United States Postal Service - Decision Summary

United States Postal Service (28-CA-19148(P), et al.; 345 NLRB No. 26) Albuquerque, NM Aug. 27, 2005. The Board agreed with the administrative law judge that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to bargain collectively with Postal Workers Local 380 by failing to provide requested information that was relevant and necessary to the Union as exclusive representative; and violated Section 8(a)(1) by refusing to permit union steward John Orlovsky to speak with his union representative and failing to notify Orlovsky and his union representative of charges prior to an investigatory interview.

There were no exceptions to the judge’s findings that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) by taking adverse actions, culminating in discharge, against Orlovsky because of his union activities and violated Section 8(a)(1) by threatening employees with reprisals because of their union activities and telling employees that the Respondent discharged Orlovsky because of his union activities.

Chairman Battista and Member Liebman affirmed the judge’s broad injunctive language, enjoining the Respondent from “in any other manner” violating the employees’ Section 7 rights. Relying on Postal Service, 345 NLRB No. 25, they disagreed with dissenting Member Schaumber’s contention that a broad order in this case is inappropriate under Hickmott Foods, 242 NLRB 1357 (1979) or NLRB v. Express Publishing Co., 312 U.S. 426 (1941). The majority pointed out that shortly before the Respondent’s refusals to provide information in this case, the Tenth Circuit had issued a broad order against the Respondent based upon a settlement agreement resolving information request violations occurring at the Respondent’s Albuquerque facilities. (NLRB v. USPS, Case No. 02-9587 (unpub. consent judgment entered Jan. 8, 2003)).

Chairman Battista and Member Liebman also noted that the Respondent unlawfully threatened, disciplined, and discharged a union steward in retaliation for his union activity, including his filing of information requests, saying the latter conduct is the very conduct which the previous order sought to remedy. They disagreed with the dissent’s assertion that the Respondent’s unlawful actions were directed “almost exclusively towards a single employee,” noting that after the Respondent unlawfully disciplined and discharged Orlovsky, it unlawfully warned assembled employees that a similar fate awaited those who encouraged zealous action.

Member Schaumber, dissenting from the issuance of a broad cease-and-desist order, noted that the Supreme Court has made clear that broad orders must be reserved for egregious cases in which the violations are so severe or so numerous and varied as to truly manifest a general disregard for employees’ fundamental employees rights” and that is not the case here.

The Board limited the posting of the notice to the Respondent’s Vehicle Maintenance Facility, the Auxiliary Service Facility, and the main plant where the Respondent’s misconduct occurred rather than at all Respondent facilities in Albuquerque as recommended by the judge.

Charges filed by Postal Workers Local 380; complaint alleged violation of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5). Hearing at Albuquerque, June 21-24, 2004. Adm. Law Judge Margaret G. Brakebusch issued her decision Sept. 8, 2004.