US Postal Service

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 15, 1980

251 N.L.R.B. 252 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
United States Postal Service and American Postal
Workers Union, AFL-CIO (San Angelo, Texas
Local). Case 16-CA-8366(P)
August 15, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY M.MBFIRS JENKINS, PEN.I.O, AND
TRUESDAII.F.
On February 19, 1980, Administrative Law
Judge Burton Litvack issued the attached Decision
in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief.
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 considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and
to adopt his recommended Order.
We agree with the Administrative Law Judge's
finding that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act by issuing warning letters to employees
O'Harrow and Woods in connection with a griev-
ance meeting held on February 2, 1979. In con-
cluding otherwise, our dissenting colleague argues
that, even if the events that culminated in the im-
position of discipline were part of the res gestae of
the grievance meeting, the employees' "insubordi-
nate conduct" in ignoring an order to return to
work was "so extreme" as to render their conduct
unprotected. We find our colleague's argument un-
persuasive.
In the first place, it is worth noting that the dis-
sent discounts almost out-of-hand the reason most
prominently advanced by Respondent for its con-
duct, i.e., the employees' alleged "loud, abusive
and profane language," and instead insists that the
reason Respondent acted was the employees' al-
leged refusal to return to work. Apparently the dis-
sent recognizes that, in the circumstances here, Re-
spondent could not rely on the employees' lan-
guage as a lawful ground for imposing discipline;
hence, the dissent seeks to focus on the employees'
alleged "insubordination." However, the facts do
not support the dissent's analysis.
In brief, this is not a case where employees ada-
mantly refused to leave the meeting room when
asked to pursue their grievance later and to return
to work. Nor is this a case in which the employees
tried to impede others who sought to leave. Here,
the two employees followed the two supervisors
back to the workroom floor. At least to this point
their only "insubordination," if it can be called
251 NLRB No. 33
such, was in continuing to talk about their griev-
ance as they walked along. When the employees
and the supervisors reached the timeclock, Super-
visor Love turned and said, "I am giving you a
direct order. I want you to go back to work now."
After what was by all accounts a momentary hesi-
tation, and apparently before Love had to repeat
the order, the two employees complied with it.
We agree with the Administrative Law Judge's
conclusion that to permit Respondent to bifurcate
the conduct in issue, as our colleague apparently is
willing to do, "would enable an employer by its
own whim to define the nature of protected activi-
ty .... " Moreover, from a practical standpoint,
some latitude must be given to participants in these
incidents. Indeed, although we might wish it other-
wise, it is unrealistic to believe that the principals
involved in a heated exchange can check their
emotions at the drop of a hat. Of course, employ-
ees can lose the protection of the Act by conduct
that fairly can be characterized as opprobrious or
extreme. In the instant case, however, neither ap-
pellation is warranted. Thus, as shown above, the
employees merely continued to dispute verbally the
merits of a grievance after tempers had run high on
both sides and after they were told to return to
work. As indicated previously, the interval be-
tween being told to go back to work and the em-
ployees' compliance with that order was very brief
and was not marked by violence or abusive lan-
guage on their part. And Respondent does not con-
tend, nor does the record show, that the employ-
ees' conduct had any adverse impact on the work
of other employees, or otherwise had consequential
disruptive effects. Accordingly, we see no reason
to strip these employees of the protection afforded
them by the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, United States
Postal Service, San Angelo, Texas, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order.
MEMBER PENELLO, dissenting:
Contrary to my colleagues, I would reverse the
Administrative Law Judge and find that Respond-
ent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) and (3) by issu-
ing warning letters to employees O'Harrow and
Woods for their insubordinate conduct in ignoring
direct orders to return to work at the end of a
grievance meeting. As no exceptions were filed to
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 253
the Administrative Law Judge's recommendation
that the other allegations of the complaint be dis-
missed, I would dismiss the complaint in its entire-
ty.
The facts in this case may be stated briefly. Em-
ployees O'Harrow and Woods are president and
vice president, respectively, of the Local Union
which represents the employees at Respondent's
facilities in San Angelo, Texas. In late January
1979, O'Harrow and Woods were warned verbally
on several occasions by their supervisor, Robert
Nichols, about talking while working next to each
other on the distribution line. On February 2, 1979,
they observed John Love, manager of mail proc-
essing, talking to two other employees on the dis-
tribution line. Thinking that this demonstrated that
management had a double standard about employ-
ees talking while working on the distribution line,
they asked Supervisor Nichols to arrange a meet-
ing with Love about this problem. Love, Nichols,
O'Harrow, and Woods then met in a small confer-
ence room where grievance meetings are usually
held. After a heated discussion as to whether man-
agement had the right to talk to employees work-
ing on the distribution line, Love stated that the
meeting was over, ordered O'Harrow and Woods
to go back to work, and stated that they would
resume the meeting later when everyone had
calmed down. Love and Nichols then left the con-
ference room, but O'Harrow and Woods followed
them out into the distribution area stating that the
Union would not tolerate this situation. As neither
O'Harrow nor Woods had shown any signs of
complying with Love's first order that they return
to work, Love turned to them and stated, "I am
giving you a direct order .... I want you to go
back to work now." O'Harrow and Woods did not
move or respond to this second order, but rather
continued to harangue Love and Nichols. When
Love started to repeat the order a third time,
O'Harrow and Woods finally stopped arguing and
walked away to their work stations.
On February 3, 1979, Nichols gave O'Harrow
and Woods warning letters, signed by Love, which
stated that they were being warned for insubordi-
nation. Specifically, both letters described the con-
versation at the meeting on February 2, 1979,
noting that O'Harrow had "used loud, abusive and
profane language," both letters stated that Love
had terminated the meeting and had asked the em-
ployees to return to work, noting that neither em-
ployee had done so but rather they had "kept
making attempts to interrogate Mr. Nichols and
[Mr. Love]," and both letters noted that Love had
to give them three direct orders to return to their
work assignments before they would do so.
I agree with my colleagues that the Adininistra-
tive Law Judge was correct in finding that O'Har-
row and Woods were engaged in the informal reso-
lution of a potential grievance at the February 2,
1979, meeting and that they were thus essentially
insulated from discipline for insubordinate state-
ments made to management officials during this
protected collective-bargaining activity, unless
their conduct was so opprobrious or extreme as to
warrant the denial of such protection under the
Act. I also agree with my colleagues that the con-
duct of O'Harrow and Woods during the grievance
meeting in the conference room was not so oppro-
brious or extreme as to deny them the protection
of the Act.' However, I disagree with the major-
ity's conclusion that the conduct of O'Harrow and
Woods after leaving the conference room at the
end of the meeting was not so opprobrious or ex-
treme that it became unprotected. Assuming, with-
out deciding, that the Administrative Law Judge
properly found that the events which occurred out-
side the conference room just after the meeting
ended were part of the res gestae of the grievance
meeting, I would conclude that the insubordinate
conduct of O'Harrow and Woods in ignoring
direct orders to return to work was, in the circum-
stances of this case, so extreme as to become un-
protected.
In my opinion, the behavior of O'Harrow and
Woods after Love terminated the grievance meet-
ing went beyond verbal insubordination, since they
engaged in overt acts by defying two of Love's
orders that they return to work. Furthermore, it
should be noted that their second refusal to return
to work as ordered occurred in a production area
during working time when other employees were
likely to be present. 2 Under these circumstances,
their overt acts of defiance would clearly tend to
undermine Respondent's right to maintain order
and respect. Thus, their failure to return to work
when ordered to do so was not protected even
though they continued to discuss their grievance.
Therefore, I would find that Respondent did not
violate Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act when it
disciplined O'Harrow and Woods for ignoring sev-
eral direct orders to return to work. 3
i In this connection. I note that their only misconduct was O'Harroo's
use of several profane words and one obscene word, none of which were
used as epithets directed at the management officials, and this misconduct
occurred in a private conference room out of the presence of other em-
ployees.
2 The Board has usually considered such factors relevant to its deter-
mination as to whether an employee has lost the protection of the Act hi
opprobrious conduct while engaged in protected concerted actiity See,
e.g., Atlantic Steel Company, 245 NLRB No. 10 (1 )79).
a Although the warning letters issued to O'Harrow and Woods de-
scribed the events which occurred during the grievance meeting and
Continued
254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Moreover, it continues to disturb me that cases
of this nature are still congesting the Board's
docket and wasting the Board's scarce resources, at
a time when the Board is struggling to cope with a
dramatically expanding caseload and a growing
backlog of cases awaiting hearing. This case should
never have been litigated to a Board decision;
rather it should have been deferred under Collyer4
to the grievance and arbitration procedures agreed
upon by the parties in their collective-bargaining
agreement. The majority's decision here illustrates
once again my colleagues' lack of wisdom in nar-
rowing the application of Collyer. In view of the
national labor policy favoring collective bargaining
and the arbitration of disputes, the Board should
encourage the parties to resort to their existing
contractual methods for private dispute resolution
rather than promoting litigation before the Board
of such relatively minor issues. Accordingly, I
would dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
refer to O'Harrosw's use of "loud, abusive, and profane language" at the
meeting. I would find that Respondent disciplined them solely because of
their failure to return to work when ordered to do so. I am convinced
that the references in tihe letters to the events of the meeting were merely
included as background identifying the particular meeting involved and
giving Respondent's position as to the legitimate reasons for Love's ac-
tions in terminating the meeting and ordering the employees back to
work I note that he record reveals that O'Harrow and Woods were iin-
volsed in more than one grievance meeting on February 2, 1979, and that
the warning letter issued to Woods also referred in identical wording IIt
O'tlarrow's language at the meeting and to the other events of the meet-
ilig even though Woods himself had not used any abusive or profane lan-
guage or engaged in any insubordinate conduct during the meeting
4 Colver Insulated Wire, A Gulf and Western Systems Co.. 192 NLRB
837 (1971). My iews on deferral have recently been restated at length in
Rot, Robinson. Inc.. d/b/a Royv Robinson Chevrolet, 228 NLRB 28 (1977),
and Member Walther's and my dissent in General American Iransporration
Corporation, 228 NLRB 808 (1977).
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BURTON LITVACK, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard by me in San Angelo, Texas, on Septem-
ber 18 and 19, 1979, pursuant to a complaint issued by
the Regional Director for Region 16 on May 25, 1979,
pursuant to an original and a first amended charge filed
by American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO (San
Angelo, Texas Local), herein called the Local, on March
5, 1979, and April 30, 1979, respectively. The complaint
alleges, in substance, that United States Postal Service,
herein called Respondent, violated Section 8(a)(1), (3),
and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein
called the Act, by dealing directly with employees in
derogation of their designated representative for pur-
poses of collective bargaining, Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act by issuing warning notices to employees because
they engaged in union or other protected concerted ac-
tivities, and Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening em-
ployees with discipline and the issuing of written repri-
mands because of their union membership, activities, and
desires. Respondent filed an answer, denying the com-
mission of any unfair labor practices. All parties were af-
forded full opportunity to appear, to introduce evidence,
and to examine and cross-examine witnesses. Briefs were
filed by counsel for the General Counsel and by Re-
spondent and each has been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my ob-
servation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and having
carefully considered the post-hearing briefs, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find
that jurisdiction is asserted herein by virtue of Section
1209 of the Postal Reorganization Act, 39 U.S.C. § 101,
et seq., herein called the PRA.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Although the status of American Postal Workers
Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, is not alleged
in the complaint, the record establishes that said entity
engages in collective bargaining with Respondent, has
negotiated successive collective-bargaining agreements
with Respondent on a national basis, with the most
recent of said agreements, effective from July 21, 1978,
until July 20, 1981, and represents employees in the proc-
essing of grievances. Accordingly, I find that the Union
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act. United States Postal Service, 208 NLRB
948 (1974). Additionally, the complaint alleges, Respond-
ent admits, and I find that the Local is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II111. ISSUES
1. Whether Respondent, on or about February 3, 1979,
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by issuing
written reprimands to employees because said employees
engaged in union or other protected concerted activities?
2. Whether Respondent, on or about February 2, 1979,
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening to
write up employees because of their union membership,
activities, and desires?
3. Whether Respondent, on or about February 2, 1979,
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by orally threatening
to file insubordination charges against employees because
of their union membership, activities, and desires?
4. Whether Respondent, on or about March 28, 1979,
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by bargaining
directly with its employees?
IV. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Alleged Threats and the Warning Notices
1. Facts
The record establishes that the San Angelo, Texas,
Post Office consists of two separate facilities, a main
building and a secondary facility called the Herring Sta-
tion, and that during the period January through March
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 255
19791 Longino Monreal was the postmaster, John Love
was the manager of mail processing, Robert Nichols was
the supervisor of mails, and Hubert D. Sanders was a
relief supervisor. 2 The record further establishes that the
Union has represented postal clerks and other employees
of Respondent for approximately 10 to 12 years, that the
Union has negotiated successive collective-bargaining
agreements with Respondent during the period, and that
the Local, as the agent of the Union and pursuant to the
national agreement, has negotiated local supplements to
said agreement with the San Angelo, Texas, postmaster.
It appears that beginning in November 1978, at approxi-
mately the time Monreal was appointed postmaster, and
continuing through March 1979 relations between the
Local and the San Angelo post office management
gradually became strained and querulous. Thus, soon
after he assumed office, Monreal instituted more strin-
gent rules concerning the investigation and filing of em-
ployees grievances.3 These changes, in turn, resulted in
the filing of several grievances by the Local and, I be-
lieve, significantly contributed to the rather tense work-
ing atmosphere which seems to have existed by Febru-
ary.
With the foregoing as background, R. P. O'Harrow, a
distribution clerk and president of the Local, and Jack
Woods, another distribution clerk and vice president of
the Local, testified that they were warned several times
in late January for talking to each other while working.
Both O'Harrow and Woods worked a 4 a.m. until 12.30
p.m. shift at the Herring Station facility and were sta-
tioned alongside each other on the distribution line. Ac-
cording to Woods, there was no work rule regarding
talking to other employees while working, such had
always been done, and no employee had ever been disci-
plined for talking while working. On February 2, O'Har-
row and Woods commenced working at 4 a.m. and, ac-
cording to Woods, by 5:30 a.m. supervisors had spoken
to him two times regarding talking to O'Harrow while
they were working. At approximately 5:30, O'Harrow
observed John Love walk to the end of the distribution
line and engage employees Norman McClausky and
Kent Edborg in conversation. Believing that a double
standard existed regarding talking on the distribution
line, O'Harrow spoke o Robert Nichols, his supervisor,
and asked Nichols if he had time to discuss a grievance.
Nichols said that he did, and O'Harrow replied that he
needed Woods and Love in the discussion.4
All dates herein, unless otherwise specified, are in 1979
2 The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that Monreal.
Love, Nichols, and Sanders are supervisors within the meaning of Sec.
2(11) of the Act.
s It is undisputed that, commencing in or about November 1978, Post-
master Monreal began instituting changes in the method whereby officials
of the Local were permitted to investigate and process employee griev-
ances. Among the changes instituted by Monreal were requirements that
stewards state the amount of time necessary for the investigation of a po-
tential grievance, that employees discloae to supervisors the nature of a
potential grievance before receiving permission to see their union repre-
sentative, that stewards could not type or xerox" grievances while "on
the clock," and that limitations were placed on the amount of time stew-
ards were permitted to speak to potential grievants about problems. As
stated above, grievances were filed by members of the Local regarding
these changes.
4 Art. XV of the current collective-bargaining agreement between Re-
spondent and the Union sets forth the grievance-arbitration procedure.
A few minutes later, Woods, O'Harrow, Nichols, and
Love met in the small conference room in the back of
the Herring Station. 5 O'Harrow testified that he began
the meeting by asking Love if the latter were talking
business with the clerks at the end of the line. Love re-
plied that he was not, and O'Harrow asked if Love were
"just passing the time of day?" Love replied that he was.
O'Harrow then asked Love if he thought it was right for
him to waste a clerk's time by standing there passing the
time of day when Woods and O'Harrow were "coun-
seled" a day or so before for doing the same thing. Love
replied that "he didn't have to answer my questions and
that the meeting was terminated." Love then turned to
Nichols and said "put those fellows back to work and
keep a close eye on them and if they get out of line,
write them up." At that point, acccording to O'Harrow,
Woods asked if they were going to have a grievance dis-
cussion or were they returning to work. When Nichols
said nothing, Love turned to him and said, "This meet-
ing is terminated. Put them back to work." On cross-ex-
amination, O'Harrow admitted that grievances usually
were discussed after 8:15 a.m. and that, during the con-
versation, Love questioned the manner in which O'Har-
row was talking to him.
Woods contradicted O'Harrow, testifying that he, and
not O'Harrow, initiated the meeting by requesting per-
mission from Nichols to have the meeting. According to
Woods, O'Harrow began the meeting by asking Love
why they were being reprimanded for talking while
Love was "chit-chatting with the employees about things
that didn't pertain to the post office business." Love re-
plied that he could say anything he wanted to anyone
about anything for as long as he wanted to and that he
did not have to take that kind of talk from O'Harrow.
Then, according to Woods, Love turned to Nichols and
said, "Bob, put these two guys back to work, keep a
close eye on them, and if they get out of line, write them
up." Woods further contradicted O'Harrow, denying
that anyone said that the meeting was terminated.
John Love testified that he arrived at work on Febru-
ary 2 at approximately 5 a.m. and that, after checking for
personal mail, he walked to the end of the distribution
aisle and spoke to employees McClausky and Edborg for
During the initial step in the process, the aggrieved employee discusses
his grievance with his immediate supervisor. According to the collective-
bargaining agreement, a union official may or may not be present. If the
grievance is unresolved at the initial step, it must be appealed in writing
to the head of the installation. Such constitutes step 2 of the grievance
procedure.
It was undisputed that, to initiate the grievance procedure, an individu-
al must receive permission from the supervisor to either discuss a poten-
tial grievance with a local official or to discuss an actual grievance with
his supervisor. However, the witnesses disagreed over what words initi-
ate the procedure. Thus, Jack F. Woods testified that he would use the
word "grievance" only if the matter involved a violation of the national
agreement, while he would use the word "problem" if the matter in-
volved anything less serious. On the other hand, John Love testified that
employees always used the word "grievance" if they desired to meet
with either a steward or their immediate supervisor. However, Love did
admit that on occasion employees will just state that they have a prob-
lem. In these cases, according to Love, the supervisor will follow by
asking if the matter involves a grievance.
I The conference room is a sparsely furnished room consisting of a
double desk, chairs at both ends of the desk, and a small stool by one of
the walls.
256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
approximately 2 minutes. At approximately that same
time, according to Robert Nichols, he was called over
by O'Harrow and Woods who stated that they would
like to speak to Love. Nichols thereupon walked over to
Love and, according to Love, told the latter that Woods
and O'Harrow wanted a meeting because "they think
that we can iron out some of the problems we have been
having around here if we get together and have a little
discussion." Love assented to the meeting, and, a few
minutes later, Nichols brought O'Harrow and Woods to
the conference room where Love was waiting for them.
According to both Love and Nichols, O'Harrow sat
down on one of the desk chairs, leaned back in the chair,
placed his legs on the desk, and clasped his hands around
the back of his head. Love and Nichols generally cor-
roborated each other as to what was said during the
meeting. Thus, they testified that O'Harrow began the
meeting by asking Love, "What the hell were you talk-
ing to those two employees about?" Love asked O'Har-
row what he meant, and O'Harrow replied that he
wanted to know if Love was talking about official busi-
ness or "were you just bullshitting with the employees?"
Love responded that he did not appreciate the way
O'Harrow was talking to him and asked O'Harrow not
to speak in that manner. O'Harrow thereupon accused
Love of evading the issues and responded that he would
speak to Love with "any language I damn well please in
here." O'Harrow then asked once again whether Love
was "just bullshitting with the employees." Love re-
sponded that what he was talking about with the two
employees was not official business and that such was
none of O'Harrow's business either. At that point, both
Woods and O'Harrow stated that Nichols had spoken to
both of them about excessive talking and that, if manage-
ment were going to talk to the employees about exces-
sive talking, management had no right to talk to the em-
ployees. At that point, with O'Harrow and Woods re-
peating that management was unfair, Love announced
that the meeting was over, that he wanted O'Harrow
and Woods to go back to work, and that they would
resume the meeting when everyone had calmed down.
Love and Nichols then left the room. However, O'Har-
row and Woods followed, repeating that the Union
would not tolerate what was happening. The four of
them reached the employee timeclock, and Love turned
to O'Harrow and Woods, stating, "I am giving you a
direct order. I want you to go back to work and I want
you to go back to work now." Neither O'Harrow nor
Woods moved; however, as Love attempted to repeat
the command, the two employees just stopped talking
and walked away. During the meeting, according to Ni-
chols, O'Harrow and Woods were not yelling but rather
were "just talking loud" and they used no curse words
other than "bullshitting." Finally, both Love and Nichols
denied that Love ordered Nichols to watch O'Harrow
and Woods and to write them up if necessary.
Robert Nichols testified that, at 8:15 that morning,
Woods approached him and said that he wanted to talk
to his steward. Nichols replied that Woods should go to
the conference room and that he would tell O'Harrow
about the meeting. Nichols thereupon proceeded to look
for O'Harrow but could not find him. Meanwhile, ac-
cording to O'Harrow, he was likewise searching for Ni-
chols in order to obtain permission to speak to Woods
about a grievance. While looking for Nichols, O'Harrow
passed through Love's office. According to O'Harrow,
Love asked if he could help. O'Harrow replied, "I don't
suppose so unless you know where Robert Nichols is."
Love responded that he did not know where Nichols
was and asked why O'Harrow wanted him. O'Harrow
replied that he wanted to discuss a grievance, and Love
replied, "I have already told him and Woods that ycu
cannot discuss the grievance." According to O'Harrow,
he and Love then walked out of Love's office and were
joined by P. G. Ecomomidas, the customer service man-
ager. O'Harrow testified that he asked Ecomomidas why
he was not being given permission to discuss a grievance,
and Ecomomidas replied that he did not know. At that
point, according to O'Harrow, Monreal, the postmaster,
walked over to them and asked what the problem was.
After O'Harrow told him, Monreal suggested that they
go into the office.
By this time, according to O'Harrow, both Nichols
and Woods had joined them. Accordingly, Monreal,
Love, Nichols, Woods, and O'Harrow entered an office
where H. D. Sanders was already present. Monreal
began the discussion by asking Love what was wrong.
Love replied that he told O'Harrow that the latter could
not discuss a grievance. O'Harrow asked Love why, and
Love replied, "the next time you put your finger in my
face and talk to me that way I am going to file insubor-
dination charges against you." O'Harrow responded,
asking Love why he wanted to file insubordination
charges against him. Love replied, "You're not going to
talk to me that way and poke your finger in my face and
the next time you do it, I'm going to charge you with
insubordination." To that, according to O'Harrow, he
said, "Why don't you go ahead and charge me with in-
subordination?" Love responded, "I will the next time
you poke your finger in my face and talk in that
manner." At that point, Monreal said that, since Nichols
had given O'Harrow and Woods permission to discuss
the grievance, he (Monreal) would permit them to go
ahead and discuss the grievance, and the meeting ended
at that point. On cross-examination, O'Harrow admitted
that he did not deny Love's accusation that he (O'Har-
row) put his finger in Love's face but averred that he
had no knowledge to what Love was referring.
Love testified to a different version of the facts. Thus,
according to Love, at approximately 8:30 a.m. on Febru-
ary 2, O'Harrow came through his office walked into the
outer office, and then came back into Love's office.
Love asked if he could help. O'Harrow replied, "Who
the hell made you the official helper around here."
O'Harrow then turned to leave again, but Love stood
up, stating "What in the world is wrong with you." At
that point, with Love standing no more than a foot from
O'Harrow, the latter turned around and said, while
pointing a finger at Love's face, "Get your ass back in
your office and get back there now." Accordinq to
Love, he replied that O'Harrow could not speak to him
like that. O'Harrow responded by asking Love what the
latter was going to do about it. Love replied that he
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 257
could give O'Harrow a warning letter or write him up.
O'Harrow then asked if Love had any witnesses, and
after Love said that he did not, O'Harrow replied that it
was Love's word against his. Love responded that he
could still give O'Harrow a warning letter, and O'Har-
row turned and left the office.
Love further testified that, at approximately 8:45 a.m.,
O'Harrow came back through his office carrying a brief
case. Ecomomidas was in Love's office, and Love asked
O'Harrow never to stick his finger in Love's face again
or talk to Love like he did previously. O'Harrow asked
if Love was threatening him. At that point, Ecomomidas
interrupted, saying that such was not a threat but that
Love just did not want O'Harrow talking like that.
O'Harrow responded by again pointing his finger at
Love and saying, "I will talk anyway I want to." Ac-
cording to Love, Monreal then entered the room and
asked what was going on. O'Harrow responded by
saying that Love was obstructing the grievance proce-
dure. Love replied that he did not want O'Harrow stick-
ing his finger in Love's face and talking to him like he
had done. O'Harrow repeated that Love would not let
him discuss a grievance. Monreal told him to go ahead
and have the discussion, and the meeting ended.6
Jack Woods testified to the following conversations on
the morning of February 2. At approximately 10 a.m.,
after the first class mail had been distributed, he and Ni-
chols were in the conference room waiting for O'Har-
row to arrive. John Love entered the room and told Ni-
chols that, unless Woods told him specifically what he
wanted to discuss, he would not allow Woods to speak
to O'Harrow. Woods replied that, under those circum-
stances, he did not want to have a meeting with O'Har-
row at that time and left the conference room to return
to work. Neither Nichols nor Love denied the occur-
rence of, or the substance of, this meeting. Woods next
testified that, at approximately 12 noon, he and O'Har-
row walked into Monreal's office where Love and Eco-
momidas were already present. According to Woods, he
and O'Harrow asked Monreal for permission to have a
grievance meeting. Monreal said that they could have
the meeting because Nichols had previously given per-
mission. At that point, Love turned to O'Harrow and
said that, if he ever spoke to him that way again, he
(Love) would write him up for insubordination. O'Har-
row did not corroborate the occurrence of this meeting,
and Woods did not recall any 8:30 or 9 a.m. meetings
with Monreal on that day.
On February 3, Nichols gave O'Harrow a warning
letter, dated February 2 and signed by Love. The letter
stated the following reasons for the warning:
6 Love's testimony was corroborated by other witnesses. Thus. Hubert
Sanders testified that, while he was sitting in an outer office during the
morning of February 2, he overheard Love say several times, "I am
asking you, please, not to shake your finger in my face," and that he
heard O'Harrow reply. "What are you going to do about it?" He then
heard Love respond. "I will write you up" Also. Robert Nichols, who
testified that he was not present during any of the latter conversations
between Love and O'Harrow. testified that while he was searching for
O'Harrow at approximately 8:30 that morning, he heard Love state, "I
asked you please, Pat. don't put your finger in my face again" Finally.
Monreal corroborated the version of the conversation given by .oive
after Monreal entered the discussion with O'Harrow
1. Insubordination: Specifically on 2-2-79 you
and Full-time Clerk J.S. Woods . . . requested, thru
your immediate Supervisor R.L. Nichols, a meeting
between the four of us. At 05:05 this requested
meeting was held. At that time you questioned my
talking to employees on the work room floor, be-
cause you had had a discussion with Mr. Nichols
that concerned excessive talking on the previous
day. You used loud, abusive, and profane language.
When I asked you to refrain from using such lan-
guage in our conversation, you stated, "I will use
any language that I damn well please." At this point
I terminated the meeting and asked you and Mr.
Woods to return to your work assignment. You and
Mr. Woods did not comply with my request and
kept making attempts to interrogate Mr. Nichols
and myself. I had to give you and Mr. Woods three
direct orders to return to your work assignment
before you would do o.
2. Insubordination: Specifically on 2-2-79 at
08:30 you came into my office carrying an attache
case. You walked thru my office into the outer
office and returned. As you were leaving I asked if
I can help you and you replied, pointing a finger in
my face, "who appointed you helper around here?"
I stated that maybe you should return to your work
assignment and you told me "shut up and get back
into your office." I asked you to remove your
finger from my face and to not talk to me in that
manner. You asked me what I was going to do
about it and I stated that I would give you a letter
of warning. You said "good, let's get it on."
Also on February 3, Nichols gave a warning letter,
dated February 2 and signed by Love, to Jack Woods.
The letter stated the following reason for the warning:
Insubordination: Specifically on 2-7-79 you and
Full-time Clerk R. P. O'Harrow . . . requested thru
your immediate Supervisor R. L. Nichols a meeting
between the four of us. At 05:05 this requested
meeting was held. At that time Mr. O'Harrow's lan-
guage was loud, abusive, and profane. I terminated
the meeting and asked you and Mr. O'Harrow to
return to your work assignment. You and Mr.
O'Harrow did not comply with my request and
kept making attempts to interrogate Mr. Nichols
and myself. I had to give you and Mr. O'Harrow
three direct orders to return to your work assign-
ment before you would do so.
2. Conclusions
Paragraph 6(a) of the complaint alleges that Respond-
ent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when Love alleg-
edly instructed Nichols to put O'Harrow and Woods
back to work, to watch them, and to write them up if
necessary. O'Harrow and Woods attributed this state-
ment to Love during the 5.30 a.m. meeting in the Her-
ring Station conference room on February 2. Both Ni-
chols and Love specifically denied that Love made such
a statement. I credit their denials. Neither O'Harrow nor
Woods impressed me as forthright or truthful witnesses
258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and both appeared vindictive toward Respondent be-
cause of the procedural changes which were instituted
by Monreal. Also, on some points, they specifically con-
tradicted each other and, on others, they could not cor-
roborate each other. Moreover, I found incredible
O'Harrow's assertion that he did not know to what Love
was referring during their later conversation of that
morning when Love accused O'Harrow of shaking his
finger at Love and speaking in an insubordinate manner.
This is especially compelling, for O'Harrow neither
denied Love's accusation at the time nor demanded an
explanation as to what Love was talking about. Finally,
in contrast to O'Harrow and Woods, Love and Nichols
appeared to be honest and candid witnesses and general-
ly corroborated each other where necessary. According-
ly, I credit the testimony of Love and Nichols regarding
this conversation and shall recommend that paragraph
6(a) of the complaint be dismissed.
As to paragraph 6(b) of the complaint, inasmuch as
Love admitted that, during his 8:30 a.m. conversation
with O'Harrow on February 2, he threatened O'Harrow
with a warning letter, the determination as to whether
said statement was violative cf Section 8(a)(l) of the Act
depends upon an analysis of the surrounding circum-
stances. In this regard, for the aforementioned reasons
and inasmuch as his testimony was corroborated by
other witnesses, I credit Love as to this conversation and
specifically discredit the testimony of O'Harrow. Thus, I
believe that Love uttered his threat to O'Harrow only
after the latter shook his finger in Love's face and or-
dered Love to "get your ass back in your office and get
back there now" and after O'Harrow sarcastically de-
manded to know what Love could do about O'Harrow
speaking in that manner. Further, while O'Harrow may
well have been searching for Nichols to ask permission
to investigate a grievance when he entered Love's office,
O'Harrow clearly was not engaged in protected activities
when he spoke to Love in the above-described insubordi-
nate manner. Moreover, there is no credible evidence
that Love uttered his threat in response to any protected
concerted activities in which O'Harrow may have been
engaged. Rather, I believe that Love was responding to
what he perceived as insubordination by an employee.
"The right of an employer to maintain order and to insist
on a respectful attitude by his employees toward their
supervisor is an important one." Court Square Press, Inc.,
235 NLRB 106, 109 (1978). Accordingly, I shall recom-
mend that paragraph 6(b) of the complaint be dismissed.
With respect to paragraphs 6(c), 7, and 8 of the com-
plaint, Respondent admits that warning notices, dated
February 2 and signed by John Love, were issued to em-
ployees O'Harrow and Woods but denies that said warn-
ing notices were issued in response to their attempts to
process a grievance. Analysis of the two warning letters
reveals that one of the reasons for the warning letter to
O'Harrow and the sole reason for the warning letter to
Wood was their conduct during the meeting with Love
and Nichols at 5:30 a.m. in the Herring Station confer-
ence room on February 2. In particular, the letters assert
that O'Harrow used "loud, abusive, and profane lan-
guage," and that neither O'Harrow nor Woods complied
with Love's request to return to their respective work
assignments. In describing this meeting, counsel for the
General Counsel contends that "O'Harrow and Woods
were attempting to process a grievance," over supervi-
sors speaking to them regarding talking when working
while supervisors were permitted to interrupt the work
of other unit employees during worktime and engage in
nonofficial business. If, in fact, O'Harrow and Woods
were engaged in the processing of a grievance, the
Board has traditionally held that while employees are en-
gaged in collective bargaining, including the presentation
of grievances, they are essentially insulated from disci-
pline for statements made to management representatives
which, if made in another context, would constitute in-
subordination. Ryder Truck Lines, Inc., 239 NLRB 1009,
1010 (1978). Moreover, "the lack of... diplomacy does
not render conduct unprotected. Any attempt to dictate
the exact language to be used in a collective-bargaining
atmosphere can only have the affect of stifling that bar-
gaining." Hawaiian Hauling Service, Ltd., 219 NLRB 765,
766 (1975).
Respondent's defense that O'Harrow and Woods acted
in an insubordinate manner during the 5:30 a.m. meeting
rests upon three bases. First, Respondent argues that
O'Harrow and Woods were not engaged in protected ac-
tivity and, more specifically, that the meeting was not
for the purpose of adjusting a grievance. In support of
this argument, Respondent asserts that neither O'Harrow
nor Woods announced to Nichols that they wished to
hold a grievance meeting, that the proper parties for the
first step of the grievance procedure were not present,
that no grievance was ever filed over the incident, and
that the purpose of the meeting was solely to "dress
down" Love. While Respondent may be accurate that
the technical procedures of the contractual grievance
procedure were not followed, I nevertheless believe that
the parties were involved in grievance adjusting during
this meeting. Thus, Love admitted that, prior to the
meeting, Nichols told him that the purpose of the meet-
ing was that, "[O'Harrow and Woods] think that we can
iron out some of the problems we have been having
around here if we get together and have a little discus-
sion." Moreover, even if the technical procedures of the
grievance and arbitration machinery were not followed,
"the informal resolution of latent grievances is a recog-
nized, and indeed, essential component of . . . [a] griev-
ance procedure. Without such informal resolutions, there
is a risk of destroying the effectiveness of that procedure
by weighing it down with formalized grievances." Ryder
Truck Lines, Inc., supra at 1011. Also, both Love and Ni-
chols admitted that the main subject of the meeting was
the complaint by O'Harrow and Woods of unequal treat-
ment-clearly, I believe, a grievable subject. Finally, I
believe that employees must be assured of being treated
as equals as much in informal meetings as informal ones
and that they must be confident of being able to speak
their minds without fear of discipline. If such fear exists,
I believe that effective and, indeed, meaningful collec-
tive-bargaining can never occur.
Respondent next argues that, even if the 5:30 a.m.
meeting constituted protected activity, O'Harrow and
Woods engaged in such "opprobrious conduct" so as to
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 259
lose the protection of Section 7 of the Act. While the
Board did recognize in Hawaiian Hauling, supra, that if
an employee engages in opprobrious conduct during col-
lective bargaining he may lose the protection of the Act,
it has never really defined the term "opprobrious." How-
ever, in a recent decision, the Board held that it would
examine four factors in determining whether an employ-
ee's conduct at a grievance meeting would result in the
loss of the protection of the Act. Atlantic Steel Company,
245 NLRB No. 107 (1979). These factors include the lo-
cation of the meeting, the subject matter of the meeting,
the nature of the conduct, and whether any employer
unfair labor practices may have provoked the outburst
by the employee. Herein, while there is no evidence that
Respondent committed any unfair labor practices which
would have provoked the conduct of O'Harrow and
Woods, their actions can hardly be classified as "extreme
behavior." Sea-Land Service, Inc., 240 NLRB 1146 (1979)
(dissent of Member Penello). Thus, Nichols admitted that
the only curse word used by O'Harrow was "bullshit-
ting" and that neither O'Harrow nor Woods was shout-
ing but rather merely "talking loud." Further, according
to Nichols, the word "bullshitting" was uttered by
O'Harrow during a question about what Love was talk-
ing to employees McClausky and Edborg that morning-
"well, was it official business or were you just bullshit-
ting with them?" Furthermore, the location of the meet-
ing was the conference room which, I believe, was cus-
tomarily used for grievance discussions, and I have pre-
viously held that the meetinq did, indeed, involve the in-
formal adjusting of a matter which was perceived by
O'Harrow and Woods as an employee grievance. Ac-
cordingly, while the conduct of O'Harrow and Woods
may have been reprehensible to Love, it cannot be classi-
fied as "opprobrious" or "extreme" so as to deny O'Har-
row and Woods the protection of Section 7 of the Act.
Sea-Land Service, Inc., supra; Ryder Truck Lines, Inc.,
supra; Thor Power Tool Company, 148 NLRB 1379 (1964).
Finally, Respondent asserts that O'Harrow and Woods
continued to argue with Love after the meeting had been
terminated and that employees do not have the right to
keep a supervisor captive to a barrage of "indiscriminate
rhetoric" after a grievance meeting has ended. In sup-
port, Respondent cites United States Postal Service, 242
NLRB No. 39 (1978). Contrary to Respondent, I find
that decision by the Board to be inapposite as it involved
allegedly unlawful discipline for the act of filing a griev-
ance, while the instant case involves discipline for con-
duct engaged in by union representatives during the proc-
essing of a grievance. Furthermore, Respondent has
seemingly bifurcated the conduct of O'Harrow and
Woods, finding protected that which cccurred prior to
Love's announcement and unprotected that which oc-
curred thereafter. Such an argument, however, would
enable an employer, by its own whim, to define the
nature of protected activity, and I believe that such an
argument is repugnant to the policies of the Act. More-
over, and contrary to the contention of Respondent, I
believe that the entire conduct of O'Harrow and Woods
during the 5:30 a.m. meeting was within the res gestae of
the grievance meeting. Atlantic Steel Company, supra.
Accordingly, I believe that the portion of the February 3
warning notice to O'Harrow which defines as insubordi-
nation O'Harrow's conduct during the 5:30 a.m. meeting
is violative of Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act. Like-
wise, I believe that the February 3 warning notice to
Woods which cites Woods' conduct during the 5:30 a.m.
meeting as insubordinate is also violative of Section
8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act. Ryder Truck Lines, Inc., supra;
Hawaiian Hauling Service, Ltd. supra.
B. The Alleged "Direct Dealing"
1. Facts
According to the testimony of employee Louis C.
Loe, a mail clerk at the Herring Station, and Hubert D.
Sanders, a relief supervisor, Loe approached Sanders at
approximately 10:30 a.m. on March 22 and requested
permission to speak to O'Harrow. Sanders gave his per-
mission and, thereafter, Loe and O'Harrow met in the
conference room in the rear of the facility. A few min-
utes later, as O'Harrow and Loe were just beginning
their meeting, Sanders entered the conference room and
announced that he had overlooked some procedural mat-
ters. He turned to Loe and asked him for the nature of
the meeting and how long Loe believed the meeting
would last. Loe responded that he had a medical prob-
lem but that he did not know how long the meeting with
O'Harrow would last. Thereupon, Sanders turned to
O'Harrow and asked the same question. O'Harrow re-
plied that he did not know and told Sanders that, unless
the latter wished to discuss the grievance, he must leave
the room. At that point, an argument ensued between
O'Harrow and Sanders regarding the right of the latter
to inquire into the nature of the grievance and the esti-
mated time that it would take to investigate it. Finally,
O'Harrow stated to Loe that he was going to terminate
the grievance discussion because Sanders was interfering
with the process. Thereupon, O'Harrow picked up his
brief case and left the conference room. Sanders and Loe
also left the room but continued their discussion outside.
Sanders told Loe that he did not want to do anything
which would interfere with Loe calling a doctor but that
he should not permit a procedural dispute between the
Local and management to interfere with his right to
present a grievance. According to Sanders, Loe replied
that he felt any sick leave discussions were questioning
his integrity and stated, "I have tried it your way, now
I'm going to try it theirs." The meeting essentially ended
at that point.
Approximately 5 or 6 days later, Loe was on his way
to the timeclock to punch out at the end of the day
when he met Sanders. According to Loe, Sanders initiat-
ed the discussion, stating, "Louie, I know you have a
health problem. I haven't seen your grievance and until I
have seen your grievance, I can't rule on it." Loe replied
that he would have to talk to O'Harrow. Sanders re-
sponded, "You don't need Pat . . . or anyone else to
represent you in a grievance. You can come to me, we
can discuss it, and chances are we can work something
out." According to Loe, he responded that he would
have to see O'Harrow and walked away. For the most
part, Sanders' version of the conversation corroborates
260 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that of Loe. Thus, according to Sanders, he began the
conversation by asking Loe if he had filed a grievance.
Loe responded that he had not and, according to Sand-
ers, he replied, "You know, until you discuss this with
your supervisor, until he knows what the problem is,
there is nothing in the world that he can do for you. You
can sit down and talk to your supervisor about it. You
don't have to have the Union at step one to discuss a
grievance, you can sit down and talk to your supervisor
and maybe you can work it out .... " Sanders testified
that Loe ended this conversation the identical way he
ended their earlier meeting, stating, "I have tried it your
way, now I'm going to try it theirs."
2. Conclusions
Counsel for the General Counsel, without supplying
any case support, argument, or rationale, asserts that
Sanders' conduct constituted direct dealing with bargain-
ing unit employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5)
of the Act. Respondent does not dispute that Sanders in-
vited Loe to discuss a grievance but contends that Sand-
ers' invitation was merely a restatement of the collective-
bargaining agreement. Respondent further argues that,
even if Sanders attempted to individually bargain with
Loe, such should not be deemed unlawful inasmuch as it
had a negligible impact on the Local's ability to act as
the bargaining representative for Loe. As noted above,
step one of the contractual grievance and arbitration pro-
cedure contemplates a meeting between the grievant and
his immediate supervisor, and "the employee, if he or she
so desires may be accompanied and represented by the
employee's steward or a Union representative." Thus,
the contract makes permissible, but not mandatory, that
an employee be accompanied by a union representative.
Moreover, analysis of the testimony of both Loe and
Sanders leads to the inescapable conclusion that Sanders
was, in fact, merely setting forth for Loe what the con-
tract provides-that, at the initial stage of the grievance
procedure, Loe would have to meet with Sanders and
that, if he so chose, Loe did not need a union representa-
tive present when he spoke to Sanders.7 Furthermore,
there is no evidence that Sanders pursued the matter
with Loe or coerced Loe into discussing the merits of
the grievance, that Sanders' actions in any way hindered
Loe in filing a grievance over his problem, or that either
Loe or the Local, on behalf of Loe, ever attempted to
file a formal grievance over Loe's problem. Accordingly,
I do not believe that, by a preponderance of the evi-
dence, General Counsel has established that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by dealing di-
rectly with bargaining unit employees. Accordingly, I
shall recommend that paragraph 13 of the complaint be
dismissed.
I Clearly, by the wording of the grievance-arbitration provision of the
existing collective-bargaining agreement, the Union has expressly waived
any mandatory right to be present during first-step grievance meetings.
Such a waiver has been sanctioned by the Board and the courts. The Dow
Chemical Company, 215 NLRB 910 (1974), reversed on other grounds
United Steel Workers ofAmerica, AFL-CIO v L.R.B., 536 F 2d 551) (3d
Cir. 1976).
CONCI.USIONS OF LAW
1. The National Labor Relations Board has jurisdiction
over this matter by virtue of Section 1209 of the Postal
Reorganizational Act.
2. The Union and the Local are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By issuing a warning notice, which is partially based
on his conduct during the presentation of a grievance, to
employee R. P. O'Harrow, Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
4. By issuing a warning notice, which is solely based
upon his conduct during the presentation of a grievance,
to employee Jack F. Woods, Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
5. These unfair labor practices affect commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(l) and (5)
of the Act by dealing directly with its employees.
7. Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act by threatening its employees with the imposition of
any disciplinary action or by threatening to write them
up because of their union membership, activities, and de-
sires.
REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease
and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent unlawfully issued a letter
of warning to employee Jack F. Woods, I shall recom-
mend that it be required to revoke and expunge from its
records all copies of said letter and take no action against
Woods based, in whole or in part, on that warning letter.
Having also found that Respondent unlawfully issued a
letter of warning to employee R. P. O'Harrow based, in
part, on his conduct during the presentation of a griev-
ance, I shall recommend that it be required to revoke
and expunge from its records those portions of all copies
of said letter which refer to O'Harrow's conduct during
the 5:30 a.m. meeting on February 2 at the Herring Sta-
tion and take no action against O'Harrow based, in
whole or in part, upon that portion of the letter of warn-
ing which refers to O'Harrow's participation in said
meeting.
Upon the basis of the entire record, the findings of
fact, and the conclusions of law and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recom-
mended:
I have previously concluded herein that O'Harrow was acting in an
insubordinate manner when he confronted I.ove in the latter's office at
8 30 a.m on February 2. Accordingly. I concluded that Love's threat to
file charges based on that incident was inot unlawful Thus, insofar as the
February 3 warning notice refers to that incident. I find it to be lawful.
Moreover. inasmuch as he two incidents appear to be separate and unre-
lated and as the later confrontation appears to be separate grounds for
insubordination, I shall not order that the entire letter be revoked and ex-
punged from Respondent's records
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 261
ORDER 9
The Respondent, United States Postal Service, San
Angelo, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Issuing letters of reprimands to or threatening to
discharge or discipline employees because of their pro-
tected participation in grievance meetings.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Revoke and expunge from its records the letter of
warning issued to Jack F. Woods on February 3, 1979,
and take no action against him based, in whole or in
part, on that reprimand.
(b) Revoke and expunge from its records those por-
tions of the letter of warning issued to R. P. O'Harrow
on February 3, 1979, which refer to his participation in a
5:30 a.m. meeting on February 2 at the Herring Station
and take no action against him based, in whole or in
part, on that portion of the letter of warning.
(c) Post at its San Angelo, Texas, facilities copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."' 0 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 16, after being duly signed by Respondent's au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by it immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con-
secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint
should be dismissed insofar as it alleges that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(l) and (5) of the Act by direct deal-
ing with its employees and that Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening to discipline em-
ployees or to write up employees because of their union
membership, activities, and desires.
9 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the find-
ings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and
become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto
shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
o1 In the event that 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 Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board"
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had an opportunity to
present evidence and state their positions, the National
Labor Relations Board found that we have violated the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and has or-
dered us to post this notice.
The Act gives employees the following rights:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choice
To engage in activities together for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection
To refrain from the exercise of any or all such
activities.
WE WILL NOT issue letters of reprimand to our
employees or threaten them with discharge or disci-
pline because of their protected participation of
grievance meetings.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner in-
terfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in the
Act.
WE WILL revoke and expunge from our records
all copies of the letter of warning issued to Jack F.
Woods on February 3, 1979, and WE WILL take no
action against Jack F. Woods based, in whole or in
part, on that letter of warning.
WE WILL revoke and expunge from our records
those portions of all copies of the letter of repri-
mand issued to R. P. O'Harrow on February 3,
1979, which refer to his participation in a grievance
meeting and WE WILL take no action based, in
whole or in part, on that portion of said letter of
warning.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE