United States Postal Service

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Sep 2, 2016

07-CA-160663 (N.L.R.B. Sep. 2, 2016)

JD–85–16
Detroit, MI
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
WASHINGTON, DC
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
Case No.: 07–CA–160663

and
BRANCH 434, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF LETTER CARRIERS (NALC), AFL–CIO
Jennifer Y. Brazeal, Esq.,
for the General Counsel.
Roderick D. Eves, Esq.,
for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
CHRISTINE E. DIBBLE, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Detroit,
Michigan, on April 18, 2016. Branch 434 (Charging Union), National Association of Letter
Carriers, AFL–CIO filed a charge in Case 07–CA–160663 on December 21, 2015.1 The General
Counsel issued the complaint on December 18 and issued an amendment to the complaint on
March 18, 2016.2 The United States Postal Service (Respondent) filed a timely answer denying
all material allegations. (GC Exhs. 1(a) to 1(k).)3
The complaint alleges that (1) since about July 21, Respondent has failed and refused to
furnish Charging Union with information it requested on or about July 21 and July 31; and (2)
from about June 27 to about October 16, Respondent unreasonably delayed in furnishing the
Charging Union with information it requested on about June 27, August 24, and September 5.4

1 All dates are in 2015, unless otherwise indicated.
2 There was a minor revision to the amendment of the complaint, adding the location where
Respondent’s named supervisors were assigned.
3 Abbreviations used in this decision are as follows: “Tr.” for transcript; “GC Exh.” for General
Counsel’s exhibit; “R. Exh.” for Respondent’s exhibit; “CU Exh.” for Charging Union’s exhibit; “ALJ
Exh.” for administrative law judge’s exhibit; “Jt. Exh.” for joint exhibit; “GC Br.” for General Counsel’s
brief; “R. Br.” for Respondent’s brief; and “CP Br.” for Charging Union’s brief. My findings and
conclusions are based on my review and consideration of the entire record.
4 These allegations are alleged in pars. 10 and 11 of the complaint.
JD–85–16
2
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respondent, I make the following
5
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent provides postal service for the United States and operates facilities 10
throughout the United States, including the State of Michigan. Respondent admits and I find that
Section 1209 of the Postal Reorganization Act, 39 U.S.C. § 101, et seq. (PRA) gives the National
Labor Relations Board (the Board/NLRB) jurisdiction over the Respondent in this matter.
At all material times the Charging Union and National Association of Letter Carriers 15
(NALC), AFL–CIO (National Union) have been labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
20
A. Overview of Respondent’s Operation
Respondent processes and delivers mail nationwide, and is organized into seven distinct
Regions: Northeast, Eastern, Great Lakes, Capital Metro, Southern, Western, and Pacific. Each
Region is divided into Districts; and the Districts consist of postal locations that are grouped into 25
an installation. Installations are comprised of a number of postal facilities within a certain city.
The Great Lakes Region, which is involved in this case, has seven Districts: Detroit, Lakeland,
Greater Michigan, Greater Indiana, Gateway, Central Illinois, and Chicago. The District and
postal facility at issue are: the Detroit District and the Ann Arbor main post office. The Detroit
District oversees installations in Ann Arbor, Flint, and Jackson. The Ann Arbor installation is 30
comprised of three postal stations.
David Williams (Williams) is Respondent’s chief operating officer and executive vice
president. Great Lakes area manager, Jacqueline Krage Strako (Strako) reports directly to
Williams.5 At all material times, Lee Thompson (Thompson) was the Detroit district manager. 35
Zandra Bland (Bland) was station manager at the Liberty Station. During the relevant period:
Diane LeVeque was the Ann Arbor postmaster; Tracy VanBuren (VanBuren) was an acting
supervisor at the Ann Arbor facility; and Virgil Roddy (Roddy) was the supervisor of customer
service at the Ann Arbor postal location. Crystal Curtis (Curtis) is Respondent’s district
complement coordinator. Since August 2013, Andrea Porter has been the Detroit request for 40
information coordinator.

5 I have taken judicial notice of Respondent’s administrative structure as set forth on its website. See
http://about.usps.com/who-we-are/leadership/hq-org-photos?v=51416. F.R.E. 201(b); Doron Precision
Systems, Inc. v. FAAC, Inc., 423 F.Supp. 2d 173, 179 fn.8 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (“a court may take judicial
notice of information publicly announced on a party’s website, as long as the website’s authenticity is not
in dispute and it’s capable of accurate and ready determination.”)
JD–85–16
3
The following constituted a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All full-time and regular part-time city letter carriers employed by Respondent at 5
various facilities throughout the United States, but excluding professional
employees, employees engaged in personnel work in other than a purely non-
confidential clerical capacity, postal inspection service employees, employees in
the supplemental work force, rural letter carriers, mail handlers, maintenance
employees, special delivery messengers, motor vehicle employees, postal clerks, 10
managerial employees, supervisory personnel, and security guards as defined in
Public Law 9-375, 1201(2).
(GC Exhs. 1(d), 1(i)) Since about 1990, and at all relevant times, Respondent has recognized the
National Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit. Charging Union 15
has been designated servicing representative of the National Union’s approximately 225
employees at the post offices in the Ann Arbor area. John Odegard (Odegard) has been president
of Charging Union since January 1, 2014, and also currently serves as its chief steward. At all
relevant times, Pat Carroll (Carroll) has been the national union’s business agent.
20
B. Collective-Bargaining Agreement and Requests for Information
NALC entered into a nationwide collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) with
Respondent, the most recent of which is effective from January 10, 2013, through May 20, 2016.
The CBA also includes several memoranda of understanding (MOU) entered into between 25
Respondent and NALC. Article 31 of the CBA governs requests for information (RFI). It reads
in relevant part:
Requests for information relating to purely local matters should be submitted by
the local Union representative to the installation head or designee. All other 30
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.
35
(Jt. Exh. 1, p. 108.) In August 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
issued a consent order directing that Respondent take certain actions to correct a pattern of
“failing to provide information, from unduly delaying in providing information, or from any like
or related manner failing or refusing to bargain in good faith either with the National APWU. . .
”6 (GC Exh. 2) Primarily as a result of the consent order, Respondent implemented protocols for 40
processing unions’ requests for information (RFI). The system devised for the Detroit district
required Charging Party to use a dedicated facsimile line (fax) to submit RFIs to Respondent’s
labor relations department in Detroit. A second email is generated that forwards the RFI to the

6 The consent order addressed information request issues between Respondent and the American
Postal Workers Union (APWU), AFL–CIO, which represents a specific group of employees at
Respondent’s facilities nationwide.
JD–85–16
4
local facility’s human resources office, in this instance Ann Arbor, for a response. Either the
local office from where the union is seeking information responds to the RFI or the Detroit
district will respond. If the Detroit district responds to the RFI, it sends the requested
information to the local postal facility (Ann Arbor) for the local office to mail the information to
the requesting union. The response is sent via delivery confirmation or certified mail. On rare 5
occasions, Respondent will hand deliver information sought in response to Charging Union’s
RFI. In those instances, the Charging Union’s representative will sign an acknowledgment form.
Last, Respondent must respond to the RFI within 5 days of its receipt.
C. Respondent’s systems for tracking reassignments, grievances, and hires10
The parties’ CBA allows bargaining unit employees to bid on postings at locations
nationwide. Respondent utilizes a system named eReassign for tracking transfer requests.7
Available residual positions are normally posted monthly in eReassign. A letter carrier seeking a
transfer to a different location applies for a reassignment using the eReassign system. 15
Consequently, the employee is placed on a transfer list, referred to as a R02 report. The
“bidding” for a transfer or reassignment opens on the first of the month and ends on the 21st of
the month.8 The R02 report continuously adds and removes employees’ names from the list.9
Respondent utilizes the Grievance Activity Tracking System (GATS) to track the filing 20
of formal grievances. Pursuant to the CBA, there is a multistep process for the filing of and
response to grievances. (Jt. 1.) In the case at issue, the Detroit Resolution Team (DRT), which is
comprised of labor and management members, jointly work to adjudicate grievances.
25
D. Union’s RFI: July 21 and July 31
On July 21, Odegard submitted an RFI to Leveque using the dedicated fax line and
requested “a copy of the R02 report for the July 2015 results of the E21 bids concerning route
527.” Odegard requested the information because he knew that bids for routes had been posted;30
and the CCAs waiting to be converted to regular career positions wanted to know their status.
Consequently, about July 23 or 24, Vanburen met with Odegard and showed him an email, dated
July 22, from Curtis which read, “This posting just closed and no information is available.
However, once HQ has to review the report and it’s submitted to HQ NALC when it’s final, HQ
NALC provide report to the NALC National Business Agent.”10 (GC 4)35

7 eReassign is also referred to by Respondent and its workforce as E-21.
8 Under the “one in four rule,” for every one vacancy that occurs as a result of a reassignment via
eReassign, the MOU allows the conversion of three city carrier assistants (CCA) to a career position. The
CCA position is a noncareer position.
9 Curtis provided undisputed testimony that, “When applicants are in eReassign, headquarters
automatically approves conversions for any offices that has (sic) no applicants in eReassign. But
particularly for Ann Arbor, we had automatic conversions because of no applicants in the eReassign. (Tr.
101–102.)
10The email included handwritten notations by Porter in the upper right-hand corner of the email
noting the year (2015), the initials of the office the RFI was directed to (Ann Arbor), and the number of
RFI requests to date that office had received (134).
JD–85–16
5
On July 31, Odegard renewed his request asking for a, “copy of the R02 report of the July
2015 results of the E21 bids concerning route 527.” He also requested “proof of receipt to Ann
Arbor management from Local Services via e-mail when Ann Arbor management received
notification of the R02 report for July, if an e-mail exists.” (GC Exh. 5.)
5
On about August 5, Odegard received a package consisting of email correspondences
between several managers regarding his July 21 and 31, information requests. (GC Exh. 6.) In
response to one of the emails from Vanburen, Porter asks Tonya Kennish (Kennish) to provide
her a document or letter “to the Union stating that the [R02] report is provided to the Unions on a
National Level who then submits the reports to the Union Presidents. The Union stewards are 10
constantly requesting reports such as this one and eReassign.” Id. VanBuren responds to
everyone on the email chain that the RFI is a repeat of the union’s earlier request; and notes that
she cannot complete the RFI because she is missing the R02 report. The final response, within
the same email chain, is from Curtis noting someone was providing the requested information to
the National Union at that moment. Curtis also explained that the R02 report could change daily, 15
and that the finalized report would be sent to the national union. (GC Exh. 6.) Although Curtis
and Porter testified that they forwarded a blank R02 report for July 2015 to VanBuren to send to
Odegard, he never received it. Respondent presented no objective evidence confirming that the
R02 report at issue was sent to and received by the Charging Union.
20
E. Union’s RFI: June 27, August 24 and September 25
On June 27, the Charging Union, through Odegard, requested in writing:
Copy of proof of payment entered by Management for grievance settlement 25
#SJNAA04262014A, SJN AA04333014C, SJNAA04152014A, SJNAA03312014C;
SJNAA4112014A, SJNAA03312014A, SJNAA03192014C, SJNAA03142014C,
SJNAA03142014B, SJNAA03082014C, SJNAA08012014F, SJNAAQ302014E,
SJNAA03012014A, SJNAA01022014B, SJNAA03082014A, AA14C0501, and
AA14C407."1130
(GC Exh. 7.) Odegard submitted the RFI because a union steward at the Liberty Station told him
that there appeared to be several grievances that had not been processed and paid. On or about
July 2, Virgil Roddy reviewed information contained in the GATS to ascertain the status of the
grievances that were the subject of the Charging Union’s RFI. He determined that two of the 35
seventeen grievance settlements had been processed.12 However, there is no substantive or
credible evidence that this information was forwarded to the Charging Union.

11 In her posthearing brief, counsel for the General Counsel moved to amend par.8 of the complaint to
remove four of the grievance numbers that were originally part of the pleading. The motion to amend is
granted.
12 Roddy testified that after retrieving the information from the GATS, which appears at R. Exh. 7, he
forwarded it to Zandra Bland (Bland) for her to provide to the Charging Union. I, however, do not credit
Roddy’s testimony on this point because Respondent failed to call Bland to testify to corroborate Roddy’s
testimony. Board law allows me to draw an adverse inference that Bland would have testified contrary to
Respondent’s interest on this point. Spurlino Materials, LLC, 357 NLRB No. 126, slip op. at 12–13
(2011); Martin Luther King, Sr. Nursing Center, 231 NLRB 15, 15 fn. 1 (1977). Even assuming I
credited Roddy’s testimony, there is absolutely no evidence that Bland forwarded the information to the
JD–85–16
6
Consequently, after waiting more than a month for the requested information, on July 21,
the Charging Union filed a grievance, AA15C0642, asserting that the grievance settlements had
not been paid.13 The grievance was settled on July 27, with Respondent agreeing that proof of
payments on the grievance settlements would be provided within 14 days of the settlement and 5
the payments would be entered into the GATS. After the deadline passed without the Charging
Union receiving the payment information, on August 19, the Charging Union filed a second
grievance (AA15C0811) for Respondent’s failure to comply with the terms of the agreement that
was settled on July 27.
10
On August 24, the Charging Union filed another information request asking for a “copy
of the proof of payment in GATS and/or PS Form 224 (or Equivalent) for settlement for
#AA15C0642” and a copy of “proof of mailing copy of proof of payment in GATS and/or PS
Form 2240 (or equivalent) for settlement #AA15Co642 to NLAC Branch #434 by 8/10/15.” (GC
Exh. 11).15
On September 8, the DRT14 upheld the Charging Union’s August 19 grievance and
ordered Respondent to “enter the payments for Grievance Settlement #AA06C0517 through
GATS or on Form 2240 within 7 days of the receipt of this Step B Decision and give the Union a
copy within 7 days after the payments are entered into GATS or on form 2240.” (GC Exh. 10.)20
In response to the Charging Union’s August 24 RFI, on September 14, Respondent sent a
package to Odegard containing a series of GATS printouts listing grievance settlements. The
printouts, however, did not indicate whether the settlements had been paid by Respondent.
Moreover, the packet of information did not include a cover letter or other documentation25
explaining its content. (GC Exh. 12.) Another bargaining unit employee had to explain the
information to Odegard. Consequently, Odegard notified Bland and VanBuren that the
information was not responsive to his RFI. Bland and VanBuren told him that they would speak
with Roddy about providing him with the requested information.
30
On September 25, Odegard submitted another RFI through the dedicated fax line for, “a
copy of the GATS ‘Payout Request History’ for Grievance #AA15C0813 (GATS #15303386),
which indicates under the section titled ‘Paid and Errors from Finance’ whether or not the above
referenced grievance has been paid and what date it was requested.” (GC Exh. 15.) As a result
of the RFI, on October 14 or 15, Roddy and Odegard met to discuss the Charging Union’s 35
information request and review the status of the grievances that were the subject of the RFI.
Odegard identified for Roddy the grievance settlements that had not been paid or entered into
GATS. Roddy “fixed them all” and provided Odegard with the final printout showing that the

Charging Union.
13 The grievance document was not entered into the record because the parties could not locate it.
However, there is no dispute that the Charging Union filed grievance #AA15C0642 on or about July 21.
14 The DRT is also referred to as the “Step B Team” because it works to resolve grievance disputes at
step B of the grievance process.
JD–85–16
7
grievances had been paid. On October 15, Odegard acknowledged in writing that the Charging
Union’s RFI had been satisfied. (R. 8.)
III. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS5
A. LEGAL STANDARDS
Section 8(a) (5) of the Act mandates that an employer must provide a union with relevant
information that is necessary for the proper performance of its duties as the exclusive bargaining 10
representative. NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co. 351 U.S. 149, 153 (1956); Detroit Edison Co. v. NLRB,
440 U.S. 301, 303 (1979). “. . . [T]he duty to bargain unquestionably extends beyond the
period of contract negotiations and applies to labor-management relations during the term of an
agreement.” NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432, 436 (1967). Information requests
regarding bargaining unit employees’ terms and conditions of employment are “presumptively 15
relevant” and must be provided. Whitesell Corp., 352 NLRB 1196, 1197 (2008), adopted by a
three-member Board, 355 NLRB 649 (2010), enfd. 638 F.3d 883 (8th Cir. 2011); Southern
California Gas Co., 344 NLRB 231, 235 (2005). If the requested information is not directly
related to the bargaining unit, the information is not presumptively relevant, and the requesting
party has the burden of establishing the relevance of the requested material. Disneyland Park, 20
350 NLRB 1256, 1257 (2007); Earthgrains Co., 349 NLRB 389 (2007).
The standard for establishing relevancy is the liberal, “discovery-type standard.” Alcan
Rolled Products, 358 NLRB 37, 40 (2012), citing and quoting applicable authorities. In Leland
Stanford Junior University, 307 NLRB 75, 80 (1992), the Board summarized its application of 25
the principles as follows:
[T]he Board has long held that Section 8(a)(5) of the Act obligates an employer to
furnish requested information which is potentially relevant to the processing of
grievances. An actual grievance need not be pending nor must the requested information 30
clearly dispose of the grievance. It is sufficient if the requested information is potentially
relevant to a determination as to the merits of a grievance or an evaluation as to whether a
grievance should be pursued. United Technologies Corp., 274 NLRB 504 (1985); TRW,
Inc., 202 NLRB 729, 731.
35
The requested information does not have to be dispositive of the issue for which it is
sought, but only has to have some relation to it. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., 301 NLRB
1104, 1104–1105 (1991). The Board has also held that a union may make a request for
information in writing or orally. Further, the Board has found that a delay is unreasonable when
the information requested is easily and readily accessible from an employer’s files. Bundy Corp., 40
292 NLRB 671, 672 (1989).
B. Respondent’s unreasonable delay in providing the requests for information
The General Counsel alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act 45
because the Charging Union’s requests for information were relevant and necessary to the
performance of its duties as the designated servicing representative of the exclusive collective-
JD–85–16
8
bargaining representative of the unit; and Respondent’s delay in providing the information was
unreasonable. Respondent counters that it responded to the Charging Union’s RFIs within a
reasonable amount of time. Further, Respondent contends that Charging Union actual complaint
is not that it failed to respond to the RFI within a reasonable timeframe, but rather that
Respondent failed to timely pay the specified grievances. Respondent argues that a failure “to5
timely process the grievance settlements, however, does not equate to a failure or to furnish the
union with requested information.” (R. Br. 7.)
1. Information is presumptively relevant
10
Respondent admits that the requested information is necessary for, and relevant to, the
Charging Union’s performance of its duties as the designated servicing representative of the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit. (GC Exh. 1(f).)
Based on my independent assessment of the facts, I also find that the requested 15
information is relevant and necessary for the Charging Union to effectively perform its duties as
the exclusive representative of the bargaining unit. See United Graphics, Inc., 281 NLRB 463,
465 (1986) (the Board held that information presumptively relevant to the union’s role as
bargaining agent must be provided to the union as it “relates directly to the policing of contract
terms.”). 20
2. Respondent unreasonably delayed in responding to Charging Union’s RFIs
Respondent contends that it made a diligent effort to provide the information “reasonably
promptly” explaining that within a few days of receiving the Charging Union’s June 27, RFI 25
Roddy “produced documentation showing that two of the grievance settlements had been
processed, but that others had not.” (R. Br. 6.) Moreover, Respondent argues that it responded to
the Charging Union’s August 24, RFI about three weeks later when the Charging Union was
informed that none of the remaining grievances had been processed. On October 14 or 15, in
response to the third identical RFI submitted on September 25 by the Charging Union, 30
Respondent, through its manager, provided the Charging Union with proof that the grievance
settlements had been processed and paid. Respondent insists the charge should be dismissed
because that “management failed to timely process those grievance settlements may well have
constituted a violation of the parties’ applicable collective bargaining agreement, or even a
violation of the Act, but that was not alleged in the instant Complaint.” (R. Br. 7.) Based on the 35
factors that are considered in evaluating whether Respondent exhibited a reasonable good-faith
effort to respond to the RFIs, Respondent argues that its efforts were reasonably prompt. See
Allegheny Power, 339 NLRB 585 (2003) (factors to consider in assessing the promptness of the
response are complexity and extent of the requested information, its availability, and difficulty in
accessing the information.) 40
I find that Respondent’s arguments fail. It is clear that Respondent’s actions, given the
totality of the circumstances, do not meet the definition of reasonable promptness as set forth in
West Penn Power Co. None of Respondent’s witnesses testified that the RFIs were complex or
voluminous. The evidence established that it took a minimal amount of time to access the 45
information in GATS; and the Charging Union submitted its RFIs to management officials who
all acknowledged that they were authorized to access and print the information.
JD–85–16
9
Moreover, Respondent’s contention that it responded to the Charging Union within days
of receiving the RFI is not persuasive. On June 27, the Charging Union initially requested copy
of proof of payment for seventeen grievance settlements. A few days later, Roddy researched
the issue via the GATS and determined that only two of the seventeen settlements had been paid. 5
I previously found, however, that there is no credible evidence that this information was relayed
to the Charging Union. Consequently, on August 24, the Charging Union renewed its request for
the information and also demanded proof that the information was mailed. It was not until
September 14, that Respondent, through Roddy, sent the Charging Union a packet of information
containing documents retrieved from the GATS. According to Respondent, the documents 10
showed a list and related documents of all the grievances Roddy had settled. I find that this was
not responsive because the package did not include an explanation of its contents nor an
indication of which, if any, grievance settlements had been paid. Even assuming the information
was sufficient, the response was made 2 ½ months after the initial request. I find that this
constitutes an unreasonable delay. Regency Service Carts, Inc., 345 NLRB 671, 674 (2005) (the 15
Board found a 16-weeks delay in providing information unreasonable); Bundy Corp., 292 NLRB
671 (1989) (the Board found a 6-weeks delay in providing information unreasonable); Woodland
Clinic, 331 NLRB 735, 737 (2000) (the Board found a 7-weeks delay in furnishing information
unreasonable); Postal Service, 332 NLRB 635 (2000) (the Board found that a 5-weeks delay in
furnishing information unreasonable); Postal Service, 354 NLRB No. 58 (2009) (the Board 20
found that a 28-day delay in providing information unreasonable).
Accordingly, I find the Respondent’s delay in responding to the Charging Union’s
request for information was unreasonable and thus violates Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act and
within the meaning of the PRA.25
C. Respondent failed to respond to Charging Union’s request for R02 Report
The General Counsel alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act 30
when, since about July 21, Respondent failed or refused to provide the Charging Union with
relevant and necessary information on a R02 report revealing the names of employees who had
bid on transfers and the status of those bids. The Respondent, however, counters that it timely
provided the Charging Union with the R02 report which showed “no employees had applied to
transfer to an Ann Arbor vacancy during the relevant time period.” (R. Br. 7.)35
Once again the relevancy of the RFI is undisputed. Therefore, the remaining question is
whether Respondent complied with the lawful request. I find that Respondent failed to fulfill its
legal obligation to provide the Charging Union with the necessary and relevant requested
information.40
Odegard specifically requested the R02 report for the July 2015 results of the E21 bids
concerning route 527. He made this request through the proper channels. Despite
acknowledging the request and its relevancy, the only information Respondent provided him was
an email stating no information was available at that time. Respondent also instructed him that 45
once the report was finalized it would be sent to the Charging Union’s national branch which
would in turn forward it to NALC’s business agent. More clearly stated, Respondent did not
JD–85–16
10
provided Odegard with the information. Instead, the Respondent ignored him by allegedly
sending the finalized R02 report to the National Union; therefore, requiring Odegard to face an
additional unnecessary hurdle to procure the information. Respondent’s action is inconsistent
with its obligation under the Act. See Holyoke Water Power Co., 273 NLRB 1369 (1985) (the
Board held, “…the availability of information from another source does not alter a party’s duty 5
to provide relevant and necessary information that is readily available.”); NACCO Material
Handling Group, 359 NLRB No. 139 (2013) (the Board upheld the administrative law judge’s
finding that requiring the Union to obtain information from another party does not relieve the
employer from its obligation to provide to the Union the relevant and necessary information.)
10
Accordingly, I find the Respondent failed and refused to provide the Union with relevant
and necessary information that it requested since on or about July 21, in violation of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
15
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent, United States Postal Service, provides postal service for the United States
and operates various facilities throughout the United States. The Board has jurisdiction over
Respondent and this matter by virtue of Section 1209 of the PRA.20
2. The National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL–CIO and the Charging Union are
labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By its unreasonable delay in providing the necessary and relevant information 25
requested by the Charging Union since on or about June 27, 2015, Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act and within the meaning
of the PRA.
4. By failing and refusing to furnish the necessary and relevant information requested by 30
the Charging Union since about July 21, 2015, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act and within the meaning of the PRA.
4. The above unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.35
5. The Respondent has not violated the Act except as set forth above.
REMEDY40
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices by its
delay in providing the Charging Union with the necessary and relevant information it requested,
I shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.45
JD–85–16
11
The General Counsel requests that I order as appropriate remedies an affirmative
bargaining order, a broad cease-and-desist order, and “any other labor organization” language for
the Respondent’s unreasonable delay in providing the Charging Union with the requested
information in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. While I find that traditional
remedies are inappropriate in this matter, I reject the General Counsel’s argument that notices 5
should be posted at all Respondent’s facilities within the state of Michigan.
In Hickmott Foods, 242 NLRB 1357 (1987), the Board held that a broad cease-and-desist
order is warranted only when it has been established that an employer has a proclivity to violate
the Act or has engaged in such egregious or widespread misconduct as to demonstrate its general 10
disregard for the employees’ statutory rights. The Board has also found that a broad posting
requirement was appropriate when the respondent displayed “a clear pattern or practice of
unlawful conduct.” Postal Service, 339 NLRB 1162, 1162 (2003). I find that the evidence in this
case is sufficient to show that in the Detroit District and the Ann Arbor, Michigan facilities,
Respondent has shown a proclivity to violate the Act or engaged in such egregious misconduct 15
as to demonstrate a disregard for employees’ fundamental statutory rights. The settlements,
judgments, and orders cited by the General Counsel to support issuance of the requested
remedies involve both the Detroit District and in the case of the Consent Order at General
Counsel Exhibit 2 the Ann Arbor, Michigan facilities. A notice posting throughout the state of
Michigan is not warranted because there was undisputed credible testimony that management in 20
the Detroit District does not have control over any area besides the Detroit District. (Tr. 104–
105) There was no evidence that the Detroit District was or has been involved in a coordinated
state-wide effort with the other areas in Michigan to circumvent the process for responding to
RFIs.
25
Therefore, Respondent will be ordered to post and communicate by electronic post to
employees the attached Appendix and notice.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended1530
ORDER
Respondent, United States Postal Service, in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and the Detroit 35
district its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Branch 434, National Association of Letter 40
Carriers (NALC), AFL–CIO (Charging Union) by failing and refusing to and, or unreasonably
delaying in providing the Charging Union, information requested that is necessary and relevant
to its role as the exclusive representative of the employees in following unit:

15 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–85–16
12
All full-time and regular part-time city letter carriers employed by Respondent at
various facilities throughout the United States, but excluding professional
employees, employees engaged in personnel work in other than a purely non-
confidential clerical capacity, postal inspection service employees, employees in 5
the supplemental work force, rural letter carriers, mail handlers, maintenance
employees, special delivery messengers, motor vehicle employees, postal clerks,
managerial employees, supervisory personnel, and security guards as defined in
Public Law 9-375, 1201(2).
10
(b) In any like or related manner, interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the purposes and policies
of the Act.15
(a) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, furnish the Union with all
information it has requested since on or about July 21, 2015.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facilities within the Detroit 20
District, including Ann Arbor, Michigan, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”16
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being
signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to
employees and members are customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, 25
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 the facility 30
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 27, 2015.
35

16 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.”
(c) Within 21 days afte
certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that
the Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C., September 5

10
13
r service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn
2, 2016
Christine E. Dibble
Administrative Law Judge
JD–85–16
(CED)
JD–85–16
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively and in good faith with Branch 434, National
Association of Letter Carriers (NALC), AFL–CIO (Union) by failing and refusing to
furnish it with requested information in a timely manner that is relevant and necessary to
the Union’s performance of its duties as the collective-bargaining representative of our
unit employees at our Detroit District facilities, including the Ann Arbor, Michigan
installation.
We will provide the Union with a copy of the R02 report for the July 2015 results of the
E-21 bids concerning route 527.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner fail and refuse to bargain collectively and in
good faith with the Union as the servicing representative of the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of our employees in the Unit at our Detroit District facilities,
including Ann Arbor, Michigan.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed to 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
JD–85–16
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.
Patrick V. McNamara Federal Building
477 Michigan Avenue, Room 300
Detroit, Michigan 48226-2543
Telephone: (313) 226-3200
Fax: (313) 226-2090
Hours of Operation: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. ET
Hearing impaired callers should contact the Federal Relay Service by visiting its website at
www.federalrelay.us/tty
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/07-CA-160663 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
1015 Half Street, S.E., 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, (313) 226-3200.