United States Postal Service

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 19, 1974

211 N.L.R.B. 727 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
United States Postal Service and Robert P. Kendrigan
and Bernado Anthony Berardi . Cases 1-CA-
9287(P) and 1-CA-9289(P)!
June 19, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On February 25, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
Benjamin B. Lipton issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, counsel for the General
Counsel and Respondent filed exceptions and
supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions 1 and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings,
findings,2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that Respondent, United States Postal
Service, Randolph, Massachusetts, its officers,
agents , successors , and assigns , shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order.
I In its exceptions to the Board , Respondent urges for the first time that
the denial of a temporary promotion to employee Kendrigan, found by the
Administrative Law Judge to have been discriminatory and violative of Sec.
8(a)(3) of the Act, should be deferred to the contractual arbitration
procedure under the Collyer doctrine (Collyer Insulated Wire, 192 NLRB
837). Respondent 's contention lacks merit in view of established precedent
that the Board will not consider the Collyer defense for the first time in
exceptions . McDonald Engineering Co., 202 NLRB 748; Hunter Saw Division
of ASKO, Inc., 202 NLRB 330. Members Fanning and Jenkins would not
defer to arbitration in any event , in accordance with their dissent in Collyer.
2 The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Administrative Law Judge . It is the Board 's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd . 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
All dates are in 1973 unless otherwise specified.
2 The separate charges by Kendrigan and Berardi were filed and served,
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
727
BENJAMIN B. LIPTON, Administrative Law Judge: This
proceeding was tried before me on December 10 and 11,
1973,1 in Boston , Massachusetts , upon a complaint by the
General Counsel alleging certain violations of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act .2 Briefs submitted by the General
Counsel and Respondent have been duly considered.
Upon the entire record in the cases, and from my
observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
Under the authority of the Postal Reorganization Act,
effective July 1, 1971, Respondent is subject to the
jurisdiction of the Board. Respondent operates a post
office and facility, solely involved herein, at Randolph,
Massachusetts.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
National Association of Letter Carriers, Branch 2512,
herein called NALC and Branch 2512, and American
Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO, Randolph Local, herein
called APWU and Randolph Local, are each labor
organizations within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Essential Issues
1. Whether Respondent engaged in certain interroga-
tions and threats independently violative of Section 8(a)(1).
2. Whether Respondent at the Randolph Post Office
violated Section 8(a)(3) by refusing to promote employees
Robert P. Kendrigan and Bernado Anthony Berardi to
supervisory positions on or about May 3 and June 8, and
by denying Kendrigan on or about August 1 an appoint-
ment to a temporary detail at a higher rate of pay.
B. Introduction and Background
Following the effective date of the Postal Reorganization
Act in July 1971, the preexisting recognized labor organiza-
tion, NALC, was severed into two different unions: NALC
continued to represent the letter carriers; and APWU was
formed to represent the postal clerks. New national
agreements were thereafter executed with NALC and
APWU. The record indicates, and it is a matter of official
notice, that before and after the postal reorganization there
has been a long history of collective-bargaining contracts
respectively, on August 22 and 23. The complaint issued on October 22, and
was amended at the hearing to allege certain additional related violations.
211 NLRB No. 97
728 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on behalf of the carriers and clerks . At the Randolph Post
Office virtually all of the employees (about 66) have been
union members . Both of the Charging Parties have been
past presidents of NALC Branch 2512 . Berardi held this
office for i year in 1969 and 1970, and Kendrigan from
January 1971 through August 1972. Kendrigan's term of
office encompassed the period immediately after postal
reorganization and the new union contract . During this
time, new procedures and problems were encountered
giving the rise to certain grievances in which Kendrigan
was actively involved as a union officer . In August 1972,
Kendrigan had to resign as the local president in order to
accept appointment for 60 days as a temporary supervisor.
Thereafter, Pink rotated Kendrigan and Berardi in
temporary assignments to this position . When questioned
by Kendrigan, Pink explained that he had only two
qualified people in the office and would rotate them. In his
performance on this duty, Kendrigan was praised by his
immediate supervisor.
As further background evidence , Kendrigan testified
without contradiction concerning frequent conversations
he had with Robert Tripp, then foreman at Randolph for
delivery and collections. They were personal friends and
visited each other's homes .3 In May 1971, Tripp informed
Kendrigan that he had just returned from a management
training school and that the new post office direction was
away from the union . He advised Kendrigan that, if he was
going to be on the bandwagon, he should not be
overzealous with union activity. In November 1971, and
later in February and March 1972, Tripp told Kendrigan
he was filing too many grievances, he was overzealous, and
he should slow down as there was too much pressure
within the Randolph office . In other discussions with
Tripp, Kendrigan was cautioned that he was making too
many calls to John M. Mulhern, a national field director
for NALC. Tripp resigned in June 1972. As to the May
conversation , this testimony can scarcely be regarded as
establishing the policy of the Postal Service or of the
Randolph facility then or at any time. And particularly
since the essential issues herein pertain to the conduct and
motives of the Randolph postmaster, John H. Pink, I do
not attribute to Pink , as background, the comments of
Tripp made in 1971 in the circumstances described.
However, certain documentary evidence was offered by
General Counsel concerning union-related controversies
between Pink and Kendrigan, as the local president, in the
early months of 1972.4 In January 1972, Pink informed
Kendrigan that he was making Vernon M. Whiteside a
regular carrier . Kendrigan stated that , in such event, he
would have to file a grievance because of the contract
seniority provisions and the crossing of crafts . Whiteside
was then a part-time nonregular employee . Kendrigan took
up with Mulhern at NALC the Whiteside question and
certain other complaints , including a year-round vacation
program proposed by Kendrigan and rejected by Pink.
Mulhern wrote to W. F . Bolger , metropolitan center
manager of the Postal Service , in which he criticized
Postmaster Pink in strong language as "inefficient." There
were further communications between Mulhern and Bolger
extending to May 1972. In result, Pink was overridden by
Bolger as to Whiteside and other matters raised by
Kendrigan . In August 1972, Kendrigan was summoned by
Pink, who explained that he was denied his step raise
because of his inability to cope with the union. Pink asked
Kendrigan to write a letter on union stationery to Richard
E. Samuelson , Pink's immediate superior, attesting that
very good labor relations existed at Randolph . kendrigan
would not write the letter but offered to talk to Samuelson.
C. Evidence on the Issues
John M . Quinn, a clerk , and president of APWU
Randolph Local , gave uncontroverted testimony of a
conversation with Postmaster Pink in March 1973 relating
to Berardi . At the time, Berardi was involved with Quinn
and the steward in filing or processing several grievances,
one of them against NALC. Outside Berardi's presence,
Pink remarked to Quinn , "I can't understand this guy. He
wants to be part of the management team , but he's filing a
lot of grievances . And they don't like . . . this type of
individual , this guy filing all these type of grievances."
Thereafter , Quinn related the conversation to Berardi.
Pink's statement implied that Berardi's active participation
in filing "these type of grievances" was viewed adversely
by management with respect to Berardi's desire to become
a supervisor . Thus it contained a coercive element and
would tend to discourage Berardi and employees generally
from filing grievances-a protected activity under the Act.
Accordingly, I find this statement by Pink violated Section
8(a)(1), as alleged.
Most of the issues herein arise from the unsuccessful
applications of Kendrigan and Berardi for two supervisory
positions in the Randolph office which were filed in the
spring of 1973 . These appointments are not subject to the
contract grievance procedure . Respondent's contentions
are not at all clear that Postmaster Pink had no control in
the selection process . Under postal regulations , a three-
member advisory promotion board is empaneled to
interview and examine the records of the qualified
candidates , following which the Board recommends to
Pink a particular candidate for the promotion . Pink may
approve or reject such recommendation . If he approves, he
sends the advisory board files to Samuelson , the sectional
center manager, with a request for permission to make the
appointment . As he testified , Samuelson does not enter
into the decision ; if the procedures are correct, he normally
grants the postmaster 's request . In addition , a written
evaluation is made out for each supervisory candidate on
behalf of Postmaster Pink by one of his top aides, James G.
West , the superintendent of mails . These evaluation forms
are included in the files at the disposal of the advisory
board, which may place substantial reliance thereon. The
members of the advisory board are selected entirely by the
postmaster if there are three or more available supervisors
at his branch one step above the level of the position to be
filled . If there are less than three at his branch, he requests
3 Although at the same time Kendrigan indicated they developed a through 6(e)) which were placed in the rejected exhibit file during the
"personality conflict."
4 Upon reconsideration , I admit these exhibits (G.C. Exhs. 5 and 6(a)
hearing.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 729
the sectional center manager to supply names for the
number of supervisors he needs on the advisory board.5
On April 13, the first advisory board was assembled to
review candidates for the position of foreman of mails.
West was selected by Pink from the Randolph branch, and
the other two members referred by Samuelson were
postmasters of the Rockland and Hanover Post Offices.
The candidates consisted of all four eligible employees on
the examination register : Kendrigan, Berardi, Whiteside,
and Phillip C. Welch. On April 9 and 10, West had
prepared written evaluations of these candidates .6 After
conducting the individual interviews, the advisory board
unanimously recommended Whiteside. With Pink's ap-
proval, the papers were forwarded to Samuelson. In the
interim , Kendrigan protested to Mulhern that the advisory
board was improperly constituted, as two of the members
were postmasters . In consequence, Samuelson was called
by a higher postal official, and Pink was thereafter
instructed to revoke the April advisory board. Pink
proceeded to appoint Whiteside to the job on a temporary
basis.7 Thus, Whiteside obtained an advantage. On May 3,
a new advisory board was convened. West was again
designated by Pink; and the new members were Charles F.
Devine, acting superintendent of mails at Brockton, and
Frank J. Harkins, assistant postmaster at Holbrook.8 The
same candidates were interviewed. Whiteside was recom-
mended and thereafter appointed. Kendrigan filed a
promotion appeal (as distinguished from a grievance),
which was denied by his immediate supervisor and
apparently ended at this level. About May 9, Kendrigan
sought out West and sarcastically thanked him for his help
with the advisory board. West maintained that he was for
Kendrigan, and then declined Kendrigan's request to see
the advisory board reports. Cross accusations ensued.
About this time, Berardi also approached West on the
same subject.9 He asked West how he voted. According to
Berardi , West said he voted the way he was instructed by
the postmaster. Berardi then asked how he would vote the
next time , and West replied he would have to vote the way
the postmaster told him. Pink testified that he did not
discuss the candidates with any member of any of the
advisory boards in question. Whether or not West was so
instructed by Pink, I am inclined to believe that Berardi
did not make up the conversation of whole cloth,10 and I
credit him. To remove any appearance of bias, West
requested of Pink that he not be named to the next
advisory board.
On June 8, the position of foreman of delivery and
collections was processed through an advisory board,
consisting of Harkins, Clarence P. Thompson, assistant
postmaster at Middleboro, and Edward J. Sexton, assistant
postmaster at Whitman. The candidates were Kendrigan,
Berardi, Welch, and Ronald D. Berkey. Welch was
unanimously recommended, and ultimately appointed.11
Each member entered a final rating of the respective
candidates in the order of one to four, and the results were
tallied at the conclusion of interviews.12 Kendrigan and
Berardi wrote to Pink (pursuant to the Postal Manual),
each requesting the reason he was not selected and seeking
advice on correcting any personal deficiencies. Thereafter,
each of them requested to see Pink to explain his written
responses. Berardi asked him what he meant by his
statement that Berardi did "not demonstrate a cooperative
relationship with the management structure of his office
consistently." Answering, Pink specifically cited a griev-
ance Berardi had put in as alternate steward in May
concerning the new foreman, Whiteside. Kendrigan asked
Pink why he was not chosen, and was told that he was "too
social" and that his "behind the scenes" activity with the
union was not in accord with the new post office policy.
It is alleged that members of the advisory boards in May
and June unlawfully interrogated employees concerning
their activities in NALC and APWU. There is no such
allegation relating to the April advisory board, and
Kendrigan indicated he was not questioned by this board
regarding his union affiliations. At the advisory board
interview, Devine described his own high offices in NALC,
and inquired as to Kendrigan's union background. He also
asked what Kendrigan thought of the local negotiations.
Harkins asked Kendrigan about the number of grievances
he filed as union president, and to give an example of one.
Kendrigan simply testified that he responded, but gave no
example. On the nature of the grievances, Kendrigan said
they concerned annual leave. Thompson questioned
whether Kendrigan could divorce himself from the union if
given the job. Kendrigan answered that union and
management could work together. Kendrigan volunteered
remarks, based on his union experience, to demonstrate his
capability in dealing with labor relations as a supervisor.
Berardi's sole testimony was that, in the May advisory
board,-"they asked me about union, if I filed any
grievances." The other candidates were not called to testify
on this issue. West made no inquiries of the candidates
regarding the union or grievances. As noted, his written
evaluations were among the advisory board papers.
Neither West nor Pink discussed the candidates at any
time with members of the advisory boards. And in their
functions the members did not consult with each other
5 In the instance of the advisory board utilized by Pink in June,
Samuelson sent a list of five names, of whom Pink selected three.
8 As to Berardi, one of the comments was that this employee "has
submitted a number of grievances in relation to his job and one on
discrimination ." There were several favorable remarks. As to Kendrigan,
there were comments ; e.g., that he was a past union president and very
active in all phases of union work; that he was influenced into "being a
watchdog for the whole office"; and that his union activities would enable
him to do a very good job in relation to communications with the
employees.
7 It may be noted , although Pink had the same authority temporarily to
fill this job during a period of its vacancy before the April advisory board,
he apparently chose not to do so.
West had been the local president of NALC in 1962. For a number of
years, Devine had held presidencies in local , state, and regional branches of
NALC. Harkins had been president of the carriers' local in Holbrook.
9 In addition, Berardi wrote to Pink for an explanation of the advisory
board result and received a reply.
10 It was generally denied by West.
11 On the rating forms, Thompson noted his belief that Berardi has fixed
feelings toward others on the management team which would hinder his
effectiveness as a supervisor; Sexton stated that Berardi does not seem to be
able to get along with the postmaster (Pink); Harkins wrote that Berardi's
attitude toward the postmaster is questionable . The comments of each of
these members regarding Kendrigan were quite favorable.
11 The scores of the candidates from the examination register determined
only their eligibility to apply for the particular position and apparently were
not considered in evaluating the individual.
730 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD }
concerning their respective opinions or their individual
ratings of the candidates . I accept the testimony that all the
candidates at the various advisory boards were asked
similar questions on their union background and activity. I
do not find that the members, other than West, were aware
of Kendrigan 's and Berardi 's prior union difficulties with
Postmaster Pink . Various criteria derived from the Postal
Manual were to be used as guides in the selection process
and were outlined on standard forms supplied to each
advisory board member . These included leadership ability,
ability to work effectively with others , attitude towards
Postal Service, and participation in outside activities.
Except as already described , the evidence indicates that the
union questions at the advisory boards were brief and
general in nature . It was common knowledge in the
Randolph office that Kendrigan and Berardi were past
local union presidents . Special circumstances exist in this
case indicating legitimate purposes for certain union
interrogations . Interviews of employees for supervisory
positions were being conducted; the candidates appeared
voluntarily; established postal procedures were employed;
and as the context, there existed a long history of
collective-bargaining relations . The questions , including
those relating to grievances , were free of employer hostility
toward union or concerted activity. The questions them-
selves were not coercive in nature . Nor were they such as to
exceed the necessities of legitimate purpose; e.g., ascertain-
ing experience in grievance handling, labor relations, and
dealing effectively with employees. Indeed , some of the
union information was volunteered by Kendrigan in an
effort to enhance his qualifications . Under all these
circumstances, I am constrained to hold that the advisory
board interrogations were not violative of the Act.13
Within the 10(b) limitation period, as illumined by the
earlier background history, there is sufficient evidence
from which it may reasonably be inferred , as I do, that
Postmaster Pink harbored an animus toward Kendrigan
and Berardi , as union officers and otherwise, relating to
their zeal in filing complaints and grievances within the
Randolph office . The record does not reflect any justifiable
basis for a belief that Kendrigan or Berardi engaged in
excesses or abuses of the right to present grievances. In my
view , there are grounds for suspicion that they were
discriminatorily denied the supervisory positions in May
and June as a consequence of the influence exerted by
Pink . But suspicion is not enough . It is apparent that Pink
could successively disapprove the recommendations of the
advisory boards until he obtained the result he desired.
However, it is affirmatively evidenced, in each instance of
the May and June advisory boards, that two of the three
members acted entirely independently in voting to recom-
mend Whiteside and Welch for the two respective
supervisory positions . Therefore, my conclusion is that
General Counsel failed to sustain the burden of proof that
Kendrigan and Berardi were discriminatorily deprived of
these promotions.
I would add, however, that there is no basis or warrant
for the extreme arguments of Respondent's counsels, at the
hearing and in their brief, that Kendrigan and Berardi
brought their cases to the Board as "unsuccessful and
vengeful supervisory candidates" engaged in "cheap little
attempts to destroy the reputation of the Randolph
Postmaster," and "casting aspersions on the integrity of the
members of the Supervisory Promotion Boards . . . and
against the Postal Service ." The brief further argues that, in
the event these violations are found , public policy would
preclude the Board from ordering promotion of the
Charging Parties who had failed to qualify successfully
under Postal Service regulations . It need only be said, for
possible future guidance, that the authority of the Board to
find unfair labor practices committed by the Postal
Service, as any other Respondent within its jurisdication, is
clearly established by statute, and that the Board has broad
remedial powers under Section 10 (c) of the Act to
eliminate the effects of violations , including the issuance of
orders that discriminatees be made whole.
Discrimination against Kendrigan is further alleged in
Pink's failure in August to appoint him to a higher level
temporary detail . Barardi regularly held the job as vehicle
operations maintenance assistant , called VOMA. He was
then on military leave for 3 weeks . Pink posted the position
for employee applications, and Kendrigan submitted his
bid. Pink assigned the job to John Shephard. Kendrigan
filed a grievance , seeking only the difference in pay
because the job was temporary. His testimony is that
Shephard was the lowest man on the seniority list. At the
first step, Kendrigan took the grievance to his immediate
supervisor, Welch, and it was denied . At the second level,
the grievance was considered between Thomas Doolan, the
alternate steward, and Postmaster Pink. While in Pink's
office , Doolan requested the presence of Kendrigan to
specify the dates he claimed to have previously performed
VOMA work. Pink denied this request , stating that Doolan
had to do the representing , and further that Kendrigan
would only interpret the contract to his own way of
thinking. It is not contended that, under the contract
grievance procedures, Kendrigan had a right to be present
at the second step . I am unable to find support for the
8(a)(l) violation alleged by the General Counsel on the
basis of such conduct. In Pink's written response denying
the grievance , he stated there is "no official record" to
indicate that Kendrigan filled in as foreman of delivery
and collections in the summer of 1972.14 At the third step,
Kendrigan's grievance was denied by letter on October 1,
from a regional postal representative to Mulhern, on the
ground that such a temporary detail is not subject to the
seniority provisions of the national contract . Kendrigan
had in fact performed the VOMA work during the period
Kendrigan was acting supervisor in August 1972, supra.
Kendrigan has been a letter carrier for 6 years, and has had
commendations in his performance as acting supervisor.
His competence appears unquestioned in this record. It is
significantly implausible and unconceivable to me that
Pink, especially after the point was brought to his attention
by Doolan, would rest upon a purported lack of "official
record" to reflect Kendrigan had actually done the VOMA
ie Compare Johnnies ' Poultry Co, 146 NLRB 770, 774-775; Bonnie
Bourne, d/bla Bourne Co. v N LR.B., 332 F 2d 47, 48 (C A . 2, 1964). And
see American Painting Company, 173 NLRB 73, 76
14 Pink added-",t is felt that this gnevance at Step 3 is only for
imtation value at the request of the gnevant."
I UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
work in 1972. Moreover, while seniority does not apply
under the particular provisions of the contract, it is
frequently recognized as a generic consideration, at least
denoting overall experience with the employer, where other
factors are approximately equal in arriving at a manage-
ment decision .15 When the job was announced for
competitive employee applications, it was impliedly held
out that the selection would be made on some objective
standards rather than pure discretion. However the
situation , the decision could not be made, in whole or
substantial part, for discriminatory reasons proscribed by
the Act. In my opinion, the evidence sufficiently establish-
es in this instance a prima facie case of discrimination
against Kendrigan, which was not rebutted. Respondent
made no attempt to show any reason for Pink's judgment
that Shephard was better qualified or more desirable for
the job in the interest of the Postal Service. The true reason
for passing over Kendrigan, I find, was the animus relating
to his union zeal which Pink harbored against him, as
earlier shown. Consequently, in light of the entire record, I
conclude that Kendrigan was discriminatorily denied this
temporary higher level assignment in violation of Section
8(a)(3).
One of the amended allegations involves a conversation
on or about October 6 between Kevin Murray, a part-time
substitute carrier, and his supervisor, Welch. Murray had
spoken to Kendrigan for advice concerning a working rule
affecting part-time carriers. Shortly thereafter, the rule was
clarified at a higher level in the office. Welch later told
Murray he should have come to him first with the problem
and it would have been resolved. He said Murray used to
be one of his best workers, but his attitude changed. He
was listening to the wrong people and getting bad dope,
naming Kendrigan. If he wanted to go anywhere in the
post office, he should try to change his ways. The
contention is essentially that Supervisor Welch sought to
restrain Murray from associating with Kendrigan because
of the latter's prominence in union activities. The evidence
is vague ; too much is left by General Counsel for inference
as to what Welch meant. Accordingly, this allegation is
dismissed.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that, in violation of Section 8(a)(3),
Respondent denied Kendrigan a temporary assignment for
about 3 weeks in August 1973 at a higher rate of pay. I
shall therefore recommend that the Respondent make
Kendrigan whole for any loss of earnings suffered by
reasons of the discrimination against him, by payment to
him of the difference in pay which he would have earned,
absent the discrimination, covering the period that She-
15 Cf. Jack G. Buncher, d/b/a The Buncher Company, 164 NLRB 340,
enfd. 405 F .2d 787 (C.A. 3, 1969), cert. denied 396 U.S. 828 (196).
16 Backpay shall carry interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum, as set
forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
17 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
731
phard commenced and concluded this assignment to the
temporary VOMA position.16 It is further recommended
that Respondent preserve and, upon request, make
available to the Board, all payroll records, social security
payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary and useful to determine the
amounts of backpay due under the terms of this recom-
mended Order.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire
record, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent, United States Postal Service, is subject
to the Board's jurisdiction by virtue of the Postal
Reorganization Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1209(a).
2. NALC and its Branch 2512, and APWU and its
Randolph Local, are each labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discriminatorily denying Kendrigan an assign-
ment to the higher level temporary position of VOMA in
August 1973, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
4. By the foregoing, and by other acts and conduct
interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the
exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the above findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
the entire record in the cases, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 17
Respondent, United States Postal Service, Randolph,
Massachusetts, its officers , agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercing or restraining employees or their representa-
tives with respect to their right to file and process
grievances or complaints under the provisions of the
existing collective-bargaining contracts or in their similar
union or concerted activities protected by the Act.
(b) Discriminating against Robert T. Kendrigan, or any
other employees at the Randolph Post Office, by denying
Kendrigan or such other employees assignments or
promotions, or in any other manner discriminating in
regard to hire or tenure of employment, or any term or
condition of employment.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become
its findings , conclusions, and order , and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
732 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make Robert T. Kendrigan whole for any loss of
earnings in the manner set forth in The Remedy section of
the Decision.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents all payroll and other records, as set
forth in The Remedy section of the Decision.
(c) Post at its Randolph, Massachusetts, Post Office and
facility, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix." 18 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 1, shall, after being duly
signed by an authorized representative of Respondent, be
posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places , including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken to ensure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Decision, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be
dismissed insofar as it alleges violations no specifically
found herein.
provisions of the existing collective-bargaining
agreements with the Postal Service, or in their
similar union or concerted activities protected by
the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT discriminate against Robert P.
Kendrigan or any employees in the Randolph
Post Office, in denying Robert P. Kendrigan or
such other employees assignments or promotions,
or in any other manner discriminating in regard
to hire or tenure of employment, or any term or
condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
WE WILL make whole Robert P. Kendrigan for
his loss of earnings suffered by reason of our
failure to assign him to the temporary detail of
VOMA in August 1973, plus 6-percent interest.
UNITED STATES POSTAL
SERVICE
(Employer)
18 In the event the Board 's 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."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT coerce or restrain employees or
their representatives with respect to their right to
file or process grievances or complaints under the
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
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 compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, Seventh Floor, Bulfinch Building, 15
New Chardon Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02114,
Telephone 617-223-3300.