U.S. Postal Service

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 19, 1976

226 N.L.R.B. 1065 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE 1065
U.S. Postal Service and American Postal Workers
Union, Local 810 , Florence, Alabama . Case 10-
CA-11924(P)
November 19, 1976
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND REMANDING
PROCEEDING TO REGIONAL DIRECTOR
By MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND WALTHER
On July 14, 1976, the Acting Regional Director for
Region 10 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 la-
bor practices affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) and Section 2(6) and
(7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
Subsequently, the Respondent filed an answer admit-
ting in part, and denying in part, the allegations of
the complaint, submitting affirmative defenses, and
requesting that the complaint be dismissed in its en-
tirety.
Thereafter, on July 26, 1976, the Respondent filed
a Motion for Summary Judgment and memorandum
in support thereof, with exhibits attached. The Re-
spondent 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).
On August 3, 1976, the Board issued an order
transferring the proceeding to itself and a Notice To
Show Cause why the Respondent's motion for sum-
mary judgment should not be granted. The General
Counsel filed a memorandum in opposition to Re-
spondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, contend-
ing that the Postal Reorganization Act does not de-
prive the Board of jurisdiction in this case and, citing
North Shore Publishing Co., 206 NLRB 42 (1973),
that deferral to the parties' contractual grievance-ar-
bitration 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority 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-entitled pro-
ceeding be, and it hereby is, denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-entitled pro-
ceeding be, and it hereby is, remanded to the Region-
al Director for Region 10 for further appropriate ac-
tion.
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 of binding arbitration procedures, is totally
lacking in merit According to sec 1209(a ) of the Postal Reorganization Act,
"Employer-management relations shall, to the extent not inconsistent with
the 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 pow-
er shall not be affected by any other means of adjustment or prevention that
has been or may be established by agreement , law, or otherwise "
226 NLRB No. 171