United States Postal Service

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 30, 2004

341 N.L.R.B. 684 (N.L.R.B. 2004)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 684
United States Postal Service and American Postal
Workers Union National Association of Letter
Carriers Branch 283, affiliated with National
Association of Letter Carriers, AFL–CIO. Cases
16–CA–22766, 16–CA–22854, 16–CA–22855, 16–
CA–22868, 16–CA–22931 16–CA–22961, and 16–
CA–22989
April 30, 2004
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN
AND SCHAUMBER
On January 21, 2004, Administrative Law Judge
George Carson II issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions and brief in support. The Gen-
eral Counsel filed a motion to strike Respondent’s brief
and an answering brief to Respondent’s exceptions. Re-
spondent filed a response to the motion to strike and a
reply brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exceptions and briefs1 and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,2 and conclusions3
and to adopt the recommended Order as modified.4

1 We deny the General Counsel’s motion to strike the Respondent’s
brief in its entirety. However, we shall strike and disregard references
in the brief to extra-record evidence. We assume, arguendo, that we
may take official notice of the one-page excerpt of Respondent’s em-
ployee labor relations manual (ELM) attached to its brief because the
ELM is an official regulation of the Postal Service. This document
does not affect our agreement with the judge’s conclusion that Respon-
dent violated Sec. 8(a)(5) by unilaterally changing its established policy
of automatically granting the requests of Spring area postal employees
represented by the National Association of Letter Carriers to take leave
without pay for their choice vacation period.
2 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an adminis-
trative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponder-
ance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect.
Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362
(3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no
basis for reversing the findings.
3 There are no exceptions to the judge’s conclusion that the Respon-
dent committed several violations of Sec. 8(a)(5) by failing to provide
information requested by the Unions.
Member Schaumber notes that the issue of whether the relatively
scant “impression” evidence presented at the hearing by two employees
who were union stewards established a past practice with respect to
granting requests for leave without pay is a close one.
4 We shall modify the order by limiting its provisions to the postal
facilities involved in this case. In light of three Houston districtwide
Board orders recently enforced by the Fifth Circuit, we find no need for
the judge’s recommended special remedies of districtwide notice post-
ing and a broad order. NLRB v. Postal Service, Case 03–61059 (2004)
(unpublished order enforcing 339 NLRB 1162 (2003); NLRB v. Postal
Service, Case 03–60908 (2003) (unpublished judgment granting appli-
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified below and orders that the Respondent, United
States Postal Service, Spring and Houston, Texas, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the Order as modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(f).
“(f) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.”
2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(d).
“(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facilities within the Spring post office area and at its
Windmill, Memorial Park, Jensen Drive, and North
Shepherds Stations in Houston, Texas, copies of the at-
tached notice marked ‘Appendix.’6 Copies of the notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
16, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous
places including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not al-
tered, 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 facil-
ity involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall
duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the no-
tice to all current employees and former employees em-
ployed by the Respondent at any time since February 10,
1995.”
3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the admin-
istrative law judge.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE

cation for enforcement of unpublished Board consent order in Cases
16–CA–22276, et al.); NLRB v. Postal Service, Case 03–60503 (2003)
(unpublished judgment enfg. unpublished Board order in Cases 16–
CA–21199, et al.).
Member Liebman agrees with her colleagues that a broad cease-and-
desist order is unnecessary here in light of the multiple Board orders
containing broad cease-and-desist language that have recently been
enforced against this employer in previous cases, cited above. See
Beverly California Corp. (Beverly II), 326 NLRB 153, 157–158 (1998).
However, she does not agree that the outstanding districtwide notice
postings in two of those cases render a districtwide posting in this case
similarly unnecessary. Rather, she finds that the greater remedial effect
of successive districtwide postings, addressing distinct violations and
visible to the employees over a greater period, is appropriate where, as
here, an employer has demonstrated a proclivity to violate the Act.
Thus, contrary to her colleagues, she would adopt the judge’s order for
a districtwide posting in this case.
341 NLRB No. 100
POSTAL SERVICE 685
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 ac-
tivities.

WE WILL NOT threaten you with discipline for failing
to comply with a procedure that we have unilaterally
changed.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with the
American Postal Workers Union by unilaterally altering
the procedure by which the American Postal Workers
Union maintenance craft steward at the Spring post of-
fice must obtain union time in order to carry out his rep-
resentational responsibilities.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with the
National Association of Letter Carriers Branch 283, af-
filiated with National Association of Letter Carriers,
AFL–CIO, by unilaterally ceasing to automatically ap-
prove requests for leave that involve employees repre-
sented by that Union from taking leave without pay
(LWOP) for choice vacation at the Panther Creek branch
and other locations of the Spring post office.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with the
American Postal Workers Union by failing and refusing
to provide requested information that is relevant and nec-
essary to that Union as the collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees it represents.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with the
National Association of Letter Carriers Branch 283, af-
filiated with National Association of Letter Carriers,
AFL–CIO, by failing and refusing to provide requested
information that is relevant and necessary to that Union
as the collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees it represents.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, upon request of the Union representing you,
rescind the foregoing unilateral changes.
WE WILL promptly furnish the American Postal Work-
ers Union the information it requested on April 24, 2003,
and WE WILL promptly furnish the National Association
of Letter Carriers Branch 283, affiliated with the Na-
tional Association of Letter Carriers, AFL–CIO, the in-
formation it requested between January 10, 2003, and
July 10, 2003.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

Linda M. Reeder, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Ernest A. Burford, Esq., for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GEORGE CARSON II, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was tried in Houston, Texas, on November 3, 4, and 5, 2003,
pursuant to a consolidated complaint that issued on September
29, 2003.1 The complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleges
that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act
by threatening an employee and changing his working condi-
tions in retaliation for his union activity and that the Respon-
dent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by making two unilat-
eral changes and failing and refusing to provide relevant infor-
mation.2 The Respondent’s answer denies all violations of the
Act. I find that the evidence does establish that the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act substantially as al-
leged in the complaint.
On the entire record,3 including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed
by the General Counsel and the Respondent, I make the follow-
ing
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Board has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to Section
1209 of the Postal Reorganization Act, 39 U.S.C. §1209. The
answer admits, and I find and conclude, that the United States
Postal Service (the Respondent or the Postal Service) is an
employer subject to the jurisdiction of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board (the Board).
The Respondent’s answer admits, and I find and conclude,
that American Postal Workers Union (the APWU), is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
The Respondent’s answer admits, and I find and conclude,
that National Association of Letter Carriers Branch 283, affili-
ated with National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL–CIO

1 All dates are in 2003 unless otherwise indicated.
2 The charge in Case 16–CA–22766 was filed on May 1 and
amended on July 29, the charge in Case 16–CA–22854 was filed on
June 9, the charge in Case 16–CA–22855 was filed on June 9 and was
amended on June 19, the charge in Case 16-CA-22868 was filed on
June 13, the charge in Case 16–CA–22931 was filed on July 14, the
charge in Case 16–CA–22961 was filed on July 25 and was amended
on September 30, and the charge in Case 16–CA–22989 was filed on
August 11.
3 The posthearing Stipulations of the Parties dated November 18 are
received as Jt. Exh. 1. The General Counsel's Motion to Strike the
Respondent's brief is denied.

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 686
(the Union), is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Overview
This case arises in the Houston district of the Postal Service.
The vast majority of the numbered complaint paragraphs allege
that the Postal Service failed to provide or to provide in a
timely manner requested relevant information at various postal
facilities in that district. The answer admits all of the alleged
requests and, at the hearing, the Respondent’s counsel stipu-
lated to the relevance of the information sought in several re-
quests. Grievances involving letter carriers represented by the
Union are first addressed at an informal step A meeting with
the appropriate station supervisor. If the grievance is not re-
solved, a formal step A meeting is held with the respective
station manager. Grievances not resolved at the formal step A
meeting may be appealed to a joint management and union
panel designated as the dispute resolution team, the DRT. An
appeal must be made within 7 days from the formal step A
decision. When an appeal file is sent to the DRT, it is supposed
to be complete. The Union must appeal within the time limits
to preserve the grievance even if requested relevant information
has not been provided. The DRT will, depending upon the
nature of the grievance, remand a grievance that is improperly
documented or act upon it even in the absence of documenta-
tion. See Postal Service, 339 NLRB 1162, 1165 (2003).
In addressing the allegations of the complaint, I shall apply
longstanding Board precedent as recently summarized in Postal
Service, 337 NLRB 820, 822 (2002):

The legal standard concerning just what information must be
produced is whether or not there is “a probability that such
data is relevant and will be of use to the union in fulfilling its
statutory duties and responsibilities as the employees’ exclu-
sive bargaining representative.” Bohemia, Inc., 272 NLRB
1128 (1984). The Board’s standard, in determining which re-
quests for information must be honored, is a liberal discovery-
type standard. Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, 241
NLRB 1016 (1979). The Board, in determining that informa-
tion is producible, does not pass on the merits of the grievance
underlying a request.

The complaint identifies the respective case numbers fol-
lowed by the allegations relating to that case. For clarity, this
decision shall follow that format and shall address the specific
complaint paragraphs in order except where information re-
quests relate to similar issues or employees or where the para-
graphs are interrelated as they are regarding the alleged unilat-
eral changes and Section 8(a)(1) and (3) violations.
B. Case 16–CA–22766
This is the only case involving the APWU. Warzel Booty, a
letter box mechanic with more than 18 years employment, was
assigned to the Spring main office. The Spring post office, a
part of the Houston District, has its own postmaster and in-
cludes four stations, the Spring main office, and the Klein,
Woodlands Metro, and Panther Creek branches. To avoid any
confusion, I shall refer to the Spring area. The APWU repre-
sents employees in the following appropriate unit:
All maintenance employees, special delivery messengers, mo-
tor vehicle employees, postal clerks, mail equipment shop
employees and distribution centers employees; but excluding
managerial and supervisory personnel, professional employ-
ees, employees engaged in personnel work in other than a
purely non-confidential clerical capacity, security guards as
defined in Public Law 91-375, 1201(2), all postal inspection
service employees, employees in the supplemental work force
as defined in Article 7 [of the collective-bargaining agree-
ment], rural letter carriers, mail handlers and letter carriers.
APWU Maintenance Craft Director James Clack explained
that the APWU is “sectioned off by crafts,” thus, the clerk craft
has a different steward than the maintenance craft. Booty
served as chief steward for the APWU in the maintenance craft
for the Spring area for approximately 2 years. Although as-
signed to the Spring main office, Booty was the only steward
for that craft in the Spring area, and he, therefore, handled
grievances at the outlying branches. Prior to April 23, when
Booty needed time to investigate grievances or attend grievance
meetings, he would verbally request the time from his craft
supervisor. The APWU refers to the initial formal grievance
meeting as a step 1 meeting rather than step A. On April 23,
Booty received a letter addressed to him as APWU stew-
ard/letter box mechanic from Richard Osborne, acting station
manager of the Spring main post office. The letter provides in
pertinent part, as follows:
Effective immediately . . . [w]hen a need arises for you to util-
ize union steward time to investigate or present a grievance or
rebuttal, you must immediately notify your immediate super-
visor S. Keasling in writing. When . . . you must present a
Step 1 [grievance], you also must notify your supervisor . . . in
writing . . . . These instructions must be adhered to and any
deviations from such instructions will result in corrective ac-
tion.
Upon receipt of the foregoing instructions Booty requested
“[c]opies of the specific section of the handbooks and manual
or directive that management . . . relied upon to change the
procedure for requesting union time and Step 1” meetings and
“[c]opies of the last 15 grievances filed where Richard Osborne
was a Step 1 or Step 2 designee.” Booty testified that he made
the second portion of the request in order to establish the
change in the practice. Booty testified that he received no re-
sponse to either of the foregoing requests for information.
Complaint Paragraphs 8 Through 16
These related complaint paragraphs allege that the reference
to “corrective action” in the letter of April 23 constituted a
threat of unspecified reprisals in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act, that imposition of the requirement that Chief Steward
Booty request time to conduct union business in writing consti-
tuted discrimination against him in violation of Section 8(a)(3),
that this requirement was a unilateral change in violation of
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, and that the failure to provide the
information that Booty sought violated Section 8(a)(5) of the
Act.
POSTAL SERVICE 687
There is no contention that the Postal Service bargained
with the Union prior to imposing the requirement that Booty
submit requests in writing. Maintenance Craft Director Clack
testified without contradiction that other APWU craft stewards
request and receive union time verbally. The Respondent, in its
brief, argues that its “request that Mr. Booty put his request for
union time in writing . . . did not amount to a unilateral change
because it was a request directed only to him” and that this
“instruction . . . to one employee” did not constitute “a material,
substantial, and significant change,” that required bargaining. I
disagree. If, as the Respondent asserts, the change did not con-
stitute “a material, substantial, and significant change” the Re-
spondent could, as phrased in its brief, have made a “request”
that Booty put in his requests in writing. Contrary to the phras-
ing in the Respondent’s brief, there was no request. There was,
as quoted above, an unequivocal direction accompanied by a
threat of “corrective action.” Any contention that the foregoing
did not constitute a material and substantial change is belied by
the threat of discipline for violation of the unilaterally imposed
requirement. The Respondent points out that all letter carrier
stewards request union time in writing and that a written record
would assure that there would be no disputes over whether
union time had been requested by the APWU maintenance
steward.
The Respondent’s rationales for the change are not the issue.
The issue is whether the Respondent was obligated to bargain
before making the change. The direction to submit requests in
writing was made to Booty in his capacity as maintenance craft
union steward. This was not an insubstantial change in the
manner in which Booty carried out his job duties as a Postal
Service employee. It was a material alteration in the manner in
which he carried out his steward duties on behalf of mainte-
nance craft employees represented by the APWU. In his repre-
sentative capacity as steward, Booty was the APWU just as
Manager Osborne was the Postal Service. Thus, although, the
letter of April 24, was from Osborne to Booty, effectively the
Postal Service directed the APWU that, with regard to the
maintenance craft, it must request time to conduct union busi-
ness and step 1 grievance meetings in writing and, concomi-
tantly, wait until a Postal Service official responded in writing
in order to carry out its representational responsibilities. Fur-
thermore, if the representative of the APWU failed to do so,
that representative would be subject to “corrective action.” I
find that the foregoing change in past practice materially altered
the manner in which the representative of the APWU could
carry out that union’s representational responsibilities.
The Board, in Carpenters Local 1031, 321 NLRB 30, 32
(1996), held that a unilateral change affecting one employee did
not preclude finding an 8(a)(5) violation, noting that the layoff
of one employee in a unit of two employees “seriously under-
mines the union’s status as the employees’ collective bargain-
ing representative.” The rationale regarding undermining the
status of a union is even more apparent in this case where the
employer totally ignored the APWU and sought to unilaterally
impose its desired change in past practice upon that Union
without negotiation by issuing a management directive to the
one APWU maintenance craft shop steward at the facility. In
so doing, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
The General Counsel, citing Advanced Installations, Inc.,
257 NLRB 845 (1981), argues that a threat to discipline em-
ployees for violation of a rule established by a unilateral change
violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I agree and find that the
threat of “corrective action” for violation of this unilaterally
imposed requirement violated Section 8(a)(1). See GHR En-
ergy Corp., 294 NLRB 1011, 1048 (1989).
The General Counsel further argues that the imposition of
the requirement that Booty request union time in writing consti-
tuted discrimination “because of Booty’s union activity” in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. The General Counsel
does not discuss or explain how the imposition of the require-
ment that Booty submit a written request affected his hire or
tenure of employment or the terms and conditions of his em-
ployment as an employee of the Postal Service. Although the
requirement unilaterally altered the manner in which he could
carry out his representational responsibilities in violation of
Section 8(a)(5) and threatened corrective action in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) if Booty did not comply, the requirement was a
procedural requirement made to him in his representative ca-
pacity, not an adverse personnel action. If Booty had failed to
comply and been disciplined, that discipline would have vio-
lated the Act. See GHR Energy Corp., supra at 1048. Because
Booty complied with the requirement, there was no adverse
action taken against him that related to his hire or tenure of
employment as an employee. I shall recommend that the
8(a)(3) allegation be dismissed.
As set out in paragraph 14 of the complaint, Booty sought
both documents relied upon by the Postal Service in making the
change and grievances relating to past practice. The Postal
Service contends that it attempted to present the information
sought by Booty within a week of his request and again on June
27. Acting Station Manager Osborne testified that a supervisor
informed him that Booty had refused a proffer of the requested
information, but there is no direct evidence of this nor is there
any document or notation reflecting any such refusal. I credit
Booty that there was no response to his request. Booty was not
questioned regarding an attempt to formally present this infor-
mation to the Union at its main office.
On June 27, a delegation consisting of Carol Clark, secretary
to the Spring postmaster; Stephanie Keasling, Booty’s supervi-
sor; Jennifer Joseph, station manager of the Klein branch; and
Barbara Wright, station manager of the Panther Creek branch;
went together to the main office of the Union with a stack of
documents that had been placed in sealed envelopes by Carol
Clark. All members of the delegation agree that they spoke
with a group of union representatives and that Booty joined
those representatives. All agree that the union representative
with whom they initially spoke, not Booty, refused to accept
the stack of sealed envelopes. Supervisor Keasling recalls that,
as they continued to talk, Booty asked to review the documents
before signing for them, but this request was refused because
“we couldn’t open it [them],” presumably because they were
sealed and designated as certified mail. No member of the
delegation could testify regarding specifically what was in any
of the sealed envelopes, and no member of the delegation as-
serted that she knew that any documents subject to the informa-
tion request that is the subject of these complaint allegations

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 688
were included. The refusal of the Union to accept the docu-
ments is noted with the date June 27 and the initials JJ. Jennifer
Joseph was not recalled to identify the initials.
At the hearing herein, one of those sealed envelopes was
opened. It contained none of the grievances that the Union had
requested. Acting Station Manager Osborne, when he had ini-
tially been asked whether Booty was provided the information
he requested, testified, “Yes, he was.” After the envelope was
opened, Osborne recalled that the requested grievances had to
be tracked down because of a new computer system and that he
“was able to retrieve them afterwards.” Osborne admitted that
he made no attempt to present the grievances to Booty after he
retrieved them. The Respondent, by failing to provide copies
of grievances at which Osborne served as its step 1 or 2 desig-
nee, violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
Prior to assuming his duties at the Spring main office, Os-
borne had been located in Katy, Texas. Katy is not in the
Spring area, thus the manner in which stewards requested union
time at that location has no relevance to the unilateral change
instituted in the Spring area. I shall recommend that only cop-
ies of relevant grievances, i.e., grievances arising in the Spring
area in which Osborne served as the Step 1 or 2 designee, need
to be provided to the Union.
The record does not establish whether there was any re-
sponse to the request for “[c]opies of the specific section of the
handbooks and manual or directive that management . . . relied
upon to change the procedure for requesting union time and
Step 1” meetings. Counsel for the General Counsel questioned
Osborne only regarding the absence of any grievances in the
envelope. Counsel for the Respondent did not question Osborn
regarding the contents of the envelope, and no party asserted
that there was any other document in it that was relevant to this
proceeding. Thus, there is no probative evidence that the Re-
spondent responded to the Union’s request for documents that it
relied upon when making the unilateral change. By failing to
respond to the request of the Union for the foregoing relevant
information, either by providing it or acknowledging that it did
not exist, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
C. Case 16–CA–22854
This case involves requests for information submitted by
Chief Steward Paula Papich, a letter carrier at the Windmill
Station in Houston. The station manager is Gloria Solis.
Complaint Paragraph 17
Letter carrier Marie Asscherick worked under a medical re-
striction limiting her to her assigned route. On January 13, due
to a shortage of vehicles, Asscherick was required to carry part
of another route and a portion of her assigned route was carried
by a different carrier. On February 19, Papich requested a copy
of the medical restriction, i.e., the “work only assignment re-
striction” for Asscherick. Papich made a second request for the
same document on February 21. Although Station Manager
Gloria Solis initially testified that she believed that Supervisor
Mary Warner provided the information, she later acknowledged
that the Postal Service advised the Union in a letter dated Octo-
ber 3, that the Postal Service did not have a copy of Ass-
cherick’s work restrictions. By failing to provide a timely re-
sponse to the foregoing request for relevant information the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
Complaint Paragraph 18
On March 1, letter carrier Jim Hanratty received a notice of
discipline for deviating from his assignment on January 27. He
claimed that he was at lunch at the time in question. On March
15, Papich requested the 1080, which was the disciplinary
package assembled by the Postal Service, any notes from a
predisciplinary meeting held with Hanratty, a record of any
prior discipline imposed upon him, and the form 3996, a re-
quest for auxiliary assistance or authorization for overtime filed
by Hanratty on January 27 that would have shown his lunch
time and location. Papich received no response and requested
the information twice more, on March 19 and 26. In late July,
the disciplinary package, the 1080, was provided. Station
Manger Solis testified that all of the requested information was
provided and that she wrote on the third request “information
was supplied to Ms. Papich already.” Solis did not write down
the date that the information was purportedly provided. The
relevance of the information was not disputed. I credit Papich.
The fact that she submitted a third request belies the assertion
of Solis that the information was submitted on a date that she
did not record when writing that the information had been
“supplied . . . already.” By failing to provide the 1080 in a
timely manner as alleged in subparagraph 18(a) and by failing
to provide the remaining information as alleged in subpara-
graphs 18(b), (c), and (d), the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(5) of the Act.
Complaint Paragraph 19
On February 22, PTF (part-time flexible) employee Hector
Torres attempted to bid for a “T-6 vacancy.” When a route is
vacant for more than 40 hours, five regular workdays, it should
be posted for bids to deliver the route on a temporary basis.
Chief Steward Papich testified that the Postal Service refused to
permit Torres to bid on the vacancy. In further testimony, she
acknowledged that the vacancy had not been posted. Notwith-
standing the failure of the Postal Service to post the vacancy,
Papich submitted an information request for a “Form 13 . . . to
fill T-6 vacancy” that Torres informed her he had submitted.
Station Manager Solis explained there was no such documenta-
tion, a bid, because the vacancy was not posted. I fail to see the
relevance of a purported bid submitted for an unposted va-
cancy. The Postal Service refused to permit bids on the va-
cancy because it did not post the vacancy. There is no issue
before me regarding the failure to post the vacancy. I note that,
following the filing of the charge herein, the Postal Service
provided the Union with a certified letter dated October 3 stat-
ing that it had no Form 13 from Torres. Thus, even if the in-
formation requested were found to be relevant, the Postal Ser-
vice responded, albeit in an untimely manner, to the request,
and no affirmative remedy is required. I shall recommend that
this allegation be dismissed.
Complaint Paragraphs 20 and 21
The foregoing two paragraphs relate to class action griev-
ances concerning overtime. The Union contended that carriers
not on the overtime desired list had been forced to work over-
POSTAL SERVICE 689
time on March 22 and 28 and again on April 5 and 7 before the
overtime desired list had been exhausted. Papich requested
“everything reports,” computer generated documents that show
the employees’ clock rings, i.e., the specific time worked in-
cluding any overtime, for all carriers for the relevant days and
whether they worked overtime, the overtime alert report for
March 22 through 28, the work assignment only list and
“forced [overtime]” list for April. Counsel for the Respondent
stipulated that the information requested was relevant.
Papich acknowledged that a portion of the everything reports
was provided, but that there were “pages missing” because the
submission was limited to the clock rings of carriers on the
overtime desired list. The issue, as noted, was forcing carriers
not on the overtime-desired list to work. Station Manager Solis
testified that “the supervisors pulled the documentation off the
computer, and they tell me they pulled it for her as soon as
possible.” The report of supervisors to Solis regarding what
they told her does not refute Papich’s testimony that the infor-
mation initially provided to her was incomplete. The parties
stipulated that all of the requested information was provided on
July 19. By failing to provide all carrier everything reports, the
overtime alert report for March, the work assignment only list
and April forced overtime list in a timely manner, the Respon-
dent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
D. Case 16–CA–22855
The charge in this case was filed on June 9. On August 13,
the Regional Director, in a letter to all parties, stated that he had
considered the charge and “decided that further proceedings . . .
should be handled in accordance with the Board’s deferral pol-
icy.” Thereafter, in a paragraph designated “Decision to Defer,”
the Regional Director states that he is “deferring further pro-
ceedings on the charge to the grievance/arbitration process” and
states that the issues raised by the charge involve an alleged
unilateral change in the collective-bargaining agreement by
“permitting the postal clerk craft to perform manual tertiary
sorts.” Although the charge also alleges failure to provide in-
formation, the deferral letter does not mention the information
requests, several of which related to the alleged unilateral
change. The letter does not purport to be a partial deferral.
On August 29, the initial consolidated complaint herein was
issued. Paragraphs 28 through 40 related to information re-
quests contained in the charge in Case 16–CA–22855. On Sep-
tember 12, the Postal Service filed its answer to the foregoing
complaint which includes several affirmative defenses. Para-
graph 4 of the affirmative defenses states: “The Respondent
received a Decision to Defer dated August 13, 2003 on Charge
16–CA–22855.” The instant complaint issued on September 29.
It alleged, as did the initial complaint, in paragraphs 28 through
40, the failure to provide information. The Respondent’s an-
swer, dated October 14, expands upon the affirmative defense
set forth in paragraph 4: “The Respondent received a Decision
to Defer dated August 13, 2003 on Charge 16–CA–22855,
therefore the Board should dismiss the charge and sever it from
the Consolidated Complaint.” At the hearing herein, the Re-
spondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment relating to the
allegations arising from Case 16–CA–22855. That motion was
untimely, and it is denied.
The Region did not issue an amended deferral letter or oth-
erwise respond to the issue raised by the Respondent’s affirma-
tive defense.
The General Counsel argues that the Regional Director, by
the terms of the deferral letter, retained authority to “revoke
deferral and resume processing of the charge” and that the Re-
spondent has not been prejudiced since it had notice from the
presence of the allegations in the complaint that the General
Counsel intended to litigate the refusal to provide information.
I do not agree. On August 13, the Region totally deferred
Case 16–CA–22855 with no reservations or exceptions. The
Respondent, upon observing that allegations from that case
were included in the consolidated complaint, raised the deferral
issue in its answer by pleading as an affirmative defense that
those allegations were included in a charge that had been de-
ferred and should, therefore, be dismissed and severed from the
complaint. The Region took no action to clarify the situation.
Cf. Chatham Mfg. Co., 221 NLRB 760 (1975). No revised
deferral letter issued. The Respondent has sustained its af-
firmative defense. I shall recommend that the allegations aris-
ing from that charge which has been deferred in its entirety to
the parties’ grievance/arbitration procedure be dismissed from
this complaint. This dismissal shall be without prejudice to any
further proceedings or actions that may be appropriate upon
completion of the arbitration process and review of the matters
considered at arbitration.
Insofar as the Board should not agree with the foregoing rec-
ommendation, in order to avoid a potential remand, I shall ad-
dress the allegations set out in the complaint. All of the infor-
mation requests were made by Chief Steward Lana Park at the
Memorial Park Station. Chief Steward Park acknowledges that
all information except the items alleged in complaint subpara-
graphs 33(a) and (c) were provided, albeit not in a timely man-
ner, on July 22.
Complaint Paragraphs 28, 29, and 30
The foregoing paragraphs relate to three separate information
requests filed on behalf of letter carrier B. B. Shelvin who felt
that he was being harassed by his supervisor. The first, relating
to January 28, sought carrier clock rings for Shelvin to show he
was present, a form 3996 requesting assistance or overtime
submitted by Shelvin, and clock rings for other carriers sent to
deliver mail on Shelvin’s route. This request was initially sub-
mitted to the closing supervisor, John Johnson, on February 1.
A second request for the same information was submitted to
carrier foreman Samuel Eapen on February 11. The next re-
quest relating to Shelvin sought clock rings and the form 3996
submitted on February 11 and 14, and the final request sought
Shelvin’s clock rings for February 3. These requests were all
submitted to Supervisor Eapen.
Park denied receiving the foregoing information until July
22. Eapen testified that, when he received a request, he would
seek to respond but that he would not do so if he was too busy.
When asked whether he responded to the request to which Su-
pervisor Johnson had failed to respond, Eapen testified, “[A]t
that time I might have been busy.” Notwithstanding his failure
to confirm that any of the specific information sought regarding
Shelvin was provided, Eapen testified that Park “received all

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 690
the information . . . [i]t may be late, but . . . my manager pro-
vided that to her.” At the time of the foregoing requests, the
position of station manager was filled by Benita Clark. The
parties, in a posthearing stipulation, agreed that, if called as a
witness, Clark would testify that she told Park that if she had
not received needed documentation she should notify her be-
fore the formal step A meeting. The parties further stipulated
that Park denied that there was any such agreement. Regardless
of any agreement, the record establishes the foregoing requests
for relevant information, and there is no probative evidence that
the Union received the information in a timely manner. By
failing to provide the foregoing relevant information in a timely
manner, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
Complaint Paragraph 31 and 32
These two paragraphs relate to information requested in con-
nection with the Union’s grievances regarding “segmentation,”
i.e., the performance by clerks of “tertiary sorts,” work that the
letter carriers claimed and the issue that the General Counsel
acknowledges was deferred. Notwithstanding the deferral, the
complaint alleges the failure to timely provide the foregoing
information. Paragraph 31 alleges that the Postal Service failed
to provide a copy of the “regulation permitting clerks to per-
form manual tertiary sort of flats for routes 2417/2472.” Chief
Steward Park acknowledges that the Postal Service provided
documents purportedly responding to that request. The infor-
mation was provided to Park by Ricardo Johns, who had been
assigned as station manager in early April. Johns acknowl-
edged that he had no personal knowledge regarding what in-
formation he gave to Park, that what he gave her “came at [to]
my level with the package from the supervisor.” Park argued
that the information provided was “information that I did not
request,” and made a second request for the regulation. The
Postal Service’s timely response to the initial information re-
quest included no regulation, suggesting that no such regulation
existed. No additional information was provided. The deferral
of the grievance regarding segmentation establishes that the
Postal Service contends that it was privileged to made the work
assignment in question and that, although Park did not consider
the documents provided to be responsive, the Postal Service did
consider them responsive.
Although the complaint alleges that the Respondent failed
“to timely furnish” the information sought in paragraph 31, I
find that the Respondent made a timely response to that infor-
mation request, and I shall recommend that paragraph 31 of the
complaint be dismissed.
Station Manager Johns had no document reflecting that the
Union received the information that is the subject of paragraph
32 of the complaint. He asserted that the documentation was
provided because the grievance was submitted to the dispute
resolution team, but his testimony reflects no independent
knowledge of what was in the package submitted. Park testi-
fied that the information was not received until June 22. I find
that the Respondent failed to provide the information set out in
paragraph 32 of the complaint in a timely manner in violation
of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
Complaint Paragraph 33
On May 24, Park requested information relating to a com-
plaint that the Postal Service was working two casual employ-
ees, identified in the request as Nelson and Pasquale, in lieu of
bargaining unit employees. The information sought included
the form 50 for the casual employees which would reflect their
date of hire, the employee activity report showing the hours
they worked, form 3997, the weekly work schedule, and the
carrier complement reports showing work hours including over-
time for the regular work force. On July 23, Park received a
certified letter stating that the form 50 was privileged from
disclosure pursuant to the Privacy Act. On July 22, she re-
ceived the activity report and carrier complement reports. She
testified that she never received the form 3997, the weekly
work schedule for the date in question. Station Manager Johns
had no independent recollection regarding what information
was provided but asserted that Park received all of the informa-
tion in a timely manner because Park signed off on “the pack-
age that was sent to the DRT” and it was not “her modus of
operandi” to do so if the submission was insufficient. John’s
testimony is contradicted by the Privacy Act claim regarding
the form 50 and by the requirement that submissions must be
made to the DRT in a timely manner even if the package is
incomplete. I credit Park and find that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by failing to provide the relevant
information sought in complaint subparagraphs 33(b) and (d) in
a timely manner and failing to provide the relevant information
sought in subparagraph 33(a) and (c). Insofar as the form 50
itself is protected by the Privacy Act, the Respondent need only
provide the hire dates of employees Nelson and Pasquale.
E. Case 16–CA–22868
This case involves information requests made at the Jensen
Drive Station to Acting Station Manager Larry Edmond and
204(b) Supervisor Issia Carr by Steward Ramon Martinez.
Complaint Paragraph 41
On January 10, Steward Martinez presented an information
request to Supervisor Issia Carr seeking, among other items,
carrier schedules for December 27, 2002, through January 3.
Martinez made this request after hearing that letter carriers
were not receiving their 5 o’clock window of operations pay.
The 5 o’clock window is significant to employees because after
that time employees receive an additional $10 per hour. Marti-
nez testified that Supervisor Carr informed him that the sched-
ule could not be found. Insofar as the Postal Service re-
sponded, I shall recommend that this allegation be dismissed.
Complaint Paragraph 42
In late January, the Union became concerned that carriers
who were supposed to be receiving overtime were not being
maximized because carriers who had not volunteered for over-
time were being forced to work overtime in order to complete
their routes by 5 p.m. On January 28, Martinez presented Su-
pervisor Carr with an information request seeking, among other
items all “time clock ring sheets from January 11 through 24.”
Martinez testified that the Union was also concerned that some
clock rings were being changed. Carr testified that “nine times
POSTAL SERVICE 691
out of ten I go ahead and pull the information that he needs. If
not, I put it in front of the computer, and in the mornings, the
manager will pull it.” Carr acknowledged that she had no re-
cord reflecting what information she did provide to Martinez.
She did not keep a record of the occasions upon which she left
the request for Edmond to complete. Despite the absence of
any record, Carr testified that she provided the foregoing in-
formation to Martinez. I do not credit that testimony. Martinez
specifically recalled, “I didn’t receive the reports, so there was
no way to prove the actual times.” He therefore was unable to
file a grievance. By failing to provide the foregoing informa-
tion, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
Complaint Paragraph 43
On February 21, not having received the information re-
quested on January 28, Martinez requested all carrier schedules
from December 27, 2002, through February 21. He made this
request in regard to the Union’s continuing concern with the
issue that employees on the overtime desired list and PTF letter
carriers were not begin maximized. He received no response.
Martinez recalled that a management official, he believes it was
Acting Station Manager Edmond, informed him, “We’ll get
them to you.” Carr, when asked whether she provided the fore-
going information, answered, “Yes.” Martinez, who was seek-
ing to file a grievance based upon the information received,
testified that the information was not provided. I credit Marti-
nez. By failing to provide the requested relevant information,
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
Complaint Paragraph 44
In February, the Union continued to be concerned that em-
ployees had not been properly compensated for the 5 o’clock
window. On February 26, Steward Martinez presented an in-
formation request to Acting Station Manager Larry Edmond
seeking “copies of all five o’clock window of operations pay
authorizations” from October 2002 through February 21. After
filing the charge herein on June 13, Martinez received the
documents for the first 15 pay periods in 2003, covering the
time period from December 25, 2002, through July 12. Consis-
tent with the allegation in paragraph 56 of the complaint, I find
that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by fail-
ing to timely furnish the foregoing information.
Martinez acknowledged that the Union had, pursuant to a
prior request, received documentation for October and Novem-
ber 2002, but that he thereafter misplaced those documents.
When he was unable to locate the documents, he included that
time period in the request he made on February 26. At the
hearing, counsel for the General Counsel amended complaint
paragraph 44, that initially alleged a time period of December
27, 2002, through February 21, 2003, to allege October 2002
through February 21, 2003. Although the Respondent failed to
provide the same information a second time, no amendment
was offered to paragraph 56 that alleges that the Respondent
failed “to timely furnish” the information set out in paragraph
44. I have so found with regard to the information that was
ultimately provided. In view of the foregoing, no further find-
ing is warranted.
Complaint Paragraph 45, 46, 48, and 49
Pursuant to its continuing claim that employees on the over-
time desired list and PTF employees were not being maxi-
mized, Martinez, on March 12, presented Edmond with a re-
quest for “copies of carrier clock rings” for pay period February
22 through March 7. Martinez testified again that an additional
concern of the Union was that clock rings were being changed.
Martinez recalls that Edmond stated that he would “get it,” but
that he did not do so.
Acting Station Manager Edmond, when shown this informa-
tion request at the hearing, testified that it would take a” day or
two” to obtain this information from the computer. He did not
testify that the information sought was provided. Rather, in
response to counsel for Respondent’s questions, he testified that
there was no reason that he would not provide the information
and that, to the best of his knowledge, it was provided. Marti-
nez’ credible testimony that it was not provided contradicts
Edmond’s speculation, and I credit Martinez.
With regard to this same issue of maximization of overtime,
Martinez, on April 19, presented Supervisor Carr with a request
for carrier clock ring sheets from April 5 through 18 as well as
the volunteer overtime list and overtime desired list for that
same period. Martinez explained that after the overtime desired
list and PTFs have been exhausted, the Postal Service is “sup-
posed to ask for volunteers among the regular letter carriers not
on the list before they force anyone to work overtime.” Al-
though the overtime desired list is available at some stations,
Martinez testified that, at Jensen, it is kept in the manager’s
office.
On April 30, Martinez presented Supervisor Carr with a re-
quest for “carrier everything reports” for April 19 through 30.
Martinez explained that, as with his prior request, he wanted
the clock rings, he but had learned that the report upon which
clock rings were shown was now a computer generated docu-
ment referred to as the “carrier everything report.” As with his
prior requests, Martinez did not receive the documents and,
when he verbally reminded management of his request, he was
told, “okay,” or, “we’ll get it,” but the documents were not
produced.
On May 6, Martinez presented an information request to
Carr seeking copies of the letter carriers’ schedule and the car-
rier reports for the pay period April 26 through May 2. He
testified that this request, like the request for clock rings, re-
lated to maximization of overtime.
As already discussed, Carr, when summarily asked whether
she provided the information at issue, answered, “Yes.” When
asked how she knew she had done so, Carr answered, “I just
remember.” In view of Carr’s acknowledgement that she main-
tained no record of what she provided, I have no confidence in
that assertion. Martinez had a document, the information re-
quest, and a desire to act upon the information that he received.
Although Carr asserted that she provided all of the information
sought in the foregoing requests, except the request of March
12 which was handled by Edmond, I do not credit her testi-
mony. I find that the Respondent, by failing to provide the
information sought in paragraphs 45, 46, 48, and 48 violated
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 692
Complaint Paragraphs 47
In preparation for filing a class action grievance to create
regular part-time positions for PTF letter carriers at the Jensen
Drive Station, Martinez presented an information request to
Supervisor Carr on April 30. The request seeks the total num-
ber of regular route carrier positions in the Houston District, the
total number of regular route carrier positions that did not have
regular carriers assigned as of April 30, and the total number of
regular carrier positions in the Houston District filled by PTF
carriers on “in-station or “hold down” bids. Martinez explained
that the Postal Service was only allowed to have 12 percent of
the total work force as PTF letter carriers, that 88 percent
should be regular letter carriers. The documents he sought
would show whether this formula was being adhered to and, to
assure accuracy, he wanted to assure that the figures provided
did not count PTF employees holding temporary bids as regular
letter carriers. Edmond informed Martinez, within a week, that
he did not “have access to that information.” Edmond did not
deny making the foregoing response. At the hearing he as-
serted that Martinez, as a steward at Jensen Drive, was not enti-
tled to information concerning employees at other locations.
No authority for the foregoing opinion was stated. Martinez
testified that he was certain that Edmond “could have called
somebody higher up the chain of command and gotten that
information for me.” Although Carr testified to providing the
carrier information at Jensen Drive, Martinez, who had the
conversation with Edmond, denied receiving any other re-
sponse.
Although, unless specifically requested, a steward at one fa-
cility cannot represent a unit member at a different facility,
there is no probative evidence before me that a steward is not
entitled to information that must be obtained from other facili-
ties that is relevant to representation of the employees at the
facility of the requesting steward. The information requested
by Martinez in connection with a potential class action griev-
ance at the Jensen Drive Station sought information relating to
unit employees in the same administrative entity, the Houston
district. Failure of the Postal Service at a small facility to ob-
tain requested relevant information from “the main facility in
Poughkeepsie” was found to violate the Act in Postal Service,
303 NLRB 502, 308 (1991). The Respondent, by failing to
provide the requested information relating to a potential class
action grievance, violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
Complaint Paragraph 50
Martinez testified that the Union not only was concerned re-
garding the number of regular positions but also was concerned
that “casual letter carriers were being used to the detriment of
the regular workforce.” Martinez explained that casuals “can
only be worked for two consecutive 90-day periods, except for
a 21-day period during December, and also they can’t be
worked 40 hours per week. The Union believed that some
casuals “were working 40 hours or more per week.” With re-
gard to the foregoing concern, Martinez, on May 6, presented
Supervisor Carr with an information request seeking copies of
the “time records of all casual letter carriers working in Hous-
ton District Area 1, and the total number of hours they worked
each week for the time period March 22, 2003, through May 2,
2003.” Acting Station Manager Edmond did not deny that he
again informed Martinez that “he had no access to those re-
cords.”
Although casual employees are not unit employees, the in-
formation sought by the foregoing request related directly to the
working conditions of unit employees insofar as the informa-
tion sought would potentially show that casual employees were
being used impermissibly. I find the foregoing request relevant
and that the failure of the Respondent to provide the informa-
tion violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
Complaint Paragraph 51
On May 20, Martinez presented an information request to
Edmond requesting FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) docu-
ments for letter carrier Phillip Bridges for October 2002 and
January and the supervisory “notes of [the] predisciplinary
hearing for Phillip Bridges.” Bridges had informed Martinez
that he had submitted the proper documentation but that his
request for medical leave had not been accepted for those peri-
ods. The Postal Service contended that no documentation was
submitted and Supervisor Carr informed Martinez that the
Postal Service was considering taking action against Bridges
for being absent without leave in connection with those ab-
sences.
In connection with this controversy, a predisciplinary inter-
view was held with Bridges on a date not specified in the re-
cord. Martinez was present at the predisciplinary meeting and
took his own notes. He testified that Phillips contended that he
had submitted the appropriate paperwork, “and they [the Postal
Service] were saying that he hadn’t.” The supervisory notes of
the predisciplinary interview would have confirmed the Postal
Service’s intention to discipline Bridges for failure to submit
the paperwork and were clearly relevant to the Union. The
failure of the Respondent to provide the supervisory notes vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act as alleged in subparagraph
51(b) of the complaint. The basis for the intended discipline
was the alleged failure of Bridges to have submitted the very
paperwork that Martinez sought in the information request. In
these circumstances I find no basis for exalting form over sub-
stance. Martinez was told that that Bridges had not submitted
the paperwork, and therefore he knew that the Postal Service
was claiming that it did not have the requested documents when
he made the information request. I shall recommend that sub-
paragraph 51(a) of the complaint be dismissed.
F. Case 16–CA–22931
The case, like Case 16–CA–22854, concerns information re-
quests made by Chief Steward Paula Papich at the Windmill
station.
Complaint Paragraphs 64, 65, and 66
All three of the information requests in the above paragraphs
relate to class action grievances regarding overtime. As re-
flected in the discussion of complaint paragraphs 20 and 21, the
Union alleged that carriers were being forced to work overtime
before the overtime desired list had been exhausted. Paragraph
64 relates to a request for all carrier everything reports for
March 8 through March 14, and paragraph 65 relates to a re-
quest for those reports for March 29 and April 4. Paragraph 66
POSTAL SERVICE 693
relates to a request, on April 16, that repeats the April 9 request
for the carrier everything reports for March 29 and April 4 and
additionally seeks the overtime alert report for all carriers for
March 29 through April 4. The Respondent stipulated that all
of the requested foregoing information was relevant. Although
the Union requested carrier everything reports for all carriers,
Papich testified that the Postal Service did not provide all such
reports. She testified that no overtime alert reports were pro-
vided.
Solis testified that she relied upon her supervisors to provide
requested information to the Union. Supervisor Mary Warner
was not specifically asked about any of these requests. Super-
visor Warren Thornton was asked about the request submitted
on April 16 and testified, “As far as I know” the documentation
was provided. I credit Papich. The Respondent, by failing to
provide the foregoing relevant information violated Section
8(a)(5) of the Act.
G. Case 16–CA–22989
The allegations in this case relate to information requests
made by Mark Kessinger, chiefs of the Union at the Postal
Service’s North Shepherd Station in Houston in April and May.
The first two such requests were submitted to Supervisor Jesse
Guerrero. All subsequent requests were submitted to Elizabeth
Owens, who became station manager in April and directed that
all information requests be submitted directly to her. Neither
Guerrero nor Owens testified. The answer admits the receipt of
these requests and Kessinger’s unrebutted credible testimony
establishes that none of the requested information was pro-
vided. Thus, the only issue is whether the requested informa-
tion was relevant.
Complaint Paragraph 71
On April 5, Kessinger presented to supervisor Jesse Guerrero
an information request to support a grievance that he filed on
behalf of unit employee Lathorn King. King had complained
that he was being loaned to the Irvington Station while casual
employees were being allowed to work hours that he would
have worked as a part-time flexible (PTF) carrier at the North
Shepherd Station. The information request sought the North
Shepherd PTF schedule for March 31 and April 2 in order to
establish that King was assigned to another station on those
days, the North Shepherd casual employee schedules for those
2 days in order to establish that casual employees did work at
North Shepard, and the Irvington Station overtime desired list
(ODL) in order to determine whether the assignment of King
had deprived any Irvington employees of overtime in violation
of the collective-bargaining agreement. I find that the re-
quested information was relevant.
Complaint Paragraph 72
On April 11, Kessinger presented to Supervisor Guerrero a
request relating to a grievance he filed on behalf of employee
Alexis Butler. Butler had received a 7-day suspension at the
Fairbanks Station. Shortly thereafter he was transferred to the
Windmill Station where, he informed Kessinger, he had re-
quested to see a steward in order to grieve his suspension. He
was then transferred to the North Shepherd Station where
Kessinger filed the grievance on his behalf. The information
request sought the suspension notice because Butler had mis-
placed the copy that had been given to him, the discipline pack-
age and notes relied upon to impose the discipline, Butler’s
request to see a steward at the Windmill Station in order to
establish that the attempt to grieve the suspension was timely
and the schedule for “Butler and Shop Steward while Butler
was at Windmill Station” in order to establish that a steward
was present on the day that Butler could have met with the
steward. I find that the requested information was relevant.
Complaint Paragraphs 73 and 74
On April 18, Kessinger presented two information requests
to Station Manager Owens regarding grievances filed on behalf
of Isaac Richard who claimed that he had been denied the op-
portunity to work overtime on April 8 and 16. The request
relating to April 8 seeks the ODL (overtime desired list) for
April 8, the ODL worksheet or “square sheet” for April 8 which
would show who was assigned overtime, and the overtime re-
port which would show how much overtime was worked by
each carrier assigned overtime. The request relating to April 16
seeks the same information for April 16 as well as the unit
schedule for April 16 that would have reflected which carriers
were scheduled to work overtime, the crew list for “NSOT
(nonscheduled overtime) for April 8 and 16 which would show
employees who were off but were willing to work nonsched-
uled overtime, and the “[b]ack of the overtime desired list”
which would show telephone calls to nonscheduled carriers
offering them an overtime opportunity. The Respondent stipu-
lated that all of the foregoing requests were for presumptively
relevant information and, I so find. The Respondent did not
stipulate to the Union’s request for a copy of “Ike Richard’s
restrictions.” Kessinger testified that Richard reported to him
that management had told him that he was not called on April
16 because “they didn’t have any work within his restrictions.”
Kessinger testified that providing a response to that portion of
his request would establish whether Richard had any restric-
tions and, if so, what they were relative to the claim that there
was no work within his restrictions. I find the foregoing re-
quest relevant.
Complaint Paragraphs 75 and 82
On May 6 and May 10, Kessinger presented information re-
quests to Station Manger Owens that arose from an incident
involving employee Leticia Angulo. Angulo had alleged that
another employee had bitten her, and she filed a complaint
pursuant to the Postal Service’s “zero tolerance” for violence
policy. Although Angulo participated as a witness in the inves-
tigation, she expressed concern to Kessinger that her complaint
would not be taken seriously. Kessinger filed the May 6 re-
quest seeking the zero tolerance report in order to assure
Angulo that her complaint had been fairly investigated. Angulo
was taken off of the clock for the time she was away from her
duties due to her participation in the investigation. When she
was paid she discovered that she had been compensated as a
PTF carrier whereas, on the date she was taken off of the clock,
she had been assigned to a regular route pursuant to an in-
station bid award. The May 10 request sought the in-station bid
award to Angulo, the pay adjustment made for Angulo regard-

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 694
ing the zero tolerance investigation, the hours worked by
Angulo for the 14 days prior to the investigation, and part time
flexible (PTF) hours worked during the period. Kessinger ex-
plained that if Angulo were not awarded pay for the in-station
bid route, he needed the additional information to establish
Angulo’s proper compensation as a PTF carrier. I find that all
of the foregoing requested information was relevant.
Complaint Paragraphs 76, 77, and 80
In early May, letter carrier Shelia Miller-Brown complained
to Kessinger that she had learned that other members of her
crew had been making more money than she by working un-
scheduled days, that “she had been passed over too many times
during the last two months for overtime on her nonscheduled
day.” Pursuant to her complaint, Kessinger, on May 8, re-
quested the overtime desired list for the past 60 days, from May
6, 2003, the nonscheduled overtime desired list for the past 60
days from May 6, 2003, and Miller-Brown’s assignments and
unscheduled days during same period. The foregoing informa-
tion was clearly relevant in order to establish whether Miller-
Brown had been passed over as she was alleging.
At the same time on May 8, Kessinger presented Station
Manager Owens with a second information request relating to
Miller-Brown having been charged leave without pay (LWOP)
when she was absent due to a medical emergency. This request
sought Miller-Brown’s pay stub to confirm that she was
charged LWOP, and “medical documentation from hospital,
from family practice and radiologist,” documents that Miller-
Brown had informed Kessinger that she had submitted in order
to obtain medical leave. When questioned regarding whether
he had obtained Miller-Brown’s authorization regarding the
foregoing information, Kessinger testified that she signed the
grievance form. He denied being aware of any special proce-
dure regarding obtaining documents submitted by an employee
in support of a claim for medical leave, and the Postal Service
presented no testimony establishing any such procedure. The
requested information was relevant.
On May 10, Kessinger presented Owens an information re-
quest relating to a complaint from Miller-Brown that she had
missed an overtime opportunity on May 9. Kessinger requested
the “everything report” for Miller-Brown that showed her clock
rings, the overtime desired list, and the form 3996 submitted by
Miller- Brown requesting assistance or authorization for over-
time. Counsel for the Respondent stipulated to relevance of the
foregoing information.
Complaint Paragraphs 78
On April 29, the Postal Service refused to accept documenta-
tion presented by employee Derrick Brown regarding sick
leave. On May 10, Kessinger presented to Owens an informa-
tion request seeking the form 3971 (the leave request) submit-
ted by Brown for April 25 and 26 and the policy relied upon to
refuse the documentation that he attempted to present. Counsel
for the Respondent stipulated to the relevance of the foregoing
information request.
Complaint Paragraph 79
Letter carrier Arthur Wiley, like Miller-Brown, complained
to Kessinger in early May that he was being passed over for
overtime opportunities. On May 10, Kessinger presented an
information request to Owens for the overtime desired list that
would have been in effect for April 22 and 30 and May 8.
Kessinger explained that grievance packages must be complete,
thus, the list requested on behalf of Miller-Brown for the 60
days prior to May 6, even if it had been provided, would have
been with that grievance, thus the Union needed separate
documentation regarding Wiley’s grievance. Kessinger ac-
knowledged that the current overtime desired list was posted
and, if he had been told that he could make a copy, he would
have done so, but “I needed permission to leave my unit and go
do that.” Kessinger also requested the call-in sheets for un-
scheduled overtime for April 22 and 30 and May 8 and the
overtime reports for those same 3 days. I find all of the forego-
ing information relevant to the grievance that the Union filed
on behalf of Wiley.
Complaint Paragraph 81
At some time in the past, employee Richard Dowgun suf-
fered an on-the-job injury. Thereafter he was assigned limited
duty. In early May, Dowgun informed Kessinger that someone
in management had told him that his limited duty assignment
was going to change, but he received no written notification.
Following their conversation, Kessinger, on May 10, presented
an information request to Owens seeking a copy of Dowgun’s
limited duty position. Kessinger explained that the limited duty
document is a letter from the Postal Service offering a limited
job duty position to an injured employee that sets out the duties
to be performed, where they will be performed, and the hours
involved. Kessinger explained that Dowgun was concerned
whether the verbal information he received was correct and
whether the Postal Service was going to change his assignment.
Kessinger, although never receiving the requested document,
filed a grievance and Dowgun’s assignment was not changed.
When counsel for the Respondent questioned Kessinger regard-
ing his knowledge of approval of limited duty positions by the
Department of Labor, Kessinger pointed out that the request he
made was made to the Postal Service and that he was aware
that after any Department of Labor approval, “the Post Office
has to make the offer of a limited duty position.” Counsel stated
that he would make “a legal argument at a later time.” No such
argument appears in the Respondent’s brief. The Union having
received information that comments had been made regarding
changing Dowgun’s assignment, its request for the document
establishing that assignment was relevant.
Having found that all of the information requested by the
Union as set out in complaint paragraphs 71 through 82 was
relevant, I find that the failure of the Respondent to provide the
information that did exist or respond regarding which specific
items of requested information did not exist violated Section
8(a)(5) of the Act.
H. Case 16–CA–22961
Complaint Paragraphs 96 through 99
Paragraph 99 alleges that the Postal Service unilaterally
changed its procedure for approving leave for “Choice Vaca-
tion” time in that, prior to July, requests to use leave without
pay (LWOP) for Choice Vacation were automatically approved
POSTAL SERVICE 695
but that, in July, the Postal Service, in its Spring area, began
granting approval on a case-by-case basis. Paragraph 96 of the
complaint alleges the failure to provide requested information
relating to that alleged unilateral change. Employees of the
Postal Service bid for Choice Vacation for each upcoming year
in December. Thus, in December 2002, employees at each post
office wrote onto a master vacation schedule the days or weeks
that they desired to take as vacation in 2003. The number of
employees permitted to take vacation at a single time is con-
trolled by local agreement. In the Spring area the number can-
not exceed 14 percent of the workforce at each station. Slots
are awarded on the basis of seniority.
As previously stated, the Spring area includes the Spring
Maine office and three branch offices. In July, the Postmaster
of the Spring area was Dave Critelli; however, he was on detail.
From March until September, Matthew Lopez was “in charge
of all four” stations. The evidence relating to these allegations
come from the Panther Creek branch. The acting station man-
ager at Panther Creek is Barbara Wright assisted by 204(b)
Supervisor Donna Pease.
Michael Carew, chief steward of the Union at Panther Creek,
testified that, prior to July, employees who had insufficient
annual leave to take their Choice Vacation were automatically
approved to take their Choice Vacation time using LWOP. In
early July, letter carriers Pat Givens and Lena Gibson submitted
leave requests on the appropriate form, Form 3971, to take their
Choice Vacation using LWOP. On July 5, Supervisor Pease
informed Carew that she had denied Gibson’s leave request,
that “there was a new policy in Spring [i.e. the Spring area post
offices], that they were now going to examine the LWOP for
[sic] a case-by-case basis.” Carew responded that this “wasn’t
right because they had always approved it.” Pease responded
that “this is coming from Ms. Wright, . . . that’s just the policy
and you’re going to have to take it up with her [Station Man-
ager Wright].” Carew filed a grievance and a request for in-
formation. The grievance is currently pending arbitration.
Maryke Cudd initially testified that, when she was “effec-
tively” the Panther Creek station manager from March 2000
until May 2002, all requests for LWOP were examined on a
case-by-case basis. Thereafter she acknowledged that the su-
pervisors, not she, handled all employee leave requests and that
she could recall no instance in which she had acted on an em-
ployee leave request. Alternate Shop Steward Jackie Jackson,
who has worked at Panther Creek for 20 years, testified that
employees who wanted to take their Choice Vacation time but
had insufficient annual leave were “granted leave without pay”
and that this practice had been followed “[e]ver since I’ve been
a letter carrier, since ‘83.”
Supervisor Pease denied that there was any change of policy,
testifying that “[w]e’ve always done it on a case-by-case basis.”
Pease later testified that employees turn in their leave slips and
that she will “approve it or disapprove it,” but that, pursuant to
the vacation schedule, Choice Vacation time is “blocked for
them so that they have the option of taking it or not taking it.”
Pease’s acknowledgement that it is the employee who has the
option is consistent with Carew’s testimony that, prior to July,
Choice Vacation was automatically approved. Significantly,
Pease did not deny Carew’s testimony that she told him “there
was a new policy in Spring” and that requests for Choice Vaca-
tion using LWOP were now going to be examined on “a case-
by-case basis.”
Persuasive evidence that the Postal Service implemented a
new policy in the Spring area is established by the failure of the
Postal Service to introduce any document showing any instance
prior to July in which an employee’s request for Choice Vaca-
tion using LWOP was denied. Pease’s undenied statement to
Carew reported a “new policy” in the Spring area. Matthew
Lopez, who was in charge of all four of the Spring locations,
was not asked and did not deny that a “new policy” had been
implemented. Acting Station Manager Wright was not asked
and did not deny that a “new policy” had been implemented. I
find that Pease correctly reported to Chief Steward Carew that
there was a “new policy” and that implementation of that pol-
icy, reviewing requests to use LWOP for Choice Vacation time
on a case-by-case basis, had resulted in the denial of employee
Gibson’s leave request.
Prissy Grace, president of branch 283, testified without con-
tradiction that there was no bargaining with the Union regard-
ing the foregoing change in procedure and that the Union has
protested whenever it has learned that leave for Choice Vaca-
tion has been denied because “people have the right to the leave
they signed up for on that roster in December.” She also ex-
plained the rationale behind automatic approval, noting that, on
the basis of their selection of Choice Vacation, employees
make cruise and hotel reservations for those dates.
The foregoing evidence establishes that the Respondent did,
without notice to or bargaining with the Union, cease automati-
cally approving requests for leave that involved employees in
the Spring Area taking LWOP for Choice Vacation and began
considering those requests on a case-by-case basis. The forego-
ing unilateral change related to employees’ terms and condi-
tions of employment and violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
Following Carew’s conversation with Supervisor Pease, he
filed a grievance and a request for information. The informa-
tion he sought included the original of the form 3971 submitted
by Lena Gibson, all form 3971s for Choice Vacation time from
1990 to 2003 for Pat Givens, who Carew understood had, over
that time period, been approved to take LWOP, form 3971’s for
the last five employees in the Spring area, excluding Givens,
who had taken LWOP during their Choice Vacation time in
order to show the extent of the practice, corresponding time and
attendance reports for the same dates as in order to show that
the carrier used LWOP for Choice Vacation time, and all form
3971s for all employees in the Spring area who used LWOP
during their Choice Vacation time since 1970 to show the lon-
gevity of the practice.
Supervisor Pease testified that she gave Carew access to all
records that she could locate, but admitted that she “only knew
where the 3971s for the two previous years” were located. She
acknowledged that, thereafter, a box appeared that contained
documents from the years 1999 through 2001. She did not
know where the box came from. She initially testified to pro-
viding only the time and attendance reports for Givens, but then
asserted that she provided all time and attendance reports.
Carew testified that he received only the time and attendance
report for Givens for the year 2002. Carew acknowledged re-

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 696
ceiving access to documents that included the 3971 forms for
employees at Panther Creek “for the past three years.” He testi-
fied that he was not provided a copy of the form 3971 for Lena
Gibson showing the denial of her requested LWOP for her
Choice Vacation time, and there is no claim that he was pro-
vided that document.
The evidence suggests that the Postal Service had additional
documents to which the Union was not given access. Carew
testified that, when being provided the Panther Creek docu-
ments, he was given access to four boxes of documents. He
testified that there were eight additional boxes at the post of-
fice, “under a conference table” that contained documents from
prior years and that he knew this because, in connection with
other grievances, he had been given access to some of the other
boxes. On August 12, in the supply room, Carew discovered
another box, the box that Pease acknowledged had appeared,
and that it contained some form 3971s. Carew recalled that
manila envelopes were marked with the years 2000 and 2001.
Pease recalled that they were for 1999, 2000, and 2001. Re-
gardless of whose recollection is correct, any form 3971s dated
after June 2000 would, of course, have been in the 3 years pre-
ceding the information request.
Acting Station Manager Wright informed Carew that he was
only being provided form 3971s for 3 years because that is the
specified retention period. Carew acknowledged that conversa-
tion and agreed that the Postal Service’s manual provides that
the foregoing documents must be retained for 3 years. Wright
contacted her superior, Matthew Lopez, who was in charge of
the Spring area in July. As a result of their conversation,
Wright concluded that Carew was authorized to file grievances
only on behalf of Panther Creek branch employees and, there-
fore, did not provide Carew with documents other than docu-
ments relating to those employees. Notwithstanding the fore-
going, the General Counsel argues that Carew was entitled to
review documents for the entire Spring area for prior years.
Carew testified that, notwithstanding the 3 year retention re-
quirement, he was familiar with arbitration decisions which
reflected that “10 years seemed to be a common ground for
establishing a past practice.” That testimony is uncontradicted.
The foregoing testimony establishes that, although the Postal
Service requires retention for 3 years, arbitrators consider evi-
dence up to 10 years old when determining past practices.
Thus, the record establishes that documents for a period of 10
years would be relevant in the presentation of a grievance.
Chief Steward Carew’s testimony relating to other boxes sug-
gests that additional information relevant to the Union’s request
was available albeit not within the retention period required by
postal regulations. There is no probative evidence that any
records more than 10 years old would be relevant and I shall
recommend that no documents earlier that 1993 need be pro-
duced and that the complaint allegations in that regard be dis-
missed.
The Union, through Supervisor Pease’s statement to Chief
Steward Carew, was informed that the new policy was a policy
of the Spring area. It was not limited to Panther Creek. The
Union sought to establish that the new policy altered the long-
standing past practice in the Spring area and requested docu-
ments that it believed would show the consistent past practice.
The requested time and attendance documents for the last five
employees who took LWOP for their Choice Vacation in the
Spring area were, therefore, relevant. The failure to provide
Gibson’s form 3971 request for LWOP for Choice Vacation
that was denied is obviously relevant and the failure of the Re-
spondent to provide it violated the Act. The Respondent’s limi-
tation of access to form 3971s for only 3 years at Panther Creek
violated the Act. By failing to fully provide all of the informa-
tion sought by the Union as set out in paragraph 96 of the com-
plaint, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By threatening discipline for failure to comply with a uni-
laterally changed procedure, the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. By unilaterally altering the procedure by which the
APWU maintenance craft steward must obtain union time in
order to carry out his representational responsibilities and by
unilaterally ceasing to automatically approve requests for leave
that involve employees taking LWOP for Choice Vacation and
approving those requests on a case-by-case basis in the Spring
Post Office, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
and (5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. By failing and refusing to provide the APWU with infor-
mation it requested on April 24, 2003, and by failing and refus-
ing to provide, or to provide in a timely manner, the Union with
information it requested between January 10, 2003, and July
11, 2003, as found herein, the information being relevant and
necessary to the APWU and the Union as the collective-
bargaining representatives of the employees in the appropriate
units, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and
(5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
The General Counsel has requested special remedies. In
view of the multiple facilities involved herein and the Board
Order in Postal Service, 339 NLRB 116 (2003), I shall, as re-
quested by the General Counsel, recommend a broad order and
district wide posting. Counsel has also requested the reading of
the notice and reinstatement of grievances. None of the viola-
tions found herein occurred subsequent to the Board’s Order in
August, thus, I shall not recommend the reading of the notice.
Nor shall I recommend the reinstatement of grievances. In
ordering the Respondent to reinstate a grievance, I would effec-
tively be ordering the waiver of time limitations agreed upon by
the parties and incorporated in their collective-bargaining
agreement. Although I have found no case that states that I
lack the authority to do so, that principle is implicit in North-
west Pipe & Casing, Co., 300 NLRB 726, 736–737 (1990), and
Postal Service, 307 NLRB 429 at fn. 2 (1992). Thus, I must
deny the request.
POSTAL SERVICE 697
The Respondent having made unilateral changes affecting
the terms and conditions of unit employees, it must, upon the
request of the unions representing employees in those units,
rescind those changes.
The Respondent having failed and refused to provide the
APWU with information it requested on April 24, 2003, and
having failed and refused to provide the Union with informa-
tion it requested between January 10 and July 11, 2003, it must
promptly supply said information, as set forth below.
I shall recommend that the Respondent be required to pro-
vide any of the information that I have found to have been
unlawfully withheld as set forth in paragraphs 14, 18(b), (c),
and (d), 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51(b), 64, 65, 66, 71,
72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, and 96, or inform the
Union that the information does not exist. As my findings re-
flect, in some instances a portion of the information encom-
passed in some of those paragraphs has been provided. Infor-
mation that has been provided need not be reprovided.4
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended5
ORDER
The Respondent, United States Postal Service, Houston,
Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Threatening discipline for failure to comply with a unilat-
erally changed procedure.
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively with American Postal
Workers Union by unilaterally altering the procedure by which
the APWU maintenance craft steward at the Spring Post Office
must obtain union time in order to carry out his representational
responsibilities.
(c) Refusing to bargain collectively with National Associa-
tion of Letter Carriers Branch 283, affiliated with National
Association of Letter Carriers, AFL–CIO, by unilaterally ceas-
ing to automatically approve requests for leave that involve
employees taking LWOP for Choice Vacation at the Panther
Creek branch and other locations of the Spring Post Office.
(d) Refusing to bargain collectively with American Postal
Workers Union by failing and refusing to provide requested
information that is relevant and necessary to that Union as the
collective-bargaining representative of employees in the fol-
lowing unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All maintenance employees, special delivery messengers, mo-
tor vehicle employees, postal clerks, mail equipment shop
employees and distribution centers employees; but excluding
managerial and supervisory personnel, professional employ-
ees, employees engaged in personnel work in other than a

4 If the Board should disagree with my recommend dismissal of Case
16–CA–22855, the Respondent should be ordered to provide the dates
of hire of the employees named in subpar. 33(a) and the information set
out in subpar. (c) of the complaint.
5 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 pur-
poses.
purely non-confidential clerical capacity, security guards as
defined in Public Law 91-375, 1201(2), all postal inspection
service employees, employees in the supplemental work force
as defined in Article 7 [of the collective-bargaining agree-
ment], rural letter carriers, mail handlers and letter carriers.
(e) Refusing to bargain collectively with National Associa-
tion of Letter Carriers Branch 283, affiliated with National
Association of Letter Carriers, AFL–CIO, by failing and refus-
ing to provide, or failing and refusing to provide in a timely
manner, requested information that is relevant and necessary to
that Union as the collective-bargaining representative of em-
ployees in the following unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act:
All letter carriers; but excluding managerial and supervisory
employees, professional employees, employees engaged in
personnel work in other than a purely non-confidential cleri-
cal capacity, security guards, Postal Inspection Service em-
ployees, employees in the supplemental workforce as defined
in Article 7, rural letter carriers, mailhandlers, maintenance
employees, special delivery messengers, motor vehicle em-
ployees, and postal clerks.
(f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, and co-
ercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Upon the request of the American Postal Workers Union,
rescind the unilateral alteration of the procedure by which the
its maintenance craft steward at the Spring Post Office must
obtain union time in order to carry out his representational re-
sponsibilities.
(b) Upon the request of the National Association of Letter
Carriers Branch 283, affiliated with National Association of
Letter Carriers, AFL–CIO, rescind the unilateral cessation of
automatically approving requests for leave that involve em-
ployees taking LWOP for Choice Vacation at the Panther Creek
branch and other locations of the Spring Post Office.
(c) Promptly furnish the American Postal Workers Union
and the National Association of Letter Carriers Branch 283,
affiliated with National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL–
CIO, with the information found to have been unlawfully with-
held from them as set forth in the remedy section of this deci-
sion.
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at all its
facilities within the Houston, Texas, district, copies of the at-
tached notice marked “Appendix.”6 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 16, after
being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative,
shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt
and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places
6 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 698
including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material. In the event that, during the pendency of
these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or
closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the Respon-
dent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the
notice to all current employees and former employees em-
ployed by the Respondent at its North Shepard Station at any
time since January 10, 2003.
(e) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the
Respondent has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed inso-
far as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found.