Laborers' International Union Of North America, Afl-Cio, Local 305 (U S Postal Service)

1216 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD National Post Office Mailhandlers, Watchmen, Mes sengers and Group Leaders, Division of the La- borers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Local 305 (U S Postal Service) and Al-Amin S AsSalaam Case 5-CB-5212 February 16, 1989 DECISION AND ORDER REMANDING BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND CRACRAFT On October 14, 1986, Administrative Law Judge Arline Pacht issued the attached decision The Re- spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three member panel The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, i and conclusions,2 but not to adopt the recommended Order 3 AMENDED REMEDY The Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, and we shall order it to cease and desist and to take affirmative action designed to effectu- ate the purposes of the Act AsSalaam presented documents to support his claims and an earlier case involving similar issues resulted in an arbitration award in favor of another employee Accordingly, we find that the General Counsel has established that AsSalaam's grievances clearly were not frivo bus The burden of proof now shifts to the Respond- ent to establish that AsSalaam s grievances were not meritorious The Respondent may attempt to prove that AsSalaam s grievances lack merit at either the unfair labor practice hearing or at the compliance stage See Rubber Workers Local 250 (Mack-Wayne Closures), 290 NLRB 816 (1988) (Mack- Wayne II) 4 We will remand this case to the i The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge s credibility find ings The Board s established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products 91 NLRB 544 (1950) enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings 2 Chairman Stephens and Member Johansen disavow reliance on the judge s discussion and characterization of the merits of AsSalaam s griev ances The amended remedy provides that on remand the merits of the grievances may be fully litigated 3 The Respondent excepts to the judge s inclusion of a visitatorial clause in the recommended Order We have concluded that under the circumstances of this case such a clause is not warranted and should not be included in any supplemental order the judge recommends See Chero kee Marine Terminal 287 NLRB 1080 (1988) 4 Member Cracraft agrees with her colleagues that the Respondent vio lated the Act as alleged However Member Cracraft in accordance with judge so that the Respondent may elect to litigate the merits of AsSalaam's grievance now or at the compliance stage Should the Respondent elect to litigate the merits issue now, the judge shall con- vene a hearing for the purpose of taking evidence and, on conclusion of the hearing, the judge shall prepare and serve on the parties a supplemental de- cision Should the Respondent elect to litigate the merits issue at the compliance stage, then the judge shall recommend that the Respondent be ordered to comply with provisional make-whole and other remedies similar to those set out in Rubber Workers Local 250 (Mack Wayne Closures), 279 NLRB 1074 (1986) (Mack Wayne I) ORDER It is ordered that the record in this proceeding is reopened and remanded to Administrative Law Judge Arline Pacht for the purpose of allowing the Union to elect whether to present evidence on the merits of the grievances at a hearing or at a subse- quent compliance stage If the Union elects to present evidence on the merits of the grievances at the compliance stage, then the judge shall recommend an appropriate order that shall contain provisional make whole and other remedies, including a cease and-desist order See Rubber Workers Local 250 (Mack- Wayne Closures), 279 NLRB 1074 (1986) If the Union elects to present evidence on the merits of the grievances at this time, Judge Pacht shall convene a further hearing for the purpose of taking evidence in accordance with this decision, and on the hearing's conclusion, Judge Pacht shall prepare and serve on the parties a supplemental de cision containing findings of fact, conclusions of law, recommendations and an appropriate order Following service of the supplemental decision on the parties, the provisions of Section 102 46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations shall govern her partial dissent in Mack Wayne II would place the burden of proof on the General Counsel to establish that AsSalaam s grievances were merito rious before the Board may assess backpay liability against the Union The record reveals that the issue of whether the grievances were merito sous was not fully litigated at the hearing Therefore Member Cracraft does not believe that the General Counsel has met her burden notwith standing the judge s comments regarding the merits of AsSalaam s grtev ances However as Member Cracraft s dissent would change the burden of proof in these cases and as the General Counsel would not have been on notice of this change Member Cracraft would remand the case to the judge to allow the parties to present evidence on the issue of whether the grievances were meritorious with the burden on the General Counsel to establish that they were Paula S Schaeffer Esq for the General Counsel Jack W Burtch Jr Esq, of Richmond Virginia for the Respondent 292 NLRB No 131 MAIL HANDLERS LOCAL 305 (POSTAL SERVICE) 1217 DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ARLINE PACHT, Administrative Law Judge The trial in the above captioned case was held on 28 July 1986 in Baltimore, Maryland based on an unfair labor practice charge filed on 20 December 1985 by the Charging Party On 19 May 1986 a complaint and notice of hear ing issued alleging that the National Post Office Mail handlers, Watchmen, Messengers and Group Leaders Di vision of the Laborers International Union of North America Local 305 (Respondent or Local 305) violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act as (the Act) by refusing to accept and threatening not to properly process the Charging Party s grievances be cause of his nonmembership in the Union Respondent filed a timely answer denying the commission of the al leged unfair labor practices On the entire record from my observation of the de meanor of the witnesses, and having considered the par ties posthearing briefs I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I JURISDICTION The United States Postal Service (the Employer) pro vides postal services for the United States and operates various offices in the performance of that function in cluding the facility involved in this proceeding located at 900 East Fayette Street Baltimore Maryland The Board has jurisdiction over the Employer by virtue of Section 1209 of the Postal Reorganization Act Respondent, Local 305 an affiliate of the International Union at all times material has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act Introduction The Employer and the Respondent have been parties to a series of collective bargaining agreements, the latest of which expires on 20 July 1987 The agreement con tams inter alia a four step grievance procedure culmi nating in final and binding arbitration 1 Al Amin AsSalaam has been employed by the Postal Service since November 1984 Although in the unit of employees represented by Local 305 he is not a union member Throughout 1985 Al Amin AsSalaam unfortunately suffered a series of injuries both on and off the job caus ing his physicians periodically to recommend limited or light duty for him 2 The Employer s refusal to grant him light duty on two occasions led him to seek the shop stewards assistance in filing grievances However no grievances were submitted on his behalf Thereafter, pur suant to AsSalaam s charge the instant complaint issued alleging in pertinent part that on or about November 25 1985 Respondent acting through Lewis Dade Jr threatened not to properly process the Charging Party s grievances concerning the Employers decision to require him to return to his regular job duties because of the Charging Party s nonmembership in Respondent and since that date Respondent has refused to accept griev ances concerning the Employers decision By the above described acts, the complaint further alleges that Respondent has failed to represent the Charging Party for reasons which are unfair, arbitrary, invidious and a breach of the fiduciary duty owed the employees whom it represents, and has restrained and coerced employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights II THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES On 4 January 19853 AsSalaam was injured on the job which required that he be assigned to limited duty Except for absences due to two automobile accidents, his injuries compelled him to remain on limited or light duty through October 28 On that date, AsSalaam submitted a form to a nurse in the Employers medical unit from his personal physician recommending that he be continued on limited duty Contrary to this advice the nurse certi fled him fit for regular duty relying on a report prepared on 9 October by a Postal Service physician Immediately after reporting for work on 29 October, AsSalaam requested his supervisors consent to consult with the shop steward, Lewis Dade so that he might file a grievance over being returned to regular duty There after AsSalaam was shuffled from one supervisor to an other but the day ended without his being granted offs cial leave to meet with Dade Nevertheless, AsSalaam testified that he sought out Dade on his own initiative at the facility and told him he wished to file a grievance over his assignment to regular duty However, Dade declined to confer with him until he was officially released by his supervisor Later the same day, AsSalaam again located Dade and asked to speak with him Once again Dade refused because he then was on his break and still had not received supervi sorial consent Although performing his regular job duties on 29 Oc tober, AsSalaam was reinjured Over the next several weeks he was examined by several physicians By 22 No vember one of his treating doctors determined that he could return to work but only for limited duty When AsSalaam submitted this doctor s recommenda tion to the medical unit nurse, she reacted exactly as she had on the previous occasion that is relying on the same 9 October in house medical evaluation she insisted that AsSalaam return to regular duty AsSalaam protest ed this decision to the director of injury compensation William Brown who advised him that because no limit ed assignments were available he had two choices either resume his regular job or go home and await a hearing 4 AsSalaam chose the latter alternative Howev 1 See Jt Exh I at 65 et seq 2 Under the collective bargaining agreement limited duty refers to work assigned for an employee who sustained an injury on the job while light duty applies where the injury incurred on nonworking time 3 All dates refer to 1985 unless otherwise noted 4 The collective bargaining agreement provides for a hearing to resolve any disagreement that may apse between an employees physician and a physician designated by the USPS concerning the employees medical condition See Jt Exh I at 54-55 1218 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD er no hearing was ever held to resolve the divergent medical opinions about his fitness to work On 25 November, AsSalaam called Dade at home and requested that they meet to consider his grievances As agreed Dade visited AsSalaam at his home that evening AsSalaam testified that he specifically requested that Dade grieve the following four matters (1) the Postal Service refusal to allow him to see a steward on 29 Oc tober (2) the Postal Service returning him to regular duty that day against his doctor s advice, (3) a supervi sor s placing him on AWOL status when he left work on 29 October after being reinjured and (4) William Brown s sending him home on 22 November because no regular work was available Dade told AsSalaam that the fourth matter would have to be submitted to the Equal Employment Opportu nity (EEO)5 office because it affected a management of ficial who was beyond the stewards jurisdiction Con cerning the first three complaints Dade advised AsSa laam that he could handle them at the step 1 level 6 Dade then told AsSalaam that if the grievance went to step 2 or 3, the Union s regional personnel would deter mine whether the grievant was a member If not they would put his grievance on the bottom of the stack and might refuse to authorize funds for legal representation or a third party medical opinion Dade further confided that an alternate union steward had remarked that AsSa laam already had used too much union time When As Salaam finally asked Dade whether he would file his grievances Dade replied that he could not do so until AsSalaam returned to work because he needed all the parties present to discuss the matter However, Dade told him he would speak to union people in Richmond Virginia (the site of Local 305 s regional office) about his case Thereafter no grievances were filed in AsSalaam s behalf In fact the Charging Party testified that he did not hear from Dade again until he received a message on his telephone answering machine on 27 December, 1 week after he filed the unfair labor practice charge giving rise to this proceeding When AsSalaam returned the call in early January Dade apologized for not con tacting him sooner but did not mention his grievances Dade, who served as Respondents shop steward since 1968 gave a vastly different account of his contacts with the Charging Party At the outset he recalled no meet ings with AsSalaam on 29 October Instead he claimed that after receiving authorization from his supervisor he met with AsSalaam in the Postal Service cafeteria in early November During this meeting he designated the documents he needed to support the grievance and As Salaam purportedly agreed to obtain them for him Dade testified that generally after an employee submits a grievance he will investigate the matter and search the record for any materials that have been identified and might be needed as proof' He also explained that he makes no judgments about the legitimacy or the com plaints, but files all grievances submitted to him Not withstanding his customary practice Dade did not inves tigate AsSalaam s grievances nor arrange a meeting with the supervisor involved allegedly because the Charging Party had filed many worthless complaints in the past Yet Dade could neither recall nor document any prior grievance that had not been resolved in AsSalaam s favor Indeed the record shows that AsSalaam was sub stantially vindicated in two grievances filed in March and May Dade does not dispute the fact that he met with AsSa laam in late November nor does he deny that the Charg mg Party explained the factual circumstances underlying his grievances and identified certain documents that sup ported his account Although conceding that he regard ed AsSalaam s telephone call as urgent and drove 5 miles to see him that same evening bringing with him his stewards briefcase containing other employees griev ance files, Dade insisted that their meeting did not and could not initiate the grievance procedure Rather Dade maintained (incorrectly) that the contract specified that the grievance procedure could only be triggered when the grievant was at work on the clock 8 Dade further testified that AsSalaam again promised to obtain a number of documents for him However the steward denied telling AsSalaam that the Union would not prop erly represent him because of his nonunion membership In fact he denied knowing whether AsSalaam or anyone else in the unit he has represented since 1968 belonged to Local 305 Dade further claimed that after their 25 No vember he attempted to telephone AsSalaam on numer ous occasions but only reached his telephone answering service On 15 January 1986 AsSalaam received a letter dated 8 January from Respondents president requesting that within 1 week he supply detailed information to docu ment his grievances AsSalaam phoned the regional office to explain that he could not deliver the material within the prescribed time limit On 27 January he re sponded with as much information and material as he could assemble by that date However he heard nothing more from the Union AsSalaam returned to regular duty on 24 February 1986 5 The record indicates that Dade was referring to an Equal Opportum ty Office within the Postal Service facility 8 Step 1 of the collective bargaining agreement provides (a) Any em ployee who feels aggrieved must discuss the grievance with the employ ce s immediate supervisor within fourteen ( 14) days of the date on which the employee or the Union first learned or may reasonably have been ex pected to have learned of its cause The employee if he or she so desires may be accompanied and represented by the employees steward or a Union representative The Union also may initiate a grievance at Step 1 within 14 days of the date the Union first became aware of (or reason ably should have become aware of) the facts giving rise to the grievance In such case the participation of an individual grievant is not required ' The collective bargaining agreement provides that the steward shall have access to review the documents files and other records necessary for processing a grievance or determining if a grievance exists (Jt Exh 1at80) 8 Dade referred to language in sec 17 4 of the collective bargaining agreement (Jt Exh I at 81 ) as authority for his position However the cited provision deals with the Employers obligation to pay the aggrieved and the steward for time actively spent in grievance handling Contrary to Dade s construction the provision does not require that that grievant and steward must be at work to initiate or process a grievance MAIL HANDLERS LOCAL 305 (POSTAL SERVICE) 1219 III DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING FINDINGS In its status as an exclusive bargaining representative, a union is obliged to serve the interests of all employees in the unit Vaca v Sipes, 386 US 171 (1967) A union breaches this duty when its conduct towards a member of the bargaining unit is arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith Id at 190 While a union is afforded broad dis cretion in deciding which grievances to pursue and how to handle them, it may not ignore meritorious grievances or process them in an arbitrary or perfunctory fashion However, mere negligence is insufficient to establish a breach of the duty of fair representation Service Employ ees Local 3036 (Linden Maintenance), 280 NLRB 995, 996 (1986) The question here is whether the Respondents failure to take action in AsSalaam s case was a reasonable exer cise of its discretion or so arbitrary and unfair as to con stitute a breach of its fiduciary obligation In resolving this question, I relied heavily on AsSa laam s version of events I found him to be a trustworthy witness whose recall was clear and consistent In con trast Dade s recollection was vague his testimony was studded with transparent contradictions and he miscon strued contract terms in ways designed to justify his own inaction Given these observations, I am convinced that AsSa laam met only briefly with Dade on 29 October at which time the union steward declined to consider the Charg ing Party s grievances because their meeting was not of ficially sanctioned The men could not have met in early November as Dade testified, for the Charging Party was absent from work then, returning only briefly for 1 day in mid November Thus, the first full fledged discussion of AsSalaam s grievances did not occur until the meeting on 25 November Dade offered two reasons for his refus al to pursue AsSalaam s grievances after that date first he claimed that AsSalaam failed to provide requested pa perwork needed to support his complaints, and second that he did not properly initiate the grievance procedure while at work, on the clock' Regarding the first claim, I cannot credit Dade s asser tion that he asked AsSalaam for documentation Throughout this trial, AsSalaam demonstrated that he was a responsible employee who punctiliously supplied required forms in conformance with Postal Service rules When the Union s president wrote requesting evidence, AsSalaam answered promptly appending as much mate rial as he could muster in short order Therefore, it would be totally out of character for him to ignore Dade s request for documentation if one had been made 9 Further, Dade asserted that it was his practice to in vestigate grievances Indeed, the contract grants the steward (but not the employee grievant) access to the documents, files and other records necessary for process ing a grievance or determining if a grievance exists Thus Dade knew he could obtain all the requisite infor B For the same reason I also credit AsSalaam s testimony that he re ceived only one telephone message from Dade on 27 December If Dade left messages prior to that date AsSalaam surely would have returned his calls matron as easily if not more easily than could the Charg ing Party In an effort to explain why he thrust this investigatory duty on AsSalaam, contrary to his customary procedure, Dade asserted that AsSalaam had presented worthless claims in the past and had failed to identify the support ing materials with sufficient precision As discussed in the fact statement above, both of these explanations are refuted by sound testimonial and documentary evidence To support his second claim that a grievance may be initiated only when an employee is on the job Dade cited section 17 4 of the labor contract However, the referenced clause merely provides that the aggrieved and the union steward will be compensated for time actually spent in grievance handling This language cannot be construed to mean that only those grievances that are initiated during working hours will be honored More over, the labor agreement expressly states that the par ticipation of an individual grievant is not required' at the first step of the grievance procedure This language com pletely negates Dade's assertion that AsSalaam had to be at work while the grievance was processed through the first level Dade s attempt to distort the terms of the con tract cannot be attributed to incomprehension or inepti tude for he served as union steward for 18 years and at tended annual steward training sessions in all but 2 of those years Given his experience and training surely Dade knew how properly to construe contract provi sions applicable to the performance of his union duties If Dade did not believe his 25 November meeting trig gered the grievance procedure, one may ask rhetorically why he agreed to travel to the Charging Party s home in the evening and with other grievance files in hand spend 45 minutes listening to AsSalaam s account of his grievances Clearly Dade an experienced steward who carefully maintained files for each grievant, did not simply forget or inadvertently ignore AsSalaam s com plaints Even assuming that Dade believed that AsSa laam s presence at the step 1 meeting was necessary to lend credibility and specificity to his grievances at least he could have scheduled a meeting in AsSalaam s ab sence Dade s failure to take even this preliminary step is indicative of his arbitrary neglect of the Charging Party s grievances It is impossible to state with certitude that AsSalaam would have prevailed had his grievances been properly processed but it is not necessary to decide that question here However, the apparent validity of AsSalaam s claims does play a role in considering whether Dade s in action falls within the exercise of broad discretion grant ed to a steward Even if Dade mistakably believed that AsSalaam had presented frivolous grievances in the past, he had no reason to doubt the validity of his current complaints AsSalaam s presentation of the facts was straightforward and unambiguous, the documents needed to substantiate his claims were clearly identified and available to the steward for the asking In these circum stances, Dade's failure to represent AsSalaam with the same diligence he ostensibly accorded to other grievants cannot be explained as a reasonable exercise of discre tion Moreover, the Respondent did not and could not 1220 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD suggest that the Charging Party s grievances lacked merit for in February 1986 an arbitration decision issued granting an award to another Postal Service employee in a case raising issues similar to those in AsSalaam s matter Plainly the Charging Party had a better than even chance of prevailing on the merits Having ruled out negligence, ineptitude and discre tion only one plausible explanation remains for Dade s mishandling of AsSalaam s complaints It will be recalled that Dade warned AsSalaam that his grievances would go to the bottom of the stack and that the Union might fail to provide counsel or a third party medical opinion if his grievances went beyond step 1 10 Also Dade had told the Charging Party that he had consumed too much union time From these comments and in the absence of any other reasonable explanation, it is fair to infer that Dade chose to ignore AsSalaam s grievances in the belief that a nonunion member did not warrant further union attention Dade s failure to represent AsSalaam for this reason is considered so arbitrary under Board case law as to constitute a breach of Respondents fiduciary duty to fairly represent all members of the bargaining unit See Service Employees Local 579 229 NLRB 692, 696 (1977) The Respondent points out that the 14 day contractual period for filing grievances about AsSalaam s treatment on 29 October had expired by 25 November Since the complaint alleges that the Union s misconduct occurred on 25 November Respondent asserts that it is being ac cused of disregarding grievances which no longer had legal significance In other words Respondent contends that it should not be faulted for failing to act when as a legal matter no action could be taken Respondents contention is not persuasive Section 15 2 of the collective bargaining agreement states, inter alia that the Union also may initiate a grievance at Step I within 14 days of the date the Union first became aware of (or reasonably should have become aware of) the facts giving rise to the grievance (Emphasis added) The record shows that the union steward first became aware of the facts giving rise to [AsSalaam s] grievance on 25 November Thereafter Dade had 14 more days to grieve the Postal Services treatment of AsSalaam even though the events occurred on 29 October If Respondent was concerned with protecting the Charging Party s interests it could have argued (at least through 10 December) that his grievances were not time barred Respondent also contends that AsSalaam had the option of filing the grievances himself However the Charging Party credibly testified that he was unaware he had this right Given his prior experience as a communi ty organizer and the industry he has shown in proceed ing with the instant case, I have no doubt that AsSalaam would have handled his own grievance if he had known he could do so 1s Respondent suggests that Dade s reference to a grievance being placed at the bottom of the stack was simply an honest recognition that matters are handled in turn as they are received Even if Dade s remark in this one respect can be construed innocently his other com ments about withholding legal representation or a third party medical opinion plainly implies discriminatory treatment because of AsSalaam s nonmember status Respondent also argues that the union presidents sub Sequent effort to obtain information from AsSalaam rem edied arguable deficiencies in Dade s performance Had the Charging Party cooperated with the Local 305 repre sentatives Respondent submits that a favorable outcome might have been achieved Respondents reliance on Rural Letter Carriers (Postal Service) 271 NLRB 1034 (1984), to support its argument is misplaced In the cited case union officials repeatedly appealed to various postal authorities to reinstate the grievant Here the union offi cial sent just one letter to the Charging Party requesting information that the steward could and should have readily obtained AsSalaam may have omitted some de tails in his reply but he supplied enough information to allow the Union to go forward if that had been its real intent Instead, the Respondent attributed its subsequent inaction to a few lapses in AsSalaam s response The Union s 8 January letter written some weeks after AsSa laam filed his unfair labor practice charge, appears to be little more than a belated and inadequate effort to divert attention from its prior default In conclusion by failing to process AsSalaam s griev ances on 25 November and thereafter because he was not a union member, Respondent breached its duty of fair representation In addition, through Dade s comments, AsSalaam was led to believe that his nonmembership in the Union would result in the Respondents withholding representational services By such remarks Respondent restrained and coerced the Charging Party in the exer cise of his Section 7 right to join or refrain from joining a labor organization thereby violating Section 8(b)(1)(A) See Highway & Motor Freight Employees Local 667 (Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp) 228 NLRB 398 405 (1977) THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent violated the Act I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action nec essary to effectuate the policies of the Act Specifically I shall recommend that the union attempt to initiate the grievance procedure in AsSalaam s behalf in good faith and due diligence with respect to the mat ters that the Charging Party reviewed with the shop steward Lewis Dade on 25 November I also shall rec ommend that the Charging Party be permitted to be rep resented by counsel of his choosing at the remaining stages of the grievance and arbitration procedure and that the Union pay counsels reasonable legal fees In the event the grievances are not processed because they are untimely or for any other procedural or substantive reason, precedent requires that the Respondent shall be responsible for making the Charging Party whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as a result of its failure to process his grievance See Service Employees Local 3036 (Linden Maintenance), 280 NLRB 995, 996- 997 (1986) Rubber Workers Local 250 (Mack Wayne Clo surer) 279 NLRB 1074 (1986) Backpay shall be comput ed in the manner prescribed in F W Woolworth Co, 90 NLRB 289 (1950) plus interest as set forth in Isis Plumb ing & Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962) enf denied 322 F 2d MAIL HANDLERS LOCAL 305 (POSTAL SERVICE) 913 (9th Cir 1963), and Florida Steel Corp , 231 NLRB 651 (1977) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 The Board has jurisdiction over the United States Postal Service pursuant to the Postal Reorganization Act section 1209 2 Respondent is a labor organization within the mean ing of Section 2(5) of the Act 3 By refusing to process AsSalaam s grievances, Re spondent breached its duty of fair representation in viola tion of Section 8(b)((l)(A) of the Act 1221 4 By stating that his grievance would not be properly processed because he did not belong to the Union Re spondent through its agent, Dade, restrained and coerced AsSalaam in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act thereby violating Section 8(b)(1)(A) 5 The aforesaid unfair labor practices, occurring in connection with the operations of the Postal Service have a substantial relationship to interstate commerce and thus affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act [Recommended Order omitted from publication)