United States Postal Service

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 607 United States Postal Service and National Alliance of Postal and Federal Employees, Local 912 and Local No. 3, National Association of Post Office Mail Handlers, Watchmen, Messengers and Group Lead- ers, Division of the Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO. Case 14-CA-6608 (P) August 17, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS KENNEDY AND PENELLO On February 28, 1973, Administrative Law Judge James M. Fitzpatrick issued the attached Decision in this proceeding . Thereafter, Respondent filed excep- tions 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 finds merit in certain of Respondent 's exceptions. Accordingly, we have decided to affirm the rulings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge only to the extent consistent herewith. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Re- spondent, Postal Service, through its participation in the Vending Committee violated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act by giving money to Mail Handlers to assist its sponsorship of a mail handler craft picnic. This picnic was sponsored at a time when the Charg- ing Party, Alliance, had a representation petition pending for a unit of employees represented by Mail Handlers and the Administrative Law Judge thus concluded that by its conduct Respondent unlawfully assisted Mail Handlers . Respondent excepts to these conclusions, and we find merit in the exceptions. The particular post offices involved in the dispute herein are located in the St . Louis metropolitan area. In 1968 Respondent signed an agreement with the seven unions enjoying "exclusive recognition" with the Post Office Department, its predecessor. These seven unions are members of the St . Louis Postal Employees Service Committee, or Vending Commit- tee. This committee has been in existence since 1958, and is set up to promote the welfare and recreational activities of all the employees . The committee votes on what types of employee activities it will sponsor and, after the decision is made, money is provided by the committee for the particular function. The Postmaster is a member of this committee. However, his alternate , Staff Assistant Robert Ham- monds, actively represents him on the committee. Hammonds votes in case a tie vote is registered. Fur- ther, he signs the check and, at times when the com- mittee is not meeting, requests for appropriations are made directly to him. There is also evidence that he approves requests for funds on his own at times. In 1968 and again in 1969 the Vending Committee sponsored all-employee picnics. Each of these picnics turned into a "fiasco." Equipment bought for the pic- nic by the committee was stolen and the grounds for the picnics were left in an unsatisfactory condition. Following these two unsuccessful attempts at funding all-employee picnics, the Vending Committee, in No- vember 1970, voted to adopt a policy of sponsoring Post Office-wide picnics only on a craft basis. These were to be open to all employees in a particular craft regardless of the union to which they belonged. The committee voted to spend $1 per person. Alliance, which is not a member of the committee, made three requests for money from the committee. In August 1971, before the representation petition was filed, it requested money from Hammonds for an all-employee craft picnic which he denied, stating that the Alliance did not enjoy "exclusive recognition" with the Postal Service. In November 1971, Alliance requested money to set up a program for the youth of all Postal Service employees. Hammonds denied this request on the ground that the proposed program did not benefit the children of all employees. Also, in July 1972, a request was made for money for a picnic which was denied by the committee due to a lack of funds. In October 1971, the Mail Handlers made a request for funds for an all-employee craft picnic, as outlined by the November 1970 committee decision. This re- quest was accepted, and $740 was given to the Mail Handlers to help sponsor its picnic. The Administra- tive Law Judge found that the Vending Committee and the Postal Service were engaged in a joint endeav- or and that the Postal Service by its action through the committee in funding the Mail Handlers picnic had violated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act. We disagree. Assuming, arguendo, that the Postal Service and the Vending Committee were engaged in a joint endeavor, we find that the type of assistance given the Mail Handlers does not constitute a viola- tion of Section 8(a)(2). In the past the Vending Com- mittee directly sponsored all-employee picnics but in November 1970 it decided to hold such events on a more limited craft basis. The Mail Handlers Novem- ber 1971 picnic at issue was one of several similar social events held by various craft unions that year for all employees of their respective crafts, regardless of union affiliation. The only distinguishing feature of the instant picnic is that at the time it was held Alli- 205 NLRB No. 97 608 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ance had a representation petition pending for a unit of mail handlers then represented by the Mail Han- dlers. We cannot agree that because the picnic might have possessed "inherent promotional advantages for the Mail Handlers," much like those enjoyed by any incumbent, Respondent violated the Act by partici- pating in the committee's use of the Mail Handlers as a conduit for sponsoring a mail handlers' picnic. There is no evidence whatsoever that Mail Handlers engaged in any union activity at the picnic or other- wise sought to gain partisan advantage by its sponsor- ship of the picnic. This case is distinguishable from Wyco Metal Prod- ucts, 183 NLRB 901, cited by the Administrative Law Judge. There, the employer engaged in a series of acts which clearly showed its preference for the indepen- dent union, including circulating a petition favoring the independent, conducting employee on-the-clock meetings in support of the independent, and prema- turely extending the contract. Here, no such conduct occurred. The Administrative Law Judge supported his finding by noting that two Alliance requests for funds were refused by the Vending Committee. How- ever, the request for funds to hold a picnic in August 1971 preceded the filing of Alliance's petition and there is no allegation that denial of moneys to support an Alliance-sponsored youth program constituted un- lawful assistance. Finally, unlike the more conven- tional case of this type, there is no evidence that Vending Committee funds were used to defray the operating expenses of the Mail Handlers. See Utrad Corp., 185 NLRB 434; Tuscarora Plastics Corp., 167 NLRB 1059; Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 142 NLRB 1030. Accordingly, as we have found that Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act, we shall dismiss the complaint in its entirety. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis- missed in its entirety. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JAMES M. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Law Judge: This proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended 29 U.S.C., Sec. 151, et seq. (herein called the NLRA), apses from charges filed January 3, 1973, by the National Alliance of Postal and Federal Employees, Local 912 (herein called Alliance), charging the United States Postal Service (herein called Postal Service or Re- spondent) with unfair labor practices within the meaning of the NLRA and the Postal Reorganizational Act, 39 U.S.C., Sec. 101, et seq. (herein called PRA). Based on these charges a complaint by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (herein called the Board) on behalf of the Board was issued by the Regional Director for the Board's Region 14 on September 21, 1972 (and amended on October 6, 1972), alleging that the Postal Service had committed unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the NLRA and within the meaning of the PRA. The Postal Service filed an answer admitting that the charges were filed and served and that the Board has jurisdiciton over the Postal Service by virture of Section 1209 of the PRA, but denying all other allegations and denying that it had committed unfair labor practices. The issues posed are (1) whether the Board hasjurisdiction of the subject matter alleged to be an unfair unfair practice (I find it does); (2) whether this proceeding is barred by Section 10(b) of the NLRA (I find it is not); (3) whether Alliance and Mail Handlers are labor organizations within the meaning of the NLRA (I find they are); (4) whether assistance has been given Mail Handlers (I find it has), and (5) whether the Postal Service bears responsibility for such assistance (I find it does). The matter was tried before me at the St. Louis, Missouri, on November 13 and 14, 1972. Upon the entire record, including my observation of the witnesses and consideration of the briefs filed by the Gener- al Counsel and the Postal Service, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I JURISDICTION The postal facilities operated by the Postal service which are involved in this proceeding are located in the metropoli- tan area of St. Louis, Missouri. The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that the Board has jurisdiction by virture of Section 1209(a) of the PRA. The question whether the Board has jurisdiction of the subject matter and the impact of Section 10(b) of the NLRA are discussed later herein. II THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The complaint alleges that Alliance, the Charging Party, and Local No. 3, National Association of Post Office Mail Handlers, Watchmen, Messengers and Group Leaders, Di- vision of Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO (party in interest and herein called Mail Han- dlers), are both labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the NLRA. The Postal Service denies the allegation, admitting only that Mail Handlers is a labor organization, and Alliance a contemplated labor organiza- tion, within the meaning of Section 1203 of the PRA. The record as a whole indicates that both organizations admit to membership St. Louis postal employees who par- ticipate in the organization, and that both exist for the pur- pose, in whole or in part, of dealing with the Postal Service concerning employee rights. Alliance is an affiliated local of the National Alliance of Postal and Federal Employees UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 609 which has been in existence since 1913 . Mail Handlers is an affiliated local of the National Post Office Mail Handlers, Watchmen, Messenger and Group Leaders, Divisionof La- borers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO. Both of these national organizations are labor organizations within the meaning of the NLRA. See United States Postal Service, et al., 200 NLRB No. 162. Mail Handlers, a craft union represents employees in the mail handlers craft at the St. Louis facility. The membership of Alliance is not limited as to craft. On August 23, 1971, Alliance, pursuant to Section 9(c) of the NLRA and Section 1203 of the PRA filed with the Board a petition (Case 14- RC-6825(P) ), which is still pending , seeking certification as the representative of employees in a unit consisting of all mail handlers at the St . Louis facility, excluding office cleri- cals, professionals, guards and supervisors . Mail Handlers was named therein as the recognized bargaining agent hav- ing a representative interest in that unit. In the circumstances I find that Alliance and Mail Han- dlers are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) and 8(a)(2) and (1) of the NLRA. At the hearing, and again in its brief, Respondent object- ed to inclusion in the record of Charging Party Exhibits 1 and 2. These are a complaint and an amendment thereto issued in another Board proceeding in which Alliance filed the charges. I adhere to my ruling overruling Respondent's objection. Although these pleadings are of minimal value in the present case, they go to show some actions (the filing of Board charges) taken by Alliance and bear upon the con- tested issue of its status as a labor organization under the NLRA. III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Vending Committee 1. Operation of the Committee The present matter involves the St. Louis Postal Employ- ees Service Committee, commonly known as the Vending Committee. It was first established in the St. Louis postal facilities in 1958 foi the purpose of promoting the welfare and recreational activities of all postal employees and with the limitation that none of its profits should inure to the benefit of any single person or group . Its principal income has been the profits from the operation in the postal facili- ties of vending machines which are patronized chiefly by postal employees and in some locations by the public as well. It also receives income from interest on deposits in savings institutions of accumulated profits. Its operations are substantial. Thus on July 1, 1970, it began its fiscal year with a fund balance over $74,000. During the year it re- ceived almost $58,000 ($53,000 of it from vending ma- chines) and disbursed over $83,000. The fiscal year ended with a fund balance of over $48 ,000. The next fiscal year receipts amounted to over $61 ,000 ($56,000 from vending machines), and it disbursed in excess of $77,000. At the end of that fiscal year the fund balance was over $32,000. 2. Composition of the Vending Committee During the period of time involved in the present matter membership on the Vending Committee has consisted of delegates from local craft unions representing postal em- ployees, including mail handlers, letter carriers, clerks, mo- tor vehicle employees, special delivery employees, and maintenance and mechanical employees, and a delegate from the postal supervisors. The postmaster is ex offico chairman of the Committee. In practice he has not been personally active on the Committee but acted instead through his personal representative, Staff Assistant Robert Hammonds. The Vending Committee as it now exists is at least in part the product of voluntary bargaining between Respondent and postal craft unions. In 1968 the Post Office department and again in 1971 the Postal Service (its successor) entered into national collective-bargaining agreements with seven national craft unions, affiliated locals of which represent employees at the St. Louis facility.' Pursuant to the 1968 agreement the local craft unions holding "exclusive recogni- tion" designated their representatives on the Vending Com- mittee. The Postmaster appointed those designees without exercise of discretion . The 1971 agreement did not alter the makeup of the Committee and it continues in the same form to the present time . Alliance has never had representation on the Committee, membership being limited to delegates from the craft unions (including Mail Handlers), the super- visors group, and the Postmaster. In committee deliberations each representative exercises one vote. Neither the Postmaster nor his representative votes except for the purpose of breaking a tie. Regular meetings of the Committee have been held quar- terly, with additional special meetings being called from time to time. All meetings have been on postal premises and participants have been "on the clock" during the meetings. 3. The day-to-day authority of Hammonds Between meetings Hammonds has been the conduit for communications between the Committee and those wishing to deal with it and, within the limits of established commit- tee policy, has acted for the Committee. From the record as a whole it is apparent that he exercises considerable authon- ty, including taking action in some matters without specific consultation with the Committee. All checks are signed by the Committee treasurer and countersigned by the Postmaster or his representative (Hammonds). Location of the vending machines in postal facilities is controlled by the Postmaster. i These national organizations are the National Association of Letter Car- riers, AFL-CIO , the National Association of Post Office and General Serv- ices Maintenance Employees, AFL-CIO , The National Association of Post Office Mail Handlers , Watchmen, Messengers and Group Leaders, AFL- CIO, The National Association of Special Delivery Messengers, AFL-CIO, The National Federation of Federation of Post Office Motor Vehicle Em- ployees, AFL-CIO, the National Rural Letter Carriers Association , and the United Federation of Postal Clerks , AFL-CIO 610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4. Finding regarding the participation of the Postal Service Overall it is fair to say that in the Vending Committee the Postal Service with the craft union and the supervisors are engaged in a point endeavor which generates and disposes of substantial sums of money. It is apparent that the Post- master through his alter ego, Hammonds, has participated in committee deliberations on overall policy matters as well as on specific questions even though he ordinarily has not voted. In addition Hammonds has exercised a special func- tion in carrying out committee decisions and policy, partic- ularly during the interims between meetings. The activities of the Committee thus were carried on, not only with the approval and acquiescences of the Postal Service, but with its substantial participation. No party here disputes that in his committee activities Hammonds was the stand-in for the Postmaster and acted within the limits of his authority. Inasmuch as he and the Postmaster acted for the Postal Service, the Vending Committee activities in which they participated are attributable to the Postal Service. See Inter- national Association of Machinists, Tool and Die Makers Lodge No 35 v. N.L.R.B., 311 U.S. 72, 80; Lake Butler Apparel Company, 158 NLRB 863, 873-874. B. Projects Financially Supported by the Vending Committee A declared policy of the Vending Committee is to expend funds for the benefit of all St. Louis postal employees. In practice funds have been used to support a variety of pro- jects and events. Heavy emphasis has been placed on parti- cipation sports as well as on tickets for spectator sports. Various health related services for employees have been funded, including ambulance service, hospital television rentals, flu innoculations, and a flower fund. The Commit- tee provides a check-cashing service for employees. It also has funded programs for incentive awards, a watch for retir- ing employees, and a safe driving award. It has paid for Christmas decorations in post offices. Financially supported social events have included card playing tournaments, parties for summer aids, a banquet honoring the civil servant of the year, and, until 1969, an annual summer picnic of all postal employees. In 1968 this annual picnic turned into a fiasco. The 1969 picnic was an unfortunate repeat performance. As a result the Vending Committee decided at its November 10, 1970, meeting to abandon support for an across-the-board picnic and in the future to fund more limited affairs to be held for each craft and open to employees in such craft. Funding for each such craft affair was to be in the amount of $1 for each person employed in that craft. Thereafter various unions represented on the Committee made requests for supporting funds for affairs sponsored by them. During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, the Com- mittee disbursed $858 for such functions. In the next fiscal year it spent $1,949. On March 9, 1971, the Committee awarded $344 to the Postal Supervisors for " ... its regular Installation Dinner and Dance." On March 16, 1971, $316 was awarded to the Maintenance Union "for Maintenance Employees Party." On November 19, 1971, $740 was award- ed to the Mail Handlers for an indoor craft picnic. On November 23, 1971, the Letter Carriers requested an allot- ment of $2,106, "to be used at the Craft's discretion for an affair." Minutes of Committee meetings do not reflect that the Committee itself considered any of these requests . The Mail Handlers' request was addressed to Hammonds. As a result he and the committee treasurer issued a committee check for the amount requested payable to the Mail Handlers. The Mail Handlers indoor picnic was held November 29, 1971. While it made clear that it was open to all employees in the craft, whether members of the Mail Handlers Union or not, it is apparent both from announcements of the Mail Handlers Union and of the Postmaster that it was a union- sponsored affair put on with Vending Committee funds for the benefit of employees in the craft. Thus the Mail Han- dlers announced that, "Local # 3 ... has designated the day of November 29, 1971 as the date on which `indoor picnic' will be given for the benefit of the 700 plus members of the mail handler craft group of the St. Louis office." The Union also stated that "Local officials will be on duty at all times. Our purpose is to see that all have a nice time, free of any charges." At the request of the Mail Handlers the Postmaster posted on the bulletin boards over his signature an announcement which in part read: "The Mail Handlers' Union announces and invites all mail handler craft employ- ees to attend the St. Louis office Mail Handlers' Indoor Picnic . . . underwritten by the: St. Louis Postal Employees Service Committee Fund (Vending Committee)." The Postal Service argues that on these facts the Board lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter of the allegedly un- lawful assistance to the Mail Handlers and moves for dis- missal of the entire cause. I deny the motion. While it is true that the Vending Committee's policy decision on November 10, 1970, to fund craft affairs was made long before July 1, 1971, the effective date of Board jurisdiction over the Postal Service, or the commencement of the 10(b) period under the NLRA, that decision merely provides background explana- tory of the actual request for funds and transmittal of them to the Mail Handlers in November 1971. These "operative facts" constitute the cause of action here and they occurred well after the effective date of Board jurisdiction. United Postal Service, 200 NLRB No. 56, cited by Respondent, is clearly distinguishable in this regard. Similarly the events in November 1971 were within the allowable period under Section 10(b) of the NLRA. A finding that they constitute a violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the NLRA would not be " ... inescapably grounded on events predating the limitations period. . . ... See Local Lodge No. 1424 Interna- tional Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO (Bryan Mfg. Co.) v. N.L.R.B., 362 U.S. 411, 422 (1960). Accordingly, this proceeding is not barred by Section 10(b). It is obvious that the indoor picnic possessed inherent promotional advantages for the Mail Handlers at a time when Alliance had pending with the Board a representation petitiorn relating to the same employees who were invited to the picnic.' It is, and was obvious also, that the entire arrangement had the blessing of the Postmaster, as well as the financial support of the Vending Committee in which 2 The picnic was held November 29, 1971 The Alliance petition had been filed the previous August 23 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE Hammonds was an active participant. The Board has long held that in these circumstances such a leg-up by an employ- er to a union is an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the NLRA. Wyco Metal Prod- ucts, 183 NLRB 901; cf. Peyton Packing Co., Inc., 32 NLRB 595, 603. I so find. I deem it immaterial that the record here contains no specific evidence of the appropriateness of the unit for which Alliance seeks certification. No contention is made that the unit is inappropriate. Mail Handlers is cur- rently recognized as the representative of the same employ- ees. Alliance is seeking to represent. In the circumstances I see no unit issue. C. Denial of Funds to Alliance 1. The 1971 Alliance picnic Each summer Alliance holds its annual picnic. Plans for the 1971 picnic were made by its entertainment committee working with Second Vice President Kathryn Holland. In early August she and Will Rogers, a member of the enter- tainment committee, acting for Alliance, verbally requested of Hammonds that financial support for the picnic be given by the Vending Committee. Holland made it clear that the picnic was to be open to all employees . Hammonds told them that Alliance was not eligible to receive assistance because it did not enjoy exclusive recognition from the Post- al Service as an employee representative. He thus rejected the request without submitting it to the Vending Committee, basing his judgment, not on the nature of the affair to be held, but on the status of the promoting organization. Parts of the record suggest a credibility conflict between Hammonds on the one hand, and Holland and Rogers on the other, as to whether any such request in fact was made in August 1971. Examination of Hammonds' entire testimo- ny on the subject, however, reveals that he had no recollec- tion regarding the subject. Holland and Rogers, both of whom were forthright in their demeanor, testified to affir- mative facts and corroborate each other. I credit their ac- count. The record does not reveal precisely when this request was made other than to place it in early August 1971. The representation petition of Alliance was filed on August 23. This obviously was not early August. In the circumstances I infer that the verbal request by Holland and Rogers in August 1971 was made prior to the time that Alliance filed its petition. Accordingly, Hammonds' denial of the request was not at a time during which Alliance had a pending petition. The Alliance picnic was eventually held, but with- out benefit of funding from the Vending Committee. 2. The Alliance youth program In early November 1971, Holland and Rogers again ap- proached Hammonds seeking Vending Committee financ- ing for an Alliance project. On this occasion they requested money for a party to launch a youth program. According to Holland the benefits of the program were not limited to youth connected with members of Alliance. In any case Hammonds told them to put the request in writing. The following week Rogers prepared a request letter describing 611 the purpose of the program. Although he erroneously ad- dressed the letter to Robert Hamilton instead of Robert Hammonds, Hammonds received the letter and in a tele- phone conversation with Rogers 2 or 3 days later acknowl- edged receipt. In this telephone conversation Hammonds also advised Rogers that the youth program could not be funded because it would not include the children of all postal employees. The above finding regarding a written request is based on the creditited testimony of Rogers partially corroborated by the hearsay testimony of Holland. Neither the letter nor a copy thereof was offered in evidence. A subpena seeking it directed to Respondent did not produce the original . Rogers testified that his daughter had typed the letter together with a carbon copy which he could not locate at the time of the hearing. He reported that he had lost a number of papers in a fire. Hammonds, who described his own memory as lax, did not remember any letter or a telephone conversation with Rogers concerning it. In the circumstances, I credit the general account of Rogers that the request was made in writing and verbally denied by Hammonds. In demeanor, Rogers appeared forthright and responsive. His account was partially corroborated by Holland. Although not over- whelming, this was affirmative evidence. By contrast, the testimony of Hammonds was essentially of a negative na- ture in that he lacked a recollection of some events reported by Rogers. He felt he would have remembered the occasion of telephoning Rogers. He felt he would have remembered the occasion of telephoning Rogers. And he testified, con- trary to Rogers' account, that he never called him by his first name. Although Hammonds disagrees with Rogers' account he has no personal recollection of his own. Even allowing for the possibility that Rogers may be mistaken about some details, his testimony is affirmative evidence that a request was put in writing and thereafter denied. Holland testified that Hammonds said to put it in writing and that Rogers did so. She based this on Rogers' statement to her that he did and also that he told her he had gotten a reply. There is no contrary evidence sufficient in weight to overcome the ac- count of Rogers and Holland. 3. Alliance protests support of the Mail Handlers On December 10, Alliance wrote to the chairman of the Vending Committee protesting the funding of the Mail Handlers' November 29 picnic on the ground that it was a closed picnic. As chairman the Postmaster replied on De- cember 15 to the effect that the Mail Handlers' picnic was an open affair and that financial support of it was pursuant to a Vending Committee decision in November 1970 to fund craft affairs at the rate of $1 per employee in the craft, provided a request for funds was made prior to December 31, 1971, and the affair was open to all employees in the craft. This reply was actually drafted by Hammonds and was never submitted to, nor acted upon by, the Vending Committee itself. 4. The 1972 Alliance picnic On July 10, 1972, the president of Alliance made another written request to the Vending Committee for financial sup- 612 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD port of an Alliance picnic for all postal employees to be held on July 30. On July 18, the committee considered and reject- ed the request. By letter of July 20 Hammonds advised Alliance of the rejection stating "The decision of the com- mittee is that funds are not available at this time to under- write this kind of event." At the hearing and in its brief, Respondent objected to this evidence because the events were not referred to in the pleadings. However, they form part of the chain of events and Respondent has had ade- quate opportunity to litigate their significance. I adhere to my ruling admitting the evidence. 5. Discussion regarding the rejection of Alliance requests As noted earlier herein, Vending Committee policy at one time had been to underwrite across-the-board annual pic- nics to which all employees were invited. In 1968 and again in 1969, the Committee expended in the neighborhood of $12,000 for such affairs. For subsequent years, however, it followed a more limited policy with respect to funding of picnics and parties sponsored by employee organizations. Until January 1972 the Vending Committee allowed most requests for funds made by such organizations except in those cases where the requests were outside committee guidelines. From the record as a whole it appears the com- mittee guidelines excluded affairs involving all postal em- ployees; affairs benefiting only some members of a class of employees; requests which were not timely made; and re- quests made at times when Committee funds were low. No exception can really be taken to the policy against financial support of all-employee affairs inasmuch as the decision to retreat from such funding was based upon a justifiable belief that an orderly affair could not be run. The standard that requests must be made prior to Decem- ber 31, 1971, appears specious. It stems from a special Com- mittee meeting on November 10, 1970, when the decision was made to fund picnics on a craft basis. The decision then was to fund craft affairs for which requests were made before the end of 1971. This was simply a declaration of what would be authorized in the foreseeable future and could not reasonably be interpreted as a declaration that no such affair would be funded after 1971. In fact in January 1972 the Committee announced that it was limiting its ex- penditures in order to keep them in line with its receipts, but at the same time it indicated that when receipts improved the committee would return to its earlier standards of spending. Although the November 1971 picnic of the Mail Handlers was open to all members of that craft, and in fact most of the craft affairs funded appear to have been similarly open, such was not true in every case . Thus the Postal Supervisors' organization sought, and obtained partial reimbursement for, the cost of its regular installation dinner and dance on February 20, 1971. It appears, then, that the requirement that an affair be open to nonmembers of the sponsoring organization was not a standard which in every case was insisted upon. It must also be observed that the so-called guidelines, even when followed, necessarily resulted in disparate treat- ment of groups of employees. Thus, once the Vending Com- mittee launched its policy of supporting affairs sponsored by craft organizations the benefits of funding flowed to employees in a craft only if the recognized organization for that employee group requested the funds. Thus inevitably crafts such as the clerks, motor vehicle employees, and spe- cial delivery employees, whose total numbers amounted to 2,000 or 3,000 employees, received none of these benefits because the craft unions representing those groups made no request for financial aid. This disparity was increased rather than diminished when the requests of Alliance, which in- cludes in its membership some clerks, among others, were rejected. The record as a whole indicates that there was yet another de facto standard in effect. Thus, although a great many projects, particularly sports programs, requested by individ- uals were funded, and all requests made by the craft unions and the supervisors' organization were approved, it appears that financial support was not approved if the request were made by the wrong organization. In practice organizational funding was limited to those requesting organizations with representatives on the Vending Committee. In August 1971, this de facto condition was effectively applied to deny sup- port of the Alliance picnic when Hammonds told Holland and Rogers that Alliance was not eligible because it did not enjoy exclusive recognition from the Postal Service. In November, Hammonds, speaking for the Vending Committee, also rejected the Alliance request on behalf of its youth program. The stated ground then, however, was that the proposed program would not benefit the children of all employees. This might have been a nondiscriminatory rejection if universality of benefits was a standard regularly applied. But that obviously was not the case. As noted above, funding of craft affairs resulted in no benefit to members of other crafts in which the craft organization had not requested financial assistance. Also, support had al- ready been given to the Supervisors' installation dinner and dance which could not benefit nonmembers of that organi- zation. Of course Holland and Rogers testified that the youth program was not designed exclusively for children of Alliance members. But even if it had been, considering the disparate effect of the Committee's policy of supporting craft events and its support of the Postal Supervisors' affair, it appears that Hammonds simply seized upon an excuse to reject the Alliance request. As noted earlier, the final request of Alliance for financial support came in July 1972 and was denied on the grounds that funds were not available at that time to underwrite that kind of event. The record supports a finding that the Vend- ing Committee was then in a belt-tightening period, a rea- sonable enough basis for rejecting any request for funds. The emphasis on time suggests the possibility that because the request came subsequent to December 31, 1971, the Vending Committee considered it untimely. However, they did not specifically say so, and as found earlier herein, the suggestion that the Committee did not intend to entertain requests after that date is lacking in substance. The last portion of the July 1972 rejection (that funds were not avail- able" to underwrite this kind of event") is open to the dual inference that (a) the event was disfavored because it had the wrong sponsor or (b) because it was to be an all-employ- ee affair. The latter was certainly a valid ground inasmuch as it was the reason why the Committee in 1970 retreated UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 613 from the idea of an all-employee picnic. Considering that this statement of reasons for rejection fairly encompasses two clearly valid reasons for rejection, I conclude that the evidence is insufficient to establish by a preponderance that identity of the sponsoring organization was the true reason. Of course the failure to give assistance to Alliance has meaning in this case only as part of the context in which assistance was given to the Mail Handlers. The claimed unfair labor practice is unlawful assistance to the Mail Han- dlers. Thus it appears that the Vending Committee on one hand denied assistance to Alliance in August and Novem- ber 1971 and on the other hand supported a picnic spon- sored by the Mail Handlers in November 1971. The specious reasons for rejecting the Alliance requests serve to emphasize the assistance given the Mail Handlers and rein- forces the conclusions reached earlier in this decision that Respondent's participation in the assistance was an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the NLRA. IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Postal Service set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with its operations, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States. Those found to be unfair labor practices tend to lead to labor disputes burden- ing and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The United States Postal Service is subject to the NLRA and the Board'sjurisdiction. It is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2), engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6), of the NLRA. 2. The Mail Handlers and Alliance are each labor organi- zations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the NLRA. 3. The United States Postal Service by participating in Vending Committee financial support of an indoor picnic sponsored by the Mail Handlers in November 1971 inter- fered with the administration of, and contributed financial and other support to, a labor organization, and interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the NLRA, thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the NLRA. 4. These unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the NLRA and are a subject matter within the Board's jurisdiction. The Remedy The Postal Service, having been found to have engaged in unfair labor practices, should cease and desist therefrom. The complaint alleges as an unfair labor practice only the single event of support to the Mail Handler's picnic. The record, however, demonstrates a practice of similar conduct respecting other craft unions not party to this proceeding, and the whole context of the Postal Service's relationship with the Mail Handlers and these other unions reveals an employer policy which operates to their advantage and to the disadvantage of competing organizations like Alliance. In order to avoid an order which might appear to allow unlawful assistance to other labor organizations, it is appro- priate to order Respondent to cease and desist from unlaw- ful assistance to the Mail Handlers or any other labor organization. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the NLRA, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDERS The United States Postal Service, its officers and agents, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Interfering with the administration of, or contributing financial or other support to, Local No. 3, National Associ- ation of Post Office Mail Handlers, Watchmen, Messengers and Group Leaders, Division of the Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. (b) In any like or related manner, unlawfully assisting a labor organization, or interfering with, restraining, or coerc- ing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef- fectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act: (a) Post at its St. Louis, Missouri, installations copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."4 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 14, after being duly signed by a United States Postal Service representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consec- utive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the United States Postal Service to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the United States Postal Service has taken to comply here- with. 3In 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 4In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board 614 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board having found, after a trial, that we violated Federal Law by participating in Vending Committee support of a picnic sponsored by Mail Handlers Local No. 3, we hereby notify you that: The National Labor Relations Act prohibits employers from contributing financial or other support to a labor organization. WE WILL NOT interfere with the administration of, or contribute financial or other support to, Mail Handlers Local No. 3, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner unlawfully assist a labor organization, or interfere with , restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to self- organization, to form, loin, or assist labor organiza- tions, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. 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 concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be direct- ed to the Board's Office, 210 North 12th Boulevard, Room 448, St. Louis, Missouri 63102, Telephone 314-622-4167.