U.S. Postal Service

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 23, 1978

235 N.L.R.B. 307 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE
United States Postal Service and American Postal
Workers Union, AFL-CIO, Georgetown, Texas
Local Union and Richard Quinlan. Cases 16-CA-
5400(P), 16-CA-5861(P), 16-CA-6292(P), and
16-CA-6389(P)
March 23, 1978
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, MURPHY, AND
TRUESDALE
On October 6, 1977, Administrative Law Judge
George Norman issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the Charging Party filed
exceptions and a supporting brief, and Respondent
filed a brief in reply to Charging Party's exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings,1 and conclusions2 of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the complaint be, and it hereby is,
dismissed in its entirety.
' The Charging Party has excepted to certain credibility findings made
by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibili-
ty unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces
us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91
NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C A. 3, 1951). We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
2 In his recitation of the facts of this case. the Administrative Law Judge
made several minor errors which in no way detract from the soundness of
his analysis and conclusions. Thus, for example, the Administrative Law
Judge stated that American Postal Workers Union "International Vice
President Neill visited the Georgetown Post Office and, in the presence of
the local union officials, filed four grievances .... " The record shows,
however, that the local officers were not present, but that two other agents
of the International were. The Administrative Law Judge also stated that
employee Quinlan was placed on "restricted sick leave" following an
incident on May 24, 1974, whereas the record establishes that Quinlan was
placed in that status on May 18, 1974. Finally, the Administrative Law
Judge indicates that Quinlan "testified that he filed 15 grievances only
because it was apparent to him he was about to be discharged .... "
However, Quinlan testified that the possibility of imminent discharge was
one of the motivating factors in filing those grievances, but not the only one.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GEORGE NORMAN, Administrative Law Judge: This
proceeding was heard in Georgetown, Texas, on March 21,
22, 23, 24, 29, 30, and 31 and May 3 through 6, 1977,
pursuant to a charge filed on January 2, 1974, by Richard
Quinlan, steward for the American Postal Union, AFL-
CIO, Georgetown, Texas, Local Union, against the United
States Postal Service in Case 16-CA-5400(P), alleging
violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended (herein called the Act), in that
the Georgetown, Texas, Post Office had discriminated
against employees Richard Quinlan and Kenneth M.
Moore, Jr., because of their union activities. A complaint
issued based on that charge on February 21, 1974, alleging
violations of the Act by reason of interrogation of employ-
ees by Postmaster Virgil L. Williams on or about Decem-
ber 11, 1973; threats to employees by Postmaster Williams
and Supervisor Weldon Wade on or about December 19,
1973, and by Postmaster Williams on January 15, 1974.
The complaint also alleged that Respondent, on or about
December 7, 1973, discriminatorily reduced the hours of
work of employees Quinlan and Moore. On May 14, 1974,
the National Labor Relations Board's Regional Director
for Region 16 approved a settlement agreement entered
into by the parties settling all allegations of that com-
plaint.'
On December 2, 1974, Mr. Quinlan filed charges in Case
16-CA-5861(P), alleging 8(aXI) and (3) violations con-
cerning a denial to him of a periodic pay increase. On
February 3, 1975, an amendment was made to that charge
to include an 8(aX4) allegation. By letter dated May 9,
1975, the NLRB Regional Director notified Respondent
that the investigation of Case 16-CA-5861(P) revealed that
the settlement agreement in Case 16-CA-5400(P) had been
violated, that the Regional Director's approval of such
settlement was withdrawn, and that the cases would be
consolidated for hearing and complaint would issue. A
consolidated complaint issued in Cases 16-CA-5400(P)
and 16-CA-5861(P) on May 20, 1975, alleging that
Respondent interrogated its employees on December I I,
1973, and threatened employees on December 19. 1973,
and January 15, 1974, all in violation of Section 8(aXI) of
the Act. The complaint also alleges that Respondent, on
December 7, 1973, reduced the hours of employee Kenneth
I On April 24, 1974, Union Steward Quinlan filed a charge (Case 16-
CA-5542(P)) against the U.S. Postal Service alleging violations of Sec.
8(aXI) and (3) of the Act, by discriminating against Quinlan, by charging
him with tampering with a Postal Service vehicle and by suspending him for
28 days, and because he engaged in activities on behalf of the American
Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO, Georgetown, Texas. That charge was
withdrawn by Quinlan on May 14 after investigation. The events of that 28-
day suspension were arbitrated. The arbitrator sustained the suspension.
235 NLRB No. 27
307
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Moore and on December 7, 1973, and December 15, 1974,
reduced the hours of Quinlan, all in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act; and the reduction as to Quinlan
is alleged to be also in violation of Section 8(a)(4). 2
The consolidated complaint in Cases 16-CA-5400(P)
and 16-CA-5861(P) also alleged that on October 15, 1974,
Quinlan was subjected to disparate treatment and required
to produce "a more arduous work output" than others in
the Georgetown Post Office. This was alleged to be in
violation of Section 8(a)(l), (3), and (4) of the Act.
Respondent was also alleged to have harassed Quinlan on
or about November 6, 1974, in violation of Section 8(a)(l),
(3), and (4) of the Act. Quinlan's deferred wage increase
was alleged to have been in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (3),
and (4) of the Act.
The complaint also purports to set forth the terms of the
settlement agreement, and further alleges that the aforesaid
alleged violations of the Act were also violations of the
terms of the settlement agreement entered into in Case 16-
CA-5400(P).
On October 28, 1975, Quinlan, as an individual, filed a
charge in Case 16-CA-6292(P) against Respondent alleg-
ing violations of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act, by
Respondent giving Quinlan a 7-day disciplinary suspen-
sion.
On December 30, 1975, a complaint issued in Case 16-
CA-6292(P) alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and
(4) through acts of harassment since August 5, 1975, by
singling Quinlan out on August 5, 6, 7 and 8, 1975, for
counseling due to work deficiencies; by suspending Quin-
lan from September 8 through 15, 1975; and by admonish-
ing Quinlan on September 15, 17, and 18, 1975, for working
too slowly; by admonishing Quinlan for taking too much
time on a coffeebreak on September 16, 1975; by imposing
a "gag rule" on Quinlan on September 18, 1975, for
excessive talking; and by imposing a "gag rule" on Quinlan
on September 19, 1975, while he attempted to discuss a
grievance. In addition, the complaint alleged that Quinlan
was discriminatorily counseled on September 18, 1975, for
a violation of safety rules or regulations. On January 7,
1976, Quinlan, as an individual, filed a charge in Case 16-
CA-6389(P) alleging that his termination from the Postal
Service on January 5, 1976, was in violation of Section
8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act.
An order consolidating Cases 16-CA-6292(P) and 16-
CA-6389(P) and complaint issued in these matters on
February 17, 1976. In addition to the allegations of the
complaint in Case 16-CA-6292(P), the consolidated com-
plaint in Cases 16-CA-6292(P) and 16-CA-6389(P) al-
leged a violation in that Quinlan was issued a notice of
proposal to remove him on December 5, 1975, and was
terminated from postal employment on January 5, 1976.
2 At the beginning of the hearing, counsel for the General Counsel
moved to amend par. 7(a) of the complaint to allege "7(a) Respondent,
between about December 9, 1973, and about January 5, 1974, reduced the
hours of work assigned to its employee, Kenneth Moore, at its Georgetown,
Texas Post Office," and to amend par. 7(b) of the complaint to allege a
reduction in Quinlan's hours from between about December 19, 1973, to
January 5, 1974, and between about December 15, 1974, and December 25,
1974. Counsel for the General Counsel also moved to strike the date
December 7, 1973, of par. 7(a). I deferred ruling on these motions until the
evidence was presented with leave given to counsel to renew his motion after
An undated order consolidating cases for hearing in
Cases 16-CA-5400(P), 16-CA-5861(P), 16-CA-6292(P),
and 16-CA-6389(P) issued in these matters and a hearing
was scheduled and heard on the aforementioned dates.
Posttrial briefs were filed on behalf of the General
Counsel,3 Respondent, and Charging Party Postal Workers
Union, AFL-CIO.
Upon consideration of the entire record including the
briefs filed on behalf of the parties, I make the following
findings and conclusions:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. JURISDICTION
The Board has jurisdiction over this matter by virtue of
section 1209 of the Postal Reorganization Act (PRA). The
facility involved in this proceeding is the Georgetown, Post
Office, located in the city of Georgetown, Texas. The
Respondent is now, and has been at all times material
herein, an employer within the meaning of the PRA.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO, George-
town, Texas Local Union, is, and has been at all times
material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
l1. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The Postal Service has a collective-bargaining agreement
with various labor organizations covering its employees in
various "crafts." The bargaining units for these crafts are
national units encompassing all craft employees of all post
offices in the United States. The Union representing postal
clerical and maintenance employees, the employees in-
volved in these cases, is the American Postal Workers
Union, AFL-CIO (herein called the Postal Union). This
national unit of clerical and maintenance employees has
been reviewed and found appropriate by the National
Labor Relations Board. In finding the national unit
appropriate, the NLRB concluded that separate bargaining
units at each postal installation within the United States
would be inappropriate. The United Postal Service, 208
NLRB 948 (1974).
On or about July 3, 1972, Richard Quinlan was hired to
work in the Georgetown, Texas, Post Office as a part-time
flexible employee. 4 Prior to this time, he had worked for a
brief period in the Austin, Texas, Post Office, but had not
completed his 90-day probationary period. He had been
unable to satisfactorily complete the duties for which he
the presentation of subpenaed records. Counsel for the General Counsel,
however, did not renew his motion, and therefore the allegation of the
complaint remained as originally presented when the hearing commenced.
3 Errors in the transcript have been noted and corrected.
4 Part-time employees in the Postal Service (such as Quinlan) are defined
in the contract as employees "hired pursuant to such procedures as
management may establish and are either assigned to regular schedules or
less than forty (40) hours or have no fixed work schedules, but are available
for work on a flexible schedule in the course of a service week." (G.C. I(i),
Exh. 3, art. VII, sec. I, p. 6.)
308
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE
was hired in Austin (a machine operator), and was
scheduled to be terminated. That termination did not occur
because he obtained the Georgetown position. Quinlan's
appointment letter to the Georgetown Post Office states
that he would be worked in a "dual capacity" as a part-
time flexible clerk and carrier and would be on detail there
in such capacity until "the freeze is lifted" when he could
be reassigned. 5
In August 1972, shortly after Quinlan began work in
Georgetown, he and several other clerical employees went
to Postmaster Williams and complained about the post-
master's use of maintenance employee Norman Mueller to
perform clerk and carrier work. Mueller was performing
this work at that time on a daily basis. Employees Quinlan,
Frymyer, and Gardner protested this practice to Postmas-
ter Williams for the first time in August 1972, and from
that time until about January 15, 1974, the complaints on
this matter were continual.
In July 1973, Quinlan applied for a management training
position with the Postal Service. Postmaster Williams
evaluated him and sent the evaluation to Austin. In his
evaluation, the Postmaster said he considered Quinlan a
good employee in all respects except "attitude." On
"attitude" the postmaster gave Quinlan a low rating. The
postmaster testified that up to the time of the evaluation he
had considered Quinlan a good employee but he noticed
that Quinlan had a very abrupt attitude in his dealings with
others.
5 The U.S. Postal Service personnel records with respect to Quinlan show
that from January 1971 until October 27, 1971, he was employed as a GS-3
Clerk, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Austin, Texas, on a temporary
appointment; from November 7, 1971, to January 1972 by Nelson Mobile
Home Sales on a temporary job; from December 1969 to January 1971 he
was a self-employed photographer in Austin, Texas: from September 1969
to December 1969 by the Austin Independent School District in Austin,
Texas, as a teacher; from July 1969 to October 1969, he was a photographer
for C.O. Martin-Mayfield, in Austin, Texas; from April 7, 1969, to July 1969
employed as a GS-2 Clerk for the Internal Revenue Service, Austin, Texas;
from October 1966 to April 1969 he was a self-employed photographer;
from January 1964 to September 1966 employed in the furniture moving
business as owner-operator for North American Van Lines, Fort Wayne,
Indiana; from February 1960 to September 1963, he was a motion picture
business unit supervisor in the educational motion picture business for the
University of Texas in Austin; from October 1956 to October 1959 he was in
the motion picture business doing freelance movie work (self-employed):
from October 1955 to October 1956 he was employed as a production
manager in a commercial motion picture business in Birmingham, Michi-
gan; from October 1954 to October 1955 he was doing research work for the
Willow Run Research Center. Ann Arbor, Michigan; from June 1954 to
October 1954 he was technical reviewer evaluating Salk vaccine in Ann
Arbor, Michigan, for the Polio Vaccine Evaluation Center.
He was graduated from the University of Michigan in 1950 with an AB
degree; from June 1950 to June 1954 he was employed at various times at
Wayne State University as an interviewer; he was employed at the Research
Survey Center, University of Michigan; and prior to that he was self.
employed as a photographer, a motion picture worker, Checker Cab
Company, Detroit, Michigan, as a driver, Yellow Cab Company, Ann
Arbor, Michigan, as a driver, Hoover Ball and Bearing in Ann Arbor,
Michigan, as a grinder, and the Argus Camera Company. In addition,
Quinlan was employed by the Tr-Valley Packing Company, Modesto,
California, as a laborer. He also worked for various growers with unknown
names in San Joachin Valley, California, as a picker; he worked as a house
painter in Walker, Iowa: and in a soap factory in Oakland, California.
From March 4, 1946, to June 1950 he was a student at the University of
Michigan; from November 1942 to November 1945 he was in the U.S.
Army; from August 1942 to October 1942 he worked for Fisher Body,
Detroit, Michigan Aircraft, Detroit, Michigan. as an aircraft riveter; from
In or about the middle of December 1973, the postmaster
received a letter from Thomas A. Neill, an International
vice president of the Postal Union, stating his intention to
visit the Georgetown Post Office. 6 The postmaster, being
curious about this matter, showed the letter to Supervisor
Weldon Wade in the Georgetown Post Office and asked
him if he knew anything about Neill's visit. Wade told the
postmaster that he had heard that the Union was electing
officers. 7 Later, the postmaster saw Quinlan on the work-
room floor and asked him if they were electing officers.
Quinlan replied that they were and that, as soon as the
officers were elected, a list of the elected officials would be
provided to the postmaster. Quinlan testified that the
postmaster asked Quinlan in the presence of Kenneth
Moore, a fellow employee, if they were "organizing a local
union." The postmaster testified that he did not know if
employee Moore was present during this conversation with
Quinlan but denied asking either Moore or Quinlan if they
were "organizing a local union." 8
By letter dated December 16, 1973, the postmaster was
notified by the Local Union that all the clerks in the office
were designated officers. Richard E. Heckman, a regular
clerk, was elected president, and the three part-time flexible
clerks, Quinlan, Black, and Moore, were elected to other
offices. Upon receipt of the letter, the postmaster congratu-
lated Heckman as the new president of the Local.
On December 14, 1973, International Vice President
Neill visited the Georgetown Post Office and, in the
presence of the Local Union's officials, filed four griev-
June 1942 to August 1942 he worked for the Ford Motor Company, in
Detroit, Michigan, as a riveter; and from July 1941 to January 1942 he was a
member of the Civilian Conversation Corps in Rapid City, Michigan.
6 The collective-bargaining agreement provides that union officials who
plan to visit postal installations must give advance notice of their visit.
7 Supervisor Weldon Wade of the Georgetown Post Office was present
during many conversations between Quinlan and the postmaster, and was
also privy to conversations, involving Quinlan and other employees in the
Post Office. Counsel for the General Counsel contends that Respondent's
failure to call Wade as a witness "was not unintentional" since, if he had
been called, he would probably have "blown" Respondent's entire defenses
to the allegations in the complaint. He further contends that. "although no
adverse inferences may, of course, be made against the General Counsel for
failing to call Wade under Rule 611(c), the same is certainly not true of the
Respondent," and that certain testimony of Postmaster Williams "is wholly
uncorroborated by Mr. Wade and that since Respondent made no showing
that Mr. Wade was unable or unavailable to testify, the trial judge is
requested to find that Wade, if called, would not have corroborated
Williams' above testimony." With respect to that contention, first, corrobo-
rating testimony, although it may prove valuable, is not essential to prove or
disprove facts in these proceedings. I will not draw any adverse inference
from Respondent's decision not to call Wade to corroborate the testimony
of Postmaster Williams. If the testimony of Williams and Quinlan is
conflicting, crediting one side or the other is possible without any
corroboration. Secondly, counsel for the General Counsel called Postmaster
Williams under rule 611(c). He was free to call Wade also under that rule
but for reasons known to only himself did not choose to call him. I do not
draw any adverse inferences in the case of either party choosing not to call
Mr. Wade to testify in this proceeding.
I I credit Postmaster Williams who testified several hours under Federal
Rule 611(c). For the most part, that testimony was consistent and
straightforward. Although his memory of certain dates or events was not the
best, that was in part attributable to the many events that occurred over a
long period of time. Quinlan. on the other hand, was inconsistent, flippant,
unresponsive, and at times abrupt and almost belligerent toward both
counsel for the General Counsel and counsel for the Respondent. I note also
that Williams was a former union member in the Postal Service prior to
becoming a supervisor. He was aware that a union that represented the
employees already existed.
309
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ances at step I of the grievance procedure. One of these
grievances concerned employees crossing craft lines. The
postmaster orally denied these grievances at step i, which
is the normal procedure.
B. The Postal Service's Practice of Assigning
Employees To Perform Services Across Craft Lines
The Postal Service contends that the practice of assigning
employees to perform service across craft lines is permissi-
ble under article VII, section 2, of the contract as long as
the employee doing work out of his craft is paid at the level
of work he performs in that craft. In maintenance man
Mueller's case, he was paid the higher level Qf pay when he
performed work in the clerk or carrier crafts. The Union
has never taken this issue to arbitration, although Interna-
tional Vice President Neill filed one grievance and Quinlan
filed several on the matter.
As previously stated, Postmaster Williams began assign-
ing clerk and carrier work to Mueller in July 1972. He
continued this practice until the latter part of 1974. The
postmaster assigned clerk and carrier work to Mueller
because there were two regular maintenance employees on
the rolls, Mueller and a 35-hour-per-week regular, Eugene
Sayler, and there was not enough maintenance work to
keep both men busy for the entire regular shifts even
though they were guaranteed 40 and 35 hours a week,
respectively. As regular employees they were guaranteed
those hours per week by the contract. Williams continued
to assign Mueller the higher level work until some time in
October 1974, when maintenance employee Sayler trans-
ferred to another post office. After his departure there was
enough work in the Georgetown Post Office to keep
Mueller gainfully employed within the maintenance craft
so he was no longer assigned the higher level work.
The Postal Service tried to avoid using its employees in
an overtime capacity if at all possible. Therefore, the
number of hours assigned to a part-time flexible employee,
who worked flexible hours as scheduled according to the
volume of mail, as opposed to regular employees who
worked a fixed schedule per week, depended on the
number of hours he already worked in that pay period to
insure that he would not, if possible, work in excess of 40
hours. Supervisors therefore, often checked the timecards
of the part-time flexibles in making further assignments in
order to avoid overtime. If an employee was approaching
40 hours during a work period, sometimes he would be sent
home in order to spread the remainder of the hours they
could work throughout the rest of the pay period. In any
event, if the mail volume did not require the services of
part-time flexibles, they would not be allowed to work. If
an employee was already in an overtime situation, he
would be used only when absolutely necessary in order to
keep overtime to a minimum. In furtherance of this
practice, a part-time flexible would sometimes be sent
home even though there was work remaining to be done in
the post office. In those instances the remaining work
would be completed by the regular employees on duty,
including idle maintenance employee Mueller who had to
9 Moore had previously requested a transfer to the carrier craft and his
request had been denied.
remain for 8 hours per day each day of the workweek. This
happened continually in the Georgetown Post Office.
C. Quinlan and Moore are Told To Leave at Noon
On December 19, 1973, Supervisor Weldon Wade told
Quinlan to leave at noon. At the time, Wade also told
Quinlan that Postmaster Williams had wanted to send both
Quinlan and Moore home at noon the previous day. On
December 19, 1973, Quinlan worked 6 hours and Moore
worked 6 hours and 6 minutes. Mueller performed 54
minutes of clerk work and 5 hours and 58 minutes of
carrier work that day. Mueller's carrier work was per-
formed after Moore and Quinlan were sent home. Both
Moore and Quinlan admitted that they had been sent
home early in the past.
On December 19, 1973, Postmaster Williams received
four written step 2(a) grievance appeals of the oral
grievances presented by International Vice President Neill
on December 14, 1973, and denied by the postmaster on
that date. These written grievances were dated December
18, 1973, and, as previously stated, one involved employees
crossing craft lines in the Georgetown Post Office. Follow-
ing the receipt of the written grievance appeals, Postmaster
Williams went to the workroom floor to discuss them with
one of the Local Union's officers. He found Moore, the
union secretary and junior part-time flexible clerk, and told
him he had received the grievance appeals. Williams asked
Moore if he was aware of the consequences if the Union
won the grievances. He told Moore that he would no
longer be able to assign the part-time flexible clerks to
perform work in the carrier craft in which he and the other
clerks were getting most of their hours. He said if the
Union won the grievance and he was not allowed to assign
across craft lines, the clerks would be hurting themselves
because they would not be allowed to get carrier hours.
The postmaster also told Moore that, since he was the
junior part-time flexible clerk, he had more to lose in such
circumstances. The postmaster also said that, if the clerks
could no longer perform carrier duties, he might be forced
to hire another regular carrier.9 Moore told Postmaster
Williams that he would think it over, but that he thought he
would want to proceed with the grievance.
Moore testified that he interpreted the grievance not as
referring to crossing craft lines, but to crossing level lines
(pay level). He did admit, however, that the postmaster told
him that he could be hurt if the post office was not allowed
to use employees by crossing craft lines because he could
not do any carrier work. In any event, the written grievance
refers to "crossing craft lines." Williams denied that Moore
said anything during that conversation about the grievance
pertaining to "higher level" work rather than "crossing
craft lines." Williams also denied that he told Moore
during that conversation that he would be excessed out of
the post office.'0
On December 19, 1973, at approximately 4 p.m. Quinlan,
Moore, and Local Union President Heckman went to
Postmaster Williams' office and discussed the fact that
Quinlan and Moore were sent home at noon on that date,
Io For reasons previously stated concerning Williams' testimony, I credit
him and not Moore.
310
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE
and Mueller was assigned to perform carrier duties. The
postmaster explained that Mueller was guaranteed 40
hours of work per pay period and that the part-time
flexibles were not. They stated that they wanted to file a
grievance because of Mueller performing the clerk work.
Postmaster Williams told them that the carriers had their
own union representatives and that he did not feel that
they could file a grievance concerning letter carriers' work
being performed by Mueller." Quinlan asked Postmaster
Williams if he and Moore had been sent home because of
the Union. The postmaster said that they had not. At this
time Quinlan asked the postmaster how he had evaluated
him in July 1973, concerning his application for the
management-trainee position. The postmaster replied that
he rated him satisfactory in everything but "attitude," and
told Quinlan that he was rated low in that category because
of his abruptness with people. Quinlan asked the postmas-
ter how he would rate him as of that date and was told that
he would be rated the same. Moore stated to the postmas-
ter that he probably did not appreciate a "bunch" of them
coming in like that and raising such an issue. The
postmaster replied that they had a right to raise the issue,
but that he did feel like it was a little "chicken shit" of them
to raise the issue because they had been getting their 40
hours of work per week and it would only prevent him
from giving work to Mueller who had to be kept busy for
the 40 hours per week that Mueller was guaranteed as a
regular employee. The postmaster also stated that he did
not understand why they would object as long as they got
their 40 hours per week.'2
On December 20, 1973, the postmaster met with Quinlan
and Heckman to discuss the four step 2(a) grievance
appeals filed by Union Official Neill, one of which dealt
with crossing craft lines. They discussed each of those
grievances. The postmaster sustained one of the grievances
concerning an overtime desired list; denied a grievance
concerning Supervisor Wade performing clerk work; and
denied a grievance requesting the setting up of another
regular position. With respect to the grievance concerning
crossing craft lines, the postmaster agreed that he and
Mueller would no longer perform any clerk work if the
clerks would not complain about Mueller performing
carrier work. The postmaster, Heckman, and Quinlan came
to an agreement on those terms and therefore resolved
Neill's step 2(a) grievance appeal concerning crossing craft
lines. After that meeting, Postmaster Williams instructed
Supervisor Wade not to schedule employees to cross craft
lines unless it was absolutely necessary. He told Supervisor
II During this discussion the matter of Moore's requested transfer to the
carrier craft was mentioned.
12 Employees Quinlan, Moore, and Heckman testified that the postmas-
ter emphatically denied their grievance at that meeting, saying "grievance
denied and I'll tell you why I did it. If you can be chicken shit with me, I can
be chicken shit with you." The postmaster denies making these comments,
and denies that he said he denied the grievance during that discussion. 1
credit Postmaster Williams' version and not the employees' version for the
following reasons:
I. In his step 2(a) grievance appeal, dated December 31, 1973, Quinlan
states that on December 19, 1973, Postmaster Williams "denied the
grievance by stating that it did not exist since thejanitor in question was not
'fulfilling any duties as a clerk.' " (This is consistent with Williams'
testimony that he said they did not have any standing to file a grievance
concerning Mueller's doing carrier work.)
2. In the step 3 appeal, Quinlan states that "The Postmaster in
Wade that he felt that the clerks were hurting themselves,
but if that was what they wanted, he would try to
accommodate them. By letter dated December 27, 1973,
Postmaster Williams notified Union Official Neill of the
resolution of grievance, stating that the grievance was
sustained.
On December 31, 1973, when Postmaster Williams
received the step 2(a) appeal filed by Quinlan concerning
crossing craft lines, he was surprised because it was his
understanding that the agreement reached on December
20, 1973, discussed above, resolved the crossing craft lines
issue. Neither the postmaster nor Mueller had performed
any clerk work from December 20, 1973, when the
resolution was reached, until he received the December 31
step 2(a) grievance appeal filed by Quinlan.' 3
Quinlan was not scheduled to perform any carrier work
during this period except on December 29, 1973, when he
worked for 2 hours and 30 minutes in the carrier craft. 4
Moore worked for 9 hours and I minute in the carrier craft
on that date. Mueller performed no carrier work on
December 29, 1973. Upon receiving the step 2(a) grievance
appeal, Postmaster Williams resumed performing clerk
work and informed Supervisor Wade to go back to
assigning employees work as he had in the past and he
would let the grievance issue be decided by someone at a
higher level.
Mueller was again assigned clerk work and, upon
observing this, Union President Heckman asked Postmas-
ter Williams why he had broken the agreement of Decem-
ber 20, 1973, that Williams would not assign Mueller any
clerk work. Williams replied that he had not broken the
agreement but that the Union broke the agreement by its
appeal of the grievance and that he had just gone back to
where they had been previously. Heckman said he knew
nothing about it and the postmaster told him he should
check with Quinlan. Heckman said that he would, but
nothing more was said about it.'5
D. The Postmaster Decides To Establish Another
Regular Carrier Position
In the middle of January 1974, Postmaster Williams
summoned the local president of the Letter Carriers Union,
William C. Frymyer, to his office to advise him, pursuant
to the contract, of his intention to establish another full-
time regular carrier position in the Georgetown Post Office.
Creating this route necessitated the combining of an
auxiliary route and some collection work. The postmaster
Georgetown, Texas has not responded to this grievance, given to him
verbally on December 19, 1973, and in writing on December 31, 1973."
Therefore, I conclude that there was no emphatic denial of the grievance as
such by the postmaster during the December 19, 1973, meeting, as testified
by the employees including Quinlan, and that the postmaster's version of the
incident is correct.
i3 Mueller had been scheduled to perform carrier work on December 21,
24, 26, 27, and 28, 1973, in accordance with the agreement reached on
December 20, 1973.
14 Quinlan testified that he was given no carrier work following
December 19, 1973, for approximately I month. His testimony is inconsis-
tent with the employment records.
15 Except for the short interval described above, the longstanding
practice of assigning employees including maintenance employee Mueller
across craft lines continued in effect.
311
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
knew that a small portion of the work being combined to
create this regular route was claimed by the clerks to be
clerk work. Therefore, pursuant to the contract, he consult-
ed the unions about this. Williams told Frymyer that he
was creating the carrier route and advised him that the
clerks felt that part of the work was theirs. Frymyer said,
"Well, what about the clerks?" The postmaster responded
that he felt that the clerks were cutting their own throats by
filing grievances trying to keep him from utilizing employ-
ees across craft lines. He told Frymyer that, since most of
the part-time flexible clerk work was in the carrier craft, if
they were successful in preventing him from assigning work
across craft lines, it would be to their detriment. He also
told Frymyer that if the combining of work to create the
regular route was grieved by the clerks he would take it to a
higher level for a ruling, but he was going ahead with
creating the regular route. Frymyer asked the postmaster if
he thought the carriers should also file a grievance, and
Williams stated that he was not asking him to file a
grievance, but was merely advising him pursuant to the
contract, that he was about to take the action described.
Postmaster Williams denied that he told Frymyer in that
conversation that the clerks had crossed him and that he
would see that they got as few hours as possible even if it
meant they got only 2 hours of work per week.' 6
E. The Events Leading to Quinlan's Removal From
the Postal Service
Early January 1974: Employee Quinlan was scheduled to
report for work on a particular day and he did not report or
call in to report his absence. He was charged with being
AWOL, but when he explained that he was marooned on
an island, the postmaster took no disciplinary action
against him.
March 9, 1974: While operating a postal vehicle Quinlan
was observed by a Georgetown, Texas, deputy sheriff
running a "stop" or "yield" sign and almost causing an
accident. This was reported to the postmaster who told
Supervisor Wade to discuss the matter with Quinlan and to
caution him to be more careful in the future. No disciplin-
ary action was taken against Quinlan for this incident.
'6 The testimony of most of the employee witnesses was that Postmaster
Williams was a very tough postmaster to work for. He watched his
subordinates closely to see that they were performing their duties satisfacto-
rily and to make sure that they did not abuse leave or other privileges. In
sum, the testimony of the witnesses was that Williams was a hard taskmaster
and was not a well-liked or a popular postmaster among the employees of
the Georgetown Post Office. In making credibility resolutions I have taken
that into account. I credit Williams' version of the conversation.
17 Counseling under the contract is a first step disciplinary action. This
constituted the first disciplinary action taken against Quinlan during his
employment at the Georgetown Post Office. The counseling was grieved and
taken to arbitration by the Union. The arbitrator found that the counseling
wasjustified under the circumstances.
18 Quinlan testified that he asked Freeman if the turn signals could be
fixed so that they would work and attempted to fix them. I credit Freeman
whose testimony about the incident was clear, consistent, and forthright.
19 Postmaster Williams testified that Quinlan's removal from employ-
ment was justified over this incident, but that he decided on a suspension
instead because Quinlan had been a valuable employee in the past and he
had hopes that Quinlan could be salvaged.
20 Restricted sick leave means an employee is notified that he must
submit a medical certificate to justify every absence where sick leave is used.
March 14, 18, 20, and 21, 1974: While on a routine street
observation of Georgetown Post Office's letter carriers,
Postmaster Williams observed Quinlan (while he was
performing carrier functions) making turns with a postal
vehicle from the wrong traffic lanes and without using the
turn signals on the vehicle. Therefore, on March 27, 1974,
the postmaster called Quinlan to his office and "coun-
selled" him for unsafe driving habits.17 During the counsel-
ing session referred to above, Quinlan asked the postmaster
if he knew whether or not the turn signals on the particular
vehicle worked. The postmaster said he inspected them and
that they did work. That afternoon, after getting off work,
Quinlan intercepted carrier Tommy Freeman, who at the
time was driving the vehicle in question on his route.
Quinlan told Freeman about being counseled by the
postmaster for not using the turn signals and asked
Freeman if in fact the turn signals worked. Freeman
replied that they did work, whereupon Quinlan hit the turn
signal mechanism with the palm of his hand, and asked if it
could be fixed so that it would not work. Quinlan then
went to his car, parked nearby, obtained a screwdriver, and
loosened the turn signal mechanism, thus causing it to
malfunction. He then told Freeman to turn in a repair slip
on the vehicle that night.' 8 Freeman returned to the post
office and reported that the signals did not work and was
told by the postmaster to take the vehicle to the garage for
repairs. That night, Freeman felt that Quinlan had involved
him in something that he did not want to be a pa. t of, so he
decided to tell the postmaster about it. On the following
day he told the postmaster the whole story. For that
conduct, Quinlan was given a 28-day disciplinary suspen-
sion. The Union grieved the 28-day suspension and took
the matter to arbitration. The arbitrator found that in the
circumstances the 28-day suspension was justified.l 9
Spring 1974: Quinlan took what was considered an
excessive number of hours of sick leave and was placed on
the restricted sick leave list.20
Quinlan's sick leave record improved during the follow-
ing 3-month period, resulting in his removal from the
restricted sick leave list on November 25, 1974.21
May 24, 1974: During a period when Quinlan was on sick
leave for several days he was arrested and charged with
disorderly conduct by the Austin, Texas, police department
The restricted sick leave list is reviewed every 3 months and if the
employee's attendance has improved he is then removed from the list.
21 The postmaster testified that his doubts about the legitimacy of
Quinlan's use of sick leave was caused in part by the following incidents: On
one occasion Quinlan left work claiming to be sick and a postmaster in a
neighboring area called the Georgetown Post Office and mentioned that
Quinlan had visited his post office the same day. Later that day, Quinlan
returned to the Georgetown Post Office with other employees and he did not
appear to the postmaster to be ill. On another occasion around this time
(May 15, 1974) Supervisor Wade was off work and the postmaster went to
the workroom floor and noticed that Quinlan, who was supposed to be at
work, was not there. Upon inquiry, the postmaster was informed by another
employee that Quinlan had left earlier that day. He left without permission.
Around noon the postmaster walked by Supervisor Wade's desk and noticed
that Quinlan had left a sick leave form there requesting sick leave, stating as
the reason for illness "hypertension due to harassment." Upon Quinlan's
return to work Postmaster Williams questioned Quinlan about this and was
told by Quinlan that the postmaster's harassment had caused the illness. The
postmaster told Quinlan he did not recall even speaking to him on that day
(the day of the alleged illness), and Quinlan responded that the postmaster's
mere presence in the Post Office harassed him.
312
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE
at an Austin restaurant at 4 a.m., on May 24, 1974. The
postmaster was notified of this by a telephone call from an
Austin police sergeant who was attempting to verify
Quinlan's employment status. Following this incident
Quinlan was placed on restricted sick leave. He was
removed from the list on November 25, 1974, after showing
improvement.
September 1974: Postmaster Williams talked to Quinlan
about his work and told him that he was talking excessively
and staying away from his work station, visiting with other
employees too much, disturbing other employees, and
impeding work production in the Georgetown Post Office.
The postmaster told Quinlan that his performance would
have to improve and his excessive talking would have to
stop. In these discussions, Quinlan accused the postmaster
of harassing him and Quinlan became increasingly abusive
in his remarks to, and attitude toward, the postmaster.2 2
The postmaster called in Postal Clerks Union President
Heckman and asked him to talk with Quinlan and to try to
impress upon him the seriousness of his actions. Heckman
said he would try but he did not think it would do any
good.
Employee Freeman observed Quinlan at work along with
other employees and testified that in his opinion Quinlan
talked on the job more than others. Freeman also testified
that he overheard Quinlan say, while on the job, "Since
Mr. Williams had talked to me I seem to get slower in my
work." He stated further that the mail distributed to him by
Quinlan following the arbitration hearing was very inaccu-
rately distributed and that more mail not for his route than
previously had to be returned to the post office to be re-
sorted and re-separated. He reported the same to his
superiors. Freeman stated further that he heard Quinlan on
numerous occasions announce in a loud voice to other
employees at work that he intended to get Postmaster
Williams fired.
November 21, 1974: Postmaster Williams advised the
Austin Sectional Center personnel office that he was
recommending that a periodic step increase due Quinlan be
deferred due to unsatisfactory performance, and stated his
reasons therefor. His step increase was deferred but on
March 12, 1975, Quinlan was advised by the postmaster
that he noted improvement in Quinlan's performance since
December 1974, and that, while he was not considered to
be working up to his full potential, the postmaster was
approving his step increase based on the improvement to
that time.
22 Carrier employee Freeman testified that Postmaster Williams had
followed him while he was performing carrier work and checked his work
performance, criticized his work, and criticized the work of others. He
considered Postmaster Williams to be a strict postmaster but he never
thought that Postmaster Williams harassed him or discriminated against
him for union activities. He said that prior to the arbitration in which he
testified concerning the damage to the postal vehicle Quinlan and he were
on friendly terms. However, after the arbitration when Qu;nlan went to
Freeman's letter case to have him sign for accountable mail in the ledger.
Quinlan would stand about 6 feet away from Freeman and throw the book
over on Freeman's case without saying anything. In addition, while around
other employees, Quinlan referred to Freeman in loud tones as a "brownno-
ser." One morning Quinlan threw the ledger book at Freeman's case, hit his
hand, and knocked mail onto the floor. Freeman became angry and told
Fall 1975: The postmaster again noted that Quinlan's
work performance was deteriorating and discussed this
with him several times.
August 5, 1975: Quinlan was scheduled to report for duty
at 6 a.m. and did not report until 6:14 a.m.
August 5, 1975: Quinlan failed to pull the first-class flat
mail from the case and distribute it prior to casing the
third-class flat mail, causing a delay in delivery of the first-
class flat mail.
August 5, 1975: Quinlan was assigned the duty of making
the afternoon collection run. The employee making this
collection run also has the duty of closing the post office
building for the night. Quinlan left the building without
turning off the lights, air-conditioning, or setting the
burglar alarm.
August 6, 1975: Quinlan took too long on his lunchbreak
and did not note the time on his timecard.
August 6, 1975: He was again assigned the collection and
again did not turn off the lights or air-conditioning or set
the alarm when leaving the building.
August 6, 1975: The postmaster received a telephone call
from a postal customer complaining that a postal vehicle
had run across her yard, hitting and breaking the limb of a
shade tree in her front yard. The postmaster went to the
lady's home to inspect and saw a collection box at the
corner of the street approximately 120 feet away from the
tree, which was in the front of the complainant's home. The
postmaster also saw tire tracks across the yard from the
collection box leading to the tree which was approximately
12 feet from the pavement. The tree limb was broken and
still hanging from the tree. The postmaster asked the
complainant to make a written complaint of the incident
and she did. Upon investigation it was determined that
Quinlan was the driver at that time and place. Quinlan
admitted making the pickup at the collection box on the
corner of the street on that date, and admitted that he was
driving the vehicle in question, but refused to complete the
accident report over the incident, saying that it did not
occur and contending that the postmaster and the com-
plainant were lying. A maintenance man was sent to the
complainant's home to trim the broken limb off the tree,
and to shape it up. The postmaster then went to the
complainant's home and apologized to her.
August 8, 1975: Quinlan was scheduled to report for work
at 7:45 a.m., but reported at 6 a.m.23 The postmaster
reviewed Quinlan's work deficiencies of August 5, 6, and 8,
1975, above, and, after considering Quinlan's response and
attitude when questioned about these incidents, recom-
mended a 7-day disciplinary suspension, which was agreed
Quinlan to get away from him. That afternoon when Freeman got off from
work he drove to Belton. Texas. to talk to Postmaster Williams who was on
detail.there at the time. He told Postmaster Williams about his troubles with
Quinlan, saying that such had been occurring for some time. practically
every morning, and that he was tired of it, and that something had to be
done about it. The postmaster told Freeman he would check into it, and
stopped by the Georgetown Post Office the following morning, stood in the
front lobby in the customer's area, and listened to the employees. He was
seen there by other employees who reported it to Quinlan. I consider
Williams' actions justified and consistent with his supervisory duties and not
surveillance in violation of the Act.
23 Reporting either earlier or later than the scheduled time is an
infraction of the rules.
313
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
upon by his superiors and imposed upon Quinlan from
September 8 to 15, 1975.
September 15 through 19, 1975: Postmaster Williams
cautioned Quinlan about his excessive talking on the job,
not staying at his work station, taking too long on
coffeebreaks, and talking to and visiting other employees at
their work stations and hindering their work. On Septem-
ber 18, 1975, the postmaster found Quinlan away from his
work area and told him to be quiet and to go to work,
whereupon Quinlan turned, and without looking, threw a
bundle of magazines approximately 28 feet across the
workroom floor. Inasmuch as Quinlan was in an angry
state, the postmaster waited approximately I hour and then
counseled him for a violation of good safety practices.
Also, during this period, the postmaster testified that he
had a conversation in his office with Quinlan during which
Quinlan began screaming loudly and started to walk out of
the office in the middle of the discussion about a grievance.
The postmaster told Quinlan to sit down and be quiet and
to finish the discussion about the grievance. 24
December 25, 1975: Quinlan advised the postmaster that
he was entering the hospital. Quinlan was told to submit a
doctor's certificate to the post office by the close of the pay
period (midnight, Friday, September 26, 1975). The post-
master called Quinlan during the week at the hospital and
again reminded him to have the doctor's certification in
before the close of the pay period. The postmaster called
Quinlan again on Thursday, whereupon he found that
Quinlan had been discharged from the hospital. The form
was not mailed until Friday, September 26, 1975, and was
not received in the post office until Saturday, after the
timecards had been posted and forwarded to the data
center. Thus, Quinlan was not paid sick leave pay (32
hours) because this form was not timely submitted. Quin-
lan grieved the matter and the parties settled the grievance
by paying him for the 32 hours' sick leave with the
stipulation that Quinlan follow instructions in the future.
October 15, 1975: Postmaster Williams told Quinlan not
to leave the post office until 11 a.m., because school
children were scheduled to visit the post office on a field
trip at 10:45 a.m., and he wanted Quinlan to demonstrate
how mail is distributed. The school children did not arrive
until 10:55 a.m. and, upon going to the workroom floor,
the postmaster found that Quinlan had not remained until
I 11 a.m., per instructions, but had clocked out and left at or
about 10:55 a.m. The postmaster counseled Quinlan on
October 17, 1975, for failing to follow instructions.
October 18, 1975: The postmaster entered the post office
and found Quinlan seated at Supervisor Wade's desk
reading the timekeeper's manual rather than performing
his duties. After determining that Quinlan did not have
permission to stop work and read this manual on October
20, 1975,25 Postmaster Williams counseled him for not
performing his assigned duties.
24 Quinlan's version of the conversation is that the Postmaster told him
to "shut up." I credit the postmaster in that regard.
25 Quinlan testified that he was on coffeebreak at the time, but if that was
indeed the case he failed to mention it to the postmaster at the time of the
occurrence or the counseling.
2e The day before this incident took place, Postmaster Williams had been
in Memphis, Tennessee. Upon his return to the post office, the morning of
November 7, 1975: Quinlan was assigned to complete the
afternoon collection route in Georgetown. He failed to
make the collection at Southwestern University which
resulted in the mail being delayed several days.
November 19, 1975: Quinlan was again assigned to the
collection route for Georgetown. One of the duties con-
nected with making the collection run is the dispatch of
parcel post accepted by the window clerks. On that date,
Quinlan failed to dispatch approximately 53 parcels and a
sack of second- and third-class mail, again resulting in a
delay of mail. When the undispatched mail was brought to
the postmaster's attention, the postmaster called Quinlan
over to the area, showed him the mail, and pointed out that
the mail had not been dispatched. Quinlan shrugged his
shoulders and said, "So what," or "That's the way it goes."
The postmaster asked Quinlan why he had not dispatched
the mail and Quinlan replied that it was because of the
postmaster's harassment.2 6
November 28, 1975: Postmaster Williams observed Quin-
lan while he was on his lunchbreak talking to on-duty
carriers while they were delivering mail. The postmaster
called him into the office and instructed him not to talk to
the postal workers while they were trying to do their job.
Quinlan told the postmaster not to "fool with him" while
he was off the clock. Quinlan testified that he told the
postmaster, "Don't fool with me when I'm off the clock."
The postmaster asked if that was a threat and Quinlan
replied, "Try me."
December 5, 1975: On that date, a letter addressed to
Quinlan and signed by Postmaster Williams, subject
"Notice of Proposed Removal," was sent to Quinlan.
Quinlan was given 10 days to answer the proposed removal
letter. By letter dated December 14, 1975, Quinlan res-
ponded.
December 1 7, 1975: The Austin sectional center manager
issued his decision in the matter finding the charges against
Quinlan to be supported and directed that he be removed
from the service on January 5, 1976, and on that date
Quinlan was terminated.
IV. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
Richard Quinlan, a man in his 50's, started working for
the Postal Service in the middle of 1972, in Austin, Texas.
He was a college graduate who as previously noted had
been in many jobs for relatively short periods of time in the
course of his career. He was about to be terminated from
his postal service job in Austin, Texas, prior to completion
of the 90-day probationary period, because his perfor-
mance was not satisfactory, when he was transferred to the
Georgetown, Texas, Post Office in July 1973 as a part-time
flexible clerk. His health, admittedly, has not been good.
He suffers from hypertension. The evidence shows and,
indeed, his demeanor during these proceedings confirms
that his physical condition apparently has caused many of
November 19, 1975, he was called to the area where this mail had been left
and was shown the sacks of mail which should have been dispatched the
previous day. At this point he called Quinlan to the area. The postmaster
was not even present in the post office for over a day prior to Quinlan's
failure to dispatch the mail which makes Quinlan's "harassment" excuse
incredible.
314
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE
his problems. He is quick-tempered, abrupt, and apparent-
ly contemptuous of higher authority. He appears to be a
man who is not happy with his lot in life, and certainly was
not happy with his job in the Georgetown Post Office. He
testified that the Postal Service job was an "avocation or, in
effect, interim employment until he found another job that
was more to his liking.
Quinlan was unhappy with the postmaster in the George-
town Post Office and certainly was unhappy with some of
his fellow employees. The postmaster was strict and,
contrary to the contentions of the General Counsel, the
evidence shows that he did not single out Quinlan and did
not treat him any worse or differently from the other
employees in the post office. If he in fact had watched
Quinlan or certain other employees more closely than
others, the postmaster was justified in doing so provided he
felt that their individual performances required closer
supervision. That was his responsibility. But the evidence is
that he watched all the employees closely. The postmaster
spoke to other employees besides Quinlan about talking
too much on the job; followed other employees besides
Quinlan on their routes to see whether they were perform-
ing their jobs properly; questioned other employees besides
Quinlan concerning their suspected abuse of sick leave;
and counseled other employees besides Quinlan for being
early or late to work. As examples, he counseled Kenneth
Moore for being late; had a discussion with Richard
Heckman, president of the Union, for excessive talking;
told David Reed to stop talking; and questioned Woody
Burgess about abuse of sick leave. He also questioned
Tommy Freeman about abuse of sick leave and observed
and cautioned carrier William Frymyer for walking too
slowly on a number of occasions. William Frymyer
testified that Postmaster Williams harasses him, Quinlan,
Moore, Heckman, and Gardner.
For approximately 18 months following his arrival at the
Georgetown Post Office, Quinlan's performance, except for
his abruptness toward people, was considered satisfactory
by his superiors. Some time in 1973, Mr. Quinlan applied
for a management training position, but was turned down.
In the evaluation concerning that application, he was
aware of the fact that Postmaster Williams had rated him
satisfactory in everything but attitude and his ability to get
along with people. In my judgment, that action by the
postmaster, with the knowledge of Quinlan, was a factor
among others in the deterioration of relations between
them. From that point on, there is no question that but the
postmaster and Quinlan developed an intense dislike for
each other. Notwithstanding, evidence is that the postmas-
ter attempted to salvage Quinlan as an employee. As
previously indicated, his initial warnings to Quinlan for his
unsatisfactory performance on certain occasions were not
followed by any disciplinary action. He even enlisted the
support of Supervisor Weldon Wade and the Local
Union's president in his attempt to correct Quinlan and
make him a better employee.
With respect to the grievance which complained that the
postmaster should not assign work across craft lines, or
across pay level lines, it is clear that the Georgetown Post
Office had engaged in that practice since Quinlan was first
employed there. The record also shows that at least since
1972 assignments to the maintenance man, Norman Muel-
ler, to perform either clerk work or carrier work were made
at times when either Quinlan or Moore or both had been
sent home early. Such assignments were made long before
Quinlan or the Union filed charges claiming that they were
discriminatorily made because of union activity.
The record also shows that the maintenance man was
assigned clerk and carrier work because he was a full-time
employee who had to be kept busy for a full pay period for
economic and business reasons, factors that did not apply
to part-time flexible clerks (Moore, Quinlan, and others)
although they usually were given enough work to keep
them busy for the full 40-hour week. In support of the
reasons for that practice is the fact that the assignments of
clerk-carrier work to maintenance man Mueller ceased
when the other maintenance man in the Georgetown Post
Office was transferred to another post office and Mueller,
being the only maintenance man left, had enough work
(maintenance work) to keep him busy for his full 40 hours
per week. Therefore, since it was no longer necessary for
business reasons to assign him work across craft lines, such
assignments to Mueller ceased.
A. The Alleged Interrogation of December 11, 1973
It is alleged that on December 11, 1973, Postmaster
Williams orally interrogated employees concerning their
union activity. The evidence shows that, upon receiving a
letter from the International union official, Neill, notifying
the postmaster that Neill intended to visit the post office,
the postmaster was curious and asked Supervisor Wade,
who told the postmaster that he thought the Local Union
was electing officials. Whereupon, Williams asked Quinlan
whether they were electing officials. Inasmuch as Williams
was obligated to deal with the elected officials, he was
entitled to know who they were and the question, in the
circumstances, was reasonably appropriate and not in
violation of the Act.
B. The Alleged Oral Threats of December 19, 1973
The meeting of December 19, 1973, involved a discussion
of an oral grievance at the first step under the agreement.
The candid statement by the postmaster as to the merits
and probable results of the grievance if successfully
processed is a typical comment at a first step of a grievance
procedure. The postmaster also expressed his surprise that
the grievance was even filed because he felt that the
individuals filing the grievance had been "chicken shit" in
that they were receiving almost full-time employment even
though they were part-time employees.
Similarly, on January 15, 1974, Postmaster Williams
discussed the effect of a successful grievance on assigning
across craft lines. He said that restricting him in his
assignment might result in a loss of work or someone being
laid off from the post office because of lack of work in a
particular craft. These statements were not threats but
typical "give and take" discussion of a grievance at its first
step. He was indicating the consequence of the grievance if
successful. In any event, there is no evidence of union
animus and if the statement is construed to be a threat or
coercive because of the filing of a grievance it is isolated
315
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and unfulfilled. Weber Shoe Company, 146 NLRB 348
(1964); Kohl Motors, Inc., 185 NLRB 324 (1970). To find
otherwise would result in destroying the benefits of any
attempts to resolve grievances at initial steps.
C. The Reduction in Hours of Employees Moore
and Quinlan
There is no evidence of union activity by either Moore or
Quinlan as early as December 7, 1973, the day on which it
is alleged the hours of Moore and Quinlan were reduced
because of their union activity. As part-time employees
they often worked less than 8 hours a day and sometimes
less than 6 hours a day, depending on the volume of work
available. In fact, the record shows that Moore worked 8
hours and 31 minutes on December 7, 1973. Both Moore
and Quinlan admitted that they had both been sent home
before at noon. Quinlan also admitted that when he was
told to go home by Supervisor Wade that Wade told him
that the postmaster wanted him sent home at noon the
previous day also. That is an indication that the postmaster
was not motivated in his decision by the receipt of Union
Official Neill's written grievance on the morning of
December 19, 1973. Postmaster Williams also testified that
one of the reasons that Moore and Quinlan could have
been sent home was that it occurred near the end of the
week in which they had already worked 40 hours. There-
fore, they would have been sent home to avoid overtime
usage.27
Respondent contends that the allegations of an 8(a)( 4)
violation going back to December 7, 1973, are completely
inappropriate, as such allegations in the consolidated
complaint violate the provisions of Section 10(b) of the Act
inasmuch as there was no charge filed alleging an 8(aX4)
violation until February 3, 1975, and that no charge of any
kind was filed on December 7, 1973. 1 find that Respon-
dent's contention has merit, and therefore for that addi-
tional reason shall recomnmend the dismissal of that
allegation of the complaint.
D. The Alleged Disparate Treatment of Quinlan
The evidence does not establish that the postmaster or
his assistant subjected Quinlan to disparate treatment with
regard to the application of work rules requiring of Quinlan
a more arduous work output than that required of his
fellow employees, The evidence shows Postmaster Williams
was strict with all his subordinates and not more strict with
Quinlan. The record also shows that, whenever Quinlan
2T According to the records, December 19, 1973, fell within the 26th
payroll period of 1973, which was from December 8, 1973, to December 21,
1973. December 19, 1973. came on a Wednesday on the second week of that
period. Quinlan worked a total of 106 hours that pay period. Quinlan
worked approximately 48 hours the second week of that pay period and had
already worked a substantial number of overtime hours dunng the first week
of the pay period. Moore worked a total of 77 hours during the pay period
and was given 3 hours' sick leave. He also worked 5 hours' overtime in that
pay period. The records also reveal that Moore was off on December 10 and
11, 1973 (which means that he was not present fbr any comments allegedly
made by the postmaster on December 11, 1973). Moore worked 8 hours and
30 minutes on December 12; 9 hours and 7 minutes on December 13; and 8
hours and 38 minutes on December 14, 1973, which ended the first week of
that payroll period The second week of that payroll period including
December 19, 1973, Moore worked a total of approximately 42 hours.
was counseled or reprimanded in connection with his
performance, his attitude was not the attitude one would
expect of an employee who was trying to be a good
employee. His response was either a denial, a "so what," or
a baseless charge of harassment against the postmaster. By
contrast, when the postmaster warned Reed not to bother
other employees while they were on the clock, Reed
stopped bothering other employees. When he discussed the
matter of excessive talking with Richard Heckman, Heck-
man's attitude was receptive and repentant. In similar
circumstances, Quinlan's response was to accuse the
postmaster of harassment. For example: When Mr. Quin-
lan was cautioned as to the proper use of the rest bar or
why he had not dispatched certain mail, Quinlan reacted
with the statement that he was being harassed.
Quinlan testified that he was required to stand more after
a certain point in time and that he stood more than other
employees. However, Quinlan admitted awareness that
part-time flexible clerk Black performed duties that re-
quired standing at times for a full 8 hours per day. There is
no evidence that Quinlan was even required to stand for a
full 8 hours on any particular day. Similarly, when he
questioned Freeman about the abuse of sick leave, Free-
man satisfied the postmaster that he was really sick. When
Postmaster Williams cautioned carrier Frymyer about
walking too slowly on a number of occasions, Frymyer
accepted the criticism without showing disrespect for the
postmaster even though his testimony was that he felt that
the postmaster was harassing him, Quinlan, Moore, Heck-
man, and Gardner. Frymyer also testified that he thought
the postmaster was unfair in criticizing all those people,
including himself. That is hardly a showing of singling out
Quinlan and treating him disparately. Quinlan testified
that Postmaster Williams "hates his guts," and that
Williams has harassed him and other employees including
Frymyer and Freeman.
Quinlan also testified that he filed 15 grievances only
because it was apparent to him he was about to be
discharged and that several of these grievances grieved the
same matter. Heckman, former president of the George-
town Local of the Postal Workers Union, called by the
General Counsel as a witness, stated that, as president of
the Union, he filed grievances on occasion and never felt
any fear or insecurity from the postmaster if he spoke too
much as a grievance representative.
Therefore, I conclude that their hours were not discriminatorily reduced on
December 19, 1973.
In the next pay period, payroll period no. I of 1974. Moore worked a total
of 81 hours, including 9 overtime hours and he took 3 hours' annual leave.
This was the highest number of hours worked by anyone in the post office
with the exception of employee Frymyer who worked 87 hours. I therefore
conclude that Moore's hours were not discriminatorily reduced in this pay
period. Quinlan worked a total of 59 hours in pay period I of 1974,
including I hour of overtime. There were two holidays, Christmas and New
Years, within this pay period. Although Quinlan's hours dropped from the
previous payroll period, an examination of the hours worked by all
employees in Georgetown in this pay period reveals an across-the-board
reduction for all employees in the first pay period of 1974. Moreover,
Quinlan worked more hours in that pay period than employees Heckman,
Mueller, or Sayler.
316
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE
E. Harassment by Being Kept Under Surveillance
by the Postmaster
Quinlan testified that on or about November 6, 1974, he
saw the postmaster in the lobby of the post office
"peeping" at him, and that this was also reported to him by
other employees. The evidence shows that the postmaster
went to the post office lobby on or about that date and a
few times following that date-after getting a report from
employee Freeman concerning the trouble he was having
with Quinlan during the first week of November 1974.
Because of Quinlan's harassment during that period,
Freeman lost his temper and exchanged words with
Quinlan. Having received such report, the postmaster
certainly was justified to investigate the matter by observ-
ing Quinlan and his behavior toward Freeman and his
fellow workers.
I find that in view of Quinlan's loud talking, abruptness
towards others, failures in his job performance, such as not
dispatching mail or picking up mail, or speaking disrespect-
fully to customers, damaging trees, tampering with Gov-
ernment property, throwing bundles of mail great distances
across the workroom floor, calling fellow employees derog-
atory names, talking to fellow employees when he or they
should be performing their duties, abusing sick leave, and
generally showing disrespect for his superiors, certainly
would require him to be watched more closely with respect
to his job performance than he would have been if he had
not been engaged in those activities. With respect to the
allegation that Respondent withheld his periodic increase
and placed him on probation for 14 weeks, I find that such
action was justified in view of Quinlan's performance and
was not because of Quinlan's union or concerted activities.
As for the allegations that on August 5, 6, 7, and 8 and
September 8, 1975, Quinlan was harassed by singling him
out for counseling for his alleged work deficiencies, I find
that he was not singled out and that the counseling he
received was justified in view of his work deficiencies. On
August 5 Quinlan was scheduled to report for duty at 6
a.m. and did not report until 6:14 a.m. In addition, that
morning he failed to pull the first-class flat mail from the
flat case, causing a delay in delivery of the first-class flat
mail. On the afternoon of that day Quinlan was assigned
the duty of making the afternoon collection run and the
employee making this collection run also has the duty of
closing the post office building for the night. Quinlan left
the building without turning off the lights, air-conditioning,
or setting the burglar alarm. On August 6, 1975, Quinlan
took too long on his lunch break and did not so note it on
his timecard. He also was assigned a collection route again
on August 6 and again he failed to turn off the lights and
air-conditioning and to set the burglar alarm when leaving
the building. In addition, on August 6 he hit a limb of a
shade tree in the front yard of a postal customer. On
August 8 Quinlan was scheduled to report at 7:45 a.m., but
reported at 6 a.m.
After reviewing Quinlan's deficiencies of August 5, 7,
and 8, 1975, and after considering Quinlan's response and
attitude when questioned about these incidents, the post-
master recommended a 7-day disciplinary suspension and
Quinlan was given a suspension from September 8 to
September 15, 1975. In view of the deficiencies, the
suspension was justified and there is no evidence to support
that either the counseling or the suspension was because of
Quinlan's engaging in protected activities or otherwise, in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act. With respect
to the allegations of harassing Quinlan on September 15,
17, and 18, 1975, for allegedly working too slowly; on
September 16 admonishing Quinlan for allegedly taking
too much time on a coffeebreak; on September 18, 1975,
imposing a "gag rule" on Quinlan for alleged excessive
talking; and on September 19, 1975, imposing a "gag rule"
on Quinlan for attempting to discuss a grievance, the
postmaster warned Quinlan about his excessive talking
rather than working and not staying at his work station,
taking too long on coffeebreaks and talking to and visiting
with other employees at their work stations, hindenng their
work. The evidence does not support the allegation that
Respondent discriminated against Quinlan nor did Re-
spondent harass Quinlan in admonishing him for his acts
which have been proven to have been committed. Nor do I
find that the counseling of Quinlan for throwing a bundle
of magazines approximately 28 feet across the workroom
floor on September 18, 1975, after the postmaster found
him away from his work area and told him to be quiet and
go to work was discriminatorily motivated or constituted
interference with his rights to engage in union activity.
Counseling was for Quinlan's violation of safety rules and
the other evidence shows that the rules were, in fact,
violated by Quinlan in throwing the bundle of magazines
across the workroom floor. Finally, I find that the issuance
to Quinlan on or about December 5, 1975, of a document
entitled "Notice of Proposal to Remove" and Quinlan's
removal on or about January 5, 1976, and Respondent's
refusal to reinstate him were not for reasons that Quinlan
exercised his rights to file grievances or charges or because
he otherwise engaged in protected activity. I find that he
was terminated for good cause and that his termination
was not pretextual or in violation of the Act. The General
Counsel has not proven by a preponderance of the
evidence any of the allegations of the consolidated com-
plaint. Therefore, I shall recommend the complaint be
dismissed in its entirety.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of
the Postal Reorganization Act.
2. The General Counsel has not established by a
preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent has
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(l), (3), and (4) of the Act as alleged in the
complaint.
317
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact,
conclusions of law, the entire record in this case, and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the
following recommended:
28 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
ORDER 28
The complaint is dismissed in its entirety.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
318