United States Postal Service

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 24, 1975

221 N.L.R.B. 735 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

UNITED STATES- POSTAL SERVICE
United States Postal Service and Ohio Postal Work-
ers Union, affiliated with American Postal Workers
Union, AFL-CIO. Case 8-CA-9147 (P)
November 24, 1975
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
REMANDING PROCEEDING TO
REGIONAL DIRECTOR
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND PENELLO
On July 3, 1975, the Regional Director for Region
8 of the National Labor Relations Board issued a
complaint and notice of hearing in the above-entitled
proceeding, alleging that Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in certain unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Subse-
quently, the Respondent filed an answer and an
amended answer admitting in part, and denying in
part, the allegations of the complaint, submitting an
affirmative defense and requesting that the com-
plaint be dismissed in its entirety.
Thereafter, on September 11, 1975, the Respondent
filed a motion for summary judgment and memoran-
dum in support thereof, with exhibits attached. The
Respondent moves the Board for an order dismissing
the complaint in its entirety for lack of jurisdiction
or, in the alternative, for an order dismissing the
complaint pursuant to Collyer Insulated Wire, A Gulf
and Western Systems Co., 192 NLRB 837 (1971), but
retaining jurisdiction for the limited purpose provid-
i The Respondent's contention that the Board's jurisdiction in this case
has been supplanted by provisions of the Postal Reorganization Act, calling
for the adoption by the parties ofbindmg arbitration procedures, is totally
lacking in merit. According to sec . 1209(a) of the Postal Reorganization Act,
"Employee-management relations shall, to the extent not inconsistent with
provisions of this title , be subject to the provisions of [the National Labor
Relations ' Act ]." We find no provision in that Act which deprives the Board
of its general power under Sec 10(a) of the National Labor Relations Act
"to prevent any person from engaging in any unfair labor practice . .
affecting commerce ." Sec. 10(a) of the Act further provides that "[t]his
power shall not be affected by any other means of adjustment or prevention
735
ed in Spielberg Manufacturing Company, 112 NLRB
1080 (1955).
On- September 19, 1975, the Board issued an order
transferring the proceeding to itself and a Notice To
Show Cause why the Respondent's motion for
summary judgment should not be granted. The
General Counsel filed a memorandum in opposition
to Respondent's motion for summary judgment,
contending that the Postal Reorganization Act does
not deprive the Board of jurisdiction in this case and,
citing Joseph T. Ryerson & Sons, Inc., 199 NLRB 461
(1972), that deferral to the parties' contractual
grievance-arbitration procedures is inappropriate in
cases such as this, in which it is alleged that the
Respondent sought by prohibited means to preclude
access to such grievance procedures.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has duly considered the matter and is of
the opinion that there are issues of fact, including
Respondent's alleged interference with the grievance
procedure, which may best be resolved at a hearing
conducted before an Administrative Law Judge.'
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the Respondent's motion
for summary judgment in the above-captioned
proceeding be, and it hereby is, denied.2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-entitled
proceeding be, and it hereby is, remanded to the
Regional Director for Region 8 for further appropri-
ate action.3
that has been or may be established by agreement , law or otherwise."
2 This denial is without prejudice to Respondent 's right to renew its
contentions based on Collyer Insulated Wire, supra, at the conclusion of the
hearing before the Administrative Law Judge.
3 Chairman Murphy, who has not heretofore expressed her views on the
deferral policy enunciated in Collyer, supra, deems it unnecessary to do so
here since she believes that this case is, in any event, inappropriate for
deferral in its present posture. Although Member Fanning agrees with our
disposition herein, he does so for the additional reasons set forth in his
dissent in Collyer Insulated Wire, supra.
221 NLRB No. 133