United States Postal Service

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Jan 12, 2015

07-CA-117584 (N.L.R.B. Jan. 12, 2015)

JD–02–15
Grand Rapids, MI
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
and 07–CA–117584
LOCAL 307, NATIONAL POSTAL MAIL
HANDLERS UNION (NPMHU), A DIVISION OF
THE LABORERS’ INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
NORTH AMERICA, AFL–CIO
Robert Buzaitis, Esq.
for the General Counsel.
Roderick Eves, Esq.
for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS M. RANDAZZO, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Detroit,
Michigan on October 6–7, 2014. Local 307, National Postal Mail Handlers Union (NPMHU), a
Division of the Laborers’ International Union of North America, AFL–CIO (the Charging Party
or Union) filed the instant charge on November 21, 2013,1 and the General Counsel issued the
complaint on August 29, 2013, alleging that the United States Postal Service (the Respondent)
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) since on or about
October 23, 2013, by its refusal to furnish the Union with information it requested which was
necessary and relevant to the performance of its duties as the servicing representative of the
collective bargaining unit.
On the basis of the entire record,2 my determination of credible evidence,3 and after
considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent, I make the following:

1 All dates are in 2013 unless otherwise indicated.
2 Abbreviations used in this decision are as follows: “Tr.” for transcript; “GC Exh.” for General
Counsel’s Exhibit; “R. Exh.” for Respondent’s Exhibit; “GC Brief.” for the General Counsel’s Brief; and
“Resp. Brief.” for Respondent’s brief.
3 In making my findings regarding the credible evidence, including the credibility of witnesses, I
considered the testimonial demeanor of such witnesses, the content of their testimony, and the inherent
probabilities based on the record as a whole.
JD–02–15
2
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
5
The Respondent admits and I find that the National Labor Relations Board (the Board)
has jurisdiction over it by virtue of Section 1209 of the PRA, and that the Union is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES10
A. Background
The Respondent provides postal services and operates various facilities nationwide. At
all material times, the Respondent has recognized the Union as the exclusive collective-15
bargaining representative of the unit of mail handler employees at its Grand Rapids, Patterson
Avenue, Michigan, facility, the only facility involved herein. That recognition has been
embodied in successive collective-bargaining agreements, the most recent of which is effective
by its terms from November 21, 2011 through May 20, 2016.
20
At its Patterson Avenue facility, the Respondent maintains and operates an Automatic
Parcel and Bundle System (APBS) which pulls mail from its operating system and places it in
containers. In August 2013, employee David Mondry successfully bid on, and was awarded, a
mail handler job on that machine which was identified as “JSID 70868495.” In October 2013,
Mondry bid on and was awarded a different position, thereby causing the JSID 70868495 25
position to become vacant.
B. The Reversion of Positions
The record establishes that “reversion” of a position occurs when, after an incumbent 30
employee vacates a position via reassignment, promotion, retirement, etc., the Respondent
determines not to keep the position and it is eliminated. Article 12.3 of the collective-bargaining
agreement, entitled “Principles of Posting,” in subsection (B)(3), includes the following language
with regard to “reversion” of a position:
35
All vacant or newly established craft duty assignments shall be posted for
employees eligible to bid within 10 days after a determination has been made that
the position is not to be reverted. If a vacant duty assignment has not been posted
within 30 days, the installation head or the installation head’s designee shall
advise the Union in writing, of the length of time such posting will remain vacant. 40
If the vacant assignment is reverted, a notice shall be posted within 10 days
advising of the action taken and the reasons therefore. In addition, a copy of the
notice shall be provided to the appropriate Union representative. (R. Exh. 6)
The collective-bargaining agreement provides in article 3 (the “Management Rights” clause), 45
that the Respondent has the exclusive right to hire, promote, transfer, assign, and retain
employees in positions; to maintain the efficiency of operations; and to determine the methods,
JD–02–15
3
means, and personnel by which such operations are to be conducted. (R. Exh. 6). It is
undisputed that this provision of the contract provides the Respondent the exclusive right to
decide whether to revert positions, and the record establishes that there are no particular
documents or reports the Respondent must consider when reverting a vacant position.
5
C. The Respondent’s Reversion of Position JSID 70868495
On October 17, the Respondent notified the Union of its decision to revert vacant
position JSID 70868495, by posting a Notice of Reversion. (R. Exh. 1). John Gibbons,
Respondent’s Operations Industrial Engineer, credibly testified that he and Senior MDO Vance 10
Dever made the decision to revert the position. According to Gibbon’s testimony, he provided
Dever with a “job matrix” to make this determination. (R. Exh. 3). Gibbons described the job
matrix as follows:
This is a matrix not dissimilar at all to the same type of info as what Pete Josselyn 15
has from the union standpoint, but this is what management, we use to keep track
of each job and each area so you can quickly see who’s assigned to that job and
what day of the week what the staffing is. So this is for the APBS machine, it’s a
parcel sorter, and it lists out on tour three all the jobs in the left-hand column,
their start time, which is 1930 for all of them and whether or not they work a 20
particular day. If they work Saturday, you’d see one entered; if they don’t work,
there’d be a zero…. And we try to group them together normally by days of the
week so you can see all of the Saturday/Sunday jobs, and that follows down, and
then on the bottom there’s a total that tells you how many people are scheduled on
the APBS each day of the week on tour three. (Tr. 72-73). 25
Gibbons credibly testified that he and Dever utilized that job matrix in making their decision to
revert position JSID 70868495, that the job matrix is always used in making those decisions, and
that they did not consider or rely on any other documentation in reaching the decision to revert.
30
D. The Union’s Request for Information and the Information Provided by the Respondent
By letter dated October 23, 2013, the Union, by its Tour 3 Union Steward of 10 years,
Peter Josselyn, submitted a request for information to the Respondent, which specifically sought
“a copy of the detailed data supporting the reversion of JSID 70868495, Sat/Sun, tour 3 APPS.” 35
(GC Exh. 3). Sandra Henkel, Respondent’s Administrative Assistant for the Plant Manager of
the Greater Michigan District, received the request for information, assigned it tracking number
191, and forwarded the request to Gibbons for response.
On October 28, 2013, the Respondent, by Gibbons, responded to the request for 40
information by providing the Union with a job matrix, via email and inter-office mail. (GC Exh.
4; R. Exh. 2). The job matrix provided is a single page chart or graph for “Tour 3 APPS” which
is dated October 28, 2013. It contains 29 different job numbers for the Tour 3 APPS, including
“job number 70868495,” the position at issue. The matrix contains the following information for
each job number or position: the corresponding start times; each day of the week with either a 45
“0” or “1” (apparently showing whether an employee is in that position on that day of the week);
a “note” section; the name of the “occupant” for each position; and the “days off” for each
JD–02–15
4
position. As mentioned above, Gibbons credibly testified that the job matrix it supplied was the
only document the Respondent relied on in making the decision to revert the position. Gibbons
testified that the job matrix reflects mail volume to the extent that it shows “staffing on every day
of the week to hit the volume required.” (Tr. 86).
5
E. The Subsequent Communications Between the Parties
Josselyn testified that he saw Gibbons on the morning of October 29 and he told Gibbons
that he already had the information provided, and that Gibbons told him to submit another
request for information. Although Josselyn admitted that he did not tell Gibbons specifically 10
what documents he needed, nor did he give him examples of such documents, he testified that he
told Gibbons that he needed more data because the matrix did not “justify the [Union’s]
grievance.” In addition, on direct examination Josselyn testified that he told Gibbons that he
“needed to know if there was a drop in mail volume or the operational window had changed.”
(Tr. 22). When recounting the same alleged statement on cross-examination, Josselyn testified 15
that he told Gibbons that he “needed more detailed information regarding . . . whether the mail
flow had risen or dropped or whether the critical entry time had changed.” (Tr. 33). Gibbons
testified however, that Josselyn never identified any particular information, documents, or
reports that he wished to have produced on the reversion issue, and that he did not recall having
any such conversations about specific information requested with Josselyn. 20
The record establishes that later in the day of October 29, 2013, Josselyn submitted
another written request for information pertaining to JSID 70868495. (GC Exh. 5). That request
was also assigned to Gibbons for processing and was given tracking number 196 by the
Respondent. Josselyn testified that his second request asked for the same information as the 25
October 23rd request, and that his second request did not revise the first request. On or about
November 18, 2013, Gibbons responded to the second request for information, providing the
Union with what appears to be the same job matrix with the same 29 job numbers/positions,
except that job matrix was dated November 18, 2013, and it had some additional notations in the
“notes” section of the matrix. 30
On November 21, 2013, the Union filed the charge in the instant case, alleging failures to
provide information for written requests on numerous dates, including October 23, 2013, the date
of the instant request for information.
35
Gibbons testified that after the charge was filed, someone from the Respondent’s law
department called him and told him the Union had indicated there was additional information
needed on the reversion issue. Gibbons then reached out to Josselyn on December 24 via email
to inquire about what if any additional information the Union was seeking. In that email
Gibbons stated that it was his understanding that the Union wanted additional information, and 40
he specifically asked Josselyn what additional information or reports he was looking for. (R.
Exh. 3).
Josselyn, instead of providing Gibbons with the identity of specific documents or reports
that he believed were relevant to the reversion issue, simply responded to Gibbons via an email 45
dated December 31, 2013, stating that he was “[l]ooking for any justification for reverting . . .
[and] giving [him] a matrix of days off is moot.” (R. Exh. 3). By email dated August 26, 2014,
JD–02–15
5
Gibbons informed Jossselyn again that he supplied “all documents we used to generate the
decision on the job reversion. No other documents were involved.” (R. Exh. 3).
The record establishes that Henkel also reached out to the Union in an attempt to find out
what if any other information the Union was requesting pertaining to the reversion of JSID 5
70868495. In a letter to Union President and State Representative Rita Tripp dated December
22, 2013 (which was also emailed to Tripp on December 23, 2013), Henkel addressed several
requests for information to which the Respondent had previously responded, including the
request in the instant case with tracking No. 191. In relation to the instant request, Henkel
provided the following information:10
2. Receipt of RFI dated 10/23/13 (Postal RFI No. 191) requesting a copy of
“detailed data supporting the reversion of job #70868495, Sat/Sun, Tour 3 APPS.”
Information responsive to this RFI See attached document entitled “Tour 3 15
APPS.” This data was the only data relied on or supporting the reversion. The
Postal Service has no knowledge of other data supporting the reversion. Should
you seek additional information related to the reversion, please specify the
information you seek and we will provide it, to the extent it exists. (R. Exh. 4)
20
Henkel stated at the end of her letter that the Respondent fully complied with providing the
documents requested to the Union, “[h]owever, to the extent you determine you are missing
requested information, please feel free to contact me to discuss further.” (R. Exh. 4)
Gibbons and Henkel testified that neither Josselyn, Tripp, nor anyone else from the 25
Union, ever responded to the Respondent’s requests that the Union identify any information or
documents it was requesting other than the information that was already provided. When
Josselyn testified that he told Gibbons on October 29 that he needed more data because the
matrix provided “did not justify the grievance,” Josselyn was asked on direct examination if he
gave Gibbons examples of what he needed. In response Josselyn testified that he “didn’t tell him 30
specifically what – by name.” (Tr. 22). Likewise, Tripp admitted that she never identified any
information or documents that the Union was seeking on the reversion of JSID 70868495. In
that regard, she testified: “I guess in retrospect we made some assumptions that they knew what
we were requesting because we requested them before ….” (Tr. 46). Thus, it is undisputed that
the Union never provided the Respondent with a written request for specific information or 35
documents, despite being asked by the Respondent to do so on several occasions.
F. The Contentions of the Parties
The General Counsel contends in its brief that Josselyn told Gibbons he wanted 40
“information on mail volume and operational changes” prior to submitting the second written
request for information, and the Respondent’s failure to provide the information constituted a
violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. (Resp. Brief pages 4–5). The Respondent
contends to the contrary that it did not violate the Act on the basis that it supplied the information
the Union requested which supported its reversion of position JSID 70868495, and that the 45
Union never identified or specifically requested any other information, documents or reports,
despite being asked to do so.
JD–02–15
6
G. The Credibility Determinations Pertaining to Whether the Union Modified its October
23, 2013 Written Request for Information by Verbally Identifying Particular Information,
Documents, or Reports on the Reversion of Position JSID 70868495
5
While much of the evidence in this case is documentary in nature and undisputed, as
mentioned above, there is one key point on which the Parties differ--whether the Union made a
verbal request for information or verbally modified its October 23rd request for information.
Josselyn testified that on the morning of October 29 he told Gibbons he already had the
information provided, and that Gibbons told him to submit another request for information. 10
While Josselyn admitted not telling Gibbons specifically what documents he needed, he testified
that he told Gibbons he needed more data because the matrix did not “justify” their grievance,
and that he “needed to know if there was a drop in mail volume or the operational window had
changed,” or he “needed more detailed information regarding . . . whether the mail flow had
risen or dropped or whether the critical entry time had changed.”15
As mentioned above, Josselyn’s testimony in this regard conflicts with Gibbon’s
unequivocal testimony that Josselyn never identified any particular information, documents, or
reports that he wished to have produced on the reversion issue, and that he did not recall having
any such conversations about detailed information with Josselyn. Furthermore, Gibbons testified 20
that he never had any conversations with Tripp regarding the instant reversion information
request.
Since Josselyn’s and Gibbons’ testimonies differ on this issue, as the finder of fact, I
must determine the credibility of these witnesses. Credibility determinations may rely on a 25
variety of factors, including the context of the witness’ testimony, the witness’ testimonial
demeanor, the weight of the evidence, established or admitted facts, reasonable inferences that
may be drawn from the record as a whole, and the inherent probabilities of the allegations.
Double D Construction, Group, 339 NLRB 303, 305 (2003); Daikichi Sushi, 335 NLRB 622,
623 (2001)(citing Shen Automotive Dealership Group, 321 NLRB 586, 589 (1996)), enfd. 56 30
Fed. Appx. 516 (D.C. Cir. 2003). Credibility findings need not be all or nothing propositions.
Indeed, nothing is more common than for a judge to believe some, but not all, of the testimony of
a witness. Daikichi Sushi, 335 NLRB at 622; Jerry Ryce Builders, 352 NLRB 1262 fn. 2 (2008),
citing NLRB v. Universal Camera Corp., 179 F.2d 749, 754 (2d Cir. 1950), revd. on other
grounds 340 U.S. 474 (1951). Accord: General Fabrications Corp., 328 NLRB 1114 fn. 1 35
(1999), enfd. 222 F.3d 218 (6th Cir. 2000). See also J. Shaw Associates, LLC, 349 NLRB 939,
939–940 (2007).
My overall observation during the trial was that the Respondent’s witnesses were largely
credible in their testimony and demeanor, and that their testimony was convincing, straight 40
forward, and plausible. On the other hand, Josselyn and Tripp, the General Counsel’s two
witnesses in this case, testified in a less convincing manner, were somewhat inconsistent and
vague in their testimonies, and they presented evidence that was not plausible or supported by
the record in this case. Therefore, while much of the evidence in this case is uncontradicted, on
those occasions where the testimonies of Josselyn and Tripp conflict with that of the 45
Respondent’s witnesses, I credit the Respondent’s witnesses and their testimonies over that of
the General Counsel’s witnesses.
JD–02–15
7
Specifically, with regard to Josselyn, I do not credit his assertion that on October 29 he
made a verbal request or modification of his original October 23rd request for information.
Although I find it plausible that he told Gibbons he already had similar information in his
possession and that he needed more data, which resulted in Gibbons telling him to submit 5
another request for information, I do not credit his assertion that he told Gibbons that he needed
information on whether there was a drop in mail volume or changes in the operational
window/critical entry time. This credibility finding is supported by the record, which establishes
later that same day, Josselyn submitted a second request for information pertaining to the job
position in question. However, in that request he failed to state that he was requesting 10
information he allegedly had already requested verbally that morning. I find it implausible that
Josselyn would have told Gibbons he was seeking information pertaining to a drop in mail
volume and changes to the operational window/critical entry time, and then neglect to request
that type of information in the second request for information that he submitted that very same
day. 15
Further evidence that Josselyn’s testimony asserting that he verbally modified the request
for information on October 29 is not believable or credible, is reflected by his response to
Gibbons’ email dated December 24, 2013. As mentioned above, after the charge was filed and
the Respondent’s law department informed Gibbons that the Union needed additional 20
information on the reversion issue, Gibbons reached out to Josselyn via an email dated
December 24, inquiring what if any additional information Josselyn was seeking. If Josselyn had
indeed requested detailed information on whether there was a drop in mail volume or change in
the operational window, as he alleged, it would have been plausible for Josselyn to have
responded by telling Gibbons that he had already indicated verbally on the morning of October 25
29 that he requested detailed data on the drop in mail volume or a change in the operational
window. But he did not make any statements to that effect. Instead, Josselyn responded via
email that he was looking for “any justification for reverting. . .” and “giving [him] a matrix of
days off is moot.” He also, for a second time, failed to identify any information or documents
pertaining to mail volume or the operational window, or any other specific information that he 30
was requesting. Therefore, Josselyn’s assertion that he verbally requested information or
verbally modified his original request is implausible and not supported by the record evidence.
The veracity of Josselyn’s testimony regarding information he allegedly requested
verbally is further called into question when his testimony is compared to his second request for 35
information. As noted above, the first information request dated October 23rd requests the
detailed data “supporting the reversion of JSID 70868495.” (GC Exh. 3). Even though Josselyn
testified that his second request for information (GC Exh. 5) asks for the same information as the
first, and that he did not revise it in any way, a review of the second request for information
reveals that Josselyn requested detailed data “used to support the creation of JSID 70868495.” 40
(GC Exh. 5). Thus, the second request is not identical to the first request as Josselyn asserted.
Instead, it requests data supporting the “creation” of that position, rather than the “reversion” of
that position. In addition to the fact that Josselyn’s testimony is not supported by the record, this
distinction is significant because it shows that he did take the time to change the request in some
respect. I find it implausible that he would have verbally identified documents showing a drop in 45
mail volume and operational window changes, subsequently take the time to change the wording
JD–02–15
8
of the request, and then neglect to request those specific types of documents he claims he
identified verbally.
The record establishes that Josselyn also presented inconsistent testimony. Josselyn, a
union steward who filed and processed grievances in the past over the reversion of certain 5
positions, was asked what reports he knew the Respondent had which could be helpful to a
reversion issue. He testified: “I personally did not know of any other reports.” (Tr. 30)
However, he then testified to the contrary that he had in the past requested “end of run” reports,
and he knew the Respondent had Form 3971s (involving leave information), Form 1723s (detail
assignments to other jobs), and “OWCP” records (on the job injury reports). (Tr. 31–32). This 10
evidence further undermines the credibility of Josselyn’s testimony where it conflicts with that of
the Respondent’s witnesses.
I also find that Rita Tripp’s testimony was equally unconvincing and implausible. As the
Union President and State Representative for the Union, she was familiar with the reversion of 15
positions, and in particular, the reversion of JSID 70868495. She was also familiar with the
requests for information on October 23rd and October 29th and she advised Josselyn in making
the requests for information, testifying that the Union wanted what the Respondent was “relying
on” for the reversion (Tr. 47). Tripp testified that she also was familiar with some of the
Respondent’s reports, such as “run plant reports,” “break through productivity indexes,” 20
“machine run reports,” “area mail processing studies,” “hours analyses,” and “mail condition
reports.” While acknowledging that neither she, Josselyn, nor anyone else from the Union, ever
identified any of those reports to the Respondent for production on this issue, and specifically
never requested those reports in writing, she nevertheless testified that those items were
identified by the Union in “verbal requests.” (Tr. 54) 25
I find that Tripp’s vague testimony in this regard is unbelievable and implausible, as her
assertion that the Union somehow made verbal requests for information regarding the reversion
of JSID 70868495 is neither credible nor supported by the record. The record is devoid of any
evidence of specific verbal requests for information regarding the reversion in question, and as 30
mentioned above, I have specifically discredited Josselyn’s testimony that he made a verbal
request for information or verbal modification of his October 23rd request for information. In
addition, Tripp’s testimony is implausible because she never responded to Henkel’s December
22nd letter in which Henkel informed Tripp that the job matrix was the only data relied on or
supporting the reversion, and that the Respondent had no knowledge of other data supporting the 35
reversion. In that letter, Henkel specifically told Tripp that if she sought additional information
related to the reversion, to please specify the information and the Respondent would provide it,
to the extent it existed. In addition, Henkel stated that if Tripp determined the Union was
missing requested information, to please contact her and they could discuss it further. (R. Exh.
4). Tripp, however, never identified any information or documents she was requesting, never 40
contacted Henkel regarding information sought, and admitted that the Union “made some
assumptions that [the Respondent] knew what we were requesting….” (Tr. 46).
If in fact Tripp, or anyone acting on the Union’s behalf, made verbal requests for
information regarding the reversion of JSID 70868495 as she alleged, I find it plausible that 45
Tripp would have responded to Henkel’s letter by asserting that the Union had already
specifically requested the information verbally. Instead, she said nothing, neglecting to even
JD–02–15
9
respond to the letter. I find it plausible that Tripp, as the Union President and State
Representative, would know enough to inform the Respondent that verbal requests were made
regarding the reversion of that position, she would have stated when such requests were
allegedly made, and she would have identified the persons who allegedly made those requests.
Instead, she said nothing, establishing that her assertion that the Union made verbal requests is 5
implausible and lacks support in the record.4
H. Analysis
It is well settled that an employer’s duty to bargain collectively under Section 8(a)(5) of 10
the Act includes the duty to supply requested information to a union that is the collective-
bargaining representative of the employer’s employees if the requested information is relevant
and reasonably necessary to the union’s performance of its responsibilities. NLRB v. Acme
Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432, 435–436 (1967); NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149 (1956); see
also Central Soya Co., 288 NLRB 1402 (1988). This duty is not limited to contract negotiations 15
but extends to requests made during the term of the contract for information relevant to and
necessary for contract administration and grievance processing. Disclosure by an employer of
requested information “necessary . . . to enable [a union] to evaluate intelligently grievances
filed” or contemplated, allows a union to “sift out meritorious claims” and facilitates the arbitral
process. NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., supra at 435, 437–438. The standard for determining the 20
relevancy of requested information is a liberal one and it is necessary only to establish “the
probability that the desired information is relevant, and that it would be of use to the union in
carrying out its statutory duties and responsibilities.” Id. at 437. See also Leland Stanford Junior
University, 262 NLRB 136, 139 (1982), and cases cited there. It is well established that the duty
to furnish requested information requires a reasonable good faith effort to respond to the request 25
as promptly as circumstances allow. West Penn Power Co., d/b/a Allegheny Power, 339 NLRB
585, 587 (2003); Good Life Beverage Co., 312 NLRB 1060, 1062 fn. 9 (1993).
In this case, the Union submitted a request for information on October 23, 2013, seeking
“a copy of the detailed data supporting the reversion of JSID 70868495, Sat/Sun, tour 3 APPS.” 30
There is no dispute that the information requested was necessary and relevant to the Union’s
duties as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees. The Respondent provided
the Union with information in the form of a job matrix on October 28, within 5 days of the
request.
35
The General Counsel does not dispute that the Respondent supplied the Union with the
information it asserted it relied on to support its decision to revert the position in question.
However, the General Counsel appears to argue that the Respondent must have relied on other
data or reports in deciding to revert the vacant position. To the contrary, the Respondent’s
witnesses credibly testified that they only considered the job matrix when determining to revert 40
the position, and that no other information, data or reports were used to support that decision.

4 In addition, I note that the General Counsel never alleged in the complaint that the Union made a
verbal request for information or verbally modified its request for information. The General Counsel only
alleged that the Respondent violated the Act by failing to provide information requested in writing by the
Union on October 23, 2013. (See GC Exh. 1(d) Complaint paragraphs 10–13).
JD–02–15
10
The General Counsel failed to present any evidence to rebut the Respondent’s credible evidence
that it relied only on the job matrix as support for its decision, and the record establishes that
there are no particular documents or reports that the Respondent must consider when reverting a
vacant position under the collective-bargaining agreement. The matrix provided, which contains
information for each position (including the position in question), shows the corresponding start 5
times, whether an employee is in that position on each day of the week, the employee in each
position, the days off for each position, and, as Gibbons credibly testified, a reflection of mail
volume to the extent it shows “staffing on every day of the week to hit the volume required.” I
find that the Respondent made a diligent effort to provide the information requested in a timely
manner and useful form, and that the information provided was clearly responsive to the Union’s 10
request. Accordingly the Respondent did not fail to provide the Union with the information it
requested as required by Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
To the extent that the Union sought data or information it believed the Respondent should
have considered before reverting the position, the Union could have identified that information 15
and it could have specifically asked for those documents to be produced. In fact, the Union had
several opportunities to identify and request that information and it failed to do so. As
mentioned above, on October 29 Josselyn told Gibbons he already had the information provided,
and Gibbons told him to submit another request for information. Later that day, Josselyn
submitted a second written request for information, but never requested any specific documents 20
or information. In fact, besides failing to specify what information he was seeking, he changed
the wording of the request to reflect that he was seeking information supporting the “creation” of
the job position in question, rather than the “reversion” of the job position.5 In addition, in the
December 24 email Gibbons asked Josselyn what additional information or reports he was
looking for, and Josselyn failed to specify or identify any information, documents or reports. 25
Finally, neither Tripp nor Josselyn responded to Henkel’s December 23 letter asking the Union
to please specify any additional information sought, and the Respondent would send it to them if
it existed. Despite these numerous requests to Union Officials Tripp and Josselyn, who were
familiar with the job reversion situations, filed and processed grievances over such issues, and
were familiar with the many reports for data that the Respondent had at its disposal,6 the Union 30
never identified or requested any specific information that it wanted with regard to the reversion
of position JSID 70868495.
The Respondent had an obligation to furnish the information requested by the Union, and
it did so in a timely manner. The Respondent had no duty to read the Union’s mind or somehow 35
predict what information it wanted if in fact the information provided was insufficient for its
needs. See Leland Stanford Junior University, 262 NLRB 136, 148 fn. 18 (1982); See also Staff
Officers, 277 NLRB 1137, 1149–1150 (1985).

5 Moreover, the second request for information on October 29, 2013, pertaining to the information
supporting the creation of the position in question, was not alleged in the complaint as a violation of the
Act.
6 While there is no evidence that these documents or reports “supported” the Respondent’s decision
to revert the position in question, the Union could have nevertheless specifically requested that the
Respondent provide them.
JD–02–15
11
Based on the above, I find that the evidence does not establish that the Respondent has
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act as alleged. Accordingly, I will dismiss the complaint
in its entirety.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW5
1. The Board has jurisdiction over the Respondent by virtue of Section 1209 of the PRA.
2. The Local 307, National Postal Mail Handlers Union (NPMHU), a Division of the
Laborers’ International Union of North America, AFL–CIO, is a labor organization within the 10
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent has not violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act as alleged in the
complaint.
15
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law, and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended:7
20
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed in its entirety.
25
Dated, Washington, D.C. January12, 2015
30
__________________________
Thomas M. Randazzo
Administrative Law Judge

7 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.