaining duties, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. By its failure to provide the relevant and necessary information requested by NALC
Branch 1069 on June 1, 2013, for the performance of its collective-bargaining duties,
Respondent has engaged in an unfair labor practice affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. By its failure to timely provide the necessary and relevant information requested by
NALC Branch 989 on June 19, 2013, and again on July 15, 2013, for the performance of its
collective-bargaining duties, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. Respondent did not engage in any of the other alleged unfair labor practices alleged.
REMEDY
In view of Respondent’s unfair labor practices, my recommended order requires it to
cease and desist and to take affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Specifically, to the degree that Respondent still has not furnished any of the relevant and
necessary information, it must do so now. In addition, Respondent will be required to post a
notice at the relevant facilities informing employees of the outcome of this matter.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended12

11 Counsel for the General Counsel called Ponce as an adverse witness. Throughout
counsel’s blistering examination, Ponce displayed remarkable composure, courtesy, and
consistency. By contrast, I found Martinez’ testified on occasion in an overly argumentative,
and self-serving manner, sometimes with logic I found challenging. Accordingly, I credit Ponce
over Martinez wherever their testimony conflicts.
12 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(SF)–58–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
19
ORDER
Respondent, United States Postal Service at Albuquerque, Roswell, and Santa Fe, New
Mexico, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
a. Refusing to bargain collectively the National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC) by
failing to provide, or failing to timely provide, information requested by agents acting its
behalf that is necessary and relevant for it to perform its collective-bargaining duties.
b. In any like or related 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. Within 14 days, provide the information requested by NALC Branch 1069 with the
information its agent requested on June 1, 2013.
b. Within 14 days after service by the Region, post copies of the attached “Appendix A”
at its facilities in Albuquerque, copies of the attached “Appendix B” at its facilities in
Roswell, and copies of the attached “Appendix C” at its facilities in Santa Fe.13 Copies
of the respective notices, 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 and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted. In addition to physical
posting of paper notices, the notices shall be distributed electronically, such as by email,
posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent
customarily communicates with its employees by such means. 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 any of 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
any time since June 1, 2013.
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.

13 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the
respective notices 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(SF)–58–14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
20
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, 2014
WILLIAM L. SCHMIDT
Administrative Law Judge
APPENDIX A
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 fail and refuse to bargain in good faith with the National Association of Letter
Carriers, Branch 504 (Union) by failing to provide the Union, in a timely manner, information
that is necessary and relevant to the Union’s performance of its duties as the collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit located in Albuquerque.
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.
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.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/28-CA-108760 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
1099 14th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.
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.
APPENDIX B
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 fail and refuse to bargain in good faith with the National Association of Letter
Carriers, Branch 1069 (NALC, Branch 1069), by failing to provide the Union with information
that is necessary and relevant to the Union’s performance of its duties as the collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit located in Roswell.
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 provide to Branch 1069 of the National Association of Letter Carriers the
information it requested on June 1, 2013.
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.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/28-CA-108760 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
1099 14th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.
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.
APPENDIX C
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 fail and refuse to bargain in good faith with the National Association of Letter
Carriers, Branch 989 (Union) by failing to provide the Union, in a timely manner, information
that is necessary and relevant to the Union’s performance of its duties as the collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit located Santa Fe.
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.
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.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/28-CA-108760 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
1099 14th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.
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.