United States Postal Service

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 823 United States Postal Service and Branch #559, National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO. Case 12-CA-5486(P) April 2, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND PENELLO On November 6, 1972, Administrative Law Judge Thomas D. Johnston issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions and supporting briefs, and Respondent filed an answering brief. 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 considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs' and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge as modified herein and to adopt his recommended Order. We agree with the Administrative Law Judge, for the reasons set forth below, that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by refusing to bargain with the International through the Local Union so long as Attorney Hamilton participated in the negotiations. Respondent's obligation to bargain at the local level arises from the parties' current national agree- ment which provides, in article XXX, that designated agents of the Union will engage in local negotiations. This agreement does not, as the past one did, exclude nonpostal employees from participating in such negotiations. Pursuant to this agreement, the Interna- tional designated the local union officers as its bargaining representatives at the local level and they in turn chose Attorney Hamilton as an addition to their negotiating team. In our view, neither article XXX of the parties' agreement nor the Internation- al's broad designation of all local officers as its agents for the local negotiations can be fairly interpreted as precluding participation of counsel in such negotiations. The parties' failure specifically to exclude nonpostal employees and attorneys as local negotiators was a significant omission and, we believe, must be viewed as a conscious departure from their past practice. Therefore, it is our view that the Local Union was not prohibited from utilizing its attorney as one of its participating negotiators. Furthermore, we are inclined to view with some doubt the Respondent's rather belated claim that its conduct was warranted by the failure of the International to expressly designate Attorney Hamil- 202 NLRB No. 119 ton as one of the local negotiators. During negotia- tions it did not raise this as a specific ground for objecting to his serving in such a capacity, but instead merely protested that "outsiders"-meaning nonpostal employees-could not be used by the Local Union to negotiate for it. Had Respondent been explicit in its reasons for objecting to Hamilton when negotiations were taking place, the Internation- al would have been clearly put on notice through its Local as to the nature of what Respondent now asserts was the real basis for its objection. Such a course would have enabled the parties to deal with the matter at issue, and if no agreement was reached, at least the International could have removed any question concerning his authorization to act as a negotiator by clarifying its designation of local negotiators, a matter over which it appears to have retained full discretion. The terms of the national agreement would not appear to have provided Respondent with any real basis for opposing any such designation. But Respondent's consistent reliance, until the matter came before this Board for determination, on the exclusion of "outsiders" was, under the circum- stances here, that kind of impediment to negotiations and interference with the rights of employees to be represented by persons of their own choosing which constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. We so find. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, United States Postal Service, Tampa, Florida, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. I Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied as, in our opinion, the record, exceptions, and briefs adequately present the positions of the parties DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE THOMAS D. JOHNSTON, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard at Tampa, Florida, on September 11, 1972,1 pursuant to a charge filed on February 8 by Branch #599, National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO (herein referred to as the Union), and a complaint issued on July 31. The complaint alleges that the United States Postal Service (herein referred to as the Respondent) violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations I All the dates referred to are in 1972 unless otherwise stated 824 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Act, as amended (herein referred to as the Act), by refusing to bargain collectively with the Union by refusing to negotiate if the Union's attorney, other than being an observer, participated in the negotiations. Respondent in its answer filed on August 14 and amended on August 18 denied having violated the Act and asserted as a defense it had bargained in good faith with the duly designated bargaining agent pursuant to provi- sions of the collective-bargaining agreement. The issues involved are whether the Union's attorney could participate in negotiations and, if so, whether Respondent's refusal to permit him to participate violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. An additional issue is whether the matter in dispute should be deferred to arbitration. The parties at the hearing were afforded full opportunity to introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross- examine witnesses, to argue orally on the record, and to submit briefs. Upon the entire record in this case and from my observation of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the oral arguments of counsel at the hearing and briefs filed by the Charging Party and the Respondent,2 I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent, an independent establishment of the Execu- tive Branch of the Government of the United States is engaged in the operation of various facilities throughout the United States providing postal services to the Nation. As part of its operations Respondent operates the Sectional Center Facility located at Tampa, Florida (herein referred to as the Tampa Facility), where it is engaged in processing mail and furnishing postal services. This is the only facility involved in this proceeding. Respondent's operations under the authority of the Postal Reorganization Act, 39 U.S.C. § 1209(a)3 are subject to the Board's jurisdiction over unfair labor practices. Respondent admits, and I find that it is subject to the Board's jurisdiction II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Respondent admits, and I find, that the Union and the National Association of Letter Carriers , AFL-CIO (herein referred to as the International), are each labor organiza- tions within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Iii. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background The International, consistent with provisions of the Postal Reorganization Act, is the exclusive bargaining representative of Respondent's employees in the following described unit: All city letter carriers employed by Respondent, 2 General Counsel did not submit a brief 3 This section provides Employee-management relations shall, to the extent not inconsistent excluding managerial personnel, professional employ- ees, employees engaged in personnel work in other than a purely non-confidential clerical capacity, Postal Inspection Service employees, Christmas casual em- ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. The pleadings admit, and I find, the unit described is an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining. Respondent and the International are parties4 to a collective-bargaining agreement (herein referred to as the Agreement) which became effective on July 20, 1971, and extends through July 20, 1973, and includes automatic renewal provisions. The Agreement contains the following provision: The parties recognize that it is impractical to set forth in this Agreement all detailed matters relating to local conditions of employment and further negotia- tions regarding local conditions will be required with respect to local installations, post offices, and facilities. Accordingly, designated agents of the Unions signatory to this Agreement and the representatives of the Employer shall negotiate such matters on a local level, and any agreement reached shall be incorporated in memoranda of understanding. No such negotiations or memoranda of understanding shall be inconsistent or in conflict with this Agreement, nor deprive any employee of any rights or benefits provided for under this Agreement Local negotiations shall commence on February 1, 1972. If agreement is not reached at the local level within 30 days, the issues remaining in dispute shall be referred for impasse resolution to the regional level. Impasses at the regional level which are not resolved by May 1, 1972, shall be referred for settlement to the national level. Unresolved impasses at the national level may thereafter be submitted to arbitration at the national level at the option of a Union or Unions signatory hereto or the Employer if agreement has not been reached by June 15, 1972. For the purposes of providing such arbitration, the following procedure shall be wollowed [sic]: The Unions and the Employer shall each name one arbitrator. The two arbitrators thus selected shall seek to agree upon a third neutral arbitrator. In the event they fail to do so within 5 days, the neutral arbitrator shall be appointed by the American Arbitration Association. The cost of the neutral shall be shared equally by the Unions and the Employer. Among other provisions of the Agreement are those giving authorized or designated agents of the International the right to enter postal installations for the purpose of performing and engaging in official union duties and business related to the Agreement; serving on the safety and health committee; and participating in labor-manage- ment committee meetings held for the purpose of discuss- ing, exploring, and considering with management matters with provisions of this title, be subject to the provisions of subchapter II of Chapter 7 of title 29 i The Agreement also includes as parties other International Unions UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 825 of mutual concern. The Agreement also contains a grievance procedure providing for binding arbitration.5 The International's constitution provides that all mem- bers of the International shall be affiliated with a subordinate branch which shall have jurisdiction over those members working under one or more postmasters as determined by the branch charter. The Union, chartered in 1937, is the branch of the International for those employees employed at the Tampa Facility. Certain evidence was adduced at the hearing to establish that the Union performed functions under the Agreement pertaining to those employees at the Tampa Facility. Howard Carter, who is president of the Union and also the International's business agent for the State of Florida, in April requested and was granted permission by Respon- dent's postmaster, J. A. Gonzalez, an admitted supervisor, to enter certain installations of the Tampa Facility for the purpose of performing and engaging in official union duties and business. President Carter and members of his committee in April attended a labor-management meeting held with manage- ment representatives at which various items pertaining to working conditions at the Tampa Facility were discussed. Carter was notified to attend the meeting by Postmaster Gonzalez who also requested him to inform his committee members. Carter also participated in onsight inspections of the Tampa Facility relating to health and safety. Again in April Carter filed an appeal under the grievance procedure with Postmaster Gonzalez concerning a suspen- sion imposed upon an employee. Gonzalez in response to the appeal notified Carter of his decision and reasons for denying the grievance. The parties further stipulated that the Union acting by and through its stewards6 process grievances under certain steps of the grievance procedure. According to the unrefuted testimony of President Carter, he has the authority at the local level to reach agreements with management concerning problems raised at the labor-management meetings and to settle grievances involving discipline and violations of the Agreement. Based upon the foregoing evidence which is undisputed, I find, contrary to Respondent's denial in its answer, that the Union acting through its representatives is a duly designated agent of the International and has responsibili- ty for policing and administering the Agreement with respect to members of the bargaining unit at the Tampa Facility. President Carter testified he has participated in all collective-bargaining negotiations on local items pertaining to the Tampa Facility. These negotiations began in 1964 when the first collective-bargaining agreement was signed and were held in 1966, 1968, and included the, 1972 negotiations According to Carter he is authorized, consist- ent with past practices, to negotiate with Respondent and reach an agreement on the local bargainable items pertaining to the Tampa Facility and to enter into a memorandum of understanding as contemplated by the Local Implementation (42) provision of the Agreement without the approval of the International. Respondent offered no evidence with respect to past practices relating to negotiations at the local level. On January 24, the International's president, James Rademacher, sent James Blaisdell, Respondent's special assistant to the postmaster general a letter providing in pertinent part as follows: The agreement concerning Local Implementation of the National Agreement provides that the National Unions who are signatory to the Agreement shall designate their agents who will negotiate with repre- sentatives of the Employer concerning implementation of the National Agreement at the local level . Accord- ingly, the National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO, hereby designates the Officers of the respective affiliated local Branches of the National Association of Letter Carriers as its agents for the purpose of effecting local implementation of the National Agreement at each of the respective postal installations. B. The Refusal to Permit the Union's Attorney to Actively Participate in Negotiations On January 24, President Carter by letter notified Postmaster Gonzalez of the forthcoming local negotiations beginning February 1 and requested a meeting be held with representatives of the Union to work out preliminary details connected with negotiations. The following day Respondent's chief of employment services section, Ray Salgado, an admitted supervisor, telephoned President Carter whereupon they agreed to hold a prenegotiation meeting on January 28. On January 25, Postmaster Gonzalez confirmed the date by letter to Carter recommending that Carter be prepared at the meeting to submit an agenda of those subjects he intended to make proposals on. The prenegotiation meeting was held on January 28. Those persons representing the Union were President Carter, Vice President Garland Tickle, and Recording Secretary Jim Scaglione. Respondent was represented by Ray Salgado, who acted as chief negotiator, Director of Operations Houston Harris, Assistant Director of Opera- tions R. Hebble, and B. A Delp. In addition to these representatives there were also present representatives from Local 259, American Postal Workers Union, and Local 147, Post Office Mail Handlers. Carter presented Salgado with a copy of proposed rules and procedures for the local negotiations. Item 4 of the proposal listed the following named persons who would serve as negotiators for the Union: Howard R. Carter, Garland B. Tickle, A. Arnold, J. Scaglione, W. Vasden, J. Fernandez, M. Randels, S. Dolcimascolo, F. Puleo, and V. Leto. Among this group, namely, S. Dolcimascolo, A. Arnold, and J. Fernandez were not officers of the Union. Carter testified when the item relating to the Union's negotiators was brought up he stated he wanted to add to the list of the Union's negotiators the name of the Union's attorney Frank Hamilton. Salgado's response was there 4 Under the terms of the Agreement, a moratorium was placed upon implementing this procedure b The stewards are elected by members of the Union 826 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD would be no negotiations with outsiders or with nonpostal workers 7 Carter insisted the Union had the right to have anyone it wanted present to bargain for and represent the Union. Salgado after repeating his position stated it looked like they had reached their first impasse. Following a caucus by Respondent, Salgado informed the Union he would like to discuss the possibility of Hamilton being present as an observer or technician but not as a negotiator. Carter refused, maintaining his position the Union had the right to have Hamilton present in any capacity it saw fit. After neither party changed its position, Salgado stated it looked like they wouldn't have any local negotiations because they couldn't decide who was going to negotiate. The Union then called a caucus and decided in view of the limited period in which they had to conclude the local negotiations under the Agreement and Respondent's position of refusing to negotiate if Hamilton participated as a negotiator the Union would have to give in if they were to proceed. President Carter's version of the conversa- tion was substantially corroborated by the Union's Vice President Tickle and Harry Smith, who is general president of Local 259, American Postal Workers Union. Salgado admitted refusing to permit Hamilton to participate as a member of the Union's negotiating team. According to his testimony the reasons he gave the Union were Hamilton was not a member of the Union and he was not a designated officer of the International. Salgado refused to deny any statement was made by management to the effect it looked like they had reached their first impasse President Carter, Vice President Tickle, and General President Smith all contradicted Salgado's testimony concerning the reasons he gave for refusing to permit Hamilton to participate. There was no discussion concern- ing the officer status of the other representatives of the Union including those three representatives8 discussed supra who were not officers and who subsequently participated as negotiators in the negotiation meetings without objection. Salgado admitted he made no investiga- tion to determine whether they were officers of the Union. I am not persuaded by Salgado's uncorroborated testimony9 as against the corroborated testimonies of Carter, Tickle, and Smith, who impressed me as more credible witnesses than Salgado, who expressed uncertainty in his own testimony and I find that the only reason given by Respondent at the meeting for refusing to permit Hamilton to participate as a negotiator was because he was an outsider or nonpostal worker. Moreover, it appears had an objection been raised concerning the fact Hamilton was not an officer in the Union the issue would have provoked discussion as to the eligibility of the other negotiators on the list who were not officers to participate. Further, Salgado's interpretation of the ground rules in his letter set forth infra tend to support the reason Hamilton was 7 According to President Carter, during the 1968 negotiations there was a prohibition against nonpostal employees participating in negotiations 8 Salgado stated of these three employees one was a state officer, one was past president, and the other held some official function with the union hall 9 The other management representatives of Respondent present at the meeting did not testify refused the right to participate was because he was a nonpostal employee. The minutes of the prenegotiation meeting held on January 28 provided in pertinent part as follows: 1. There will be no more than three (3) persons from each party serving on the principal negotiating team. No more than two (2) observers will be allowed to attend each session . Persons attending as observers will not be allowed to take part in negotiations. All observers must be members of the official negotiating team, except that any non-postal employee attending as an observer may not be a member of the negotiating team. 2. Each party will advise the other in writing of the persons serving on their respective negotiating teams. The Union did not abandon its position of seeking to have Attorney Hamilton serve as a member of the Union's negotiating committee . On January 28, following the prenegotiation meeting, President Carter by letter notified Ray Salgado, pursuant to the ground rules, of the names of the Union's negotiators previously set forth in addition to including Hamilton's name . Salgado's response by letter dated January 31 provided in pertinent part as follows: You list F. Hamilton, Atty, as a member of your negotiating team . This is contrary to the established ground rules. Agreement was reached that only postal employees could be members of respective negotiating teams. A non-postal employee considered as a technical advisor by either party could attend only as an observer. Ray Salgado, at the first negotiation meeting held on February 2, insisted that Hamilton attend the meeting only as an observer and not participate in negotiations and threatened to discontinue negotiations with the Union unless Hamilton ceased participating and moved to a table at the end of the room. Salgado, at a negotiating meeting held on February 11, after being informed Hamilton would continue on the Union's negotiation team , threatened the Union that he (Salgado) would continue to sit at the negotiation table but wouldn't respond to any union proposals.io The above findings with respect to the negotiation meetings held on February 2 and 11 are based upon the pleadings." The negotiations between Respondent and the Union were completed at the local level without Hamilton being permitted to participate as a negotiator , and subsequently an agreement which did not include a discussion of the issues here was reached between the International and the Respondent. C. Analysis and Conclusions General Counsel contends while Respondent denies that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Actiz 10 It was stipulated at the hearing that Attorney Hamilton was not permitted to participate at that meeting 11 Respondent amended its answer at the hearing to admit these allegations 12 Sec 8(a)(5) of the Act prohibits an employer from refusing to bargain collectively with the representatives of its employees and Sec 8(a)( I) of the UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 827 by its refusal to. bargain and by refusing to permit the Union's attorney to participate in negotiations . Respon- dent also asserted , contrary to the positions of General Counsel and the Charging Party, that the issue could be resolved through the grievance procedure which provides for binding arbitration under the Agreement and therefore the Board's policy of deferring to arbitration as enunciated in Collyer Insulated Wire13 was applicable . However, the parties stipulated the grievance procedure under the Agreement was not effective until February 14 and the grievance procedure under the previous collective -bargain- mg agreement14 which did not include binding arbitration was the sole avenue of contractual release for grievances occunng prior to February 14.15 Inasmuch as the viola- tions here occurred prior to February 14 during a period when there was no binding arbitration provisions in effect to resolve grievances, I do not find the Collyer policy of deferring to arbitration applicable even assuming the refusal to negotiate with a union's representative which strikes at the very foundation of collective bargaining is a proper subject for deferral. Respondent's defenses were that only the Union's officers had been designated by the International to conduct negotiations and they had no authority to appoint Attorney Hamilton , that if the officers had such authority it was never communicated to Respondent ; and that the Union by an agreement with Respondent on January 28 waived its right, if any, to appoint Hamilton. These defenses except for the latter, presuppose a finding that the refusal to permit Hamilton to participate was because he was not a duly designated officer of the Union. Section 7 of the Act provides employees the right to select representatives of their own choosing for collective bargaining without restraint or coercion by their employer. N.L.R.B. v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 33. This right with certain limitations not applicable here includes a union's selection of its own bargaining commit- tee. See General Electric Company, 173 NLRB 253. Only the employees or their duly designated bargaining repre- sentative may seek to exercise the right of selecting the members of their negotiating committee . F W Woolworth Company, 179 NLRB 748. An employer, either by unilateral act or by contrast with the exclusive representa- tive of its employees, may not limit the class or group from among whom the employees may thereafter be represented for the purposes of collective bargaining . The Oliver Corporation, 74 NLRB 483. The evidence here established the Union through its representatives acted as the agent of the International in policing and administering the Agreement at the Tampa Facility and negotiated with Respondent on local bargain- able items pertaining to the Tampa Facility without requiring the International 's approval. The local negotiations in issue here were, consistent with past practices, delegated by the International. Those persons designated as its agents for the purpose of Act prohibits an employer from interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act 13 192 NLRB No 150 14 This Agreement was not submitted in evidence 15 The procedures for settling disputes contained in Local Implementa- tion (42), although not specifically excluded from the stipulation, do not effectuating local implementation under the Agreement were the officers of the local branches . The Union's representatives selected Attorney Hamilton to represent and assist in negotiations. Respondent in refusing to negotiate with the Union only questioned the right of the Union's attorney, Hamilton, to participate as a negotiator . Based upon my findings supra, the reasons Respondent refused to permit Hamilton to participate was because he was an outsider or nonpostal worker and not as Respondent contends because he was not a duly designated officer of the Union. There is no requirement under the Act prohibiting either "outsiders" 16 or persons not employed by the employer 17 from participating in collective-bargaining negotiations and a refusal by an employer for such reasons to bargain collectively with a union violates Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. Therefore, since Respondent's refusal to permit Attorney Hamilton to participate in negotiations held on or about January 28, February 2, and II was for unlawful reasons, I find Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Assuming arguendo the reason given by Respondent for refusing to permit Hamilton to participate as a negotiator was because he was not a designated officer of the Union, I would still, under the circumstances of this case, find a violation. These circumstances include the practice of conducting local negotiations whereby the Union without the approval of the International has the authority to enter into an agreement, Respondent's failure to object to other nonofficers of the Union participating in negotiations and the fact the selection of Hamilton was not to replace the officers as negotiators but only to have him assist them in negotiations . Further, the language of Local Implementa- tion (42) of the Agreement does not prohibit those selected from obtaining assistance especially of counsel. The remaining defense urged by Respondent that the Union by an agreement with Respondent waived its right to appoint Hamilton as a negotiator is also rejected. Any such agreement made only after Respondent had refused to negotiate with the Union if Hamilton participated was coerced and the fact the Union proceeded in negotiations culminating in an agreement , without his participation, would not preclude finding a violation of the Act. See Lufkin Telephone Exchange, Inc.,` 191 NLRB No. 151. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, found to constitute unfair labor practices occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. appear applicable for resolving the issue here 16 See General Electric, supra, American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp v N L R B, 381 F 2d 632, 634 (C A 6) 17 See N L R B v Deena Artware, 198 F 2d 645 , 651 (C A 6), cert denied 345 U S 906 828 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. United States Postal Service is covered by the Act and subject to the Board's jurisdiction. 2. Branch #599, National Association of Letter Carri- ers, AFL-CIO and the National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO, are each labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3 All city letter carriers employed by Respondent, excluding managerial personnel, professional employees, employees engaged in personnel work in other than a purely nonconfidential clerical capacity, Postal Inspection Service employees, Christmas casual employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. At all times material herein the International has been, as is now, the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 5. By refusing, specifically on or about January 28, February 2 and 11, 1972, to bargain collectively with the International as the exclusive representative of the employ- ees in the aforesaid appropriate unit by refusing to meet and negotiate for the purposes of collective bargaining with its representatives at the Tampa Facility as long as those representatives included the Local's attorney, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, 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. The Charging Party contrary to the position of the General Counsel seeks a remedy patterned after that ordered in Tndee Products, Inc.18 requiring Respondent to reimburse the Charging Party and/or the Board for expenses. However, the Board's Order issued in Tudee following a remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia involved, as distin- guished from the instant case, frivolous litigation I do not find Respondent's conduct here sufficient to warrant a special remedy and since it is a well-established principle recognized by the Board that litigation expenses are ordinarily not recoverable,19 I find the remedy requested by the Charging Party for the violation found here is not appropriate. Cf. Gates Rubber, Inc. 199 NLRB No. 108 Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: 20 ORDER Respondent, United States Postal Service, its officers and agents, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Internation- al as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employ- ees in the appropriate unit by refusing to meet and bargain with those representatives duly appointed and chosen by and through the International for purposes of conducting negotiations covering the employees at the Tampa Facility as long as the representatives include the Local's attorney, Frank Hamilton. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which appears necessary and appropriate to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Notify the International forthwith in writing, with a copy served upon the Local, that it will, upon request, when conducting negotiations for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining covering employees at the Tampa Facility, meet at reasonable and mutually convenient times with representatives appointed by or through the International, irrespective of whether such representatives are either employees in the bargaining unit, members of the Local, or include the Local's attorney, Frank Hamilton. (b) Post at its Sectional Center Facility, located at Tampa, Florida, copies of the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix."21 Copies of said notice, on forms, provided by the Regional Director for Region 12, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of Respondent, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Respondent shall take reasonable steps to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 12, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.22 It is further ordered that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges unfair labor practices not specifically found herein. 11 194 No 198 19 See Heck's Inc, 191 NLRB No. 146 20 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 findings, 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 21 In the event that the Board's 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 be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " 22 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 12, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith " UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT refuse to meet and bargain collectively with the National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO or its representatives at the Sectional Center Facility located at Tampa, Florida, as long as the representatives include the attorney for Branch #599, National Association of Letter Carriers , AFL-CIO. WE WILL, upon request, when conducting negotia- tions for the purposes of collective bargaining covering employees at the Sectional Center Facility located at Tampa, Florida, meet at reasonable and convenient times with those representatives appointed by or through the National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO, without regard to whether the representa- tives are employees in the bargaining unit, members of Branch # 599, National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO, or include Branch #599 's attorney. 829 WE WILL NOT refuse to meet with Branch #599's attorney or in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Dated By UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE (Employer) (Representative) (Title) 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 concern- ing this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Room 706, Federal Office Building, 500 Zack Street, P.O. Box 3322, Tampa, Florida 33602, Telephone 813-228-7227