United States Postal Service

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Feb 1, 2019

16-CA-189702 (N.L.R.B. Feb. 1, 2019)

JD–13–19
Katy, TX
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
and Cases 16–CA–189702
16–CA–191290
JASMINE K. CASNEL
Roberto Perez, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Dallas G. Kingsbury, Esq. (United States Postal Service),
for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT A. RINGLER, Administrative Law Judge. This case was heard in Houston,
Texas on June 5 and 6, 2018. The complaint alleged that the United States Postal Service (the
U.S.P.S. or Respondent) violated the National Labor Relations Act (the Act), when it
threatened and fired Jasmine Casnel because of her activities on behalf of the National
Association of Letter Carriers, Local 283 (the Union). On the entire record, I make the
following
FINDINGS OF FACT1
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, the U.S.P.S. has operated mail delivery facilities within the
United States, including a facility at Park Row Drive in Katy, Texas (the Katy facility). The
National Labor Relations Board (the Board) has jurisdiction over this matter under §1209 of
the Postal Reorganization Act (the P.R.A.). The Union is a §2(5) labor organization.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
On November 13, 2014, Casnel, a Union member, began working at the Katy facility
as a full-time City Carrier Assistant (CCA).2 Postmaster Terri Taylor oversees the Katy

1 Unless otherwise stated, factual findings arise from joint exhibits, stipulations and undisputed evidence.
2 CCAs work under 12-month contracts; they case mail, load vehicles, and deliver mail on varying
routes. They aid City Carriers (CCs). There are roughly 40 CCAs and 200 CCs at the Katy facility.
JD–13–19
2
facility.3 Casnel’s last day of work was September 27, 2016.4 She was fired for an alleged
altercation with Taylor. Prior to the events leading to her firing, Casnel had a generally
successful tenure, and served as a temporary supervisor.
A. Temporary Supervisor Roles Held by Casnel 5
Since 2015, Casnel intermittently served as a 204B supervisor. In April 2016,
Postmaster Taylor solicited her to serve as a PM Supervisor, and praised her as someone who
“can handle the job and … [who’s] smart enough.” (Tr. 41–42). Casnel said that, although
she initially accepted this job offer, she subsequently withdrew her acceptance after 10
considering how this new role would limit her ability to take care of her infant child. This
withdrawal disappointed Taylor, and she quickly changed from Casnel’s supporter to her
nemesis.
B. Taylor’s Abusive Behavior and Casnel’s Protected Protests15
Casnel stated that Taylor reacted with hostility, and offered this recurring example:
[S]he would follow me around the building, and … say … I can't stand you … [,]
you're dumb … [,] CCAs don't know anything … [,] I'm going to put a paper trail on 20
you ... [,] I'm not going to promote you … [and] I'm going to get you fired ….
(Tr. 47). CC Shantrell Williams corroborated Casnel’s account. See also (JT Exh. 10 at 40).
Casnel filed at least three grievances over Taylor’s ensuing hostility.5 See, e.g., (JT Exh. 8).
25
Postmaster Taylor conceded knowing about Casnel’s grievances, EEO charges and
related complaints. (Tr. 252). She admitted to seeing Casnel collecting grievance-related
statements (i.e., Form 13s) from her coworkers.6 (Tr. 252–53). She contended, however, that
Casnel’s grievances did not bother her, and bragged that she was “not the first one.” (Tr.
253). She admitted having a loud tone (tr. 253), which occasionally offended. (Tr. 261). 30
I credit Casnel and Williams’ general testimony regarding Taylor’s hostility towards
Casnel. Both Casnel and Williams were believable witnesses with strong demeanors, who
appeared to be open, honest and cooperative. Taylor was the polar opposite; she was
aggressive, argumentative and appeared to be more defensive than candid. This conduct is 35
also closely consistent with Taylor’s other threats, and paints a distinct pattern of aggression.

3 Taylor served as Postmaster for 7 months before Casnel was fired.
4 All dates are in 2016, unless otherwise stated.
5 Between April and July, Cansel made 16 calls to the Union and U.S.P.S. regarding Taylor. (GC Exh.
2).
6 She said that, “[Casnel] got them in a group ... and … told them … to fill out a 13 to get rid of me.”
(Tr. 253).
JD–13–19
3
C. July 13 – Taylor’s Threat Against Casnel
Williams testified that Taylor told her that “your friend” Casnel is “going to learn her
place,” and “she was going to get rid of her because she didn’t.” (Tr. 173-174). Taylor
denied these statements. I credit Williams. As said, she was a believable witness with a 5
strong demeanor, while Taylor was not. This threat also closely mirrors Taylor’s other
threats.
D. July 21 – Taylor’s Call to the Union
10
Casnel witnessed Postmaster Taylor telephone the Union, request them to “put a leash
on [her]” grievance activities, and exclaim that “somebody needs to come get [her] … and let
her know.” (JT Exh. 8; tr. 58). CC Conan Gonzalez corroborated Casnel. (Tr. 215-18).
Taylor admitted calling the Union about Casnel. (Tr. 253-54). She claimed, however, 15
that she only said that, “they needed to put a latch on her mouth” because she questioned her
authority. (Tr. 254). This concession was contradicted by her earlier claim to U.S.P.S.
investigators that she never called the Union. See, e.g., (JT Exh. 10 at 16 (“I did not call the
Union Hall.”)). Her claim that she said “latch” was contradicted by supervisor Deshannon
Jones, who recalled her saying “leash.” (JT Exh. 10 at 30; tr. 363-64).20
Casnel’s testimony on this issue has been credited. She was a believable witness, who
did her best to recount a stressful episode. Taylor was, as said, less than credible. This
portion of Taylor’s testimony was also contradicted her initial denial to U.S.P.S. investigators
that she called the Union. Her willingness to mislead her own investigators eviscerates her 25
credibility. Her account was further undercut by supervisor Jones, who witnessed her saying
“leash.”
E. July 28 – Taylor’s Admonition to Workers Not to Aid Casnel
30
Casnel was told by CCA Terrell Furlow that, “Taylor told her to stay away from …
[Casnel] and … [not] get involved with what's going on [with her grievances and complaints]
because she would implicate [her]." (Tr. 77). Furlow contemporaneously provided this account to
U.S.P.S. investigators in a business record covering the EEO investigation. (JT Exh. 10 at 37
(“Taylor told me to be careful that Jasmine was going to implement [i.e., implicate] me.”)). I 35
credit this evidence, which was consistent with Taylor’s other threats and memorialized in an
important business record.7
F. August 11 – Grievance Settlements
40
The Union settled Casnel’s grievances. (JT Exh. 8). Their settlement offered a feeble
pledge of mutual dignity and respect, which would soon to be broken by Taylor.

7 There is nothing in the record suggesting that Furlow was biased against Taylor or motived to concoct
this event.
JD–13–19
4
G. September 27 – Events Surrounding Casnel’s Discharge
1. GC’s Position
When Casnel encountered Taylor before leaving for her mail route, she was asked 5
when she expected to finish and return to the Katy facility.8 Casnel stated that, when she
gauged her return at 7 p.m., Taylor expressed dissatisfaction and ordered her to return by 6
p.m. When Casnel returned at 6:30 p.m., Taylor sought an immediate explanation. Casnel
testified that she told Taylor that her short delay was caused by an unanticipated mail sorting
issue. She said that she then advised Taylor that she needed to leave and meet with her 10
assigned route inspectors. She recollected seeing Taylor shortly thereafter, and being
dismayed, when Taylor angrily yelled, “I know that you’re not still in the building,” and “get
off of the clock.” She said that she replied by calmly advising Taylor that she would clock
out, as soon as she completed her route inspection. She recollected Taylor then becoming
irate, ordering her to clock out immediately, and warning her not to come back. She said that 15
Taylor’s reaction appeared to be so irrational that she advised her that she was contacting the
local police in order to calm down what appeared to be a potentially unstable situation. She
stated that Taylor then escalated the situation, announced that the police could not help, and
told her that she could only summon the U.S.P.S. police. She stated that she also tried to call
the U.S.P.S. police, but, Taylor ripped a clipboard with their phone number off of the wall to 20
prevent her. (Tr. 106). She said, while she was attempting to clock out, Taylor told Evelyn,
another worker, that she should get Casnel out of the Katy facility before she gets her. (Tr.
106). She said that she and Evelyn then locked arms and departed, while Taylor screamed
behind them to leave. (Tr. 106–107). She said that the local police met her outside of the
Katy facility and she provided a statement. She added that Taylor refused to cooperate with 25
them, and told them that they needed to get off of U.S.P.S. property, which was outside of
their jurisdiction. She denied being insubordinate; she averred that Taylor lost her temper
without provocation.
2. U.S.P.S. Stance30
Taylor said that she reduced Casnel’s mail load on this date, in order to assure that she
returned by 6 p.m. She lamented that she was disappointed, when Casnel failed to return on
time. She said that, when she inquired, Casnel audaciously told her to stop asking questions,
and insubordinately yelled that she did not have to listen. She recalled being left with no 35
choice other than telling her to clock out and leave. She said that, before she knew it, the
police arrived, and accused her of assault, which she denied. She said that she contacted the
U.S.P.S. police.
Carrier Nelson, a route inspector and Postmaster at another facility, testified that she 40
heard Casnel yelling that Taylor touched her. She said that she thought that Casnel was being
disrespectful, and never heard Taylor yell. She agreed, on cross-examination, however, that

8 Casnel also had a route inspection on this day, which involved extra paperwork and an interview. (JT
Exh. 5).
JD–13–19
5
she did not observe their full exchange. John Vandenberg, another route inspector and
Postmaster, testified that he heard Casnel shout and became “really scared.” (Tr. 348-49). He
said that, although Taylor tried to calm Casnel down, he grew concerned about potential
violence.
5
3. Credibility Resolution
For several reasons, I credit Casnel and find that Taylor was the obvious aggressor and
engineered their fallout. First, as stated, Casnel was highly credible and had a strong
demeanor. Second, as said, Taylor was incredible. Third, it is implausible that Casnel would 10
have called the police and filed a report, if she were not actually assaulted and threatened. In
addition, if Taylor felt that Casnel was legitimately “dangerous to self and others” and
required emergency removal, she would have gladly provided a statement to the local police
to buffer her discharge rationale, which was never done and detracts from her credibility. It
also seems likely that Taylor, if genuinely innocent, would have welcomed the chance to 15
defend herself and talk to local police, if she felt that Casnel was falsely accusing her of a
crime. Fourth, this blowout was deeply consistent with Taylor’s distinct pattern of
threatening conduct towards her subordinates. Finally, I find it highly likely that, if Casnel
was genuinely a “danger to self and others” and warranted emergency removal, Taylor, a
supposedly rational supervisor, would have enlisted the aid of the other postmasters/route 20
inspectors at the Katy facility to act as witnesses and support, which was never done. Her
failure to take this obvious course further undercuts her account.9 In sum, I credit Casnel, and
find that Taylor was the aggressor, Casnel was the victim, and that Casnel conducted herself
in a reasonable way at all relevant times.
25
H. September 30 – Casnel Placed in Off-Duty Status
Casnel was placed in off-duty status without pay under Art. 16, Discipline Procedure,
§7, Emergency Procedure of the collective bargaining agreement on this basis:10
30
[Her] [c]onduct on the workroom floor was becoming disruptive, loud and
uncontrollable. [She was] … instructed to end … [her] tour and leave the building.
[She] … refused to follow the instruction[s] … given and [Postmaster Terri Taylor] …
was afraid … [that her] actions … [were] progressing to the point [where she] …
could be dangerous to self and others.35
(JT Exh. 11(a)).
I. October 11 – Investigatory Interview
40
In a memo dated Thursday, October 6, Casnel was advised that an investigatory

9 Although Postmasters Nelson and Vandenburg observed Casnel shouting, they conceded that they only
saw a fraction of the altercation and did not observe the several significant events that preceded their
viewing. I find, as a result, that their testimony can only be afforded limited weight.
10 CAs are covered by a collective-bargaining agreement that runs to September 20, 2019 (the CBA). (JT
Exh. 1).
JD–13–19
6
interview was set for Tuesday, October 11. (JT Exh. 11(b)). This notice was mailed out via
certified mail. The U.S.P.S.’ records demonstrate that, although this notice was left at
Casnel’s home on the day of the investigation, “no authorized recipient [was] available,”
which caused Casnel to miss the meeting. The investigatory meeting was then conducted
without Casnel, and no other meetings were scheduled. Casnel was, as a result, fired without 5
the U.S.P.S. hearing her side.
J. October 12 – Notice of Removal
Casnel received a Notice of Removal for improper conduct. (R Exh. 2; JT Exh. 11(c)). 10
The Notice accused her of failing to return from her route by 6 p.m., being disrespectful,
refusing to leave, without first calling the local police, and intentionally missing the
investigatory interview. Taylor, somewhat remarkably, denied making this removal decision,
and said that another manager, Compton, who conspicuously never testified, made it. (JT
Exhs. 12-14). 15
K. September 16, 2017 – Sam’s Club Incident
Following her firing, Casnel encountered Taylor at the Sam’s Club in Sugarland, Texas. She
related that Taylor followed her out to the parking lot, and aggressively shouted while she was 20
in her car to “get out of the car so I can shoot you,” and “I know where you live.” (Tr. 135).
She said that she was on the phone with Williams when this occurred, who corroborated her
account. This exchange led Casnel to file another police complaint. (GC Exh. 3).
Taylor testified that Casnel drove up behind her car at the Sam’s Club parking lot, as 25
she was loading her trunk and threatened, “I’m going to get you, I know where you live.” (Tr.
391-92). Taylor said that she answered that, “if you get out of your car, I have a concealed
weapon and I will shoot you.”11 (Tr. 391). She said that, although she felt threatened, she did
not file a police report, once again.
30
On the basis of the several reasons previously stated, Casnel has been credited. It is
further noted that Casnel’s strong testimony was buttressed by Williams, and her subsequent
filing of a police report. This event also closely mirrored Taylor’s other belligerent activities.
III. ANALYSIS35
A. §8(a)(1) Allegations12
1. July 13 Threat
40
Taylor’s statements that Casnel would “learn her place,” and that “she was going to

11 Taylor’s admitted willingness to open fire at a Sam’s Club parking lot with innocent bystanders was a
remarkable lapse in judgment, given that she could have chosen to not solicit a shootout, retreat to her
car and call the police.
12 These allegations are listed under complaint pars. 6 and 8.
JD–13–19
7
get rid of her because she didn’t know her place” violated §8(a)(1). See, e.g., Jordan Marsh
Stores Corp., 317 NLRB 460, 462-463 (1995); Trover Clinic, 280 NLRB 6 fn. 1 (1986);
Union National Bank, 276 NLRB 84, 88 (1985).
2. July 21 Threat5
Taylor’s solicitation to the Union “to come and get [Casnel]” and “put a leash on her”
in connection with her grievances was unlawful. See, e.g., King Soopers, Inc., 332 NLRB 23,
26-27 (2000); Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 234 NLRB 739 (1978).
10
3. July 28 Threat
Taylor’s comment to Furlow that, she needed “stay away from … [Casnel] and … [not]
get involved with … [her grievances about Taylor] because she would implicate … [her]" was an
unlawful threat of discharge. Jordan Marsh Stores Corp., supra; Trover Clinic, supra.15
B. §8(a)(3) Allegations13
The U.S.P.S. violated §8(a)(3), when it fired Casnel. The GC made a prima facie
showing. Moreover, the U.S.P.S. failed to meet its burden of showing that it would have 20
taken such action, absent Casnel’s protected activity.
1. Legal Precedent
The framework for analyzing whether discriminatory actions violate §8(a)(3) is 25
covered by Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert.
denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982), which requires the GC to show, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the worker’s protected conduct was a motivating factor in the adverse action.
This initial burden is satisfied by showing protected activity, employer knowledge and
animus. If the GC meets this initial burden, the burden shifts to the employer to prove that it 30
would have taken the same adverse action, absent the protected activity. Mesker Door, 357
NLRB 591–92 (2011). The employer cannot meet its burden, however, merely by showing
that it had a legitimate reason for its action; rather, it must demonstrate that it would have
taken the same action, absent the protected conduct. Bruce Packing Co., 357 NLRB 1084,
1086, 1087 (2011). If the employer's proffered reasons are pretextual (i.e., either false or not 35
actually relied on), it fails to show that it would have taken the same action for those reasons
regardless of the protected conduct. Metropolitan Transportation Services, 351 NLRB 657,
659 (2007). On the other hand, further analysis is required if the defense is one of “dual
motivation,” that is, the employer defends that, even if an invalid reason might have played
some part in its motivation, it would have still taken the same action for permissible reasons. 40
Palace Sports & Entertainment, Inc. v. NLRB, 411 F.3d 212, 223 (D.C. Cir. 2005).

13 These allegations are listed under complaint pars. 7 and 9.
JD–13–19
8
2. Prima Facie Case
The GC made a prima facie showing that Casnel’s protected activity was a motivating
factor. She engaged in protected activity by filing grievances and charges involving Taylor’s
abusive conduct. Taylor knew about her grievances. There is also significant evidence of 5
animus, which includes Taylor’s several unlawful threats and connected hostility. In sum,
Taylor made it abundantly clear that she harbored great hostility against Casnel’s protected
activity, and repeatedly threatened retribution against her and anyone who aided her.
3. Affirmative Defense10
For several reasons, the U.S.P.S. failed to show that it would have fired Casnel, absent
her protected activity. First, there is extensive evidence of animus, which was repeatedly
demonstrated by Taylor’s threats and hostility. Second, the U.S.P.S.’ claim that Casnel
abruptly morphed into an intolerable employee who was “injurious to self or others” and 15
needed emergency removal is deeply undercut by the fact that only 5 months earlier Taylor
solicited Casnel to serve as acting supervisor and praised her as a superior candidate. (Tr. 41–
42.). It is implausible that Casnel sunk from a candidate for a promotion to a workplace
menace in such a short period. Third, there is conspicuously close timing between Casnel’s
protected activity and her discharge. Fourth, as discussed, Taylor was consistently the 20
aggressor, and engineered Casnel’s problems and firing. Casnel acted reasonably, and the
underlying rationale for her firing was false and pretextual.14 Fifth, the U.SP.S.’ willingness
to fire Casnel without hearing her side of the story, and without granting her reasonable notice
of her investigatory hearing smacks of invidious treatment. In sum, the record demonstrates
that Casnel was fired for her protected activity, and the root of her problem was her protected 25
protest of Taylor’s misconduct.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The U.S.P.S. is an employer subject to the Board’s jurisdiction under §1209 of 30
the P.R.A.
2. The Union is a labor organization, within the meaning of §2(5) of the Act.
3. The U.S.P.S., by Taylor, violated §8(a)(1) by:35
a. Threatening employees with discipline and termination in order to
discourage their Union and other protected activities.
b. Implicitly threatening employees with discipline and termination in 40
order to discourage their Union and other protected activities.
c. Threatening employees with unspecified reprisals, if they aided their

14 At worst, Casnel was slightly late on September 27 with reasonable excuse, which was not a fair
discharge basis.
JD–13–19
9
coworkers’ Union and other protected activities.
4. The U.S.P.S. violated §8(a)(3) by firing Casnel because she engaged in Union
and other protected activities.
5
5. The unfair labor practices set forth above affect commerce within the meaning
of §2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
10
Having found that the U.S.P.S. committed unfair labor practices, it is ordered to cease
and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the Act’s policies. It
must make Casnel whole for any losses of earnings and other benefits. Her make whole
remedy shall be computed in accordance with F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950),
with interest at the rate prescribed in New Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), that is 15
compounded daily as set forth in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010). Under
King Soopers, Inc., 364 NLRB No. 93 (2016), it shall also compensate her for search-for-
work and interim employment expenses, regardless of whether those expenses exceed her
interim earnings.15 It shall also, in accordance with Don Chavas, LLC d/b/a Tortillas Don
Chavas, 361 NLRB 101 (2014), compensate Casnel for the adverse tax consequences, if any, 20
of receiving a lump sum backpay award, and, in accordance with AdvoServ of New Jersey,
Inc., 363 NLRB No. 143 (2016), within 21 days of the date the amount of backpay is fixed
either by agreement or Board order, file with the Regional Director for Region 16 a report
allocating backpay to the appropriate calendar year. The Regional Director will then assume
responsibility for transmission of the report to the Social Security Administration. It shall 25
remove from its files any references to her unlawful firing, and notify her in writing that this
has been done and it will not be used against her in any way. It also shall post the attached
notice under J. Picini Flooring, 356 NLRB 11 (2010).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law, and on the entire record, I issue the 30
following recommended16
ORDER
The U.S.P.S., Katy, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall35
1. Cease and desist from
a. Threatening employees with discipline and termination in order to

15 Search-for-work and interim employment expenses shall be calculated separately from taxable net
backpay, with interest at the rate set in New Horizons, supra, compounded daily under Kentucky River
Medical Center, supra.
16 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
JD–13–19
10
discourage their Union and other protected activities.
b. Impliedly threatening employees with discipline and termination in
order to discourage their Union and other protected activities.
5
c. Threatening employees with unspecified reprisals, if they aid their
coworker’s Union and other protected activities.
d. Discharging or otherwise discriminating against employees because
they engage in Union and other protected activities.10
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the
Act:
a. Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, offer Casnel full 15
reinstatement to her former job or, if such job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to her seniority or any other rights or privileges previously
enjoyed.
b. Make Casnel whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered 20
as a result of the discrimination against her, in the manner set forth in the Remedy section of
the decision; compensate her for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving a lump-
sum backpay award; compensate her for search-for-work and interim employment expenses;
and file with the Regional Director, within 21 days of the date the amount of backpay is fixed,
either by agreement or Board Order, a report allocating backpay to the appropriate calendar 25
year.
c. Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, remove from its
files any reference to Casnel’s unlawful discharge, and within 3 days thereafter, notify her in
writing that this has been done and that her discharge will not be used against her in any way. 30
d. Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such additional time as the
Regional Director may allow for good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place designated
by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records, including an electronic copy of such 35
records if stored in electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of the Board’s Order.
e. Within 14 days after service by Region 16, post at its Katy facility
copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”17 Copies of the notice, on forms provided 40
by the Regional Director, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized representative,

17 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice
reading “Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations
Board.”
JD–13–19
11
shall be posted by the U.S.P.S. and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. In addition to
physical posting of paper notices, notices shall be distributed electronically, such as by email,
posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the U.S.P.S.
customarily communicates with its employees by such means. Reasonable steps shall be 5
taken to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If
the U.S.P.S. has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these proceedings, it
shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and
former employees employed by it at the Katy facility at any time since July 13, 2016.
10
f. 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 it has taken to comply.
Dated Washington, D.C. February 1, 201915
Robert A. Ringler
Administrative Law Judge20
/Z-- ( ~-
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
WE WILL NOT threaten you with discipline and discharge in order to discourage your
Union and other protected activities.
WE WILL NOT impliedly threaten you with discipline and discharge in order to discourage
your Union and other protected activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with unspecified reprisals, if you assist your coworkers’ Union
and other protected activities.
WE WILL NOT fire you or otherwise discriminate against you because you engaged in
Union or other protected activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain or coerce you in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.

WE WILL make Casnel whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from her
discharge, less any net interim earnings, plus interest, plus reasonable search-for-work and
interim employment expenses.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, remove from our files any
reference to the unlawful discharge of Casnel, and WE WILL, within 3 days thereafter,
notify her in writing that this has been done and that her discharge will not be used against her
in any way.
WE WILL compensate Casnel for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving lump-
sum backpay awards, and WE WILL file with the Regional Director, within 21 days of the
date the amount of backpay is fixed, either by agreement or Board Order, a report assigning
her backpay awards to the appropriate calendar year.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to
enforce the National Labor Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine
whether employees want union representation and it investigates and remedies unfair labor
practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under the Act and how
to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the
Board’s Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s
website: www.nlrb.gov.
819 Taylor Street, Room 8A24, Fort Worth, TX 76102-6178
(817) 978-2921, Hours: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
The Board’s decision can be found at https://www.nlrb.gov/case/16-CA-189702 or using the
QR code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive
Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570,
or by calling (202) 273-1940.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE
DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY
ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR
COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE
REGIONAL OFFICE’S COMPLIANCE OFFICER (682) 703-7489.