United States Postal Service

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Jun 26, 2015

28-CA-125837 (N.L.R.B. Jun. 26, 2015)

JD–38–15
Albuquerque, NM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
and
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER
CARRIERS BRANCH 1069, AFFILIATED
WITH NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
LETTER CARRIERS, AFL–CIO
and 28–CA–125837
28–CA–126227
28–CA–128261
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER 28–CA–133975
CARRIERS SUNSHINE BRANCH 504, 28–CA–136090
AFFILIATED WITH NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS,
AFL–CIO
and
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER
CARRIERS BRANCH 2990, AFFILIATED
WITH THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
LETTER CARRIERS, AFL–CIO
David Garza, Esq. and Carlos Torrejon, Esq.,
for the General Counsel.
Roderick Eves, Esq., Deputy Managing Counsel
(Law Department – NLRB, U.S. Postal
Service), of St. Louis, Missouri, for the
Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
CHARLES J. MUHL, Administrative Law Judge. This is the latest in the never-ending
stream of cases alleging that the United States Postal Service (the Respondent or Postal Service)
has failed and refused to provide, or unreasonably delayed in providing, information to its
JD–38–15
2
employees’ collective–bargaining representative in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the National
Labor Relations Act (the Act). The Postal Service facilities involved here are located in
Albuquerque, Gallup, and Roswell, New Mexico. The Charging Parties are the National
Association of Letter Carriers (the Union or NALC) and its corresponding locals, Sunshine
Branch 504 (Albuquerque), Branch 1069 (Roswell), and Branch 2990 (Gallup), for each 5
location. Under a Consent Order issued by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals on May 24, 2013,
the Respondent is prohibited from failing to provide, or timely provide, information to Sunshine
Branch 504 in connection with the Union’s role as collective–bargaining representative. Despite
the order, the hearing in this case was the second involving the Postal Service and Branches 504
and 1069 in just a 6-month period in 2014.110
I conducted a trial on the complaint from December 9 to 11, 2014, in Albuquerque, New
Mexico. I have considered the posthearing briefs filed by the parties on January 15 and 16,
2015.2 I conclude that the Respondent violated the Act in certain, but not all, of the manners
alleged in the third consolidated complaint, and that at least one violation occurred at each of the 15
three facilities involved. On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of
witnesses, I make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.3
FINDINGS OF FACT
20
I. JURISDICTION AND LABOR ORGANIZATION STATUS
The Postal Service is subject to the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board
(the Board) pursuant to Section 1209 of the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970. The Respondent
also admits, and I find, that the NALC and NALC Branches 504, 1069, and 2990 are each labor 25
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The General Counsel’s Motion to Amend the Complaint30
Prior to the conclusion of the hearing, the General Counsel moved to amend certain
complaint allegations. A judge has wide discretion to grant or deny motions to amend
complaints under Section 102.17 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations. Rogan Bros. Sanitation,
Inc., 362 NLRB No. 61, slip op. at 3 fn. 8 (2015). The factors to be evaluated in determining 35
whether an amendment should be allowed are (1) whether there was surprise or lack of notice,
(2) whether there was a valid excuse for the delay in moving to amend, and (3) whether the
matter was fully litigated. Stagehands Referral Service, LLC, 347 NLRB 1167, 1171–1172
(2006); CAB Associates, 340 NLRB 1391, 1397-1398 (2003).

1 See Postal Service, 2014 WL 6682336 (NLRB Div. of Judges, Nov. 25, 2014.)
2 On January 16, 2015, counsel for the General Counsel filed a motion for acceptance of a brief to
the administrative law judge. The brief was filed 1 day late due to an inadvertent, electronic filing error.
The Respondent did not oppose this motion. Given the lack of opposition, I grant the motion.
3 The transcript erroneously lists the Albuquerque NALC local as “Sunshine Branch 594” in the
case heading. The transcript also lists Case No. 28-CA-125577 as part of this case, but it was withdrawn
prior to the hearing. Finally, a number of witness names are spelled incorrectly in the transcript. This
decision contains the proper spelling of all witness names.
JD–38–15
3
The Respondent opposes only two of the four complaint amendments sought by the
General Counsel at the hearing. In paragraph 6(c) of the original complaint, the General Counsel
alleged that NALC Branch 1069 had submitted a request for information to the Respondent
seeking the ETC Everything Report, a timekeeping record, for employee Richard Briseno for
February 14. The amendment seeks to add two additional requests for Briseno’s February 15 5
and 18 reports, which were submitted to the Respondent at the same time as the original, plead
request. The General Counsel also seeks to amend complaint paragraph 6(cc), which alleged that
the Respondent unreasonably delayed in providing copies of leave donation forms for an
employee from May 5 to August 28, 2014. The amendment seeks to change the end date of the
delay to November 6, 2014. 10
As to these two amendments, I conclude that the notice provided by the General Counsel
was sufficient. Counsel for the General Counsel raised the potential amendment to paragraph
6(cc) on the first day of the hearing and to paragraph 6(c) on the second day of hearing. (Tr.
138–141, 282–286.) The Respondent had the opportunity thereafter to present additional 15
evidence addressing the potential amendments and the parties fully litigated the matters. While
the allegations were supported by documents created and maintained by the Union and
accessible to the General Counsel prior to the hearing, I find this lack of valid excuse as to the
delay insufficient to override the other two factors. Thus, I grant the General Counsel’s motion
to amend complaint paragraphs 6(c) and 6(cc).420
In its post-hearing brief, the General Counsel seeks a fifth amendment to the complaint
that was not raised at the hearing. Paragraph 6(x) alleges that the Respondent refused to provide
Branch 1069 with access to PS 3971 forms used by employees to request leave since March 25,
2014. The General Counsel seeks to convert this allegation to an unreasonable delay claim, after 25
Branch 1069 president Tom Nichols testified that he did receive the information approximately
four weeks after he made the request. (Tr. 513–514.) Because this amendment was sought after
the hearing, the surprise and lack of notice to the Respondent favors denying the motion.
Moreover, no valid excuse exists for the delay in seeking this amendment. Nichols certainly
should have been aware that he received the information from the Respondent and that fact 30
should have been disclosed or discovered prior to the hearing. For these reasons, I do not find
the amendment just and deny the motion in this regard. Because Nichols admitted that the
Respondent provided this information, I recommend dismissal of complaint paragraph 6(x).
B. Factual Background35
The Respondent and NALC are parties to a collective-bargaining agreement covering city
letter carriers that, by its terms, is effective from January 10, 2013, until May 20, 2016. The
national union delegates its authority as bargaining representative to local branches to enforce the
contract, including Sunshine Branch 504 in Albuquerque, Branch 1069 in Roswell, and Branch 40
2990 in Gallup. In addition to the Roswell and Gallup stations, three of the Respondent’s

4 Counsel for the General Counsel moved to amend complaint pars. 6(v) and 6(z) to reflect
unreasonable delay in providing information allegations, instead of refusal to provide information
allegations, with respect to ETC Everything Reports requested on March 11 and 29. As the Respondent
does not oppose and the matters were fully litigated, I grant the motions.
JD–38–15
4
Albuquerque facilities are involved in this case: the Main Office Carrier Annex, or MOCA,
facility; the Five Points facility; and the Airport facility.
Article 15 of the contract contains a grievance and arbitration procedure, pursuant to
which any alleged breaches of the contract first are addressed at the informal step A level. (GC 5
Exh. 60.) At that step, the Union often utilizes a “Request for Documentation and/or Steward
Time to investigate possible grievance” form, detailing any information requests it has related to
the grievance. The form also contains an area where supervisors may document receipt of the
information request and when any responsive documents were provided.5 The contract requires
an aggrieved employee to meet with the immediate supervisor at the informal step A level and 10
attempt to resolve the issue. If no resolution is reached, the Union has 7 days from the date of
that meeting to appeal the grievance to the formal step A level. If no resolution is reached there,
the Union has 7 days to send the grievance to Step B, where a dispute resolution team evaluates
the grievance.
15
Article 31, section 3 of the contract contains the parties’ agreement on “information” and
requires the Respondent to make available for inspection all information necessary for collective
bargaining, and contract enforcement, administration, or interpretation. (GC Exh. 55.) The
provision also obligates the Respondent to provide information upon request, subject to the
reimbursement of reasonable costs by the Union. The provision specifically notes that 20
“[n]othing herein shall waive any rights the Union may have to obtain information under the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended.”
Article 17, section 3 addresses the rights of stewards. The provision requires stewards to
seek permission from their immediate supervisors for steward time and that such requests not be 25
unreasonably denied. (R. Exh. 1.)
C. Legal Framework
An employer has a statutory obligation to provide to a union that represents its 30
employees, on request, information that is relevant and necessary to the union’s performance of
its duties as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative. Endo Painting Service, 360
NLRB No. 61 (2014), citing to NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432, 435–436 (1967) and
NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149, 152 (1956). Information concerning wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment for unit employees is presumptively relevant to the 35
union’s role as the bargaining representative. A-1 Door & Building Solutions, 356 NLRB No. 76
(2011). Relevant information also includes that which is necessary to decide whether to file or
process grievances on behalf of unit employees. Acme Industrial, 385 U.S. at 435–439; see also
Disneyland Park, 350 NLRB 1256, 1257 (2007). The Board uses a liberal, discovery-type
standard in determining relevance, a burden that is not exceptionally heavy. 40

5 At the hearing and in the post-hearing brief, the General Counsel repeatedly suggested that this
form was a joint form used by both parties and that, where the forms did not contain a signature of a
supervisor and the details of what information was provided, it was indicative of the Respondent’s failure
to provide the information. I do not agree. The form itself contains an NALC logo and the record
evidence establishes that supervisors sometimes, but not always, use the form to document the
information they provided. I find the absence of any supervisory notations on the form to be irrelevant to
the legal issues presented in this case.
JD–38–15
5
An employer must respond to a union’s request for relevant information within a
reasonable time, either by complying with it or by stating its reason for noncompliance. Failure
to make either response in a reasonable time is, by itself, a violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the
Act. Quebecor World Mt. Morris, II, LLC, 353 NLRB 1, 18 (2008), citing to Ellsworth Sheet
Metal, 232 NLRB 109 (1977) and Columbia University, 298 NLRB 941, 945 (1990). In 5
determining whether an employer has unlawfully delayed responding to an information request,
the Board has not established a per se rule regarding a time period for production, but instead
considers the totality of the pertinent circumstances. “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 10
sought, its availability and the difficulty in retrieving the information.” West Penn Power Co.,
339 NLRB 585, 587 (2003).
Finally, a union’s interest in relevant and necessary information does not always
predominate over other legitimate interests, including confidentiality. Exxon Co. USA, 321 15
NLRB 896, 898 (1996); Detroit Edison Co. v. NLRB, 440 U.S. 301, 314 (1979). In dealing with
union requests for relevant but assertedly confidential information possessed by an employer, the
union’s need for the information must be balanced against any legitimate and substantial
confidentiality interest established by the employer. To trigger this balancing test, an employer
must first timely raise and prove its confidentiality claim. Furthermore, an employer possessing 20
the information and refusing to disclose it on confidentiality grounds has a duty to seek an
accommodation, through the bargaining process, between the union’s need for the information
and the employer’s justified confidentiality concern. When the relevance of requested
information is not obvious, and when its disclosure implicates employee privacy, an employer is
entitled to a statement of its relevance before producing the information.25
D. Roswell Information Requests
The bulk of the General Counsel’s complaint involves the Respondent’s Roswell carrier
annex. The postmaster there is Karla Murphy. Ralph Griffo is a supervisor who reports to 30
Murphy. Tom Nichols is a city letter carrier, who also serves as the local president of NALC
Branch 1069.
1. Requests for documents accessible at the Roswell facility6
35
The Respondent maintains a dizzying number of records documenting its daily
operations. Clock rings record the hours that carriers work or are on leave. Play packets contain
information verifying the specific work carriers have performed each day, either at the station or
on their postal delivery routes. Those packets include PS 1571 forms, which show the actual
mail associated with a carrier’s route on a given day; PS 3996 forms, which document overtime 40
or auxiliary assistance provided to a carrier; and work-hour workload status reports, which show
the workload for a carrier each day and the expected number of hours needed to complete the
work. PS 3189 forms are used by carriers to request a change to their work schedule, while PS
3971 forms are used to request leave.

6 This section addresses the information requests contained in complaint pars. 6(b), 6(d), 6(g),
6(h), and 6(i)(1).
JD–38–15
6
The Union, through Nichols, made multiple requests in writing for these types of forms
from February 14 to April 1, 2014, in support of grievances that he filed.7 On February 14, the
Union requested access to PS 3189 forms for copying. On March 6, the Union requested access
to play packets for copying. On March 25, the Union requested access to play packets and PS
3971 forms for copying. On March 28, the Union requested work-hour workload status reports 5
for all city routes for January and February. Finally, on March 29, the Union again requested
access to play packets for copying. (GC Exhs. 16, 18, 21, 22, 23, 35.) Of critical note is the fact
that, in each of the requests, Nichols requested “access” to these forms, not actual copies. All of
these requests were made in support of the processing of grievances.
10
The parties do not dispute that the Respondent maintains all of the aforementioned forms
in unsecured boxes in different locations at the Roswell facility. Nichols can access the forms in
those boxes at any point he is on steward time, without having to inform or seek permission from
a supervisor.8
15
As a full-time carrier, Nichols works 8 hours a day, 6 days a week. Nichols’ steward
time is recorded on his clock rings. Those rings show that, from February 14 to April 1 or a
period of roughly 6 weeks, he received more than 53 hours of steward time. (R. Exhs. 2, 3.) He
also received nearly 8 hours of steward time from April 2– 8. In addition, Nichols was on leave
from March 12–18. Nichols conceded at the hearing that the documents he requested are readily 20
available at the station and the issue, in his opinion, is that he is not given sufficient steward time
to review them. (Tr. 530, 505, 344; R. Exh. 19.)
Analysis: The General Counsel’s complaint alleges that the Respondent failed and refused to
provide the union with the clock rings, play packets, work-hour workload status reports and PS 25
3189 and 3971 forms requested by Nichols, as described above. The Postal Service admits the
relevancy of this information, but argues it provided the information by giving Nichols access to
these documents when he was on steward time.
An employer is obligated to provide information it has available, to compile it, or to give 30
a union access to records from which the union can reasonably compile the information.
Safeway Stores, Inc., 252 NLRB 1323, 1324 (1980). In my view and based upon my crediting of
Murphy’s and Griffo’s testimony, the Respondent has met its obligation to provide Nichols
access to the requested records from which he can compile the information he needs. This
dispute is not really about a refusal to provide information. It is about Nichols’ belief that the 35
Respondent is not providing him with sufficient steward time to complete his representational
duties. That issue is not before me. What cannot be disputed is that Nichols specifically and
repeatedly requested access to these records. The Respondent responded to the requests by

7 All dates hereinafter are in 2014 unless otherwise specified.
8 I credit Murphy’s and Griffo’s testimony that Nichols could access these documents at any point
he was on approved steward time. I do not credit Nichols assertion that he needed to obtain “permission”
from a supervisor to do so. During his testimony, Nichols initially confirmed that he could access these
documents when he was on steward time. (Tr. 502, lns 8–14.) He then attempted to add, upon prompting
from counsel, that he had to get permission from the managers to access the documents. (Tr. 502, lns 15–
25; 503, lns 1–7; 505.) Both Nichols and Murphy gave logical, believable testimony that they do not
track what Nichols does when he is on steward time. I conclude that Nichols did have to get permission,
but only to go on steward time as required by the collective-bargaining agreement.
JD–38–15
7
granting him a significant amount of steward time during the period in question. Nichols could
have used the time to access the records and compile the information he needed. Thus, no
violation of the Act occurred in this regard.
2. Requests for ETC Everything Reports95
The Respondent also creates, on a daily basis, computerized ETC Everything Reports
showing a carrier’s time worked or on leave and listing all of a carrier’s clock rings. When
Murphy or Griffo access such reports, it is logged in the Respondent’s computer system under
their user IDs. 10
On February 18, Nichols requested ETC Everything Reports for carrier Richard Briseno
for February 14, 15, and 18. On March 11, Nichols asked for these reports for himself from
March 1–11. On March 25, Nichols asked for these reports for all carriers from March 24 to
April 1. On March 29, Nichols also requested his reports from March 17–29. Finally, on April 15
1, Nichols requested the ETC Everything Reports for two specific pay periods, up to March 31.
(GC Exhs. 19, 21, 32, 33, 34, 36, and 37.) These information requests all were made in support
of the processing of grievances.
The Respondent, through either Griffo or Murphy, routinely provides Nichols with ETC 20
Everything Reports on Saturday morning for the prior week. However, both Griffo and Nichols
agreed that the reports are not necessarily provided every week. With respect to these requests,
neither Griffo nor Murphy testified that the ETC Everything Reports specifically were provided
on the Saturdays between February 15 and April 5, which would have covered all of Nichols’
requests. In addition and on April 2, Griffo provided Nichols with the ETC Everything Reports 25
responsive to his March 29 request. (Tr. 344–345; R. Exh. 19.) On April 16 during a formal
step A grievance meeting, Griffo also provided reports responsive to the March 11 request. (R.
Exh. 28.)
Analysis: The General Counsel’s complaint alleges that the Respondent failed and refused to 30
provide the ETC Everything Reports requested on February 18, March 25, and April 1. As
amended, the complaint also alleges that the Postal Service unreasonably delayed in providing
the reports requested on March 11 and 29. In its answer, the Respondent admits to the relevancy
of the information, but contends that it timely provided the requested ETC Everything Reports.
35
Although no disagreement exists that the Respondent ordinarily provides ETC
Everything Reports to Nichols on a weekly basis, the record evidence fails to establish
definitively that the Respondent did so on each Saturday from February 15 to April 15. At the
hearing, Griffo did not specifically recall giving the reports to Nichols in the relevant time
period. The Respondent offered no documentation, such as computer records showing the 40
reports had been retrieved during that period by Murphy or Griffo, to establish this. Griffo also
conceded that he does not provide the reports if either he or Nichols is not present on a Saturday.
Nichols’ clock rings show that he was on leave from March 12 to 18. Moreover, on two separate
occasions, Griffo specifically provided the reports that Nichols requested for himself. If Griffo

9 This section addresses the information requests contained in complaint pars. 6(c), 6(e), 6(g)(1),
6(i)(2), and 6(j).
JD–38–15
8
had provided reports every week for the prior week on a timely basis, this would have been
duplicative. Thus, I find the record evidence insufficient to establish that the Respondent
provided this information and I conclude its failure to do so violated Section 8(a)(5).10
As to the unreasonable delay allegations, I do not find a violation with respect to the 5
March 29 request, because Griffo provided responsive information on April 2, only 4 days later.
However, the 36-day delay in responding to the March 11th request is unreasonable and violated
the Act, given that the ETC Everything Reports could be retrieved in short order from the
Respondent’s computer system.
10
3. Request for GATS reports of outstanding grievance settlements11
On March 24, Nichols submitted a written request for information to Griffo for
documentation showing all outstanding grievance settlements that had been paid or processed.
(GC Exh. 20.) Nichols sought this information to verify that carriers received any money they 15
were to be paid pursuant to the settlements.
The Postal Service uses its Grievance and Arbitration Tracking System (GATS) to
document the processing of grievance settlements. At the Roswell station, only Griffo knew how
to access information in GATS. After Nichols submitted this request, Murphy took Nichols to 20
Griffo and had Griffo look up in GATS the names of employees that Nichols provided them to
determine if their grievance settlements had been processed. One of the inquiries was for
Nichols himself. Griffo retrieved information from GATS showing that Nichols had received a
settlement payout, which Nichols then confirmed by looking at his paystub also showing the
payment. Griffo then gave copies of the GATS records they looked at to Nichols.12 25
Analysis: The General Counsel’s complaint alleges that the Respondent failed and refused to
provide documents for all outstanding grievance settlements that had been paid and processed, as
requested on March 24. The Postal Service again concedes the relevancy of the information, but
denies that it failed and refused to provide it.30

10 The Respondent contends that some of the requested ETC Everything Reports were provided to
fellow union steward Ruth Silva and constituted a timely response to Nichols’ requests. (R. Br., pp. 14,
37.) However, I find the fact that Silva received some of the requested reports irrelevant. Irrespective of
whether giving the records to Silva, rather than Nichols, constituted a sufficient response, the Respondent
concedes not all of the reports requested by Nichols were provided to Silva.
11 This section addresses the information request contained in complaint par. 6(f).
12 I again credit the testimony of Murphy and Griffo in this regard, which was consistent, detailed,
and appeared genuine. (Tr. 46, 73, 305, 310.) I do not credit Nichols claim that he never received the
information. Nichols did not specifically deny that Murphy and Griffo showed him the GATS records on
a computer, instead providing this brief, unclear testimony elicited by leading questions (Tr. 509-510):
“Q-Have you ever been shown the GATS results that were responsive to this request? A-No. Usually,
they’re provided with a copy of the grievance settlement. Q-Okay. And in this instance it wasn’t with
regard . . . to your request? A: No, it wasn’t.” Nichols appeared to be denying nothing more than that he
got the GATS information with a copy of the grievance settlement. This does not contradict Murphy’s
and Griffo’s testimony, as neither contended that was how they provided the information to Nichols.
Moreover, the record contains no indication that Nichols ever followed up with respect to his request,
which would be expected if the information had not been provided and Nichols had not been paid money
he himself was owed under a grievance settlement.
JD–38–15
9
Based upon my credibility determination as to the testimony of Murphy, Griffo, and
Nichols, I conclude that the Respondent did provide the GATS information to Nichols. Griffo
pulled up the information in GATs that Nichols said he needed. Griffo then printed out the
relevant forms and gave them to Nichols. Thus, no violation of the Act occurred in this regard.
5
E. Albuquerque Information Requests
The Respondent operates 11 postal stations in Albuquerque with carriers represented by
the NALC, including the MOCA, Five Points, and Airport stations. Ed Arvizo is a labor
representative for the Respondent in Albuquerque. At material times, John Trujillo was a carrier 10
at MOCA and the chief union steward for Albuquerque. Martin Garcia is a supervisor at the
Airport station.
1. Information requests regarding claims of abuse by Garcia13
15
In September 2013, the Respondent adopted a nationwide protocol for the handling of
union information requests involving Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) records of
employees. (R. Exh. 23.) Based upon EEO records typically being covered by the Federal
Privacy Act, the protocol detailed the following process for handling such requests:
20
 Local management must forward the information request upon
receipt to the district manager of labor relations.
 District labor relations evaluates the relevancy of the request.
If relevancy is not obvious, the union will be asked to explain 25
the relevance.
 Once relevancy is established, district labor relations will
communicate with the regional manager of EEO Compliance
and Appeals regarding the availability of the records and how 30
they can be retrieved.
 The district manager will advise the union of the Postal
Service’s confidentiality concerns and attempt to reach an
agreement balancing those concerns with the union’s need for 35
the information.
The protocol identified a nondisclosure agreement signed by an appropriate union official as one
of the means to address confidentially concerns.
40
On March 29, Trujillo submitted a request for information to Arvizo. (GC Exh. 2.) In
that request, Trujillo sought:

13 This section addresses the information requests contained in complaint pars. 6(a)(1) and
6(a)(2).
JD–38–15
10
 All other claims of abuse in which Martin Garcia is alleged to
be the abuser and all investigations related to any such
allegation of abuse, to include any PS Form 1767s, PS Form
2564As and PS Form 2565s as generated by any employee or
subordinate within the last 5 years.5
 All measure (sic) taken in the last 2 years to address the threats
and conduct of managers in the Albuquerque Installation to
include but not limited to all training received and all
certifications of completion.10
PS 2564A and PS 2565 forms are used by employees to file informal or formal EEO complaints;
PS 1767 forms are used to report unsafe hazard conditions. Trujillo submitted this request as
part of his grievance processing for three carriers who alleged that Garcia had abused them.
While investigating the grievances, Trujillo learned of the possibility that prior allegations of 15
abuse had been made against Garcia. Trujillo wanted to determine if a pattern of abuse existed.
Via letter dated April 4, Arvizo questioned the relevancy of the two requests and asked
that the Union clarify it for him. Trujillo responded on April 9 and asserted that the Union was
investigating a proclivity of abuse on Garcia’s part, in support of multiple pending grievances. 20
On April 17, Arvizo sent a letter to Trujillo stating he needed further information from
the Union in order to “define the specific EEO complaint categories” in which to conduct a
search. He also indicated that he forwarded the information request to the Respondent’s
Arizona/New Mexico Labor Relations Office for a determination as to whether the information 25
was relevant and whether the Union’s need for the information outweighed the privacy interests
of employees who previously filed EEO complaints against Garcia. Arvizo also included a
nondisclosure agreement to “ensure no unnecessary time lapses,” which he requested that the
Union sign. Trujillo previously had signed the identical nondisclosure agreement in August
2013, when he made a separate request for his own and one other employee’s EEO forms.30
Trujillo responded via letter dated April 18. With respect to the requested training
information, he stated that any uncorrected abuse, or abuse that was corrected but did not serve
as a deterrent, was relevant to the pending grievances.
35
On May 6, Arvizo responded by letter and noted the protocol which the Respondent had
established for responding to requests for EEO forms and his actions that fit into that protocol.
He also provided Trujillo with an EEO “matrix” showing all of the EEO complaints filed by
Albuquerque bargaining unit employees alleging nonsexual harassment, sexual harassment
and/or creation of a hostile work environment by Garcia. Arvizo asked the Union to review the 40
records, identify which of the complaints were responsive to the Union’s request, then explain in
each circumstance why the Union needed to identify the complaining employee and why it
needed information on any matters that had already been resolved. Arvizo indicated that the
Respondent then would make a determination as to whether it lawfully could provide the Union
with the PS 2564A and PS 2565 forms, without any assurances from the Union that it would 45
maintain the confidentiality of the information.
JD–38–15
11
On May 12, Trujillo responded via letter and repeated his contention that the Respondent
was refusing to provide all of the requested information. He did not provide any of the responses
sought by Arvizo, nor did he include a signed nondisclosure agreement. Via letter dated May 14,
Arvizo responded and reiterated his requests contained in his May 6 correspondence.
5
On May 29, Arvizo and Trujillo met to discuss multiple pending grievances. Arvizo’s
notes from that meeting state: “[Trujillo] will review letter to him regarding nondisclosure sign
off.” (R. Exh. 6.)
From May 30 until September 15, a period of more than 4 months, the Union took no 10
further steps regarding the requested information. However, at a meeting on September 15,
Trujillo provided a signed nondisclosure agreement to Arvizo. The executed agreement did not
contain any changes to the language initially proposed by Arvizo on April 18.14
Via letter dated October 1, Trujillo confirmed to Arvizo that the nondisclosure agreement 15
had been signed and reiterated his request for the EEO complaint forms. However, he did not
ask again for any training documentation. Arvizo responded via letter dated October 3, stating
that he had forwarded the nondisclosure agreement to the western area law department and that
the Union’s information request had been forwarded to the manager of EEO compliance and
appeals for response. Arvizo also provided Trujillo with a copy of the one responsive PS 1767 20
form the Respondent had.
On October 20, a representative from the Respondent’s law department emailed Susan
Johnson, a manager of EEO compliance and appeals, to request that she provide the EEO
complaint forms in light of the executed nondisclosure agreement. Johnson then ran an updated 25
matrix of EEO complaints involving Garcia. She also contacted an EEO specialist, Alfonso
Gutierrez, about obtaining the underlying forms. Gutierrez only had been in this position for 3 to
4 months, so Johnson also contacted EEO specialists in four additional cities to assist in
obtaining the underlying forms. In an attempt to expedite this process, one of the specialists
contacted the National EEO Investigative Services Office about getting the forms electronically, 30
but was unable to do so. Ultimately, the specialists submitted extensive documentation to
Johnson, including records that went beyond the requested forms. Johnson had to review the
documents to determine which ones were responsive to the Union’s request.
On October 27, Arvizo provided to Trujillo a second EEO complaint matrix run by 35
Johnson showing 30 complaints against Garcia.
Finally, via letter dated November 13, the Respondent provided the Union with the
underlying EEO complaint forms and additional documentation, totaling 300 pages. The
Respondent never provided any documents concerning training that had been given to managers.40

14 Although Trujillo suggested in his testimony that the Union had issues with the language of the
non-disclosure agreement (Tr. 610), the record evidence contains no indication that Trujillo ever objected
to the language in his communication, written or otherwise, with Arvizo or asked to bargain over the
language.
JD–38–15
12
Analysis: The General Counsel’s complaint alleges that the Respondent unreasonably delayed,
from March 29 to November 13, in providing the EEO complaint forms involving
Garcia. The complaint also alleges the Respondent refused to provide any information regarding
measures the Respondent took, including training, to address threats and conduct of managers in
Albuquerque in the 2 years preceding the information request.5
The Union sought the information in these requests in support of three grievances by
three different unit employees alleging abuse by Garcia. I conclude that any pattern of abuse by
this supervisor, and corrective measures taken or not taken by the Respondent, is information
relevant to those grievances. Although it denied the relevance of this information in its answer, 10
the Respondent made no argument in support of the denial in its brief.
As to the unreasonable delay allegation, the Respondent argues that it had a legitimate
and substantial confidentiality interest to protect with respect to other employees’ EEO
complaint forms and it timely attempted to bargain with the Union over an accommodation to 15
that interest. I find merit to this contention. EEO complaint forms can contain an employee’s
medical information and details supporting a harassment claim allegation, information in which
an employee has a legitimate privacy interest. The Respondent timely provided the Union with a
nondisclosure agreement on April 18, 3 weeks after the initial March 29 request and only 9 days
after Trujillo first explained to Arvizo that the Union was investigating a pattern of abuse by 20
Garcia. In the period prior to that, Arvizo sought information on the relevancy of the requests,
because Trujillo’s March 29 request did not explain why the Union needed 5 years of EEO
complaints against Garcia and his grievance forms did not contain any information on the
allegations being made against Garcia.
25
After being provided with the agreement, the Union took no steps to bargain with the
Respondent over an appropriate accommodation. Trujillo knew very well that the Respondent
might ask for such an agreement before disclosing EEO complaints, as he had executed one less
than a year earlier. Yet Trujillo said nothing about the agreement in subsequent written
communication. He also did nothing about the agreement for 5 months after it was provided and 30
for more than 3 months after discussing it with Arvizo on May 29. Trujillo signed the agreement
on September 15 as it was originally offered, having not expressed any issues with or asking for
any changes in the language contained therein before doing so.
The General Counsel argues that the nondisclosure agreement was unnecessary, because 35
the EEO forms contain a Privacy Act statement informing employees that the Respondent may
disclose their information “to labor organizations as required by law.” (GC Exhs. 10, 11.) I do
not agree. The statement on the form contains no limitations on what a union can do with
information in EEO forms after they are disclosed. The Respondent has a legitimate interest in
ensuring that its unions do not misuse private information contained on those forms. I conclude 40
that the Respondent’s protocol conforms to Board law on balancing privacy interests with a
union’s need for information. Arvizo’s actions followed that protocol.
The General Counsel also argues that the Union’s prior execution of a nondisclosure
agreement in August 2013 is distinguishable, because Trujillo himself was both one of the 45
grievants and also the union representative in that case. If anything, Trujillo’s dual role
diminishes, not enhances, the need for a nondisclosure agreement, because the Respondent
JD–38–15
13
would be disclosing Trujillo’s own EEO forms to Trujillo himself. In any event, that situation
involved at least one other carrier besides Trujillo.
Accordingly, I conclude that the period from March 29 to September 15 cannot be
considered a delay attributable to the Respondent.5
The issue then is reframed as a question of whether the delay from September 15 to
November 13 was unreasonable. What is clear from the record evidence is that, once this request
found its way to Johnson on October 20, she put forth a reasonable good-faith effort to respond
and did so by November 13. Despite having to obtain the information manually from multiple 10
different locations and then having to review a significant amount of documents that were
submitted to her, Johnson was diligent and expeditious in her efforts to respond. In contrast, the
record does not make clear why Arvizo waited from September 15 to October 3 to contact the
Respondent’s law department, nor does it explain why the Respondent’s law department took
from October 3 to 20 to send the request on to Johnson. Nonetheless, I do not find those facts 15
sufficient to override Johnson’s effort thereafter and establish, independently, an unreasonable
delay. Under the totality of the circumstances, I conclude the Respondent timely provided the
information, once the Union executed the nondisclosure agreement.
As to the Respondent’s admitted failure to provide any documents responsive to the 20
request dealing with managerial training on harassment, the Postal Service argues that Trujillo
abandoned his request when he did not explain the relevancy of the information to the
Respondent and, thereafter, only followed up regarding the EEO complaint forms. As to the first
contention, Trujillo did explain the relevance of the requested training information in his April
18 correspondence. He stated that the Union wanted to know if corrective measures had been 25
taken to address any possible pattern of abuse and the impact, if any, that those measures had on
the pattern. As to Trujillo’s failure to follow up, the Respondent’s argument amounts to a claim
that the Union waived its right to this information by inaction. Quality Building Contractors,
Inc., 342 NLRB 429, 432 (2004). A union can relinquish its statutory right to information, but
only through a “clear and unmistakable” waiver. Here, once Trujillo submitted the request for 30
the training information and explained its relevance, the burden was on the Respondent to
provide a response to the request, not on Trujillo to follow up. Thus, Trujillo’s inaction does not
constitute a clear and unmistakable waiver of his right to the information, and the Respondent’s
failure to provide it was unlawful.
35
2. Information requests regarding donated leave for employee Valerie Chacon15
At the Five Points station in Albuquerque, Art Martinez is the station manager and Chuck
Meadows is one of his supervisors. Troy Chacon is a union steward there.
40
The Respondent maintains a leave sharing program that permits its employees to request
leave donations from other employees. A donating employee must complete a PS 3970-D form
and then submit the form to a supervisor for approval. The supervisor then verifies that the
donating employee is eligible to donate the leave by checking the employee’s earned leave
balance. If eligible, the supervisor signs off on the request, then submits the form to the Postal 45

15 This section addresses the information request contained in complaint par. 6(l).
JD–38–15
14
Service’s Human Resources Shared Service Center (HRSSC) in North Carolina for processing.
The actual leave transfer is completed by the Respondent’s payroll department in Minnesota.
Richard Jones works in that department.
On November 7, 2013, a request for leave donations for Valerie Chacon, a carrier at 5
Five Points, was posted.
On May 5, Troy Chacon submitted a grievance and written request for information to
Meadows. (GC Exh. 24.) Troy Chacon requested “copies of all PS Forms 3970-D for Valerie
Chacon.” The request was prompted by certain employees at Five Points telling Troy Chacon10
that they had submitted leave donations for Valerie Chacon, but the requests had not been
processed.
In his initial May 10 response to the Union’s information request, Meadows did not
provide any PS 3970-D forms and incorrectly stated that those forms were not submitted by local 15
management.
On June 6, Troy Chacon and Meadows held an informal step A meeting on the matter,
but did not resolve the situation. Thus, the Union appealed the grievance to a formal step A
meeting. 20
On June 16 following this meeting, Terri Hartsfield, a labor relations representative for
the Respondent, emailed Jones and asked for “the total number of hours donated and the dates
the PS 3970 Ds were received from November, 2013 to present” for Valerie Chacon. Jones
provided pay journals showing generally that Valerie Chacon had received 108 hours of donated 25
leave in November 2013, and another 16 hours in January 2014. However, Jones did not provide
the names of the donating employees, citing the Privacy Act. Moreover, the Respondent did not
immediately provide the pay journals to the Union.
On July 17, Troy Chacon filed a second grievance and submitted a second written request 30
to Meadows for the same information.
On July 24, Art Martinez provided Troy Chacon with PS 3970-T forms that had been
processed for six employees from the Five Points facility. These forms contain the same
information as the PS 3970-D forms, as well as information on when the leave transfer was 35
processed. (R. Exhs. 14 and 15.)
At some point thereafter, Troy Chacon notified Arvizo that carriers John Trujillo and
Dave Pratt had submitted leave donations to Valerie Chacon which had not been processed.
Arvizo emailed Jones on August 6 and asked for verification of the status of these leave 40
donations. Jones responded the next day that no leave donations had been processed for Trujillo
or Pratt. Arvizo forwarded Jones’ email to Trujillo the same day.
On August 12, Art Martinez provided PS 3970-D forms corresponding to the same six
Five Points employees for whom PS 3970-T forms had been provided on July 24, along with the 45
pay journals which Jones provided to Hartsfield back on June 16. The Respondent did not
provide any PS 3970-D forms for employees at other Albuquerque facilities. Meadows
JD–38–15
15
previously emailed those facilities and requested copies of those forms, but did not receive any
responses.16
On November 6, the Respondent and the Union resolved the grievances with the Postal
Service’s agreement to pay Valerie Chacon $250 for the issues in processing leave donations 5
made to her. The parties’ executed grievance settlement form stated: “[i]nformation requested in
[Chacon’s two grievances] is considered as provided as of this signing.” (GC Exh. 14.)
Analysis: The General Counsel’s amended complaint alleges that the Respondent unreasonably
delayed in providing the Union with Valerie Chacon’s PS 3970-D forms from May 5 to10
November 6.
The information requested by the Union concerned leave donations to a bargaining unit
employee which had not been processed. The Union sought the information to support
grievances that certain donations had not been processed. Thus, the requested information was 15
presumptively relevant.
In its brief, the Respondent concedes it did not provide all of the submitted PS 3970-D
forms until August 12, but offers a variety of defenses to this delay. Even if those defenses are
accepted at face value, the delay in providing the requested information was unreasonable. The 20
Respondent argues that it effectively supplied the information when Art Martinez provided the
PS 3970-T forms to Meadows on July 24. At that point, 80 days, or almost 3 months, had passed
since the Union’s initial May 5 request. The Respondent made no attempt to locate the forms
until Hartsfield’s June 16 e-mails to HRSSC and Jones. This was 42 days or 6 weeks after the
initial request. The Respondent then did nothing until after the grievance meeting held on July 25
17. This information was not complex or difficult to retrieve. The Respondent could have
obtained the forms much sooner simply by emailing HRSSC and/or Jones earlier in the process.
When Jones received email communication here, he responded either the same or the next day.
The Respondent’s lack of activity from May 5 to July 24 is not indicative of a good faith effort to
supply the requested information. Postal Service, 308 NLRB 547, 551 (1992) (four week delay 30
unreasonable were information was not complex and was readily accessible).
The Respondent also points to its supervisors’ efforts, beginning in August 2014, to
insure that unprocessed leave donations would be processed and credited to Valerie Chacon’s
leave balance. These efforts are irrelevant because, by the time they were initiated, the delay in 35
providing the information already was unreasonable.
Finally, the Respondent’s contention that it could not produce forms that it was unable to
locate misses the point. The Respondent only needed to provide all of the PS 3970-D forms that
had been processed. Once it did that, the Union could determine which employees had 40

16 To the extent Troy Chacon’s testimony suggests he did not receive the PS 3970-T forms on
July 24 or the PS 3970-D forms on August 12 (Tr. 388-390, 395), I do not credit that testimony. His
testimony regarding what he actually received from Art Martinez was confusing and contradicted by the
documentary evidence in the record. (R. Exhs. 9 and 15.) I also find Meadows’ testimony regarding his
attempts to locate forms at stations beyond Five Points to be credible. It is logical that Meadows would
have made such attempts, given that Troy Chacon had identified employees at other stations who
allegedly had submitted leave donation forms which had not been processed.
JD–38–15
16
submitted leave donations that had not been processed. Yet, the Respondent did not provide that
information until, at the earliest, July 24.
Accordingly, I find that the Respondent unreasonably delayed from May 5 to July 24 in
providing the submitted and processed PS 3970-D forms to the Union. 5
F. Gallup Information Requests
At the Respondent’s Gallup station, Thelma Malone was the postmaster and Linda
Alonzo was the carrier supervisor at all times material to this case. Malone and Alonzo were the 10
only two supervisors at Gallup. Suzy Yarbro, the manager of post office operations in 72 offices
in the northwestern part of New Mexico and northeastern part of Arizona, supervises Malone and
Alonzo. Patrick Fuller is the shop steward for the Union at Gallup.
1. Grievance settlements for carrier route adjustments1715
On November 22, 2013, the Respondent and the Union entered into a grievance
settlement, pursuant to which the Postal Service agreed to make minor adjustments to the routes
of six carriers by the end of January 2014. This grievance settlement occurred at the formal step
A level of processing and is reflected in the record by a one-page, unsigned document. (GC Exh. 20
53.) The issue resolved was the Union’s contention that the routes were overburdened and
needed to be reduced to as close to 8 hours a day as possible.
The parties concur that the Respondent did not adjust those routes in the agreed-upon
timeframe. Thus, on February 11, the Union filed six grievances for each of the adjustment 25
routes that had not been made, alleging that the Postal Service failed to comply with the
grievance settlement. On April 3, the step B team found all six grievances untimely and denied
them. (R. Exh. 31.) In its written decision, the step B team rejected the Union’s contention that
the Postal Service had not complied with the November 2013 settlement. Its basis for doing so
was that the grievance settlement was unsigned by either party and thus, the step B team could 30
not determine if the settlement was valid.
On April 15, Fuller submitted a written request to Malone for copies of the work-hour
workload reports from January 1 to April 11, as well as copies of the prior November 2013
grievance settlements, both for all six carriers.18 (GC Exh. 54.) At no point thereafter did 35
Malone or any other manager respond by saying the Union already had signed copies of the
settlements.
Rather, on April 29, Alonzo provided the work-hour workload reports and stated that she
would provide the grievance settlements once she received copies. On May 22, Yarbro sent a 40
letter to Richard “Smiley” Martinez, the state president of the Union, in which she stated that the
minor route adjustments would not be implemented until June 22. On June 13, Malone provided
copies of each of the six grievance settlements to Fuller, which totaled 12 pages.

17 This section addresses the information request contained in complaint par. 6(k).
18 This exhibit contains requests for only five carriers, but the parties stipulated at the hearing that
the request encompassed all six routes. (Tr. 322.)
JD–38–15
17
Analysis: The General Counsel’s complaint alleges that the Respondent unreasonably delayed
in providing copies of the six grievance settlements first requested by Fuller on April 15. The
Postal Service asserts two defenses to the allegation, claiming its 59-day delay in providing the
information was not unlawful.
5
First, the Respondent denies that the information requested was relevant to the Union’s
representational duties, allegedly because the step B denials of the Union’s grievances on April 3
rendered the issue moot. I do not agree. The grievance denial decisions all noted that the step B
panel could not determine if the Union and the Respondent had entered a valid settlement
agreement in November 2013, because no signed document was a part of the record. After that 10
decision, Fuller almost immediately requested copies of each of the six grievance settlements,
which ostensibly would include and ultimately did include the signed copies. Fuller did so in an
effort to advance future grievances concerning the nonadjustment of the carrier routes, which
still had not been made when he requested the information on April 15. The parties’ subsequent
actions further solidify that the issue was not moot, given Yarbro’s May 22 letter concerning the 15
timing of the route adjustments, Malone’s providing of the responsive information on June 13,
and the routes ultimately being adjusted on June 22.
Second, the Respondent contends that the Union already was provided all of the
requested documents when the grievance was settled in November 2013. The Respondent 20
presented no witness, in particular Malone, to substantiate this claim. Thus, Fuller testified
without contravention that the Union first received these documents on June 13. (Tr. 481–482.)
I conclude, prior to then, the Union did not have copies of the signed settlements for each of the
six grievances. The Respondent argues it defies logic that Malone would have provided only the
one-page, unsigned settlement agreement, and not the signed, underlying documents. (R. Br., p. 25
38.) However, if the Union had these documents in its possession, it certainly would have
included them when it appealed the route adjustment grievances to step B. It did not do so and
lost the grievances, because no signed settlement agreements had been included in the appeal.
Logic indicates that the Union’s failure to include them was the result of it not being in
possession of the documents. 30
The record evidence also establishes that this information was not voluminous or difficult
to obtain. The Respondent offered no explanation as to why it took Malone more than 8 weeks
to provide it.
35
Under the totality of these circumstances, I find that the delay was unreasonable and
violated Section 8(a)(5).19

19 In its brief, the Respondent moved for sanctions due to the failure of Branch 2990 to respond,
in any fashion, to a subpoena duces tecum served upon it by the Respondent. (R. Br., pp. 41–43.) On the
first day of the hearing, the noncompliance issue was raised (although incorrectly identifying Branch
1069 as the noncomplying party). (Tr. 9–10.) I noted on the record that the failure to comply was due to
a misunderstanding as to the obligation imposed by the subpoena, and that counsel for the General
Counsel had made a representative from the branch aware of the obligation to comply. Nonetheless, at
the hearing conclusion, no responsive documents had been provided. While I agree that the lack of any
response is unacceptable, I decline to impose sanctions. First, the Respondent has not identified any
prejudice to its case presentation due to the noncompliance. See CPS Chemical Co., 324 NLRB 1018,
1019 (1997). Second, the Respondent did not object to the presentation of Fuller’s testimony regarding
JD–38–15
18
2. Request for copies of GATS information for grievance settlements20
On July 31, Fuller submitted a written information request to Alonzo asking for “copies
of the G.A.T.S.” for 14 grievances. (GC Exh. 56.) As with Nichols in Roswell, Fuller needed
this information to verify that carriers had been paid properly for their prior grievance 5
settlements, as well as to determine if the settlements had been processed in a reasonable amount
of time. Fuller intended to pursue noncompliance grievances depending on what the information
showed. Alonzo gave the July 31st request to Malone for processing, because only Malone had
access to GATS at the Gallup station.
10
In mid-August, Smiley Martinez called Yarbro and informed her of the request and the
lack of a response from Gallup management. On August 14, Yarbro emailed Malone and asked
what was going on with the information request.
Having not received a response, Fuller submitted a second written request to Alonzo for 15
the same information on August 21. Alonzo again turned the request over to Malone for
processing. On that same date, Smiley Martinez faxed the information request to Yarbro. In
addition, Yarbro sent an email to Malone and Alonzo asking if the information had been
provided. When Alonzo replied that she was working on it and would furnish the information by
close of business that day, Yarbro wrote back: 20
Why did it take so long? It is my understanding they requested it
at the end of July. They are going to file labor charges on you, not
a good thing.
25
(R. Exh. 34.) Less than an hour after sending that email, Yarbro sent another demanding a
response. Malone replied “While taking care of the Medal of Honor ceremony, it must have
been put aside. [Alonzo] signed for it and it was put in our to do pile.” Thereafter, Yarbro took
over the responsibility of responding to the request.
30
On August 22, Malone did not report to work and remained in leave status continuously
through at least the dates of the hearing in this case.
On August 26, Fuller made a third written request for the information.
35
On August 28, the Respondent, through Yarbro, provided Fuller with the requested
information, 4 weeks after he first submitted the request. (GC Exh. 57; R. Exh. 16.)

the information requests or to the offering of the unsigned settlement (GC Exh. 53) during that testimony.
It also did not question Fuller regarding the branch’s failure to comply with the subpoena. Third, the
sanctions sought by the Respondent appear to be designed to address the fact that Malone, the
Respondent’s own supervisor, did not testify at the hearing. For all these reasons, I deny the motion.
20 This section addresses the information request contained in complaint par. 6(m).
JD–38–15
19
Analysis: The General Counsel’s complaint alleges that the Respondent unreasonably delayed,
from July 31 to August 28, in providing the Union with the GATS information for the 14
grievances. The Postal Service admits that the request was made and that the information is
relevant to the Union’s duties as the bargaining representative. However, the Respondent argues
that the 4-week delay was not unreasonable, because Alonzo did not have GATS access and 5
Malone was, “for reasons unknown, unresponsive.” (R. Br., p. 40.)
Accepting this argument would require a high degree of credulity. Malone was the
postmaster of the Gallup station and responsible for responding to information requests, this one
in particular since she was the only supervisor with access to GATS at the station. Malone did 10
not testify at the hearing and her only e-mail communication claims that she could not respond
because of other, unspecified work duties. Malone also did not go on leave until August 22,
more than 3 weeks after the request was made. Having not taken any steps to respond in that
time period, Malone obviously did not make a diligent effort to obtain the information. As
previously noted, the GATS information is computerized and can be easily retrieved. Finally, 15
and of particular note, the Respondent’s own supervisor, Yarbro, refuted the contention that the
delay was reasonable with her actions and her testimony. Once she took over the processing of
the response, Yarbro put together the necessary information and provided it to the Union in one
week. She also chided Malone and Alonzo for the delay. The manner in which Yarbro handled
the response to the information request is one which the Respondent should demand from all of 20
its supervisors. I conclude the delay was unreasonable and violated the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 25
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by:
a. Failing and refusing to provide NALC Sunshine Branch 504 with information 30
the Union requested on March 29, 2014, specifically all measures taken in the
prior 2 years to address threats and conduct of managers in the Albuquerque
installation to include but not limited to all training received and all
certifications of completion.
35
b. Failing to timely provide NALC Sunshine Branch 504 with information the
Union requested on May 5, 2014, specifically all PS 3970-D forms for Valerie
Chacon.
c. Failing and refusing to provide NALC Branch 1069 with information the 40
Union requested on February 18 and April 1, 2014, specifically the ETC
Everything reports for Richard Briseno for February 14, 15, and 18, 2014, and
for pay periods 7-2, 8-1, and up to March 31, 2014.
JD–38–15
20
d. Failing to timely provide NALC Branch 1069 with information the Union
requested on March 11, 2014, specifically the ETC Everything Reports for
Tom Nichols for March 1 through March 11, 2014.
e. Failing to timely provide NALC Branch 2990 with information the Union 5
requested on April 15 and July 31, 2014, specifically copies of the November
22, 2013 union/management grievance settlement regarding adjustment of six
routes and a copy of the GATS for grievances G04042014A, G04052014A,
G04072014A, G04082014A, G04112014PF, G05032014PF, G05072014PF,
G05082014PF, G05122014PF, G05172014A, G05272014PF, G06052014A, 10
G06232014A, and G06272014A.
All of the information requested above is necessary and relevant to the Union’s
performance of its duties as the collective-bargaining representative of employees in
the unit identified in article 1 of the national collective-bargaining agreement between 15
the Respondent and the Union.
3. The above unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act.
20
4. The Respondent has not violated the Act in any of the other manners alleged in the
complaint.
REMEDY
25
Having found that the Respondent 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. Specifically, to the extent the Respondent still has not furnished any of
the information where its failure to do so was found to be a violation, it must provide that
information to the Union now. In addition, the Respondent will be required to post a notice at its 30
facilities in Albuquerque, Gallup, and Roswell, New Mexico.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended21
35
ORDER
The Respondent, United States Postal Service at Albuquerque, Gallup, and Roswell, New
Mexico, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
40
1. Cease and desist from

21 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–38–15
21
(a) Failing and refusing to bargain collectively with the National Association of
Letter Carriers (NALC) and NALC Sunshine Branch 504, Branch 1069, and
Branch 2990, by failing to provide, or failing to timely provide, information
requested by the Union that is necessary and relevant for the Union’s
performance of its duties as the collective-bargaining representative of 5
employees in the unit identified in article 1 of the national collective
bargaining agreement between the Respondent and the Union.
(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 10
Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days, provide NALC Sunshine Branch 504 with the information the 15
Union requested on March 29, 2014, specifically all measures taken in the
prior 2 years to address threats and conduct of managers in the Albuquerque
installation to include but not limited to all training received and all
certifications of completion.
20
(b) Within 14 days, provide NALC Branch 1069 with the information the Union
requested on February 18 and April 1, 2014, specifically the ETC Everything
Reports for Richard Briseno for February 14, 15, and 18, 2014, and for pay
periods 7–2, 8–1, and up to March 31, 2014.
25
(c) 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 Gallup, New Mexico.22 Copies of the notices,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 28, after being signed 30
by the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the
Respondent and maintained for 60 days in conspicuous places including all
places were notices to employees are customarily posted. In addition to
physical posting of paper notices, notices shall be distributed electronically,
such as by email, posting on an intranet or internet site, and/or other electronic 35
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 the facilities involved in these proceedings, the 40
Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice

22 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–38–15
22
to all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent
at any time at the closed facility since February 14, 2014.
(a) 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 5
Regional Director attesting to the steps the Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C., June 26, 2015.
________________________
Charles J. Muhl
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, Sunshine Branch 504 (the Union) by failing to provide, or failing to timely provide, the
Union with information that is necessary and relevant to the Union’s performance of its duties as
the collective bargaining representative of employees in the unit identified in Article 1 of the
national collective bargaining agreement between the Respondent and the Union and located in
Albuquerque, New Mexico.
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, within 14 days of this order, provide the Union with the information it requested on
March 29, 2014, specifically all measures taken in the prior 2 years to address threats and
conduct of managers in the Albuquerque installation to include but not limited to all training
received and all certifications of completion.
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 1400, Phoenix, AZ 85004-3099
(602) 640-2160, Hours: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/28-CA-125837 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 (the Union) by failing to provide, or failing to timely provide, the Union
with information that is necessary and relevant to the Union’s performance of its duties as the
collective bargaining representative of employees in the unit identified in Article 1 of the
national collective bargaining agreement between the Respondent and the Union and located in
Roswell, New Mexico.
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, within 14 days of this order, provide the Union with the information the Union
requested on February 18 and April 1, 2014, specifically the ETC Everything reports for Richard
Briseno for February 14, 15, and 18, 2014, and for pay periods 7-2, 8-1, and up to March 31,
2014.
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 1400, Phoenix, AZ 85004-3099
(602) 640-2160, Hours: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/28-CA-125837 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 2990 (the Union) by failing to timely provide the Union with information that is
necessary and relevant to the Union’s performance of its duties as the collective bargaining
representative of employees in the unit identified in Article 1 of the national collective
bargaining agreement between the Respondent and the Union and located in Gallup, New
Mexico.
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 1400, Phoenix, AZ 85004-3099
(602) 640-2160, Hours: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
5
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/28-CA-125837 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 5
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.