United States Postal Service

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE United States Postal Service and Robert P. Kendrigan and Bernado Anthony Berardi. Cases 1-CA- 9287(P) and 1-CA-9289(P)! June 19, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On February 25, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Benjamin B. Lipton issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, counsel for the General Counsel and Respondent filed exceptions and supporting briefs. 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 1 and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. 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 Respondent, United States Postal Service, Randolph, Massachusetts, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. I In its exceptions to the Board , Respondent urges for the first time that the denial of a temporary promotion to employee Kendrigan, found by the Administrative Law Judge to have been discriminatory and violative of Sec. 8(a)(3) of the Act, should be deferred to the contractual arbitration procedure under the Collyer doctrine (Collyer Insulated Wire, 192 NLRB 837). Respondent's contention lacks merit in view of established precedent that the Board will not consider the Collyer defense for the first time in exceptions. McDonald Engineering Co., 202 NLRB 748; Hunter Saw Division of ASKO, Inc., 202 NLRB 330. Members Fanning and Jenkins would not defer to arbitration in any event , in accordance with their dissent in Collyer. 2 The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge . It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. All dates are in 1973 unless otherwise specified. 2 The separate charges by Kendrigan and Berardi were filed and served, DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE 727 BENJAMIN B. LIPTON, Administrative Law Judge: This proceeding was tried before me on December 10 and 11, 1973,1 in Boston, Massachusetts, upon a complaint by the General Counsel alleging certain violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act .2 Briefs submitted by the General Counsel and Respondent have been duly considered. Upon the entire record in the cases, and from my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION Under the authority of the Postal Reorganization Act, effective July 1, 1971, Respondent is subject to the jurisdiction of the Board. Respondent operates a post office and facility, solely involved herein, at Randolph, Massachusetts. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED National Association of Letter Carriers, Branch 2512, herein called NALC and Branch 2512, and American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO, Randolph Local, herein called APWU and Randolph Local, are each labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Essential Issues 1. Whether Respondent engaged in certain interroga- tions and threats independently violative of Section 8(a)(1). 2. Whether Respondent at the Randolph Post Office violated Section 8(a)(3) by refusing to promote employees Robert P. Kendrigan and Bernado Anthony Berardi to supervisory positions on or about May 3 and June 8, and by denying Kendrigan on or about August 1 an appoint- ment to a temporary detail at a higher rate of pay. B. Introduction and Background Following the effective date of the Postal Reorganization Act in July 1971, the preexisting recognized labor organiza- tion, NALC, was severed into two different unions: NALC continued to represent the letter carriers; and APWU was formed to represent the postal clerks. New national agreements were thereafter executed with NALC and APWU. The record indicates, and it is a matter of official notice, that before and after the postal reorganization there has been a long history of collective-bargaining contracts respectively, on August 22 and 23. The complaint issued on October 22, and was amended at the hearing to allege certain additional related violations. 211 NLRB No. 97 728 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD on behalf of the carriers and clerks . At the Randolph Post Office virtually all of the employees (about 66) have been union members. Both of the Charging Parties have been past presidents of NALC Branch 2512. Berardi held this office for i year in 1969 and 1970, and Kendrigan from January 1971 through August 1972. Kendrigan's term of office encompassed the period immediately after postal reorganization and the new union contract . During this time, new procedures and problems were encountered giving the rise to certain grievances in which Kendrigan was actively involved as a union officer. In August 1972, Kendrigan had to resign as the local president in order to accept appointment for 60 days as a temporary supervisor. Thereafter, Pink rotated Kendrigan and Berardi in temporary assignments to this position. When questioned by Kendrigan, Pink explained that he had only two qualified people in the office and would rotate them. In his performance on this duty, Kendrigan was praised by his immediate supervisor. As further background evidence , Kendrigan testified without contradiction concerning frequent conversations he had with Robert Tripp, then foreman at Randolph for delivery and collections. They were personal friends and visited each other's homes .3 In May 1971, Tripp informed Kendrigan that he had just returned from a management training school and that the new post office direction was away from the union . He advised Kendrigan that, if he was going to be on the bandwagon, he should not be overzealous with union activity. In November 1971, and later in February and March 1972, Tripp told Kendrigan he was filing too many grievances, he was overzealous, and he should slow down as there was too much pressure within the Randolph office. In other discussions with Tripp, Kendrigan was cautioned that he was making too many calls to John M. Mulhern, a national field director for NALC. Tripp resigned in June 1972. As to the May conversation, this testimony can scarcely be regarded as establishing the policy of the Postal Service or of the Randolph facility then or at any time. And particularly since the essential issues herein pertain to the conduct and motives of the Randolph postmaster, John H. Pink, I do not attribute to Pink, as background, the comments of Tripp made in 1971 in the circumstances described. However, certain documentary evidence was offered by General Counsel concerning union-related controversies between Pink and Kendrigan, as the local president, in the early months of 1972.4 In January 1972, Pink informed Kendrigan that he was making Vernon M. Whiteside a regular carrier. Kendrigan stated that, in such event, he would have to file a grievance because of the contract seniority provisions and the crossing of crafts . Whiteside was then a part-time nonregular employee. Kendrigan took up with Mulhern at NALC the Whiteside question and certain other complaints, including a year-round vacation program proposed by Kendrigan and rejected by Pink. Mulhern wrote to W. F. Bolger, metropolitan center manager of the Postal Service, in which he criticized Postmaster Pink in strong language as "inefficient." There were further communications between Mulhern and Bolger extending to May 1972. In result, Pink was overridden by Bolger as to Whiteside and other matters raised by Kendrigan. In August 1972, Kendrigan was summoned by Pink, who explained that he was denied his step raise because of his inability to cope with the union. Pink asked Kendrigan to write a letter on union stationery to Richard E. Samuelson, Pink's immediate superior, attesting that very good labor relations existed at Randolph . kendrigan would not write the letter but offered to talk to Samuelson. C. Evidence on the Issues John M. Quinn, a clerk, and president of APWU Randolph Local, gave uncontroverted testimony of a conversation with Postmaster Pink in March 1973 relating to Berardi. At the time, Berardi was involved with Quinn and the steward in filing or processing several grievances, one of them against NALC. Outside Berardi's presence, Pink remarked to Quinn, "I can't understand this guy. He wants to be part of the management team , but he's filing a lot of grievances. And they don't like . . . this type of individual, this guy filing all these type of grievances." Thereafter, Quinn related the conversation to Berardi. Pink's statement implied that Berardi's active participation in filing "these type of grievances" was viewed adversely by management with respect to Berardi's desire to become a supervisor. Thus it contained a coercive element and would tend to discourage Berardi and employees generally from filing grievances-a protected activity under the Act. Accordingly, I find this statement by Pink violated Section 8(a)(1), as alleged. Most of the issues herein arise from the unsuccessful applications of Kendrigan and Berardi for two supervisory positions in the Randolph office which were filed in the spring of 1973. These appointments are not subject to the contract grievance procedure. Respondent's contentions are not at all clear that Postmaster Pink had no control in the selection process . Under postal regulations , a three- member advisory promotion board is empaneled to interview and examine the records of the qualified candidates, following which the Board recommends to Pink a particular candidate for the promotion . Pink may approve or reject such recommendation . If he approves, he sends the advisory board files to Samuelson , the sectional center manager, with a request for permission to make the appointment. As he testified, Samuelson does not enter into the decision ; if the procedures are correct, he normally grants the postmaster's request. In addition, a written evaluation is made out for each supervisory candidate on behalf of Postmaster Pink by one of his top aides, James G. West, the superintendent of mails. These evaluation forms are included in the files at the disposal of the advisory board, which may place substantial reliance thereon. The members of the advisory board are selected entirely by the postmaster if there are three or more available supervisors at his branch one step above the level of the position to be filled. If there are less than three at his branch, he requests 3 Although at the same time Kendrigan indicated they developed a through 6(e)) which were placed in the rejected exhibit file during the "personality conflict." 4 Upon reconsideration, I admit these exhibits (G.C. Exhs. 5 and 6(a) hearing. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 729 the sectional center manager to supply names for the number of supervisors he needs on the advisory board.5 On April 13, the first advisory board was assembled to review candidates for the position of foreman of mails. West was selected by Pink from the Randolph branch, and the other two members referred by Samuelson were postmasters of the Rockland and Hanover Post Offices. The candidates consisted of all four eligible employees on the examination register : Kendrigan, Berardi, Whiteside, and Phillip C. Welch. On April 9 and 10, West had prepared written evaluations of these candidates .6 After conducting the individual interviews, the advisory board unanimously recommended Whiteside. With Pink's ap- proval, the papers were forwarded to Samuelson. In the interim, Kendrigan protested to Mulhern that the advisory board was improperly constituted, as two of the members were postmasters . In consequence, Samuelson was called by a higher postal official, and Pink was thereafter instructed to revoke the April advisory board. Pink proceeded to appoint Whiteside to the job on a temporary basis.7 Thus, Whiteside obtained an advantage. On May 3, a new advisory board was convened. West was again designated by Pink; and the new members were Charles F. Devine, acting superintendent of mails at Brockton, and Frank J. Harkins, assistant postmaster at Holbrook.8 The same candidates were interviewed. Whiteside was recom- mended and thereafter appointed. Kendrigan filed a promotion appeal (as distinguished from a grievance), which was denied by his immediate supervisor and apparently ended at this level. About May 9, Kendrigan sought out West and sarcastically thanked him for his help with the advisory board. West maintained that he was for Kendrigan, and then declined Kendrigan's request to see the advisory board reports. Cross accusations ensued. About this time, Berardi also approached West on the same subject.9 He asked West how he voted. According to Berardi, West said he voted the way he was instructed by the postmaster. Berardi then asked how he would vote the next time, and West replied he would have to vote the way the postmaster told him. Pink testified that he did not discuss the candidates with any member of any of the advisory boards in question. Whether or not West was so instructed by Pink, I am inclined to believe that Berardi did not make up the conversation of whole cloth,10 and I credit him. To remove any appearance of bias, West requested of Pink that he not be named to the next advisory board. On June 8, the position of foreman of delivery and collections was processed through an advisory board, consisting of Harkins, Clarence P. Thompson, assistant postmaster at Middleboro, and Edward J. Sexton, assistant postmaster at Whitman. The candidates were Kendrigan, Berardi, Welch, and Ronald D. Berkey. Welch was unanimously recommended, and ultimately appointed.11 Each member entered a final rating of the respective candidates in the order of one to four, and the results were tallied at the conclusion of interviews.12 Kendrigan and Berardi wrote to Pink (pursuant to the Postal Manual), each requesting the reason he was not selected and seeking advice on correcting any personal deficiencies. Thereafter, each of them requested to see Pink to explain his written responses. Berardi asked him what he meant by his statement that Berardi did "not demonstrate a cooperative relationship with the management structure of his office consistently." Answering, Pink specifically cited a griev- ance Berardi had put in as alternate steward in May concerning the new foreman, Whiteside. Kendrigan asked Pink why he was not chosen, and was told that he was "too social" and that his "behind the scenes" activity with the union was not in accord with the new post office policy. It is alleged that members of the advisory boards in May and June unlawfully interrogated employees concerning their activities in NALC and APWU. There is no such allegation relating to the April advisory board, and Kendrigan indicated he was not questioned by this board regarding his union affiliations. At the advisory board interview, Devine described his own high offices in NALC, and inquired as to Kendrigan's union background. He also asked what Kendrigan thought of the local negotiations. Harkins asked Kendrigan about the number of grievances he filed as union president, and to give an example of one. Kendrigan simply testified that he responded, but gave no example. On the nature of the grievances, Kendrigan said they concerned annual leave. Thompson questioned whether Kendrigan could divorce himself from the union if given the job. Kendrigan answered that union and management could work together. Kendrigan volunteered remarks, based on his union experience, to demonstrate his capability in dealing with labor relations as a supervisor. Berardi's sole testimony was that, in the May advisory board,-"they asked me about union, if I filed any grievances." The other candidates were not called to testify on this issue. West made no inquiries of the candidates regarding the union or grievances. As noted, his written evaluations were among the advisory board papers. Neither West nor Pink discussed the candidates at any time with members of the advisory boards. And in their functions the members did not consult with each other 5 In the instance of the advisory board utilized by Pink in June, Samuelson sent a list of five names, of whom Pink selected three. 8 As to Berardi, one of the comments was that this employee "has submitted a number of grievances in relation to his job and one on discrimination." There were several favorable remarks. As to Kendrigan, there were comments; e.g., that he was a past union president and very active in all phases of union work; that he was influenced into "being a watchdog for the whole office"; and that his union activities would enable him to do a very good job in relation to communications with the employees. 7 It may be noted, although Pink had the same authority temporarily to fill this job during a period of its vacancy before the April advisory board, he apparently chose not to do so. West had been the local president of NALC in 1962. For a number of years, Devine had held presidencies in local , state, and regional branches of NALC. Harkins had been president of the carriers' local in Holbrook. 9 In addition, Berardi wrote to Pink for an explanation of the advisory board result and received a reply. 10 It was generally denied by West. 11 On the rating forms, Thompson noted his belief that Berardi has fixed feelings toward others on the management team which would hinder his effectiveness as a supervisor; Sexton stated that Berardi does not seem to be able to get along with the postmaster (Pink); Harkins wrote that Berardi's attitude toward the postmaster is questionable. The comments of each of these members regarding Kendrigan were quite favorable. 11 The scores of the candidates from the examination register determined only their eligibility to apply for the particular position and apparently were not considered in evaluating the individual. 730 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD } concerning their respective opinions or their individual ratings of the candidates . I accept the testimony that all the candidates at the various advisory boards were asked similar questions on their union background and activity. I do not find that the members, other than West, were aware of Kendrigan's and Berardi's prior union difficulties with Postmaster Pink . Various criteria derived from the Postal Manual were to be used as guides in the selection process and were outlined on standard forms supplied to each advisory board member. These included leadership ability, ability to work effectively with others, attitude towards Postal Service, and participation in outside activities. Except as already described, the evidence indicates that the union questions at the advisory boards were brief and general in nature . It was common knowledge in the Randolph office that Kendrigan and Berardi were past local union presidents . Special circumstances exist in this case indicating legitimate purposes for certain union interrogations. Interviews of employees for supervisory positions were being conducted; the candidates appeared voluntarily; established postal procedures were employed; and as the context, there existed a long history of collective-bargaining relations . The questions, including those relating to grievances, were free of employer hostility toward union or concerted activity. The questions them- selves were not coercive in nature . Nor were they such as to exceed the necessities of legitimate purpose; e.g., ascertain- ing experience in grievance handling, labor relations, and dealing effectively with employees. Indeed, some of the union information was volunteered by Kendrigan in an effort to enhance his qualifications . Under all these circumstances, I am constrained to hold that the advisory board interrogations were not violative of the Act.13 Within the 10(b) limitation period, as illumined by the earlier background history, there is sufficient evidence from which it may reasonably be inferred, as I do, that Postmaster Pink harbored an animus toward Kendrigan and Berardi, as union officers and otherwise, relating to their zeal in filing complaints and grievances within the Randolph office . The record does not reflect any justifiable basis for a belief that Kendrigan or Berardi engaged in excesses or abuses of the right to present grievances. In my view, there are grounds for suspicion that they were discriminatorily denied the supervisory positions in May and June as a consequence of the influence exerted by Pink. But suspicion is not enough . It is apparent that Pink could successively disapprove the recommendations of the advisory boards until he obtained the result he desired. However, it is affirmatively evidenced, in each instance of the May and June advisory boards, that two of the three members acted entirely independently in voting to recom- mend Whiteside and Welch for the two respective supervisory positions. Therefore, my conclusion is that General Counsel failed to sustain the burden of proof that Kendrigan and Berardi were discriminatorily deprived of these promotions. I would add, however, that there is no basis or warrant for the extreme arguments of Respondent's counsels, at the hearing and in their brief, that Kendrigan and Berardi brought their cases to the Board as "unsuccessful and vengeful supervisory candidates" engaged in "cheap little attempts to destroy the reputation of the Randolph Postmaster," and "casting aspersions on the integrity of the members of the Supervisory Promotion Boards . . . and against the Postal Service." The brief further argues that, in the event these violations are found , public policy would preclude the Board from ordering promotion of the Charging Parties who had failed to qualify successfully under Postal Service regulations. It need only be said, for possible future guidance, that the authority of the Board to find unfair labor practices committed by the Postal Service, as any other Respondent within its jurisdication, is clearly established by statute, and that the Board has broad remedial powers under Section 10(c) of the Act to eliminate the effects of violations, including the issuance of orders that discriminatees be made whole. Discrimination against Kendrigan is further alleged in Pink's failure in August to appoint him to a higher level temporary detail. Barardi regularly held the job as vehicle operations maintenance assistant, called VOMA. He was then on military leave for 3 weeks . Pink posted the position for employee applications, and Kendrigan submitted his bid. Pink assigned the job to John Shephard. Kendrigan filed a grievance, seeking only the difference in pay because the job was temporary. His testimony is that Shephard was the lowest man on the seniority list. At the first step, Kendrigan took the grievance to his immediate supervisor, Welch, and it was denied . At the second level, the grievance was considered between Thomas Doolan, the alternate steward, and Postmaster Pink. While in Pink's office, Doolan requested the presence of Kendrigan to specify the dates he claimed to have previously performed VOMA work. Pink denied this request, stating that Doolan had to do the representing, and further that Kendrigan would only interpret the contract to his own way of thinking. It is not contended that, under the contract grievance procedures, Kendrigan had a right to be present at the second step. I am unable to find support for the 8(a)(l) violation alleged by the General Counsel on the basis of such conduct. In Pink's written response denying the grievance, he stated there is "no official record" to indicate that Kendrigan filled in as foreman of delivery and collections in the summer of 1972.14 At the third step, Kendrigan's grievance was denied by letter on October 1, from a regional postal representative to Mulhern, on the ground that such a temporary detail is not subject to the seniority provisions of the national contract . Kendrigan had in fact performed the VOMA work during the period Kendrigan was acting supervisor in August 1972, supra. Kendrigan has been a letter carrier for 6 years, and has had commendations in his performance as acting supervisor. His competence appears unquestioned in this record. It is significantly implausible and unconceivable to me that Pink, especially after the point was brought to his attention by Doolan, would rest upon a purported lack of "official record" to reflect Kendrigan had actually done the VOMA ie Compare Johnnies' Poultry Co, 146 NLRB 770, 774-775; Bonnie Bourne, d/bla Bourne Co. v N LR.B., 332 F 2d 47, 48 (C A. 2, 1964). And see American Painting Company, 173 NLRB 73, 76 14 Pink added-",t is felt that this gnevance at Step 3 is only for imtation value at the request of the gnevant." I UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE work in 1972. Moreover, while seniority does not apply under the particular provisions of the contract, it is frequently recognized as a generic consideration, at least denoting overall experience with the employer, where other factors are approximately equal in arriving at a manage- ment decision .15 When the job was announced for competitive employee applications, it was impliedly held out that the selection would be made on some objective standards rather than pure discretion. However the situation, the decision could not be made, in whole or substantial part, for discriminatory reasons proscribed by the Act. In my opinion, the evidence sufficiently establish- es in this instance a prima facie case of discrimination against Kendrigan, which was not rebutted. Respondent made no attempt to show any reason for Pink's judgment that Shephard was better qualified or more desirable for the job in the interest of the Postal Service. The true reason for passing over Kendrigan, I find, was the animus relating to his union zeal which Pink harbored against him, as earlier shown. Consequently, in light of the entire record, I conclude that Kendrigan was discriminatorily denied this temporary higher level assignment in violation of Section 8(a)(3). One of the amended allegations involves a conversation on or about October 6 between Kevin Murray, a part-time substitute carrier, and his supervisor, Welch. Murray had spoken to Kendrigan for advice concerning a working rule affecting part-time carriers. Shortly thereafter, the rule was clarified at a higher level in the office. Welch later told Murray he should have come to him first with the problem and it would have been resolved. He said Murray used to be one of his best workers, but his attitude changed. He was listening to the wrong people and getting bad dope, naming Kendrigan. If he wanted to go anywhere in the post office, he should try to change his ways. The contention is essentially that Supervisor Welch sought to restrain Murray from associating with Kendrigan because of the latter's prominence in union activities. The evidence is vague; too much is left by General Counsel for inference as to what Welch meant. Accordingly, this allegation is dismissed. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It has been found that, in violation of Section 8(a)(3), Respondent denied Kendrigan a temporary assignment for about 3 weeks in August 1973 at a higher rate of pay. I shall therefore recommend that the Respondent make Kendrigan whole for any loss of earnings suffered by reasons of the discrimination against him, by payment to him of the difference in pay which he would have earned, absent the discrimination, covering the period that She- 15 Cf. Jack G. Buncher, d/b/a The Buncher Company, 164 NLRB 340, enfd. 405 F.2d 787 (C.A. 3, 1969), cert. denied 396 U.S. 828 (196). 16 Backpay shall carry interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum, as set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. 17 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the 731 phard commenced and concluded this assignment to the temporary VOMA position.16 It is further recommended that Respondent preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary and useful to determine the amounts of backpay due under the terms of this recom- mended Order. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent, United States Postal Service, is subject to the Board's jurisdiction by virtue of the Postal Reorganization Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1209(a). 2. NALC and its Branch 2512, and APWU and its Randolph Local, are each labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discriminatorily denying Kendrigan an assign- ment to the higher level temporary position of VOMA in August 1973, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 4. By the foregoing, and by other acts and conduct interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the above findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record in the cases, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER 17 Respondent, United States Postal Service, Randolph, Massachusetts, its officers , agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Coercing or restraining employees or their representa- tives with respect to their right to file and process grievances or complaints under the provisions of the existing collective-bargaining contracts or in their similar union or concerted activities protected by the Act. (b) Discriminating against Robert T. Kendrigan, or any other employees at the Randolph Post Office, by denying Kendrigan or such other employees assignments or promotions, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 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. 732 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Make Robert T. Kendrigan whole for any loss of earnings in the manner set forth in The Remedy section of the Decision. (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents all payroll and other records, as set forth in The Remedy section of the Decision. (c) Post at its Randolph, Massachusetts, Post Office and facility, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen- dix." 18 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 1, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of Respondent, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main- tained for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations no specifically found herein. provisions of the existing collective-bargaining agreements with the Postal Service, or in their similar union or concerted activities protected by the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL NOT discriminate against Robert P. Kendrigan or any employees in the Randolph Post Office, in denying Robert P. Kendrigan or such other employees assignments or promotions, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL make whole Robert P. Kendrigan for his loss of earnings suffered by reason of our failure to assign him to the temporary detail of VOMA in August 1973, plus 6-percent interest. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE (Employer) 18 In the event 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 read "Posted Pursuant 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 WE WILL NOT coerce or restrain employees or their representatives with respect to their right to file or process grievances or complaints under the Dated By (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 compli- ance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Seventh Floor, Bulfinch Building, 15 New Chardon Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02114, Telephone 617-223-3300.