United States Postal Service

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Apr 16, 2012

34-CA-012912 (N.L.R.B. Apr. 16, 2012)

JD(NY)–11–12
Mt. Carmel, CT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
NEW YORK BRANCH OFFICE
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
and Case No. 34-CA-12912
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER
CARRIERS MERGED BRANCH NO. 19
Sheldon Smith, Esq. and Margaret
Larueu, Esq., Counsel for the General
Counsel
Wendy A. Blanchard, Esq., Counsel for the
Respondent
DECISION
Statement of the Case
Raymond P. Green, Administrative Law Judge. I heard this case in Hartford Connecticut
on various days in December 2011 and January 2012. The charge and the amended charges
in this case were filed on February 8, April 27 and May 27, 2011. The Complaint was issued on
June 29, 2011 and thereafter amended and revised a couple of this at the Hearing. Also, the
General Counsel, with the filing of the Brief, withdrew a number of other allegations. In
substance, the Complaint as amended alleges that on various dates, the Respondent has either
refused or has not timely furnished to the Union, information relevant to a series of grievances
at two post offices in Connecticut.
The General Counsel also assert that in light of the violations here and therefore its non-
compliance with a prior Formal Settlement Agreement, an Order should be issued requiring the
Respondent to (a) post a notice at all of its main, branch and station facilities in its New Haven,
Connecticut Post Office and (b) to send a company of the Board Order to all of its supervisors at
the aforesaid facilities. 1
It should be noted that all of the underlying grievances prompting these information
requests have been resolved either by agreement between the Union and the Postal Service or
through arbitration, before the commencement of this hearing. In one instance, the basic
subject matter giving rise to multiple grievances and information requests was arbitrated in a
case that the Union ultimately lost. In most of the other instances, the parties agreed to resolve
the grievances in favor of the Union’s position. Therefore, the General Counsel is not seeking
an Order that would require the Postal Service to actually furnish any of the documents
requested.

1 General Counsel Exhibit 67 is a Formal Settlement Stipulation dealing with two cases involving
three other post offices in Connecticut. Those case involved allegations that the Respondent failed to
provide information to this Union. Pursuant to the settlement, the Board issued a Decision and Order
dated June 25, 2009 and the Court of Appeals entered a Judgment enforcing the Board’s Order on
January 6, 2010.
JD(NY)–11–12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed, I make the following
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I. Jurisdiction
The Respondent is subject to the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board
pursuant to Section 1209 of the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970. It is conceded and I find
that the National Association of Letter Carriers, Merged Branch 19 is a labor organization as
defined in Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. The Alleged Unfair Labor Practice
(a) The Legal Standard
Pursuant to Section 8(a)(5), each party to a bargaining relationship is required to bargain
in good faith. And part of that obligation is that both sides are required to furnish relevant
information upon request. NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432 (1967). Requests for
information may come in essentially two contexts; (a) bargaining for a collective bargaining
agreement or (b) processing a grievance. In relation to information sought during the term of an
existing contract, a Union’s responsibilities include: (a) monitoring compliance and effectively
policing the collective-bargaining agreement, (b) enforcing provisions of a collective-bargaining
agreement, and (c) processing grievances. American Signature, Inc., 334 NRB 880, 885
(2001).
If the information sought relates to the processing of a grievance, (or potential
grievance), the legal test is whether the information is relevant to the grievance and the
determination of relevancy is made based on a liberal, discovery type of standard. NLRB v.
Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432, 437 (1967); Knappton Maritime Corporation, 292 NLRB 236
(1985).
Where there is a request for relevant information, the employer (or Union), is obligated to
respond with reasonable dispatch. NLRB v. John S. Swift Co., 277 F.2d. 641 (7th Cir., 1960);
Woodland Clinic, 331 NLRB 735, 737 (2002) (seven week delay); Bituminous Roadways of
Colorado, 314 NLRB 1010, 1014 (1994) (six week delay); Civil Service Employees Association,
Inc., 311 NLRB 6, (1993), (ten week delay in providing information); EPE Inc., 284 NLRB 191,
200, (1987), (six month delay in providing information); Tennessee Steel Processor, 287 NLRB
1132 (1988); U.S. Postal Service, 276 NLRB 1282, 1288 (1985); Quality Engineered Products,
267 NLRB 593, 598 (1983), (one month delay); Aeolian Corp., 247 NLRB 1231, 1244 (1980)
(three week delay).
Of course, what is reasonable or unreasonable may depend on all of the circumstances
and is not determined by some mathematical formula. In West Penn Power Co., 339 NLRB 585,
587, (2003), the Board stated:
In determining whether an employer has unlawfully delayed responding to an
information request, the Board considers the totality of the circumstances
surrounding the incident. Indeed, it is well established that the duty to furnish
requested information cannot be defined in terms of a per se rule. What is
required is a reasonable good faith effort to respond to the request as promptly
as circumstances allow. In evaluating the promptness of the response, the
JD(NY)–11–12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
Board will consider the complexity and extent of information sought, its
availability and the difficulty in retrieving the information.
Finally, the Board has held that even where the underlying grievance has been resolved,
this does not moot allegations that a failure to furnish or a failure to timely furnish information
constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. See United States Postal Service, 339
NLRB 1162, 1166, 1168 (2003) and Grand Rapids Press, 331 NLRB 703, 709 (1991).
(b) The facilities involved
The loci of these cases are two post offices in Connecticut; one called the Mt. Carmel
Facility and the other located at Dixwell Avenue in Hamden. Both of these are branches of the
New Haven Post Office. (The New Haven Post Office has eight or nine branches). The New
Haven Post Office is, in turn, part of the Connecticut Valley District which encompasses
Connecticut, Rhode Island and western Massachusetts.
At the time if these events, the Mount Carmel facility had an acting manager, Alejandro
Soto, who supervised about 30 employees of whom 17 were letter carriers. 2 He was assisted
by one other supervisor who at various times was either Kathy Camerato or John Greco. The
letter carriers at this office delivered on average, from 380 to 800 pieces of mail per day on 17
routes. (One route for each carrier). The Union’s representative at this location was David
Fruin who agreed that with the small staff and the limited number of manager/supervisors, the
bosses were very busy. For example, the testimony showed that Mr. Soto generally worked
from about 6:00 a.m. to 4 or 4:30 p.m. There is no question but that part of the managers’ job
functions is to deal with union grievances and to provide information as needed. There is also
no question that another, (and perhaps as significant), part of his or her job is to make sure that
the mail is delivered on time.
The Dixwell Avenue facility is also called the Hamden facility. It has about 25 letter
carriers and at the time of these events the acting manager was Sharon Bernardo. At the time,
Lillian Joseph was the supervisor and another supervisor, Denis Wright, was on a leave of
absence. 3 The testimony was that although this office normally operated with one manager and
two supervisors, it was operating with only a manager and one supervisor at this time. Joseph
testified that during a period from December 2010 through February 2011, there were five
vacant letter carrier positions and this put a lot of pressure on the post office.
At the time of these events, Jess Friedman and Robert Vitale were the union shop
stewards at Hamden. Friedman became a shop steward in December 2010 and Vitale became
a shop steward in November 2010. Thus, although both had long careers as letter carriers, they
were rather inexperienced as union shop stewards.
It is also noted that the work of delivering mail has a somewhat seasonal aspect. That
is, there is more work that has to be done from Thanksgiving through Christmas. Much of this
consists of advertising circulars that are delivered during the Christmas shopping period.

2 It seems that at the time of these events, Soto was the permanent manager of another branch in
Westville, Connecticut and was temporarily assigned to be the acting manager at the Mount Carmel
facility.
3 Previously, Joseph had been a supervisor at the East Haven branch.
JD(NY)–11–12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
Because many of the information requests refer to TAC rings, this is described as
follows. Each post office facility has electronic devices that act as a kind of electronic time
clock. The employees are issued swipe cards that they use when they enter the facility; when
they take breaks; when they leave the facility to deliver mail; when they return to the facility with
new mail; and when the leave to go home at the end of the work day. When a swipe is made
with the card, this is called a TAC ring and an electronic record is made of each and every TAC
ring made. These rings are entered into a data base and it is possible, at a later time, through
the appropriate computer program, to obtain and print out a TAC ring report of the actual swipes
made during any given period of time by any particular employee or group of employees. Of
course, if an employee is absent he would not have swiped his card and therefore a TAC ring
report would not indicate any TAC rings on his part for the day or days of his absence. There is
however, a related data base that shows for example, when an employee is on leave, on
vacation or out sick. These situations are represented by codes and this information is also
obtainable via a computer program.
(c) Provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement
The letter carriers are represented by the National Association of Letter Carriers
pursuant to a national collective bargaining agreement. Branch 19 is, in effect, a local union
affiliated with the national organization and is responsible for the day to day administration of
the contract. The collective bargaining agreement itself is a gigantic and complex document
and therefore the parties have agreed to rely on what is called the Joint Contract Administration
Manual (JCAM) as a “guideline” for interpreting the contract.
General Counsel Exhibit 2(b) is an excerpt of the collective bargaining agreement
containing the grievance and arbitration provision.
The first step of the procedure is called “Informal Step A” and involves the shop steward
and the local supervisors of a particular facility. Typically, the process is initiated when an
employee complaint is brought to the shop steward who may ask for information from the
manager to investigate the grievance. Typically when information is requested, a request is
also made by the shop steward for company time to review the information requested and to
conduct interviews. This means that if granted in accordance with the contract’s terms, the
shop steward, who is also a letter carrier, will be given an amount of company paid time to
review the information. This often means that the shop steward will obtain overtime pay
because with the limited number of letter carriers available, he or she will still be needed to
deliver mail during his or her regular hours.
Within 14 days, the steward will typically discuss the grievance with the local manager
and this is described as “Informal Step A”. Grievances may be classified as individual or class
grievances; the latter if the grievance involves more than two employees. The Union is
required to file a formal grievance by 14 days after the incident has occurred or from the date
that the Union had a reasonable basis for discovering that the incident occurred. The parties
may and typically do extend the 14 day time deadline at this level of the procedure by mutual
consent.
If there is no resolution of the grievance at Informal Step A, (typically between the
steward and the local manager), the steward can appeal the matter to the next level which is
designated as Formal Step A. In this circumstance, the steward will typically write up a formal
grievance describing the incident and the alleged contract violation and forward it to Union’s
branch president. Also, he will forward all documents received from the local manager in
response to any information requests. The Formal Step A level involves a different set of union
JD(NY)–11–12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
and management representatives. These people are given the task of reviewing the grievance
and all forwarded material. The Union’s representative at this step is the Union’s branch
president or his designee. The representative for the Respondent is the Postal Service’s
installation head. At this second step of the grievance procedure, the representatives can take
one of the following options: (1) They can resolve the grievance at this step. (2) If their review
of the file reveals a lack of relevant information, they can agree to remand the matter to the local
steward and supervisor for more information. (3) They can disagree on the merits and refer the
grievance up to Formal Step B. Although there is a 14 day deadline, the parties can and
typically do extend the deadline. Similarly, if they decide to remand the matter to the first step
for more information, they will, as a matter of course, extend the deadline.
Under the terms of the contract, the Union is entitled to receive from the employer at the
Formal Step A meeting, any documents or statements of witnesses. Also, in non-discharge
cases, the parties can mutually agree to jointly interview witnesses at the Formal Step A
meeting. In discharge cases, either party can present two witnesses at the meeting.
If a grievance is not resolved at the Formal Step A level, it can be appealed to what is
called the Formal Step B level. At this third step, each side has representatives who are
appointed by the Postal Service and the NALC at the national level. Thus, a case involving a
Connecticut grievance may be heard by representatives from another part of the country. The
files are forward to these individuals who are authorized to resolve the grievance and if they
disagree, the next step would arbitration. As is the case at the lower levels of the procedure, if
more time is needed, the representatives will typically extend the grievance deadlines. If they
agree on a resolution, a formal decision is reached and distributed. Alternatively, the parties
may reach an impasse whereupon the Union can file for arbitration. Finally, at this level as well,
the representatives may remand the grievance with specific instructions or hold the decision in
abeyance pending resolution of a representative case or national interpretive case. (This will
become important when discussing the issues surrounding the express mail grievances).
The final step of the grievance procedure is arbitration. And as noted above, except for
a grievance involving express mail that was arbitrated, all of the other grievances involved in
this case were ultimately resolved in the grievance process by mutual agreement.
The collective bargaining agreement at Article 31, has a provision relating to information
requests. This section gives union shop stewards the right to review and obtain documents,
files and other records in addition to the right to interview a grievant, supervisors and witnesses.
The contract states that when an information request is made, the request “shall state how the
request is relevant to the handling of a grievance or potential grievance.” It also provides that:
“Management should respond to questions and to requests for documents in a cooperative and
timely manner. When a relevant request is made, management should provide for review
and/or produce the requested documentation as soon as reasonably possible.” In addition, the
contract gives the steward the “right to obtain supervisors’ personal notes of discussions held
with individual employees… if the notes have been made part of the employee’s Official
Personal folder or if they are necessary to processing a grievance or determining whether a
grievance exists.”
In its interpretation of the contract provision relating to information requests, the JCAM
states that the Union has to give only a reasonable description of the information requested but
cannot conduct a “fishing expedition.” As to the cost of producing documents, the JCAM states
that there would be no charge to the Union for the first 100 pages.
JD(NY)–11–12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
It should be noted that as one goes from step to step in the grievance procedure, (short
of arbitration), the experience level of the respective representatives goes up too. The people
designated at the higher levels by the union and management are more experienced and have
greater expertise in their knowledge of the labor agreement and post office procedures. This is
important because local shop stewards such as Jess Friedman and Robert Vitale, who recently
had assumed these positions, were not as knowledgeable as Fruin who represents the Union at
the Formal Step A level and at times at the Formal Step B level. This is significant because the
collective bargaining agreement itself is a masterpiece of length and complexity. As noted
above, the parties have found it necessary to summarize the contract in a separate document
that perhaps might be understood by the people who have to live with it on a day to day basis.
The people who are appointed by their respective parties to handle grievances,
particularly at the second and third steps have had many years of experience with the Postal
Service and many years of experience in dealing with contractual disputes. The evidence leads
me to conclude that these individuals know a lot better than I would what information would be
relevant to any particular grievance.
The evidence shows that there were situations when information requested by a local
steward was not turned over by local management. But in each case, when the information was
available, the representatives of the Union and the Employer at the Informal Step A level agreed
to remand the grievance to the lower level with a directive that the information be provided. And
this directive was carried out. Moreover, as to the grievances discussed in this case, many
were resolved at the lower steps after information had been provided and a few others had to be
resolved either at the Formal Step A or Formal Step B levels. (One set of related grievances
was essentially resolved through the arbitration process). As to those grievances resolved at
the Formal Step A or Formal Step B levels, the evidence shows that the representatives from
both sides were in possession of the records and documents needed to reach a consensus
resolution in all cases. In short, whatever delays may have occurred during the early stages of
the procedure, the contractual grievance procedure successfully managed to provide the
representatives for both sides with the information that was needed to resolve these
grievances.4
(d) Allegations regarding the Mt. Carmel Station
In the Brief, the General Counsel withdrew the allegations that related to the Janet
Porter and Bujalski grievances. I therefore, shall approve the withdrawal of those allegations
and move on.
(1) The Emond grievance
Gilbert Emond is a full time letter carrier who, because of a foot injury, was given
modified duty at the Mt. Carmel Station. On June 23, 2010, he was notified that there was no
more work for him. A letter sent by the Postal Service to him and to the Union stated:
This is notification that the Postal Service has determined that there is no work
available for you within the operational needs of the service. This determination
is based on a comprehensive review of (1) current operational needs; (2) in

4 There was one instance, discussed toward the end of this Decision where a request for information
was made in the absence of a grievance. This involved shop steward Vitale and supervisor Joseph.
JD(NY)–11–12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
accordance with ELM 546; (3) your current medical documentation for your work
related injury; and (4) a search for assignments within the local commuting area.
As a result of this determination, you are being placed into an administrative
leave status effective immediately. You will remain in an administrative leave
status for your regularly scheduled work days until July 7, 2010.
The evidence indicates that an Informal Step A meeting was held between shop steward
Kevin Brumleve and supervisor Lisa Millett on July 6, 2010. As it appears that the grievance
was not resolved at this step, it was appealed to Formal Step A. However, I am not sure, based
on this record, when that appeal occurred. In any event, the dispute involving Emond was
whether or not he was sufficiently capable of walking so as to be able to either deliver mail or to
work in the facility doing other tasks.
The first information request made in relation to this grievance occurred on August 20,
2010. This was made to Lisa Millett and it requests (a) copies of the [TAC] rings for the Mt.
Carmel office from 6/24/10 to present [August 20, 2010] and (b) the opportunity to review or
download the TAC ring data for those dates.
On October 8, 2010 the Respondent reinstated Emond to his former job. There
however, was an issue remaining as to any backpay, inasmuch as Emond had used his sick
leave and other leave from June 23 to October 8, 2010.
By memorandum dated November 23, 2010, from union representative Fruin to the
facilities manager, Alejandro Soto, he listed that there were 99 Mt. Carmel pending grievances
at Formal Step A 5 and that as to the Emond grievance, the information previously requested
had not yet been provided. (I am presuming that at this time, the Emond grievance had
progressed to Formal Step A and that it was now being handled by Fruin and Soto).
On November 30, 2010, Fruin as part of the Formal Step A procedure, made a written
request for information regarding the Emond grievance. This asked for (a) mail volume reports,
(b) daily schedules and (c) overtime desired lists and NIS lists.
On January 4, 2011, the Respondent gave the Union the TAC rings for some of the
period of time requested. In this regard, Fruin testified that he asked for and received an
electronic version of the TAC ring report on a thumb drive. (If printed out, it would have been
more than 1000 pages).
On February 18, 2011, Fruin delivered to Soto a list of pending grievances at the Mt.
Carmel station at the Formal Step A level. As to the Emond grievance, he indicated that he had
not yet received all of the information requested. (He had received the TAC rings for some of
the time in question). This additional information was provided on March 3, 2011.
The parties agreed to an extension of time on the Emond Grievance and ultimately in
September 2011, the grievance was resolved at Formal Step A. In that agreement, the
Respondent agreed to pay Emond his wages from June 23 to October 8, 2010 when he
returned to work. It also agreed to restore any leave time that he used during the time that had

5 This is not as bad as it looks. Most of these grievances were related to a group of grievances
regarding express mail and the parties had agreed to hold them in abeyance pending the outcome of a
“representative” arbitration case.
JD(NY)–11–12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
been away from work. With respect to this grievance, Fruin testified that ultimately he received
all the documents that were requested.
Fruin testified that he needed the TAC ring reports, the overtime desired lists and the
daily schedules in order for him to prove that there was work available for Emond and also to
determine the amount of backpay to which Emond would be entitled. However, the fact is that
the employer never claimed that there was not enough work for Emond to do. Indeed, the
facility was if anything, suffering from a shortage of personal.
The only issue in this grievance was the Post Office’s claim that due to Emond’s physical
condition, he was not capable of doing any post office work and therefore had to be put on
administrative leave. In my opinion, the only information that would have been relevant to
Emond’s grievance would be information such as doctor’s notes that related to his physical
condition as of June 23, 2010 and thereafter. All of this other information did not have anything
to with that issue and in my judgment was not even remotely relevant to the grievance or any
remedy for the grievance. I therefore shall recommend that this allegation of the Complaint be
dismissed.
(2) The Express Mail grievances
Article 1, Section 6 of the collective bargaining agreement prohibits performance of
bargaining unit work by non unit people except in certain circumstances including emergencies.
What was involved in this situation was a series of multiple grievances where the Union
claimed that managerial or supervisory personnel were delivering express mail instead of
assigning that work to letter carriers who were in the bargaining unit.
Express mail is a type of mail service that the Postal Service offers to customers who
want a guarantee that the article will be delivered on the following day by 3:00 p.m. For this
service, the customer pays a premium and the Postal Service guarantees the delivery.
Normally, express mail will come into a facility on the evening before delivery or in the early
morning on the delivery date. This gives the letter carrier for the route sufficient time to make
the delivery. However, in certain limited circumstances, pieces of express mail may come into
the post office around noon when the letter carriers are either out in the field or are otherwise
unavailable to deliver that mail. In these circumstances, the person in charge has, on occasion,
delivered this mail himself in order to meet the deadline. The Union has filed multiple
grievances over this practice starting in the beginning of 2010.
At some point in 2010, the Union and the Employer, pursuant to the terms of the
collective bargaining agreement, agreed to arbitrate a “representative” case. They also agreed
that all other similar cases would be held in abeyance pending the outcome of this arbitration
case. That particular case involved eleven instances from February 4 to February 27, 2010
where the Union contended that supervisors or managers delivered express mail between the
hours of 12:05 and 2:02 p.m. The hearing took place on December 6, 2010 and an Award was
issued on February 25, 2011. Arbitrator John B. Cochran decided the matter against the Union,
holding that supervisors in the circumstances, had the right to deliver express mail and that this
did not violate the terms of the contract. In part the arbitrator stated:
According to the Union, the Service was required to assign carriers to deliver
those late arriving pieces of Express Mail as long as the carriers could made the
deliveries by the 3:00 p.m. time commitment. When those Express Mail items
arrived, however, each of the scheduled carriers was already working their
JD(NY)–11–12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
routes. Therefore, to have carriers deliver that Express Mail, it would be
necessary for management to track down the carriers on their routes have them
leave their routes and return to the station to pick up a few pieces of Express
mail and deliver those items, before returning to and completing their regular
routes… Therefore I am unable to find on this record that the Service violated
Article 1, Section 6 when it allowed management personnel at the Mt Carmel
Station to deliver thirty two pieces of later arriving Express Mail on eleven dates
in February 2010.
Subsequent to this Decision, the Union decided to drop all of the remaining pending
cases involving this issue. 6
Notwithstanding the fact that the Union had filed numerous other grievances involving
the same subject matter and had made numerous requests for documents, data and reports, 7
the fact of the matter is that both parties had agreed to hold all of these other grievances in
abeyance pending the outcome of the “representative” case. There really was no point in
furnishing information during this period of time, even if potentially relevant,8 as it had been
agreed that all of the other cases would be not be processed until there was a decision in the
“representative” case. This was done because the outcome of the “representative” case would
likely be determinative of the cases that the parties had agreed to hold in abeyance. Indeed,
when the Union lost the arbitrated case, it decided to drop all of the other cases and there
obviously was no longer any need for the requested information. As to this set of related
grievances, it is my opinion, that the Employer did not illegally withhold information inasmuch as
the grievances to which they were attached, had been, by mutual agreement, held in abeyance
and it was probable that the information would become irrelevant if the Union lost the
“representative” arbitration case. I therefore recommend that the Complaint be dismissed as to
these allegations. 9
(3) The Grievance Regarding Route Time
The Union and the Postal Service set up what is called a Joint Alternative Route
Adjustment Process (JARAP) whereby routes are measured and timed and in some cases
additional time is established for certain routes. It seems that in 2010, this body decided to add
3:29 hours of route time into the Mt. Carmel Station instead of adding an additional auxiliary

6 There is no suggestion that the Union’s decision to drop these grievances after the arbitrator issued
his decision was because of any failure to obtain information from the Employer. Nor was there any
suggestion that in arbitrating the “representative” case, that the Union was handicapped by any failure of
the Employer to supply relevant information.
7 Among the information sought in connection with these grievances were TAC ring reports, express
mail labels, express mail scan reports and overtime desired lists.
8 There was no dispute that supervisors had delivered express mail on specific dates. The express
mail label and scan information would have been relevant to show what and when the items were
received at the postal facility. TAC ring reports for the days in question would have been relevant to show
who was in the particular facility on the day in question and when they were in the facility or when they
were out in the field.
9 I should make it clear that I am not recommending that this aspect of the case be dismissed
because the underlying resolution of the grievances made the unfair labor practice case moot. I am doing
so because the parties themselves had decided to hold off on processing the grievances until after the
“representative” case was arbitrated. Given the fact that the parties had a great number of other
grievances to deal with, it is my opinion, that it is not unreasonable for either the Employer or the Union to
prioritize their grievance handling efforts.
JD(NY)–11–12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
delivery route. The idea was to add a small amount of time to the existing routes and thereby
eliminate the need for an additional letter carrier. The agreement was to go into effect on July
31, 2010 and specific routes were assigned additional minutes; all adding up to a total of 3:29
hours per day. In all seven routes were affected.
It seems that the Mt. Carmel facility failed to put this change into affect on July 31, 2010
and the Union grieved the matter.
The evidence indicates that a grievance relating to this issue was initially filed on
September 4, 2010 and that an Informal Step A meeting was held in September between Fruin
and Camerato. Nevertheless, as shown in General Counsel Exhibit 14, this grievance was
withdrawn.
The evidence also shows that a grievance on this subject matter was re-filed in February
2011 and that the Informal Step A meeting took place on February 15, 2011. The people
involved at this step were Fruin for the Union and John Greco for the Employer.
The matter not having been resolved at the first step, a Formal Step A meeting was held
on March 9, 2011 between Fruin and Soto. As shown by General Counsel Exhibit 13, the
participants reviewed a bunch of documents at this meeting. Therefore, this shows that the
Respondent, at least by this date, had complied with the Union’ request for information. The
exhibit states:
The Union’s contention is that the employer failed to assign available letter
carriers to 3:29 hours of route time on the incident date…. Mail volume Reports
show that there was ample mail to be in cases as per the JAEAP agreement on
the assigned designated routes… TACS reports show that there were available
Letter carriers to perform router time…
A Formal Step B meeting was convened and the appeal, with relevant documentation,
was sent to Michael Boccio and Charles Page on March 15, 2011. They issued a decision on
March 29, 2011 pursuant to which the grievance was resolved in the Union’s favor. In the
Decision, they assigned one named carrier an additional 1.2 hours pay at the straight time rate
and agreed to make further “appropriate adjustments.” The Decision lists all of the documents
that were part of the grievance file and that were made available to the Formal Step B team.
There is no contention that any relevant information was unavailable to the Formal Step B team
when they received and reviewed the grievance. Indeed, as far as I can see, there is no
indication that any relevant information had not been made available to the Union prior to the
Informal Step A meeting that was held on March 9, 2011.
The record in this case does not indicate why this grievance took so long to get going.
Although there seems to have been some discussion between union and management
representatives as early as September 2010, the initial grievance was withdrawn and the actual
processing of the case through the grievance procedure was not started until February 2011. In
any event, if this grievance began its functional life on February 15, its progress to resolution
was fairly swift. By no later than March 9, at the Formal Step A meeting, the union’s
representative had been furnished mail volume reports and TAC ring reports. By March 15,
2011, the Union appealed the grievance to the Formal Step B panel and attached the
documentation necessary to resolve the matter. Thus, between February 15 and March 9, there
passed 22 days. And the grievance, based on the documentation furnished, was resolved on
March 29, which is 42 days after the grievance had been re-initiated.
JD(NY)–11–12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
11
There is evidence that the Union made requests for information in relation to this
grievance in September and November 2010. But at some point in the latter months of 2010,
the initial grievance was withdrawn and the parties had a large number of other grievances on
their plate. There is no indication that the Union, during the time that this particular grievance
was not pending, made known to management that it nevertheless wanted the requested
information in order to investigate the merits. It is therefore my opinion that until the grievance
became active in February 2011, management’s neglect to furnish information when the
grievance was not in an active state, was not illegal in these circumstances. When the
grievance was re-filed and was actively pursued, the representatives of both parties were able,
with reasonable dispatch, to assemble all of the information that was necessary to resolve this
matter and the grievance was ultimately resolved at the third step of the grievance procedure,
only 42 days after it had been initiated.
In the circumstances noted above, I recommend that this allegation of the Complaint be
dismissed.
(4) The Jess Friedman December 17, 2010
Assignment Grievance
On December 17, 2010, union shop steward Freidman was not given a requested
overtime assignment on his own shift and this was made into a grievance. The testimony
shows that on this date, the Union orally made a request for certain information in relation to this
incident. One request was for the TAC rings in the Hamden Branch on December 17, and the
other was for an “updated overtime desired list.”
In the Brief, the General Counsel withdrew the allegation that the Respondent failed to
furnish the “updated overtime list,” thereby limiting the allegation to the failure to timely furnish
the Hamden December 17 TAC rings. The evidence shows that the Union renewed the request
for the TAC rings on January 5 and 23 and February 23, 2012. In this regard, Brumleve, another
union steward, testified that he did not receive all of the requested information from the
Employer until around February 23 to 26, 2011.
On March 5, 2011, the grievance was resolved at a meeting between Brumleve and
supervisor Greco who had replaced Camerato, the previous supervisor. As a result, Friedman
was given an hour of pay at the overtime rate.
In my opinion, the TAC rings for the day that Friedman was not given an overtime
assignment was relevant to his grievance as it would show which employees worked at the
branch and what hours were worked by Friedman and others during that day. Indeed, there
doesn’t seem to have been any pushback by the Respondent’s agents during the processing of
this grievance that the requested information was not relevant.
The original request was made in December 2010 and was followed up by written
demands in January, 2011. The information, which in this instance was simple enough to obtain
via a computer generated report, was not furnished for at about two months, It therefore is my
opinion that the Employer failed to timely furnish this information. To this extent, I think that the
Complaint has merit.
JD(NY)–11–12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
12
(5) The Jess Friedman December 20, 2010
Assignment Grievance
On December 20, 2010, Friedman, who normally worked at Hamden, requested that he
be assigned to Mt. Carmel route 1871 that had previously been assigned to Janet Porter who
had been absent for a considerable time. His request was denied and the route was assigned
to another employee, Charles Norris. Friedman’s claim was that under the terms of the
contract, he had the right to “bump” Norris.
On December 21, 2010, Friedman made a written request for information regarding his
own grievance and also for a grievance involving another employee. (Gray-Williams). This
request was made to Lillian Joseph. In relation to his own grievance, he asked for the Hamden
Daily Board for 12/20/10; Friedman TAC rings for 12/20/10; TAC rings for the carrier[s] on Route
1871 in Mt. Carmel PO on 12/20/10; and the Mt. Carmel PO Daily Board 12/20/10.
On December 23, 2010, Friedman made a second request to Joseph which added
additional items. These included a request for the Mt. Carmel Daily Board for 11/23/10 and
12/4/10 and a report of the TAC rings for Charles Norris for 11/24/10 and 12/4/10.
It seems that in the absence of an Informal Step A meeting having taken place,
Friedman appealed his grievance to the Formal Step A level and a meeting took place on
January 6, 2011. At this step, the respective representatives remanded the grievance to the
Informal A step level. The remand notice, (General Counsel Exhibit 28), indicated that this,
along with two other grievances, could be revisited after information was provided and if the
matter was not resolved at the lower step.
For reasons unknown, it appears that the Informal Step A meeting did not take place. It
also appears that the Employer furnished a batch of documents to Friedman on January 20 and
21, 2010 which he then submitted with his appeal to the Informal Step A level. It seems that by
January 21, he received all of the information requested and although there was no Informal
Step A meeting, this information was submitted to the next step of the grievance procedure in
sufficient time for that panel to review and evaluate it.
A Formal Step A meeting was held on January 28, 2010 but the representatives could
not agree on a resolution. The grievance was then appealed to Formal Step B.
On February 21, 2011, the Formal Step B panel consisting of Boccio and Page issued a
decision in favor of Friedman and the matter was resolved.
The original request was made immediately before the Christmas and New Year
holidays. Shortly thereafter, on January 6, 2011, both the union and management
representatives agreed to make the information available. It was furnished to Friedman on
January 20 and 21 which, in my opinion, is not unduly late. It may be that Friedman viewed his
opportunity to review the documents as being limited, but the Union as an entity, had sufficient
time to review, before the next step of the grievance procedure, a group of documents that
seemed to have been relevant to them in evaluating Friedman’s grievance. 10 In this context, I

10 As Friedman’s right to bump Morris is a matter of contract interpretation and presumably based on
their relative job positions and seniority, I really do not see the relevance of their respective TAC rings or
the Daily Boards at the two facilities on the days in question. There was no dispute that Norris instead of
Friedman was given the assignment on the days in question.
JD(NY)–11–12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
13
do not view the delivery of this information as being untimely. I therefore shall recommend that
the Complaint be dismissed in this regard.
(e) Allegations Regarding Hamden
In the Brief, the General Counsel withdrew the allegations involving (a) the grievance
related to the Sandor Nemeth and (b) the snowstorm grievance. I approve these withdrawals
and therefore shall not review the evidence relating to those matters.
(1) The Loretta Gray-Williams
“Warning” grievance.
On December 17, 2010, Gray-Williams received a warning letter relating to an incident
that occurred on December 16. In that warning, it was alleged that despite having had her
request for additional time to deliver mail on her route (#1410), per a form 3996 submitted by
her, she came back with undelivered mail. At the time, she told shop steward Friedman that
upon her return to the office, she had filled out Form 1571 and that she came back with the mail
because she had been unable to deliver it within the prescribed eight hours.
On December 18, Friedman requested a number of documents from Supervisor Lillian
Joseph. He requested (1) a copy of the form 3996 filled out by all carriers in the Hamden office
on December 16, 2010; (2) a copy of the form 1571 filled out by Gray-Williams upon her return
to the office on December 16; (3) a MSP scan sheet for route 1410, (her route); (4) the TAC
rings for all carriers at the Hamden office on that date; and (5) all information used by
management to issue the warning letter.
Friedman made a second request for his information on December 21. However, he
added a number of new items including (1) a copy of the warning letter issued to Gray Williams
and (2) the Hamden daily board for December 16, 2010. (The latter request seems to be the
work schedule for the day in question.) In addition, Friedman included in this document several
other information requests for this grievance which are not in issue in this case, plus requests
for other documents related to the previously described Friedman “bumping” issue.
Not having received an immediate response, Friedman reiterated his information request
on December 23. (Two days before Christmas).
For some reason, Friedman did not initiate an Informal Step A meeting. Instead, he
referred the grievance to the Formal Step A level. On January 6, 2011, those representatives,
Ken Honore and Sharon Bernardo, agreed to remand the grievance back to the Informal Step A
level. They also agreed that the Employer would provide the requested documents to
Friedman. Further, they agreed that if the matter was not resolved at the Informal Step A level,
the Formal Step A would reconvene in 10 days.
General Counsel Exhibit 70 is an undated document created some time after January 16
and before January 28, 2011. It shows that Friedman appealed the Gray-Williams warning to
Formal Step A and that he enclosed a group of documents including the information he had
previously requested. He testified however, that some of the information was provided on the
day before or on the last day before the Informal Step A expiration date.
General Counsel 65 is the Formal Step B decision that was issued by Glenn Chapaton
and Cynthia Hall on March 4, 2011. This shows that a Formal Step A meeting was held on
January 28, 2011 and that no agreement was reached at that time. It shows that the grievance
JD(NY)–11–12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
14
was appealed and received at the Formal Step B level on March 1, 2011. The exhibit has a
table of contents that shows all of the documentation that was forwarded to the Step B level and
there is no indication that the representatives at this level thought that they were missing any
relevant information. The upshot was that the warning was revoked and the warning letter
expunged from Gray-William’s file.
In my opinion, the evidence does not show an unreasonable delay in furnishing this
information. 11 The initial requests were made on December 18, 21 and 23 and the company
and union representatives agreed on January 6, 2011 to furnish the information to Friedman.
The evidence indicates that somewhere between January 16 and 28, Friedman was furnished
the information. And although he may or may not have had a full opportunity to review the
documentation, the information was nevertheless shortly made available to more experienced
representatives who had it available to discuss at the next step. (In my opinion, the right to
relevant grievance information resides with the Union as an entity and not to any particular
representative). At most, any delay was about one month and part of that delay can be
attributed the Christmas/New Year holidays. (I do think that Lillian Joseph, who at that time was
responsible for mail delivery in an undermanned office, was entitled to a little bit of slack). It
therefore is my opinion, that in this respect the Complaint should be dismissed.
(2) The Gray-Williams Overtime
Assignment Grievance
The Postal Service has something called an overtime desired list on which letter carriers
can place their names if they choose to work overtime during an upcoming quarter. This means
that if the employee puts his or her name on this list, she will be given overtime when available,
in order of seniority for the persons on the list. It also means that the people on the list has to
accept and cannot refuse overtime assignments during the quarter for which they registered.
In January and February 2011, Gray-Williams did not receive overtime assignments and
she complained that she had submitted her name via a note, for placement on the overtime
desired list for this period.
Representing Gray-Williams, shop steward Friedman, on January 31 and February 1,
2011, requested that management produce the note where Gray-Williams indicated her desire
to be on the overtime desired list. He also requested the work assignment list for the first
quarter of 2011 and the overtime desired list for that period.
The evidence is that Lillian Joseph conceded to Friedman that Gray-Williams had indeed
sent a note indicating her desire to be on the overtime desired list but that she could not find it.
The Union filed a grievance alleging that Gray-Williams was not being assigned overtime
despite having placed her name on the overtime desired list. The informal Step A meeting took
place on February 9, 2011 between Friedman and Joseph. As noted above, Joseph conceded
that Gray-Williams had sent the note and that she should be on the overtime desired list.
Therefore, there was no dispute about this fact and any documents to prove the conceded fact
was simply redundant and unnecessary.

11 Since both representatives at the January 6, 2011 Informal Step A meeting remanded the case to
the lower level with the agreement that the Employer would furnish the requested information, I am not
about to second guess their expertise that these documents were relevant to the grievance.
JD(NY)–11–12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
15
Ultimately, this grievance was resolved on appeal at the Formal Step A level on
February 25, 2011 by company representative Bernardo and union representative Honore. This
resolution, made less than a month after Friedman initiated the Informal Step A meeting,
required that Gray-Williams be given overtime assignments during the relevant quarter. The
representatives also agreed on a backpay remedy for her lost overtime. There is no indication
that the respective representatives at this level of the grievance procedure lacked any
information to resolve the grievance; this not being surprising since the Employer had conceded
at the outset that Gray Williams had indeed notified the office of her desire to be on the overtime
desired list.
In my opinion there being no dispute about the facts of the grievance, information
documenting the undisputed facts was not relevant. Therefore, I shall recommend that this
allegation of the Complaint be dismissed.
(3) Forced Overtime Grievance
Union steward Vitale testified that on December 10, 2010, he made a written request for
TAC rings for the period from November 8, 2010 to December 9, 2010. (A written report for
these TAC rings would have required the printing of about 600 pages). Vitale testified that such
a report was necessary because he became aware that management was forcing overtime on
employees who were not on the overtime desired list for this quarter.
According to Vitale, when he made this request, Joseph replied that this would be too
much paper to print. He also testified that when he asked to use a computer to review the TAC
rings, she replied that it would tie up her computer and that she needed it for the day.
According to Vitale, Joseph said she would get back to him. Vitale testified that less than a
week later, Joseph offered to let him review the TAC rings on an office computer. However, he
was unavailable because of his son’s hockey game. There also was evidence that Vitale was
offered a second opportunity to review the TAC rings on a computer but that Joseph revoked
the offer because the office didn’t have enough staff to allow Vitale to use company paid time to
do this job and to deliver mail at the same time. He never requested another time to review the
TAC rings and she didn’t offer either. No grievance was ever filed. Further, it is significant that
there is no evidence that any employee during the period of time for which the information was
requested, complained that he or she was being forced to work overtime despite not being on
the overtime desired list. 12
The simple solution to this problem would have been for Joseph to copy the information
from her computer onto a thumb drive and give it to Vitale who could review it on his own time.
But neither Vitale nor Joseph seem to have thought of this solution.
In my opinion, the evidence does not establish that Joseph unreasonably withheld this
information from shop steward Vitale. It seems clear that she did offer him time to review the
information but neither he nor she seems to have been able to make a date. It also seems that

12 In December 2010, a letter carrier named Bujolski did make a complaint that he was forced to work
overtime despite not being on the overtime desired list. A grievance was filed on his behalf and the
General Counsel, as part of the original complaint, alleged that the Respondent failed to timely furnish
information relating the Bujolski’s grievance. However, the General Counsel has withdrawn its allegations
that the Respondent violated the Act in relation to the information requests regarding the Bujolski
grievance.
JD(NY)–11–12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
16
Vitale, in the absence of any employee complaints, never pressed the issue and let the entire
matter lapse.
Based on these facts, it is my opinion that this allegation of the Complaint should be
dismissed.
Conclusions of Law
1. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) & (5) when its management at the Mt.
Carmel office failed to timely furnish the TAC ring information in relation to Jess Friedman’s
December 17, 2010 assignment grievance.
2. The unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent affects commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. The Respondent has not violated the Act in any other manner encompassed by the
Complaint.
Remedy
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find
that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
The General Counsel requests an Order requiring the posting of a Notice at its main,
branch and station facilities in its New Haven, Connecticut Post Office and to send a copy of the
Board Order to all of its supervisors at the aforesaid facilities. However, as I have concluded
that the Respondent has violated the Act on only one occasion at the Mt. Carmel office, I shall
only require that the Notice be posted at that facility. Also, as all of the grievances have been
resolved and the information requested is no longer needed to enforce the collective bargaining
agreement, I will not require the Respondent to furnish the information that I have found to have
been unduly delayed.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following conclusions and recommended 13
ORDER
The Respondent, the United States Postal Service, its officers, agents and assigns shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing to provide the National Association of Letter Carriers, Merged Branch No. 19
with information relevant to the investigation and processing of grievances or disputes under the
terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

13 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(NY)–11–12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
17
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining or coercing
employees in the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its Mt. Carmel, Connecticut
facility, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix” 14 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 34, after being signed by the Respondent’s
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60
consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. 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 Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by such means.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that, during the pendency of these
proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice
to all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since
January 1, 2011.
(b) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn
certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that
the Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C., April 16, 2012.
_____________________
Raymond P. Green
Administrative Law Judge

14 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(NY)–11–12
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 the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protection
To choose not to engage in any of these protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT refuse to furnish in a timely manner, information to the Union information
relevant for the administration of the collective bargaining or to investigate and/or to process
grievances.
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.
A. A. Ribicoff Federal Building and Courthouse, 4th Floor
450 Main Street
Hartford, CT 06103-3022
Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
860-240-3522.
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, 860-240-3006