United States Postal Service

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge OpinionsOct 9, 2015

28-CA-143749 (N.L.R.B. Oct. 9, 2015)

JD(SF)–41–15 Albuquerque, NM Santa Fe, NM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION OF JUDGES UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE and Case 28-CA-143749 NATIONAL ASSOCIATTION OF LETTER CARRIERS, BRANCH 989, affiliated with NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS, AFL-CIO and Case 28-CA-147765 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS, SUNSINE BRANCH 504, affiliated with NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS, AFL-CIO Cristobal A. Munoz, Esq.,and David T. Garza, Esq., for the General Counsel. Dallas G. Kingsbury, Esq.,for the Respondent. DECISION MARY MILLER CRACRAFT, Administrative Law Judge. These consolidated cases involve allegations that the United States Postal Service (Respondent) unreasonably delayed and/or refused to provide information to the National Association of Letter Carriers, Sunshine Branch 504, affiliated with National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO (Branch 504) 1 and to National Association of Letter Carriers, Branch 989, affiliated with National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO (Branch 989). 2The second consolidated complaint issued on June 30, 2015. Hearing was held in Albuquerque, New Mexico on August 12 and 13, 2015. 1 Branch 989 filed the unfair labor practice charge in Case 28-CA-143749 on January 2, 2015. 2 Branch 504 filed the unfair labor practice charge and amended charge in Case 28-CA-147765 on March 10 and March 17, 2015, respectively. JD(SF)–41–15 2 On the entire record3 and after considering the briefs filed by counsel for the General Counsel and counsel for Respondent, the following findings of fact and conclusions of law are made. 5 A. Jurisdiction and Labor Organization Status Respondent provides postal services for the United States. Its postal facilities include one located at 2100 George Road SE, Albuquerque, New Mexico (the Manzano facility) and another located at 2071 S. Pacheco Street, Santa Fe, New Mexico (the Coronado facility).4 Respondent 10 admits and I find that the Board has jurisdiction over it by virtue of Section 1209 of the Postal Reorganization Act (PRA) of 1970. Respondent admits and I find that Branches 504 and 989 and the National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO (the National Union) are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. The National Union and Branches 504 and 989 will be referred to collectively as the Union. Based on these facts, I find this dispute 15 affects commerce and that the Board has jurisdiction pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act. B. Collective-Bargaining Background Respondent has recognized the National Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining 20 representative of unit employees described in article 1, sections 1-4 of the collective-bargaining agreement effective from January 10, 2013 until May 20, 2016 (the Agreement). Based on Section 9(a) of the Act and Section 10(a) of the PRA, the National Union has been at all material times the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of unit employees. The National Union has designated its Branches 504 and 989 for filing and processing grievances. Branch 504 25 handles grievances for unit employees at the Manzano facility while Branch 989 handles grievances for unit employees at the Coronado facility. Article 15 of the current contract sets up the grievance and arbitration procedures. Generally, the grievance procedure originates with a shop steward filing an “Informal Step A” 30 grievance with the designated “Informal Step A” supervisor. The parties have a responsibility to meet on a grievance within 14 days. An unfavorable result at Informal Step A may be appealed to “Formal Step A” within 7 days. The “Formal Step A” parties must meet on the appeal within 7 days. If this step is appealed to the “B Team,” i.e., national representatives, the parties must adjudicate that decision within 14 days. No new evidence may be submitted at the B level. If the 35 decision at this level is adverse to the Union, the business agent has 14 days to appeal to arbitration. The system also allows 1 day for mailing and the parties may agree to extensions of time where necessary. Frequently, information requests accompany grievances. A form, “Request for Documentation and/or Steward Time to investigate possible grievance” is utilized 3 Specific credibility resolutions have been made based upon a review of the entire record and all exhibits in this proceeding. Witness demeanor and inherent probability of the testimony have been utilized to assess credibility. Testimony contrary to my findings has been discredited on some occasions because it was in conflict with credited testimony or documents or because it was inherently incredible and unworthy of belief. 4 Respondent denies that it operates various facilities throughout the United States in the performance of providing postal services for the United States. Accordingly, I take administrative notice of this fact. JD(SF)–41–15 3 at for the purpose of requesting information. These information requests are submitted by mail, in person, and by facsimile. C. Coronado Post Office Branch 989’s Request for Information5 1. Facts On December 4, 2014,5 Branch 989 requested that Respondent provide it with the customer service delivery reporting system (CSDRS) data entry reports for December 3 and 4. 10 On December 9, 2014, Branch 989 requested the CSDRS data entry report for December 6.6 Each of the information requests was attached to an Informal Step A grievance on a standard request for documentation form. The grievances mentioned “committed” mail being delayed on each of the dates (December 3, 4, and 6). The grievance numbers were PCCS-14-049, -050, and - 054. There is no dispute that the requested CSDRS information was never provided. The 15 complaint alleges that Respondent has failed and refused to furnish the information in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Informal Step A 20 According to Patricia Chavez Chacon (Chavez Chacon) shop steward and Branch 989 Informal Step A designee at Coronado post office, management was having some of the routes pull out the presorted third class mail. Chavez Chacon believed this mail had already been “managed” and should have been considered first class mail. Chavez Chacon believed that such a practice might affect routes in the long run. Chavez Chacon understood that the CSDRS data 25 entry report would reflect mail that was curtailed, committed mail that was delayed, and the volume of mail reported as going out that date. According to her, if the information was not reported properly, the CSDRS report might inflate the numbers and reflect that all of the mail went out and the carriers delivered it in an eight-hour work day when, in fact, that was not the case. According to Chavez Chacon, the amount of mail volume recorded on a CSDRS report 30 forms the basis for office time that any given letter carrier must spend for a given carrier route. John Trujillo, 23-year city letter carrier and chief shop steward for Branch 989, testified that the CSDRS report is useful for determining route adjustments. He is a current member of the Route Evaluation and Adjustments Team (REAT). He explained that the mail volume recorded 35 for each day on the CSDRS report is important for route adjustments: So the office time of any given letter carrier route is based on how much mail volume, literally pieces of mail that is measured linear, and pieces of flats, or even parcels. So the report would validate what mail was reported on what specific 40 day. 5 All dates in this section of the decision are in 2014 unless otherwise referenced. 6 The information requests also asked for additional information for those dates. This information was listed as “PS Forms 3996 & 1571.” These portions of the information requests are not at issue in this case. JD(SF)–41–15 4 Acting Coronado Station Manager Steve Manning (Manning) recalled a discussion in his office on or about December 3 with Chavez Chacon, Randy Chacon (Chacon), a 10-year letter carrier and at that time shop steward and Formal Step A designee for Branch 989, and Terri O. Morris, supervisor of delivery at Coronado post office and Informal Step A designee for management. The Chacons told Manning he could not delay the mail – that he had no right to 5 delay the mail – and that if he did so, they would contact the OIG (Office of Inspector General) and have him removed. Manning protested that he had a right to delay the mail. In any event, on December 4, Chavez Chacon gave Morris a grievance and an information request for, among other things, the December 3 and 4 CSDRS data entry reports. 10 Chavez Chacon and Morris met at Informal Step A to discuss the related December 4 grievances PCCS-14-049 and PCCS-14-050 on December 18, 2014. Chavez Chacon had not received the CSDRS data entry information at this point. At the meeting, Morris told Chavez Chacon that she did not have the requested information because she had been too busy to get it. Morris told Chavez Chacon she wanted to “send up” the grievances to the next level, Formal Step A. 15 Thereafter, Chavez Chacon appealed the grievances to Formal Step A. On December 9, Chavez Chacon requested the CSDRS data entry report for December 6 by handing the request and related grievance to Morris. Chavez Chacon and Morris met on the December 6 CSDRS grievance, PCCS-14-054, on December 20, 2014. Chavez Chacon had not 20 been given any information at that point. Thus, she sent this grievance to Formal Step A. Although she understood it was her obligation to print the CSDRS reports pursuant to the information requests and she intended to do so, Morris testified that she forgot to print them and also that she did not know how to print them. She also testified that she was unaware that the 25 CSDRS information did not remain in the system permanently. Morris was aware that the reports were normally printed out daily by other supervisors and management. In December or January, Morris called a coordinator, perhaps Kalyn Chapman or someone else, who told her it was too late to print the information. Morris also asked the acting station manager and was told that she could not retrieve the information.730 Formal Step A On December 27, Chacon met with Manning and agreed to remand grievances PCCS-14- 049, -050, and -054, among others, for failure to provide information to Branch 989. USPS 35 agreed to provide the information within three days. Manning testified this was the first time he became aware of the CSDRS information requests. Manning testified that later that day he directed Morris to provide the information to Branch 989 within three days. Morris did not recall speaking to Manning on December 27. She 40 testified that the first time she learned of the December 27, agreement was on August 11, 2015, in preparation for this hearing. Informal Discussions 7 The record is unclear as to whether CSDRS reports can be printed long after the fact. For instance, the August 6, 2014 CSDRS report was produced at hearing by Respondent. JD(SF)–41–15 5 No further grievance processing occurred. Nevertheless, Manning recalled a discussion with Chavez Chacon in either February or March 2015. He asked her if she had received all the CSDRS documentation and she told him she was still missing the CSDRS reports because they weren’t available “to be pulled up.” Manning said he would look into the matter. He then 5 accessed the CSDRS system. He learned at that time that the CSDRS data was not retrievable from the site for an indefinite period of time, as he had assumed. Nevertheless, he was able to provide Chavez Chacon with a “curtailed, delayed” report from that system. The curtailed, delayed report does not contain information regarding customer service or 10 hours. It only shows what volume of first and second-class mail and standard mail was curtailed or delayed for a specific date at a specific office. The delayed, curtailed report provides the same information on volume as the CSDRS report but the CSDRS report also sets out overtime hours and the number of letter carriers, rural carriers, and clerks worked late on that date. 15 Janell J. Aragon (Aragon), acting Coronado station manager at the time of hearing, described the CSDRS reports similarly to Chavez Chacon. Aragon testified that the CSDRS report is a data entry report used as a “tool for management” to record any mail that has “been delayed, curtailed, that’s actually in our unit.” Aragon also explained that the CSDRS report indicates volume data: “it will tell you what your . . . volume is for the whole station, not just for 20 each carrier.” It also indicates total delivered volume for letters and flats, number of mis-sorted. The report also indicates the number of carriers and clerks who called in sick for the date. Aragon, who is currently engaged in route adjustment for Coronado as a member or REAT, testified that she would not use a CSDRS report for route adjustment. Rather, she would 25 utilize the delivery operations information system or DOIS report to show work hour workloads as well as a workload audits or surveys (known as a 3999). 2. Analysis 30 In general, an employer is obligated to provide information needed by a bargaining representative for the proper performance of its duties in administering a collective-bargaining agreement. NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432, 435-436 (1967) (citing NLRB v. Truitt Mfg Co., 351 U.S. 149 (1956)). An employer's refusal to furnish information relating to grievances is a violation of the duty to bargain in good faith. Curtiss-Wright Corp., 145 NLRB 35 152, 156-157 (1963), enfd. 347 F.2d 61 (3d Cir. 1965). In Acme Industrial, supra, 385 U.S. at 437, the Court endorsed the Board’s liberal discovery-type standard, probable relevance, for determining what information must be produced: It [the Board] was only acting upon the probability that the desired information 40 was relevant, and that it would be of use to the union in carrying out its statutory duties and responsibilities. This discovery-type standard decided nothing about the merits of the union's contractual claims. An employer must furnish information which is reasonably necessary to a union’s 45 function as bargaining representative. Otis Elevator Co., 170 NLRB 395, 397 (1968); see also, Piedmont Gardens, 362 NLRB No. 139, slip op. at 2-3 (2015) (In applying the liberal test to JD(SF)–41–15 6 determine relevance, the issue is whether the requested information is of “probable” or “potential” relevance. The information need not be dispositive of the issue between the parties but must merely have some bearing on it. In general, the Board and the courts have held that information that aids the arbitral process is relevant and should be provided.); Raley’s Supermarkets, 349 NLRB 26, 27 (2007) (The standard for determining the relevance of 5 information requested by a union is a broad, “discovery-type” standard.). Matters such as unit employee wages or terms and conditions of employment are considered presumptively relevant. See, e.g., Dyncorp/Dynair Services, 322 NLRB 602, 602 (1996) (it is well settled that information such as wage rates, insurance plan, paid holidays, pension plan, severance plan, vacation and incentive plan are presumptively relevant and must be furnished); Whitesell Corp., 10 355 NLRB 735 (2010), enfd. 638 F.3d 883 (8th Cir. 2011) (information regarding layoff and recall, merit pay, retirement, vacation, and assignment of unit employees to perform work at the Respondent’s new facility presumptively relevant). In applying the discovery-type relevance test, the burden is not exceptionally heavy. 15 Public Service Electric & Gas Co., 323 NLRB 1182, 1186 (1997), enfd. 157 F.3d 222 (3d Cir. 1998), quoting Acme, supra, 385 U.S. at 437. The Board need find only a probability that the requested information is relevant and would be of assistance to the union in carrying out its responsibilities. Postal Service, 310 NLRB 391, 391-392 (1993). Thus, information need not necessarily be dispositive of the issue between the parties, it need only have some bearing on it.20 Pfizer, Inc., 268 NLRB 916, 918 (1984), enfd. 763 F.2d 887 (7th Cir. 1985); see also, Leland Stanford Junior University, 262 NLRB 136, 154 (1982) (union may satisfy requirement of relevance regardless of eventual merit of union grievance). Probable relevance is furnished by Chavez Chacon’s explanation for her request. As she 25 understood the CSDRS report, the data could not be altered once entered into the report. She had observed or had received reports that some routes were being asked to pull out, that is, not deliver, presorted third class mail. She believed this mail should actually have been considered first class mail because it had already been “managed” and this fact would be reflected in the CSDRS report. Chavez Chacon believed that such a practice might affect routes in the long run 30 by inflating the numbers and reflecting that all of the mail went out in an eight-hour work day when, in fact, that was not the case. Although there is no disagreement between management and union witnesses regarding what information is reflected in a CSDRS report, the management officials who testified about 35 route adjustments did not believe the CSDRS report would be useful in route adjustments. However, chief shop steward Trujillo, also involved in REAT, testified that the CSDRS would be useful in determining routes. Their testimony differs in the sense that management viewed other documents as more helpful than the CSDRS. To the extent there is a credibility conflict in this testimony, I credit Trujillo and Chavez Chacon who were forthright and sincere in their 40 demeanor. Thus, I find that the Union has shown that the information had probable relevance to the grievance as it was germane and had some bearing on the subject matter of the grievance.8 8 See, Detroit Newspaper Printing Union Local 13 v. NLRB, 598 F.2d 267, 271 (D.C.Cir. 1979) (probable relevance is synonymous with information that is germane or has any bearing on the subject matter). JD(SF)–41–15 7 Respondent argues that the information contained in the CSDRS reports is not relevant because it has no effect on employee terms and conditions of employment and asserts that the information would serve no legitimate purpose union purpose. This argument is rejected. The evidence reflects that for the particular grievances, at issue, the CSDRS have probable relevance. 5 Further, Respondent argues the information was sought in bad faith. Relying on Industrial Welding Co., 175 NLRB 477, 480 (1969), and similar cases, Respondent argues that there was no duty to provide the information because it was requested with the sole intent of seeking Manning’s termination. This assertion overstates the testimony. Although neither Chavez Chacon nor Chacon denied Manning’s testimony that one of them stated that they would 10 report him to the Inspector General if he was improperly delaying the mail, the record does not support a finding that the request for CSDRS reports was for the sole purpose of reporting Manning. Moreover, a threat to report an individual to the OIG does not necessarily indicate bad faith. It could also indicate a good faith belief of wrong doing. 15 Although Respondent argues that Branch 989 misunderstood the purpose of the CSDRS report, I find that it is reasonably relevant within the broad discovery-type standard utilized to judge such information requests. Thus, it appears that the information might be relevant in determining length of routes of unit employees. Moreover, assuming for the sake of argument that Chacon Chavez’ stated intention to report Manning to the OIG was a bad faith intent which 20 was unrelated to terms and conditions of employment, this would not defeat other reasons for requesting the information. As long as one reason for the demand can be justified, it is not made in bad faith. See, e.g., Island Creek Coal Co., 292 NLRB 480, 489 (1989), enfd. 899 F.2d 1222 (6th Cir. 1990); Hawkins Construction Co., 285 NLRB 1313, 1314 (1987), enf. denied on other grounds 857 F.2d 1224 (8th Cir. 1988) (The requirement that an information request be made in 25 good faith “is met if at least one reason for the demand can be justified.”). Thus I find that Respondent’s bad faith defense fails. On the record as a whole, I find that Respondent’s failure to provide the CSDRS data entry reports for December 3, 4, and 6, violates Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. These reports 30 were readily available. Morris, who was initially charged with printing the reports, offered no excuse aside from forgetfulness or press of the holiday rush. These reasons are insufficient given that the reports could have been immediately printed out with a minimum of effort. Further, as Chavez Chacon testified, the curtailed, delayed report, which was provided in February or March, did not contain all of the information that Branch 998 required. Thus, I find that it did not 35 qualify as a good faith attempt to produce the requested information. D. Manzano Post Office Branch 504’S Request for Information 40 1. Facts The facts are not in dispute regarding this alleged delay in providing information. Pursuant to a series of Tenth Circuit Consent Orders, the Manzano postal station9 has a 9 The most recent Consent Order was entered into and approved by the court in May 2013. It applies to all facilities listed in “Attachment A.” That attachment, however, was not supplied. Nevertheless, it is JD(SF)–41–15 8 designated management official (DMO) to receive all requests for information and respond to them in a timely manner. The consent order further provides that unprivileged or unwarranted refusal to provide information or unreasonable delay in providing information will not be tolerated and will subject the responsible supervisor or manager to discipline up to and including discharge as well as fines. Training for all supervisors and managers on the obligation to provide 5 information is to be conducted at least twice a year. The Manzano supervisors and managers who testified in this proceeding had attended such training. By facsimile transmission to the DMO on March 3, 2015,10 Robert Woodley, Branch 504 steward and Formal Step A designee, submitted a request that Respondent provide 20 items 10 regarding illness and sick leave for employees Kelly Campbell and Emily Hamilton in support of any absences for December 2014 through February 2015. The request for information was related to consolidated grievances MANZ 009-15 and MANZ 010-15 dealing with whether management was within its right to request medical documentation for employees who had FMLA11-protected conditions. There is no dispute that Branch 504 submits numerous 15 information requests by facsimile and Respondent timely supplies information pursuant to these requests. Further, there is no dispute that Respondent has no specified person in charge of monitoring the facsimile machine, described as a “community” copier, scanner, facsimile machine located on the floor of the mailroom, for receipt of documents. There is no dispute that the machine is routinely used by clerks, carriers, and management for routine postal matters.20 The Informal Step A meeting on these grievances was held on February 21. The March 3 information request was sent in preparation for the next step, the Formal Step A meeting. On March 5, Woodley met with Respondent for the Formal Step A meeting. Because Woodley did not have any information yet, they agreed to meet on March 9. However, prior to March 9,25 Respondent revoked Woodley’s permission to use paid time to work on the grievances. As a result, he went ahead and filed an appeal to Step B before March 9.12 As it turned out, the March 3 information request was not discovered until March 10 and it was immediately given to the DMO who assembled the information in one day. On March 11, 30 the information was placed in a queue for certified mail transmission to Branch 504. The documents left the Manzano post office on March 13 and were received by Branch 504 on March 16. apparent from the testimony of many witnesses and the record as a whole that the Consent Order applies to all Albuquerque facilities which would include the Manzano station and I so find. 10 All dates in this section of the decision are in 2015 unless otherwise referenced. 11 Family Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. §2601 (FMLA), allowing eligible employees of covered employers to take unpaid, job-protected leave for specified family and medical reasons with continuation of group health insurance coverage under the same terms and conditions as if the employee had not taken leave. 12 At Step B, the panel found that Woodley properly requested union time on the clock for processing and handling the grievance. JD(SF)–41–15 9 The complaint alleges that Respondent unreasonably delayed in providing Branch 504 with 18 of the 20 items of information.13 There is no dispute that the information was not received until March 16, that is, 13 days after the request was made. There is no dispute that the information was of no use at the time it was provided because the grievances had already progressed to the B Team and no new evidence may be introduced at that level. There is no 5 dispute that many information requests are submitted by Branch 504 to the Manzano station by facsimile and Respondent routinely responds in a timely manner to these requests. 2. Analysis 10 Failure to make a diligent effort to provide information in a reasonably prompt manner is unlawful. See, e.g., Regency Service Carts, 345 NLRB 671 (2005); Tennessee Steel Processor, 287 NLRB 1132 (1988). Reasonable promptness is determined on a case-by-case basis. West Penn Power Co., 339 NLRB 585, 587 (2003), enf. in relevant part, 394 F.3d 233 (4th Cir. 2005): 15 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 20 circumstances allow.” Good Life Beverage Co., 312 NLRB 1060, 1062 fn. 9 (1993). In evaluating the promptness of the response, “the Board will consider the complexity and extent of information sought, its availability and the difficulty in retrieving the information.” Samaritan Medical Center, 319 NLRB 392, 398 (1995).25 Thus, even a relatively short delay of two or three weeks may be held unreasonable. See, e.g., Capitol Steel & Iron Co., 317 NLRB 809, 813 (1995), enfd. 89 F.3d 692 (10th Cir. 1996) (Although two weeks may not, in some situations, be an unreasonable time within which to provide information, here it was unreasonable because the information was simple, close at hand, 30 and easily assembled); Aeolian Corp., 247 NLRB 1231, 1244 (1980) (three-week delay unreasonable under the circumstances). Looking at the facts here, the initial seven-day lapse of time, from March 3 to 10, was totally attributable to Respondent’s negligence in failing to monitor the facsimile machine for 35 information requests. There is no dispute that the community facsimile machine is not monitored in any organized fashion. Respondent has apparently relied on the kindness of others as the sole means of receiving faxed information requests. Until this particular information request, this reliance had no ill effects. However, this time seven days elapsed before the information request was found on March 10 and brought to the attention of the DMO. Of course, the union could 40 have called to find out whether it’s March 3 facsimile had been received but the transmission had been electronically verified so that might have appeared to be overkill and, therefore, they cannot be faulted on this score. 13 Items 1-18 are at issue. On July 28, items 19 and 20 were deleted from the complaint by an amendment to the second consolidated complaint. JD(SF)–41–15 10 However, on another track, Woodley had requested and received paid time to process these consolidated grievances. Shortly after the Formal Step A meeting of March 5, Respondent rescinded Woodley’s paid leave.14 Due to this, Woodley immediately appealed the grievances to Step B. Respondent argues that had Woodley not precipitously filed the Step B appeal, the information would have been received prior to the time a Step B appeal needed to be filed. 5 However, this argument misses the point and I reject it because I find that Woodley acted reasonably in appealing to Step B when his leave was revoked and the Union was under no duty to wait for the post office to find the information request. Indeed, once the request was found, the information was quickly assembled and, in just 10 one day, on March 11 it was put in line to be sent out by certified mail. Two days elapsed, however, before the certified mail left the post office on March 13 and three days elapsed before the certified mail was received by Branch 504 on March 16. None of the certified mail delays are explained and, perhaps, this method of delivery routinely takes five days. The record does not reflect evidence one way or the other. In any event, absolutely no excuse is interjected by 15 Respondent for the delay in finding the faxed request or the delay in the certified mail system. No particular complexity is apparent in the request for information, it was not overly broad or inclusive, and it was quickly filled. Looking at the totality of the circumstances, including the terms of the consent order, the 20 failure to monitor receipt of faxed information requests, and the ease of fulfillment of the request in only one day, I find that Respondent acted in bad faith. Thus, I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by unduly delaying its response to this information request. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW25 1. By failure to provide Branch 989 with the CSDRS Data Entry Reports for December 3, 4, and 6, 2014, requested in order to process grievances PCCS-14-049, -050, and -054, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.30 2. By unreasonably delaying from March 3 to March 16, 2015, providing information requested by Branch 504 in order to process consolidated grievances MANZ-009 and -010-15, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 35 REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.40 On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommended15 14 The Step B panel found that Woodley’s paid time was improperly revoked. 15 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 JD(SF)–41–15 11 ORDER Respondent, United States Postal Service, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall5 1. Cease and desist from a) Failing to provide Branch 989 with the CSDRS Data Entry Reports for December 3, 4, and 6, 2014, requested in order to process grievances PCCS-14-049, -050, 10 and -054. b) Unreasonably delaying from March 3 to March 16, 2015, providing information requested by Branch 504 in order to process consolidated grievances MANZ-009 and -010-15. c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees 15 in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. a) Furnish Branch 989 in a timely manner with the CSDRS Data Entry Reports for 20 December 3, 4, and 6, 2014, requested in order to process grievances PCCS-14-049, -050, and -054. b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its Coronado and Manzano facilities copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”16 Copies of this notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 28, after being signed by the 25 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 30 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. If the Respondent has gone out of business or closed either of the facilities involved in this proceeding, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and former 35 employees employed by Respondent at the facility at any time since December 4, 2014 (Manzano facility) or March 3, 2015 (Coronado facility). by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes. 16 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.” c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director for Region 28 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. 5 Dated, Washington, D.C. October 9, 2015 10 15 12 ____________________ Mary Miller Cracraft Administrative Law Judge JD(SF)–41–15 JD(SF)–41–15 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 benefit and protection Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities. WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to furnish Branch 989 with the CSDRS Data Entry Reports for December 3, 4, and 6, 2014, requested in order to process grievances PCCS-14-049, -050, and -054. WE WILL NOT unreasonably delay, from March 3 to March 16, 2015, providing information requested by Branch 504 in order to process consolidated grievances MANZ-009 and -010-15. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights listed above. WE WILL furnish to Branch 504 in a timely manner the information it requested on March 3, 2015. 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. JD(SF)–41–15 2600 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400, Phoenix, AZ 85004-3099 (602) 640-2160, Hours: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m. The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/28-CA-143749 or by using the QR code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940. 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, (602) 640-2146.