UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 29, 2015

362 NLRB No. 103 (N.L.R.B. 2015)

362 NLRB No. 103
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
United States Postal Service and Deborah Rutherford
National Association of Letter Carriers Branch 124
and National Association of Letter Carriers,
AFL-CIO and Deborah Rutherford. Cases 15–
CA–093567, 15–CA–093572, 15–CB–084264, and
15–CB–095238
May 29, 2015
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS MISCIMARRA
AND HIROZAWA
On October 23, 2014, Administrative Law Judge Rob-
ert A. Ringler issued the attached decision. Respondent
National Association of Letter Carriers Branch 124 and
the National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL–CIO
(the Union) filed exceptions and a supporting brief, the
General Counsel filed an answering brief, and the Union
filed a reply brief. The General Counsel filed cross-
exceptions and a supporting brief, the Union and Re-
spondent United States Postal Service filed answering
briefs, and the General Counsel filed reply briefs.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record in
light of the exceptions, cross-exceptions, and briefs and
has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.2

1 The General Counsel has excepted to some of the judge’s credibil-
ity findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an admin-
istrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponder-
ance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect.
Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362
(3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no
basis for reversing the findings.
The Union excepts to the judge’s finding that it violated Sec.
8(b)(1)(A) by failing and refusing to furnish Charging Party Deborah
Rutherford a copy of its collective-bargaining agreement with the Unit-
ed States Postal Service, arguing that, at the time of the request, Ruther-
ford was a statutory supervisor. Under the circumstances presented
here, however, we find that Rutherford’s supervisory status is not rele-
vant because she was seeking to ascertain how long she retained the
right under the contract to return to her assigned postal route following
her temporary supervisory detail. Because Rutherford requested the
collective-bargaining agreement to determine her contract rights as a
unit member, the Union violated Sec. 8(b)(1)(A) by refusing to provide
it. See generally Law Enforcement & Security Officers Local 40B
(South Jersey Detective Agency), 260 NLRB 419, 420 (1982) (union
violated Sec. 8(b)(1)(A) by failing on request to make available its
collective-bargaining agreement and its health and welfare plan to
covered employee).
2 We shall substitute a new notice that conforms to the Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, National Association of Let-
ter Carriers Branch 124, New Orleans, Louisiana, and its
parent union, the National Association of Letter Carriers,
AFL–CIO, Washington, D.C., its officers, agents, and
representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Or-
der.
Dated, Washington, D.C. May 29, 2015
______________________________________
Mark Gaston Pearce, Chairman
______________________________________
Philip A. Miscimarra, Member
______________________________________
Kent Y. Hirozawa, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and
obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to provide a collective-
bargaining agreement to Deborah Rutherford or any oth-
er employee represented by National Association of Let-
ter Carriers Branch 124, which is relevant to the employ-
ee in assessing his or her contractual rights.
WE WILL NOT, in any like or related manner, restrain or
coerce you in the exercise of the rights listed above.
WE WILL, if we have not already done so, provide the
collective-bargaining agreement to Deborah Rutherford
that she requested in February 2012.
2 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS
BRANCH 124, AFFILIATED WITH NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS, AFL–CIO
(LABOR ORGANIZATION)
The Board’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/15-CA-093567 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision
from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations
Board, 1099 14th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20570, or
by calling (202) 273-1940.
Stephen Bensinger, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Roderick Eves, Esq. (United States Postal Service Law De-
partment), for the Respondent United States Postal Service.
Thomas Ciantra, Esq. (Cohen, Weiss and Simon LLP), for the
Respondents National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL–
CIO and National Association of Letter Carriers Branch
124.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT A. RINGLER, Administrative Law Judge. Between
February 18 and 20, 2014,1 this case was heard in New Orleans,
Louisiana. The complaint alleged the National Association of
Letter Carriers Branch 124 (Branch 124), and its parent union,
the National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL–CIO (the
NALC) (collectively called the Union or Respondent Union)
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act (the Act) by: failing to provide a collective-bargaining
agreement to Deborah Rutherford; and causing her to lose her
assigned route. The complaint further alleged that the United
States Postal Service (the USPS) violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) by: threatening Rutherford; and contributing to the loss of
her route.
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after thoroughly considering the
parties’ briefs, I make the following2

1 Two posthearing conferences were held on March 25 and May 1,
2014, which addressed various stipulations, post-hearing discovery
matters and exhibits. See (ALJ Exhs. 3–4).
2 The General Counsel’s unopposed motion to correct the transcript,
which is contained in his post-hearing brief, is granted.
FINDINGS OF FACT3
I. JURISDICTION
The USPS is subject to the National Labor Relations Board’s
(the Board’s) jurisdiction under Section 1209 of the Postal Re-
organization Act, 39 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. (the PRA). Branch
124 and the NALC are labor organizations, as defined by Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction
This case involves Rutherford’s temporary detail from her
City Letter Carrier position to an acting supervisor slot. The
Union determined that Rutherford performed this supervisory
detail in excess of 4 months, which prompted it to successfully
file a grievance seeking to remove her from her route. Ruther-
ford contends that the Union retaliated against her because she
withdrew her membership, while the Union and USPS aver that
their actions were unrelated to her withdrawal and authorized
by the collective-bargaining agreement.
B. Collective-Bargaining Agreement
The 2006–2011 collective-bargaining agreement between the
USPS and NALC (the CBA) designated the NALC as the ex-
clusive collective-bargaining representative for all City Letter
Carriers employed by the USPS (the unit).4 Branch 124 admin-
istered the CBA within the New Orleans area. The grievance,
which ousted Rutherford from her route, was based upon Arti-
cle 41, Letter Carrier Craft, of the CBA:
Section 1, Posting
In the Letter Carrier Craft . . . .
2. . . . . The duty assignment of a full-time carrier detailed to
a supervisory position, including a supervisory training shall
be declared vacant and shall be posted for bid in accordance
program in excess of four months with this Article. Upon re-
turn to the craft the carrier will become an unassigned regular.
A letter carrier temporarily detailed to a supervisory position
will not be returned to the craft solely to circumvent the provi-
sions of Section l.A.2 . . . .
(U. Exh. 5) (emphasis added).
The CBA is publicly posted on the NALC’s website (i.e.,
http://www.nalc.org). It is also printed, with editorial commen-
tary, in the NALC-USPS Joint Contract Administration Manual
(the JCAM), which is available in virtually every postal facili-
ty.5 (U. Exh. 6; Tr. 137–138.)
C. Rutherford’s Withdrawal as a Union Member
On March 16, 2011, Rutherford submitted a Cancellation of

3 Unless otherwise explained, factual findings arise from admis-
sions, joint exhibits, stipulations, and uncontroverted testimony.
4 Although the CBA was supplanted by a successor agreement that
became effective on January 10, 2013, the relevant provisions remained
unchanged.
5 This manual, which was jointly prepared by the USPS and NALC,
guides the interpretation of the CBA.
POSTAL SERVICE 3
Organization Dues from Payroll Withholdings form to the
USPS and NALC. (GC Exh. 3.) Prior to her withdrawal, she
had been a Union member for 6 years. Branch 124 issues a
newsletter, The Mailbag, to its members; in the June 2011 edi-
tion, it announced Rutherford’s withdrawal. (GC Exh. 21.)
Both Branch 124 Shop Steward Steven Ancar and Branch
124 President Charles Vigee denied knowing that Rutherford
canceled her membership, which is incredible. Concerning
Ancar, who is responsible for overseeing only a limited set of
City Letter Carriers at his assigned station, it is implausible that
he would not learn of her status change. Regarding Vigee, who
likely edits and reviews The Mailbag as president, it is equally
improbable that he would not note membership changes that are
important enough to print and disseminate to constituents.
Moreover, given that the Union is likely concerned with dues
revenues and unit support, it is doubtful that the President and
affected Shop Steward would not note Rutherford’s withdraw-
al.
D. Rutherford’s Assignment and Related Events
1. Temporary supervisory detail
Chastity Bart, customer service manager, approved Ruther-
ford’s temporary supervisory assignment. Her initial Assign-
ment Order listed a starting date of January 31, 2012,6 with an
ending date of June 2. (GC Exh. 6(a); see also GC Exh. 7
(Rutherford’s Time and Attendance report (the T&A).)7 On
February 18, Bart cancelled her temporary supervisor detail and
returned her to the City Letter Carrier craft; she cited short-
staffing issues. (GC Exhs. 6(b), 8; Tr. 48.) The T&A reflected
Rutherford’s cursory return to mail delivery.8 (GC Exh. 7 at p.
18.) Rutherford recommenced her supervisory detail on Febru-
ary 21.9 (GC Exh. 7.) On March 31, Bart completed another
Assignment Order, which memorialized her return to her super-
visory detail. (GC Exh. 6(c).) A subsequent Assignment Order
was then prepared, which extended her supervisory detail
through September 2; this tour was, however, terminated when
she returned to the city letter carrier craft in late–June. (GC
Exhs. 6(d)–(e).)
2. February CBA request
In February,10 Bart, Rutherford, and Shop Steward Ancar
discussed Rutherford’s supervisory detail. Bart recollected
Rutherford asking for a CBA and Ancar telling her to get it
herself. Rutherford described this exchange:
[I]t was after Mardi Gras. Myself and . . . [Bart] were sitting
at the supervisor’s desk . . . and . . . Ancar approached to in-
form me that in 120 days that I would have to go back to my
route. Prior to that I had heard six months, so I questioned

6 Unless otherwise stated, all dates herein are in 2012.
7 Codes 7220 and 7210 on the T&A signify City Letter Carrier du-
ties (i.e. sorting and delivering mail).
8 Her T&A, however, contrarily demonstrated that she received H/L
E-17 wages (i.e. temporary supervisor pay) on February 18, which Bart
and Rutherford described as an error. (GC Exh. 7.)
9 Bart related that codes 7080 and 7840 are supervisory codes,
which are listed for Rutherford on those dates.
10 The parties did not cite an exact date; the complaint described,
“an unspecified date in late-February.”
him . . . . He said, no, it’s four months, that’s what it states in
the contract . . . . I asked him if he could . . . get me a copy of
the contract . . . . And he told me I could get it myself. And
basically that was the end of the conversation.
(Tr. 512) (emphasis added). Rutherford stated that, although
she had Internet access, she did not know that the CBA was
posted on the NALC website, or contained in the JCAM.
Ancar denied Rutherford’s CBA request. He averred that, if
she had made such a request, he would have referred her to the
JCAM, which was stored at the Algiers Station.
Inasmuch as Bart and Rutherford testified that a CBA was
requested and Ancar replied “go get it yourself,” and Ancar
denied this exchange, I must make a credibility determination.
I credit Bart and Rutherford, who were consistent. It is also
plausible that Rutherford would have requested a CBA, after
Ancar warned her about her potential route loss.
3. Rutherford’s June 20 exchange with Ancar and return
to her mail route
Bart testified that, on June 20, she, Rutherford and Ancar had
this exchange:
[W]e were at the . . . supervisor’s desk . . . . He stated that
she was over her days and . . . we [replied] . . . no, she’s not
. . . .
[H]e stated that, you know, everybody . . . had been watching
and waiting and that . . . she was over by about two or three
days . . . .
I then told him that . . . she no longer wanted to be in man-
agement and that she was going back to her route. We asked .
. . what could we do . . . . He . . . said it was too late because
he had already bid . . . the off days. . . .
I asked him to . . . let it go. . . . [S]he didn’t want to be in
management . . . . It was only a few days, so I asked him . . .
don’t go through with . . . the grievance process, as far as tak-
ing her route. He . . . stated I was putting him in a pickle be-
cause I was asking him to do one thing and I’m sure [that oth-
er] people . . . [were] asking him to do something else.
He left . . . the office . . . [and] said he would ponder . . . it
. . . .
(Tr. 68–70.) Bart added that she asked him whether a 1-day
gap in her supervisory detail would create a new 4-month peri-
od, and recollected him stating that it would.11 (Tr. 71.) She
related that they asked him what Rutherford could do and that
he advised her to immediately return to her route, which she
did. She recollected that others had been given warnings before
their routes had been taken away, and cited Kenya Roybiskie as
an example. See (GC Exh. 9). She said that Rutherford asked

11 Such guidance, however, appears to contradict Art. 41 of the
CBA, which provides that, “[a] letter carrier temporarily detailed to a
supervisory position will not be returned to the craft solely to circum-
vent the provisions of Section l.A.2,” as well as the Union’s act of
filing the Grievance itself. I do not, as a result, credit this component
of Bart’s testimony.
4 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
why she was not warned and he replied that he was unobligated
to do so. Bart later completed an Assignment Order, which
returned Rutherford to her City Letter Carrier position, effec-
tive June 18. See (GC Exhs. 6(e), 7 at p. 51, GC Exh. 8).
4. Branch 124’s Grievance seeking to declare Rutherford’s
route vacant
On June 22, Ancar filed a class action grievance, which al-
leged that the USPS violated the CBA by, “not posting . . .
[Rutherford’s] bid assignment . . . [because she held] a supervi-
sory position in excess of 120 days” (the Grievance).12 (GC
Exh. 13.) The Grievance sought to have her route declared
vacant and posted. Ancar testified that various City Letter Car-
riers, including Guy Banks, lobbied him to file the Grievance.13
(Tr. 178.) The Grievance alleged that Rutherford was a super-
visor from February 18 to June 20 (i.e., over 4 months). (GC
Exh. 14.)
For several reasons, I credit Ancar’s testimony that Branch
124 members lobbied him to file the Grievance. His demeanor
on this point was believable, his testimony was consistent, and
it’s highly probable that others would have sought Rutherford’s
coveted route, which was a riding route with limited walking,
minimal outdoor exposure, and weekends off.
5. Grievance meeting and settlement
On June 28, NALC Representative Montreal Cage and USPS
Representative Paulette Gabriel met, and negotiated a settle-
ment, concerning the Grievance. Their settlement provided:
Management . . . failed to post the bid assignment of . . . City
Carrier D G Rutherford . . . detailed to a supervisory position
in excess of four (4) months in accordance with Section 41.1
A 2 of the National Agreement. . . .
Management agrees to have the duty assignment of the full-
time carrier declared vacant and posted for bid in accordance
with Article 41 . . . .
(GC Exh. 15.) Rutherford, thereafter, became an unassigned
regular. See (GC Exhs. 16–17).
Branch 124 President Vigee contended that the CBA ex-
pressly required that a route be declared vacant, whenever a
City Letter Carrier held a temporary supervisor position beyond
4 months,14 and that the Grievance was “cut and dry.” (Tr.
376.) He stated, besides Rutherford, who was not a Union
member, branch 124 evenhandedly filed analogous grievances
against similarly-situated City Letter Carriers, some of whom
were members and others whose membership status was un-
known to him. He cited the following examples: Lori Cham-
bers,15 Kenya Roybiskie,16 Juana Riley,17 and Darlene

12 The grievance errantly described the cap as 120 days, even
though the CBA discussed a 4-month limitation.
13 Banks did not recall this matter.
14 He stated that Branch 124 used the terms 120 days and 4 months
interchangeably, when enforcing Art. 41.
15 Chambers served as a temporary supervisor from mid-August
2011 through late June 2012.
16 Vigee was unsure whether Roybiskie was a Branch 124 member
at the time, but, denied that her status played any role in her grievance.
Torregano.18 See (GC 11(c)–(h); U. Exhs. 2–5).
Gabriel, who represented management concerning the Griev-
ance, testified that she reviewed Rutherford’s T&A and con-
cluded that the Grievance was valid. She noted, however, that,
if she had realized that Rutherford served as a City Letter Car-
rier on February 18 and found that this stint interrupted her
supervisory detail, she might have denied the Grievance. (Tr.
458.) She speculated that, if February 20, were considered the
first day of Rutherford’s detail, she might have fallen short of 4
months. (GC Exh. 30.) She stated that she was unaware that
Rutherford was not a union member, and that this status was
never communicated to her.
I found both Vigee’s and Gabriel’s testimony on these mat-
ters to be highly credible. Concerning Vigee, his testimony
regarding Branch 124’s handling of this and similar grievances
was essentially unrebutted, plausible, and consistent with doc-
umentary evidence. Regarding Gabriel, her demeanor was
stellar; she was outspoken, glaringly honest, willing to concede
her own failure to consider alternatives, and possessed a limited
stake in the outcome.
6. July 5 Discussion with Gabriel
Rutherford stated that, on July 5, she telephoned Gabriel
concerning her route loss and was told that, “there was word
that if you would have been in the union all of this would have
been taken care of.” (Tr. 527.) She said that Gabriel never
identified who made this comment.
Although Gabriel recalled speaking to Rutherford on this
date, she staunchly denied saying that Rutherford’s Union sta-
tus impacted the Grievance. (Tr. 491.) I fully credit Gabriel’s
denial; she was, as noted, a superior witness, with a stellar de-
meanor.
7. Bart’s discussion with Gabriel
Bart testified that after the Union filed the Grievance, she
had a conversation with Gabriel, who related that Vigee would
have been willing to withdraw the grievance, but Ancar was
unyielding. Gabriel denied this conversation.
I credit Gabriel’s testimony, which has been afforded great
deference. It is also improbable that she would have sustained
the Grievance, if she had been told it was a charade.
III. ANALYSIS
A. Threat19
Rutherford’s testimony that Gabriel informed her that the
Union would not have pursued the Grievance and connected
settlement, if she had been a union member, was not credited.
This allegation is, therefore, dismissed.

He added, however, that, because she did not possess a desirable route,
the Union waited somewhat longer to file its grievance.
17 He was unsure whether she was a Branch 124 member, but, cred-
ibly denied that her status played any role.
18 He related that Torregano was a Branch 124 member, when the
grievance was filed.
19 This allegation is listed under pars. 5 and 11 of the complaint in
Cases 15–CA–093567 and 15–CA–093572 (the CA complaint).
POSTAL SERVICE 5
B. Grievance Handling20
1. Precedent
The Union’s pursuit, and settlement, of the Grievance was
lawful. In Miranda Fuel Co., 140 NLRB 181 (1962), the Board
recognized that a union “must assume the responsibility to act
as a genuine representative of all the employees in the bargain-
ing unit.” Id. at 184. The Board set forth the following repre-
sentational standard:
Section 7 thus gives employees the right to be free from unfair
or irrelevant or invidious treatment by their exclusive bargain-
ing agent in matters affecting their employment. This right of
employees is a statutory limitation on statutory bargaining
representatives, and we conclude that Section 8(b)(1)(A) of
the Act accordingly prohibits labor organizations, when acting
in a statutory representative capacity, from taking action
against any employee upon considerations or classifications
which are irrelevant, invidious or unfair.
Id. at 185. The Board also found that an employer, who par-
ticipates in a union’s arbitrary actions, violates the Act:
We further conclude that a (union) and an employer also re-
spectively violate Section 8(b)(2) and 8(a)(3) when, for arbi-
trary or irrelevant reasons or upon the basis of an unfair classi-
fication, the union attempts to cause or does cause an employ-
er to derogate the status of an employee.
Id. at 186. The Board observed that a violation turns upon
the finding that the action taken encourages membership in a
labor organization. The Board noted that a Section “8(a)(3) or
8(b)(2) violation does not necessarily flow from conduct which
has the foreseeable result of encouraging union membership,
but that given such ‘foreseeable result’ the finding of a viola-
tion may turn upon an evaluation of the disputed conduct ‘in
terms of legitimate employee or union purposes.”‘ 140 NLRB
at 187–188.
The Supreme Court has similarly recognized that a union
owes its members a duty of fair representation. Vaca v. Sipes,
386 U.S. 171 (1967). The Court has, thus, held that a union, as
long as it used good faith and honesty of purpose is afforded a
“wide range of reasonableness” in representing unit employees.
Ford Motor Co. v. Hoffman, 345 U.S. 330, 338 (1953). In
Truck Drivers Local 692 (Great Western Unifreight System),
209 NLRB 446, 448 (1974), the Board observed that not every
union’s negligent action by itself will constitute a breach of the
duty of fair representation: “[s]omething more is required.” Id.
2. Analysis
The Union’s conduct regarding the Grievance satisfied the
“wide range of reasonableness” standard. First, the Grievance
was rationally based upon express, non-discriminatory, CBA
language, which provided that a temporary supervisor’s former
route must be declared vacant after 4 months. Given that Ruth-
erford’s T&A demonstrated that she received temporary super-
visory wages (i.e. H/L EO-17 pay status), without interruption,

20 This allegation is listed under pars. 6–10, and 12 of the CA com-
plaint, as well as pars. 7–13 of the complaint in Cases 15–CB–084264
and 15–CB–095238 (the CB complaint).
from January 31 through June 20 (i.e. a period almost eclipsing
5 months), the Union’s pursuit of the Grievance was rational.21
See (GC Exh. 7). Second, management’s settlement of the
Grievance further demonstrates its reasonableness; manage-
ment clearly had no axe to grind with Rutherford (i.e. someone
who was a supervisory prospect) and derived no benefit from
sustaining the Grievance, beyond complying with the CBA.
Management’s endorsement of the Grievance, as a result, deep-
ly undercuts any position that the Grievance was settled for
invidious reasons, inasmuch management was unlikely to prej-
udice Rutherford absent a contractual requirement to do so.
Third, the Union’s willingness to pursue analogous grievances
against members and employees of unknown membership sta-
tus further demonstrates that its actions were not motivated by
Rutherford’s withdrawal of membership.22 Fourth, the Griev-
ance advanced the Union’s valid interest in not leaving poten-
tially prime mail routes such as Rutherford’s in indefinite lim-
bo. Fifth, although Vigee and Ancar were generally aware that
Rutherford was no longer a Union member, there is no evi-
dence that Cage knew this fact, when he settled the Grievance.
Cage’s lack of knowledge further undercuts any contention that
the Union’s actions were discriminatory. Finally, no credible
evidence was presented, which demonstrated that the Union
harbored animus against Rutherford because she was not a
member. To the contrary, Ancar tried to help her when he re-
minded her in February that she would lose her route if she
exceeded 4 months on her detail; this benevolent warning hard-
ly smacks of invidious intent.23 In sum, the Union’s, and
USPS’s, actions concerning the Grievance were rational, non-
negligent, noninvidious and fair.

21 Although it appears that Rutherford temporarily returned to her
City Letter Carrier position on February 18, the Grievance, which in-
cludes this date as part of her supervisory tenure (see (GC Exh. 14)), is
not unreasonable. First, the CBA fails to expressly address whether
such gaps are included in one’s temporary supervisory period for pur-
poses of Article 41. Second, there is some contractual support for the
position that such gaps should count, inasmuch as Article 41 provides
that, “a letter carrier temporarily detailed to a supervisory position will
not be returned to the craft solely to circumvent the provisions of Sec-
tion l.A.2 [i.e. the rule that declares their route vacant after 4 months].”
(U. Exh. 5). Third, although the General Counsel proffered an arbitral
opinion, which held that returning a temporary supervisor to his City
Letter Carrier position for the day to cover for absences is not prohibit-
ed by the CBA, this arbitral opinion is silent as to whether such days
count towards the 4-month period that one’s route is protected. (GC
Exh. 22.) In sum, the Union’s inclusion of February 18 was valid.
22 It is also noteworthy that vacating Rutherford’s route was a facial-
ly neutral act, which did not promote the interests of Union members
over non-members, unless it can be shown that the Union knew that
one of its members would have been awarded the route, which was not
done herein. Or put another way, the Union had no way of knowing
that a very senior, non-Member, would be awarded Rutherford’s route,
which undercuts the contention that its actions were designed to harm a
non-member.
23 If the Union truly sought to retaliate against Rutherford, Ancar
would have stealthily filed a grievance on June 1, which alleged that
she began her supervisory detail on January 31 (i.e., her actual start
date) and fulfilled her 4 months as early as May 31. The Union’s will-
ingness to give her fair warning and a grace period by waiting until
June 20 to file the Grievance hardly demonstrates invidious intent.
6 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. Information Request24
The Union unlawfully failed and refused to provide a CBA
to Rutherford. The Board has held that, where a requesting
employee has a legitimate interest in the information, whether
expressed or obvious, and where the union has “raised no sub-
stantial countervailing interest” in refusing to provide the in-
formation, it must be provided. Mail Handlers Local 307
(Postal Service), 339 NLRB 93 (2003).
Rutherford had a legitimate interest in reviewing the CBA.
As a result, Ancar’s directive to “go get it yourself,” without
first confirming that she knew how to do obtain the CBA via
the Internet or JCAM was unlawful.25
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The USPS is an employer subject to the Board’s jurisdiction
under Section 1209 of the PRA.
Branch 124 and the NALC are labor organizations, within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
The USPS did not unlawfully threaten employees.
The Union’s and USPS’s actions regarding Rutherford’s
Grievance were lawful.
The Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by failing
and refusing to provide a CBA to Rutherford.
This unfair labor practice affects commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent Union has engaged in an
unfair labor practice, I find that it must be ordered to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act, which includes providing the re-
quested CBA to Rutherford, unless it has already done so.
Branch 124 is further ordered to distribute appropriate remedial
notices electronically via email, Intranet, Internet, or other ap-
propriate electronic means to its members and represented em-
ployees, if it normally communicates with such workers in this
manner, in addition to the traditional physical posting of paper
notices on a bulletin board. See J. Picini Flooring, 356 NLRB
No. 9 (2010).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law, and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended26
ORDER
The Respondent Union, National Association of Letter Car-
riers Branch 124, New Orleans, Louisiana, and its parent union,
the National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL–CIO, Wash-

24 This allegation is listed under pars. 6, 8(a), 9(a), and 12(a) of the
complaint in cases 15–CB–084264 and 15–CB–095238 (the CB com-
plaint).
25 His actions violated the Act, even if he innocently assumed that
she knew about the JCAM or the Union’s website, and was solely being
difficult by giving him a directive that she could have accomplished on
her own. Moreover, suggesting self-help is invalid, unless one first
verifies that the requestor has a means to gain access.
26 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopt-
ed by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for
all purposes.
ington, DC, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to furnish the collective-bargaining
agreement that Rutherford requested in February 2012.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section
7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Furnish the requested collective-bargaining agreement to
Rutherford, if it has not already done so.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its
union office in New Orleans, Louisiana, copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix.”27 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 15, after being
signed by the Respondent Union’s authorized representative,
shall be posted by the Respondent Union and maintained for 60
consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees and members are customarily post-
ed. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent Union
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 Union has gone out of busi-
ness or closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the
Respondent Union shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense,
a copy of the notice to all current employees and former em-
ployees employed by the Respondent Union at any time since
February 1, 2012. In addition to physical posting of paper no-
tices, 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 Union customarily com-
municates with its employees and members by such means.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Regional Office, file
with the Regional Director for Region 15 a sworn certification
of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. October 23, 2014
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated
Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this no-
tice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half

27 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
POSTAL SERVICE 7
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to provide a collective-bargaining
agreement to Deborah Rutherford, or any other employee rep-
resented by National Association of Letter Carriers Branch 124,
which is relevant to them in assessing their contractual rights.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you
by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, if we have not already done so, provide the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement to Deborah Rutherford that she re-
quested in February 2012.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIER BRANCH
124, AFFILIATED WITH NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
LETTER CARRIERS, AFL–CIO (LABOR
ORGANIZATION)
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/15-CA-093567 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision
from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
1099 14th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling
(202) 273–1940.