United States Postal Service

372 NLRB No. 110 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex- ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. 20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can be included in the bound volumes. United States Postal Service and American Postal Workers Union, Alamo Area Local 0195. Cases 16–CA–279233 and 16–CA–287594 July 31, 2023 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCFERRAN AND MEMBERS WILCOX AND PROUTY On September 29, 2022, Administrative Law Judge Donna N. Dawson issued the attached decision. The Re- spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel and Charging Party filed answering briefs. 1 The Respondent has requested oral argument. The request is denied as the record, exceptions, and briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties. 2 We agree with the judge, for the reasons she states, that the Re- spondent violated Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing and refusing to provide the Union with information it requested about suspected “crossing crafts” violations within the San Antonio, Texas Postal Installation (SAPI), comprising 24 local postal stations in the San Antonio area, on several dates in 2021. In its exceptions, the Respondent does not dispute the judge’s finding that the requested information was relevant and necessary to the Union’s representational duties. Nor does it assert, as a defense, that the re- quested information was confidential, overbroad, or unduly burdensome. Instead, the Respondent’s primary contention is that, based on its inter- pretation of the collective-bargaining agreement, the Union improperly submitted the crossing crafts information requests to the Respondent’s district office instead of the relevant 24 local offices and, as a result, the Respondent had no obligation to provide the information requested by the Union. In adopting the judge’s finding of a violation, we first clarify that an employer’s obligation to provide relevant requested information is stat- utory. See NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432, 435 (1967). In addition, we note that Board law is clear that where a request for relevant information adequately informs the employer of the data needed, the em- ployer either must supply such information or adequately set forth the reasons why it is unable to comply. See, e.g., The Kroger Co., 226 NLRB 512, 513-514 (1976). The record here establishes that the Re- spondent knew what information the Union was seeking, and the Re- spondent does not contend otherwise. But instead of providing that in- formation to the Union, the Respondent merely directed the Union to submit its information requests to the local SAPI offices. As the cases cited by the judge establish, however, the Board has long held that, ab- sent some legitimate reason for not being able to comply with a union’s request for relevant information, an employer cannot avoid its statutory obligation to provide such information by suggesting that it is obtainable from some other source or third party. See also Illinois American Water Co., 296 NLRB 715, 724 (1989), enfd. 933 F.2d 1368 (7th Cir. 1991); and American Beef Packers, 193 NLRB 1117, 1120 (1971). The The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the decision and the stipu- lated record in light of the exceptions and briefs1 and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings, and con- clusions2 and to adopt the recommended Order as modi- fied3 and set forth in full below. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Re- spondent, United States Postal Service, San Antonio, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with the American Postal Workers Union, Alamo Area Local 0195, by failing and refusing to furnish it with requested information that is relevant and necessary to the Union’s performance of its functions as the collective-bargaining representative of the Respondent’s unit employees. Respondent asserts that the Union was on a “fishing expedition,” and vaguely suggests that the local offices could better respond to the Un- ion’s crossing crafts information requests, and that the district office manager to whom the Union had been submitting its information re- quests had been transferred to a different position. Even generously con- struing these as claims that the Union’s information requests were over- broad or burdensome, we would find such defenses without merit. The Respondent did not clearly articulate these concerns to the Union; nor did it timely offer to bargain with the Union to reach a mutually accepta- ble accommodation. See, e.g., United Parcel Service, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 70, slip op. at 3 (2023); and Mission Foods, 345 NLRB 788, 789 (2005). In these circumstances, we find, like the judge, that the Respond- ent has failed to establish a legitimate defense for its failure to provide the relevant requested information, and thus find that the Respondent vi- olated Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing to provide the information to the Union. We note that Redway Carriers, 274 NLRB 1359, 1398 (1985), cited by the Respondent, does not require a different result. There, the judge’s basis for dismissing the allegation was related to his finding that the un- ion “dropped the matter” of its information request once the manager to whom the request had been submitted stated that he was not permitted to respond to the request. Here, the Union continued to pursue crossing crafts information requests during the relevant timeframe. In addition, we note that the Respondent makes no assertion that the Union waived its right to the requested information in the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement. More broadly, we find its citation to the contract coverage principles in MV Transportation, Inc., 368 NLRB No. 66 (2019), and its invocation of a “sound arguable basis” defense under Bath Iron Works Corp., 345 NLRB 499 (2005), to be misplaced. See United Parcel Ser- vice, Inc., supra, 372 NLRB No. 70, slip op. at 2 fn.6. Finally, contrary to the Respondent’s suggestion, the judge did not err in considering the parties’ jointly stipulated facts concerning their past handling of crossing crafts information requests. 3 We shall modify the judge’s recommended Order to conform to the Board’s standard remedial language and in accordance with our decision in Paragon Systems, Inc., 371 NLRB No. 104, slip op. at 3-4 (2022). We shall substitute a new notice to conform to the Order as modified. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2 (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Furnish to the Union in a timely manner the infor- mation requested by the Union on the following dates in 2021: May 10 and 19; June 16, 21, 28; July 6, 12, 19, 26; August 9, 16, 17, 30; September 15, 21, 27; October 5, 18, 27; November 1, 9, 18, 22, 29; and December 7, 13. (b) Post at all the stations and branches in the Respond- ent’s San Antonio, Texas District where the Union repre- sents employees, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.” Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 16, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecu- tive days in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, notices shall be dis- tributed electronically, such as by email, posting on an in- tranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with its em- ployees by such means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not al- tered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall dupli- cate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since May 10, 2021.4 (c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director for Region 16 a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to com- ply. Dated, Washington, D.C. July 31, 2023 ______________________________________ Lauren McFerran, Chairman 4 If the facilities involved in these proceedings are open and staffed by a substantial complement of employees, the notice must be posted within 14 days after service by the Region. If the facilities involved in these proceedings are closed or not staffed by a substantial complement of employees due to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pan- demic, the notice must be posted within 14 days after the facilities reopen and a substantial complement of employees have returned to work. If, while closed or not staffed by a substantial complement of employees due to the pandemic, the Respondent is communicating with its employ- ees by electronic means, the notice must also be posted by such electronic ________________________________________ Gwynne A. Wilcox, Member ________________________________________ David M. Prouty, Member (SEAL) 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 has found that we vi- olated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this notice. FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO Form, join, or assist a union Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf Act together with other employees for your bene- fit and protection Choose not to engage in any of these protected ac- tivities. WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with American Postal Workers Union, Alamo Area Local 0195 (the Union) by failing and refusing to furnish it with requested information that is relevant and neces- sary to the Union’s performance of its functions as the collective-bargaining representative of our unit employ- ees. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce you in the exercise of the rights listed above. WE WILL furnish to the Union in a timely manner the information requested by the Union on the following dates in 2021: May 10 and 19; June 16, 21, 28; July 6, 12, 19, 26; August 9, 16, 17, 30; September 15, 21, 27; means within 14 days after service by the Region. If the notice to be physically posted was posted electronically more than 60 days before physical posting of the notice, the notice shall state at the bottom that “This notice is the same notice previously [sent or posted] electronically on [date].” If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg- ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.” UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 3 October 5, 18, 27; November 1, 9, 18, 22, 29; December 7, and 13. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE The Board’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/16-CA-279233 or by using the QR code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940. Megan E. Lemus. Esq., for the General Counsel. Matt Holder, Esq., for the Charging Party. Dallas G. Kingsbury, Esq., for the Respondent. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE DONNA N. DAWSON, Administrative Law Judge. The Charg- ing Party, The American Postal Workers Union, Alamo Area Lo- cal 0195 (Local 195, the Union), filed the charge in Case 16– CA–279233 on June 30, 2021, and the Charge in Case 16–CA– 287594 on December 10, 2021.1 The General Counsel issued the consolidated complaint and notice of hearing on April 12, 2022, alleging that Respondent, the United States Postal Service, vio- lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing and refusing to provide the Union with responses to its requests for information sent between May 10 and December 13, 2021. On May 12, 2022, the parties issued a Joint Motion to Waive Hearing and Seek Decision on the Stipulated Record which in- cluded a statement of the issue presented, stipulation of facts and joint exhibits. On May 12, 2022, I issued an order granting the parties’ joint motion, thus waiving a hearing under Section 102.35(a)(9) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations and accepting such issues presented, stipulated facts and stipulated/joint exhib- its as part of this record. For the reasons detailed below, I find the General Counsel has met the burden to prove these allegations by a preponderance of the evidence and the Respondent’s affirmative defenses lack merit. On the entire record, including stipulated facts and exhibits, and considering the parties’ briefs, I make the following 1 All dates are in 2021 unless otherwise indicated. 2 Some of these facts are summarized from the parties’ stipulated facts and some are as stated therein. FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION Respondent provides postal services for the United States and operates various facilities throughout the United States in per- forming that function, including over 60 stations and branches in the San Antonio, Texas area. Section 1209 of the PRA gives the Board jurisdiction over Respondent in this case. At all material times, the American Postal Service Union (APWU) has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Similarly, at all material times, the Al- amo Area Local 195 has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Stipulated Facts2 1. Respondent’s operations Jaime Fernandez (Fernandez) has been a supervisor of Re- spondent within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and agent of Respondent under Section 2(13) of the Act. Fernandez served as manager operations support until May 29, 2021, when the position was eliminated. Since that time, Fernandez has been manager of operations integration but has remained in the Texas 3 District office. Wilma Huertas (Huertas) has served as Re- spondent’s labor relations district manager and Eduardo Garcia (Garcia) has served as Respondent’s delivery support specialist. Months later, on September 23, 2021, Huertas, notified the Un- ion about Fernandez’ new position. The San Antonio, Texas Postal Installation (SAPI), part of Texas 3 District, includes about 24 postal stations within the San Antonio Area.3 2. Parties’ relationship and current collective-bargaining agree- ment (CBA) The following employees of Respondent (the Unit) constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: Included: All maintenance employees, motor vehicle employ- ees, postal clerks, mail equipment shop employees, material distribution center employees and operating services and facil- ities services employees. Excluded: Managerial and supervisory personnel, professional employees, employees engaged in personnel work other than in a purely nonconfidential clerical capacity, security guards [as defined in Public Law 91-375, 1201 (2)], all postal inspec- tion service employees, employees in supplemental workforce as defined in Article 7, rural letter carriers, mail handlers or let- ter carriers.4 At all material times, Respondent has recognized the APWU as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Na- tional Unit. This recognition has been embodied in successive 3 See Jt. Exh. 3, p. 74 for the definition of “Installation.” 4 (Stip. 8, 20; Jt. Exhs. 6, 3) DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4 collective-bargaining agreements, the most recent of which is in effect by its terms from September 21, 2021, to September 20, 2024.5 At all material times, the APWU has been the exclusive col- lective-bargaining representative of the National Union within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. As such, Local 195 has been an agent for the APWU for various purposes, including ad- ministering the CBA described above with respect to unit em- ployees who are employed by Respondent at its stations and branches in the San Antonio, Texas area. Alex Aleman (Ale- man) has been the Local 195 president since April 10, 2021, and previously served in that position from 2015 through 2018. The Union and Aleman represent Unit employees working in the 24 postal stations within the SAPI, 34 Associate Offices in the San Antonio Area, San Antonio Processing and Distribution Center, the Priority Annex, the Vehicle Maintenance Facility, the Dis- trict Building and the Package Support Annex. Norma Impallari (Impallari) has been a steward for Local 195 since 2004. She also serves as a District 4 vice president for the Texas Postal Workers Union (TPWU). Non-Unit employees relevant to this case are rural carriers and city carriers who work in Postal facilities where the Union rep- resents clerical employees. Rural carriers work out of about 9 of the 24 postal stations within the SAPI while city carriers work in all 24 of those stations. 3. Relevant CBA provisions Article 17, Section 3 of the CBA states, in relevant part: The steward, chief steward or other Union representative properly certified in accordance with Section 2 above, may re- quest and shall obtain access through the appropriate supervi- sor to review the documents, files and other records necessary for processing a grievance or determining if a grievance exists and shall have the right to interview the aggrieved employee(s), supervisors and witnesses during working hours. Such re- quests shall not be unreasonably denied. The parties provided CBA Article 31, which states in relevant part: The Employer will make available for inspection by the Union all relevant information necessary for collective bargaining or the enforcement, administration or interpretation of this Agree- ment, including information necessary to determine whether to file or to continue the processing of a grievance under this Agreement. Upon the request of the Union, the Employer may require the Union to reimburse the USPS for any costs reason- ably incurred in obtaining the information. Requests for information relating to purely local matters should be submitted by the Local Union representative to the installa- tion head or his/her designee. All other requests for 5 Since a copy of the parties’ finalized 2021–2024 CBA is not yet available, the parties agreed to attach a copy of their tentative agreement as part of the record (Jt. Exh. 3) They further agreed that the CBA arti- cles relevant to this case, Arts.17 and 31, remain unchanged in the final- ized agreement. information shall be directed by the National President of the Union to the Vice President, Labor Relations. Nothing herein shall waive any rights the Union may have to obtain information under the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. 4. Requests for information a. History of information requests relating to “crossing crafts” allegations From 2018 into 2021, on behalf of Local 195, Impallari sub- mitted several information requests to Fernandez related to alle- gations of “crossing crafts,” which had affected Local 195 mem- bers as well as TPWU members in certain facilities. “Crossing crafts” here refers to cases in which Respondent assigns bargain- ing unit clerk work to employees outside the bargaining unit such as rural and city letter carriers. In fact, Respondent regularly complied with those information requests until May 2021 when Aleman took over the responsibility of requesting information regarding these allegations.6 At this time, Respondent began to insist that the parties’ CBA required the Union to request similar information from each of the implicated postal stations within the SAPI rather than directing all requests to Fernandez. b. Information requests at issue On May 3, 2021, the Union, through Aleman, made two information requests to Respondent, through Fernandez, requesting data, reports and documentation related to crossing crafts allegations. Specifically, the Union requested the follow- ing in the first request: 1) Furnish any and all reports, data, documentation showing any and all ad hoc hours and any other hours utilized when rural carriers are assigned across craft lines to perform work in the clerk craft. a. Associates/Reliefs/Replacements, (Designation/Ac- tivity Codes, 70-0, 70-1, 72-0, 73-0, 74-0, 75-0, 76-0, 77-0, 78-0, 79-0). b. Full Time Regular Rural Carriers (71-0). 2) Furnish DACA “E” report for all employees. 3) Furnish the above information for any and all stations and branches in the San Antonio Post Office Installation. 4) The time frame for the information requested is pp 10 wk 1 4-24-21 thru 4-30-21. In the second request, the Union asked Respondent to: 1). Furnish any and all reports, data, documentation showing any and all ad hoc hours and any other hours uti- lized when Full Time City Delivery Carriers., (Designa- tion/Activity Code 13-4) Non Career City Carrier Assis- tants (Designation/Activity 84-4) are assigned across craft lines to preform clerk work in the clerk craft. 6 See Jt. Exhs. 8(a-b), 9(a-b), 10(a-a), 11(a-b), 12(a-b), 13(a-b), 14(a- b), 15(a-b), 16(a-b), 17(a-b) for examples of Respondent’s prior compli- ance with Impallari’s information requests. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 5 2). Furnish the above information for any and all sta- tions and branches in the San Antonio Post Office Installa- tion. 3). The time frame for the information request is pp 10 wk 1 4-24-21 thru 4-30-21.7 In response, Respondent’s Texas 3 District Operations office notified Impallari, by letter dated May 3, 2021, that “[a]s a cour- tesy, Texas 3 District Operations has responded and complied with your Requests for Information,” but asked that in the future, the Union “direct all Requests for Information to the specific Lo- cal Unit Management, Station Manager, or Postmaster,” as “[a]ll information is available at the lowest level of management.” On May 7, 2021, labor relations manager, Huertas, emailed Ale- man, attaching the May 3, 2021 information requests and direct- ing him to send the requests to the facility where the alleged vi- olation occurred. She stated that, “OPS previously provided in- formation along with a letter notifying you that the stations have all the information that is being requested and the RFI’s should be provided to the office where the alleged violation is occur- ring.” She further stated that, The only reason you would be going to OPS for the infor- mation is if the union is on a fishing expedition, which is pro- hibited in the contract. If there is a violation at a station then you can provide the RFI to the station as required and they can provide the information needed. I am sure not all offices in the San Antonio have a violation. Article 17 states the information request shall be obtained through the appropriate supervi- sor…the appropriate supervisor would be the supervisor of the station where the alleged violation has occurred. Huertas continued with, “[w]e are not refusing to provide in- formation, we are asking that the RFI goes to the appropriate su- pervisor as required. If the information is not provided I will contact the office to ensure the documentation is provided. Thanks.”8 On May 10, 2021, Aleman sent two information requests to Fernandez via priority mail with tracking, requesting infor- mation regarding allegations of crossing crafts, similar to the requests sent on March 3. These requests also pertained to doc- umentation showing hours utilized by rural and city carriers as- signed across craft lines to perform Unit clerk craft work during ppp 10 wk 2, 5-01-21 through 5-07-21. On May 13, 2021, Huertas, emailed Aleman, attaching the May 10, 2021 infor- mation requests and reminding him to direct information re- quests to the office where the alleged violation occurred. During subsequent phone conversations, Huertas and Aleman discussed their respective positions. Huertas repeated her argument that CBA Article 17 required the Union to direct information requests to local management and Aleman insisted that CBA Article 31 permitted the Union to send information requests to Fernandez. Huertas also reiterated that Respondent had not been refusing to 7 (Jt. Exhs. 18–19) 8 (Jt. Exhs. 20 and 21, p. 2). 9 (Jt. Exh. 6 Stip, Appendix A, pp. 1-2; Jt. Exh. 21, p. 1; Jt. Exh. 6 Stip, para 34). provide the information but rather needed the Union to send its requests to the appropriate office or supervisor.9 There is no evi- dence that district operations (referred to by Huertas as “OPS”) was unable to assess the information to provide the Union as it had done in the past. On May 18 and 19, 2021, Aleman sent four additional information requests to Fernandez, requesting information re- garding allegations of crossing crafts or assigning clerk work to rural and city carriers, similar to those previously sent prior to May 2021 and thereafter. In response on May 21, 2021, Garcia emailed Aleman and Impallari, informing that that “[a]ll Rural Units are able to extract the information from the RMSS Qlik Mgt Reports that the RFI is seeking.” The parties stipulated that Garcia attached to this email the Union’s information requests submitted on May 18 and 19, 2021.10 The following list reflects email requests, with the exception of those sent on May 3 and May 18, 2021, relating to similar crossing craft allegations as described above, sent by Aleman to Fernandez between May 10 and December 13, 2021, as follows: (a) May 10, 2021 (2 separate requests); (b) May 19, 2021 (2 separate requests, second requests for (a) above); (c) June 16, 2021; (d) June 21, 2021 (2 separate requests); (e) June 28, 2021 (2 separate requests); (f) July 6, 2021 (2 separate requests); (g) July 12, 2021 (2 separate requests); (h) July 19, 2021 (2 separate requests); (i) July 26, 2021 (2 separate requests); (j) August 9, 2021 (4 separate requests); (k) August 16, 2021 (2 separate requests); (l) August 17, 2021 (2 separate requests); (m) August 30, 2021 (2 separate requests); (n) September 15, 2021 (4 separate requests); (o) September 21, 2021 (2 separate requests); (p) September 27, 2021 (2 separate requests); (q) October 5, 2021 (2 separate requests); (r) October 18, 2021 (4 separate requests); (s) October 27, 2021 (2 separate requests); (t) November 1, 2021 (2 separate requests); (u) November 9, 2021 (2 separate requests); (v) November 18, 2021 (2 separate requests); (w) November 22, 2021 (2 separate requests); (x) November 29, 2021 (2 separate requests); (y) December 7, 2021 (2 separate requests); (z) December 13, 2021 (2 separate requests). Regarding information requests (c)-(k), (n), (r), (s) and (v)- (y), Respondent refused service of them by “not opening the pri- ority mail envelopes and returning them to the Union with a sticker that reads ‘Return to Sender Refused.’” Respondent has 10 (Jt. Exhs. 22–23, 21, p. 1; Jt. Exh. 6 Stip para 35, Appendix A, pp. 3-4). DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 6 not only refused service on those specific requests but has re- fused to provide the Union with information in the other requests described above.11 On September 23, October 8, November 8, and November 17, 2021, Huertas continued to write Aleman, in response to his subsequent information requests, and advise him that he should request information directly from the specific station or office where the alleged violation occurred. For the first time, how- ever, on September 23, 2021, Huertas informed Aleman that, “[f]or information purposes Jamie Fernandez is no longer the Manager of OPS. He is now the Manager of OPS Integration.”12 There is no evidence that Fernandez had previously notified the Union of his new position. Fernandez did, however, on Decem- ber 14, advise Joy Thompson, NLRB Specialist, that since his reassignment, he no longer had access to the data he previously accessed to provide to the Union. He wrote that at the end of May and beginning of June 2021, he informed the labor manager of this and “asked for her assistance in notifying the Branch Pres- ident [of the Union] as to the weekly RFIs they were submitting to my office.” He further stated that during that time frame, the labor manager would send correspondence to the Union advising that, “the Installation Head could properly fulfill the request and that the District Representative did not serve in the capacity for the Installation Head for San Antonio. Up until that [t]ime frame we had been pulling the ADHOC activity report and were providing the information to the APWU as a courtesy.” He did not copy the Union on this email but noted that he ran into Ale- man at the district building on December 1, 2021, and told him that he (Fernandez) was no longer in charge of his former depart- ment as he and that job function had been impacted by the RIF in June. He further informed that he told Aleman that his new job “only required facilitating information back and [forth] be- tween the MPOOS and the HQs teams.”13 There is no evidence that either Huertas or Fernandez conveyed to the Union that the district operations office lacked the capacity or ability to con- tinue to respond to the Union’s information requests regarding crossing crafts within and among the district’s stations. III. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS A. Respondent’s Argument That This Case Be Deferred to the Grievance Arbitration Process is Without Merit Respondent’s contention that this matter is outside the Board’s jurisdiction and should be deferred to arbitration is with- out merit or legal support. Although Respondent relies on Col- lyer Insulated Wire, 192 NLRB 837 (1971), and United Technol- ogies Corp., 268 NLRB 557, 558 (1984), they are inapplicable cannot be used by Respondent to avoid its obligation under the 11 (Jt. Exh. 6 stip, paras. 36–37). In the parties’ stipulated facts under the section on requests for information at issue, par.37, it appears that the parties inadvertently stated, “paragraph 38” instead of the correct “para- graph 36.” Also see Jt. Exh. 6, Appendix A for those requests listed above as (a) through (z), which Respondent has failed to provide re- sponses to. Act pertaining to requests for information. Not only is the Board not required under the Act to defer request for information cases to arbitration, but it “has long adhered to a policy of refusing to defer” such disputes to arbitration. DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. NLRB, 288 F.3d 434, 444 (D.C. Cir. 2002); Mt. Sinai Hospital, 331 NLRB 895 (2000); Postal Service, 302 NLRB 918, 918 (1991) Therefore, I find that deferral of this matter is inappro- priate here. Poudre Valley Rural Elec. Ass’n, Inc. & Int’l Bhd. Of Elec. Workers, Loc. 111, AFL–CIO, 366 NLRB No. 21 (2018). Respondent further claims that the Board does not have juris- diction to police collective-bargaining agreements, relying on Litton Financial Printing v. NLRB, 501 U.S. 190, 111 (1991) and other cases cited in its brief. In Litton, the Supreme Court held that the unilateral change doctrine was not extended to impose a statutory duty to arbitrate post-expiration disputes and that a layoff dispute at issue did not arise under the CBA. It is true that the Supreme Court determined that “arbitrators and courts, rather than Board, are principal sources of contract interpretation under the Labor Management Act14 but the Court also recog- nized that the Board does “[have] occasion to interpret collec- tive-bargaining agreements in the context of unfair labor practice jurisdiction. Litton Financial Printing, above at 202-203, citing NLRB v. C & C Plywood Corp., 385 U.S. 421 (1967). I find the information request allegation presented here is one of those oc- casions. In fact, it appears that Respondent is attempting to have the Board expand its contract coverage standard to information request cases. There is simply no basis for expansion of this standard to these types of cases. In MV Transportation, Inc., 368 NLRB No. 66 (2019), the Board applied the contract coverage standard in cases alleging unilateral change. As the General Counsel pointed out, the Board specifically declared that “[w]e solely address[es] those cases in which an employer defends against an 8(a)(5) unilateral-change allegation by asserting that contractual language privileged it to make the disputed change without further bargaining.” MV Transportation, Inc., above, slip op. at 11. Thus, as discussed above, the Board chose not to extend the “contract coverage” doctrine beyond allegations of unilateral change, and specifically precludes sending infor- mation cases to arbitration. B. The Union’s Information Requests were Relevant and Necessary An employer’s duty to bargain includes a duty to provide in- formation requested by the union that “is potentially relevant and would be of use to the union in fulfilling its responsibilities as the employees’ bargaining representative.” 15 NLRB v. Truitt, Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149 (1956); E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co., 12 See a copy of Fernandez’ reduction in force (RIF) letter dated May 28, 2021. (Jt. Exh. 28.). 13 (Jt. Exhs. 24-27, 29; Stip. par. 42). 14 Section 1 et seq., as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. Section 151 et seq. 15 Sec. 8(a)(5) of the Act provides that it is an unfair labor practice for an employer “to refuse to bargain collectively with the representa- tives of its employees.” 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(5). UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 7 366 NLRB No. 178, slip op. at 4 (2018), citing NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432, 435‒436, 438 (1967); United Par- cel Service of America, 362 NLRB 160, 161‒162 (2015); Postal Service, 332 NLRB 635, 635 (2000). Generally, information re- lating to wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment of unit employees is presumptively relevant and must be fur- nished to the union upon request unless the employer provides a legitimate reason for not doing so. CVS Albany, LLC, 364 NLRB No. 122, slip op. at 2 (2016) (not reported in Board volumes); Matthews Readymix, Inc., 324 NLRB 1005, 1009 (1997), enf. denied on other grounds 165 F.3d 74 (D.C. Cir. 1999). Similarly, information involving any stage of arbitration is relevant and should be provided as the goal is to also encourage resolution of disputes short of arbitration hearings. Pennsylvania Power Co., 301 NLRB 1104, 1105 (1991). When requested information in- volves employees outside of the bargaining unit, it is the union’s burden to demonstrate relevance. United States Testing, 324 NLRB 854, 859 (1997), enfd. 160 F.3d 14 (D.C. Cir. 1998); Reiss Viking, 312 NLRB 622, 625 (1993) Shoppers Food Ware- house, 315 NLRB 258, 259 (1994). However, this burden is “not exceptionally heavy,” as “the Board uses a “liberal, discovery- type standard” in determining relevancy, with the sought-after information not having to be dispositive of the issue between the parties. NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. at 437; G4S Se- cure Solutions (USA), Inc., 369 NLRB No. 7, slip op. at 2 (2020); DirectSat USA, LLC, 366 NLRB No. 40, slip op. 1, fn. 2 (2018). Thus, the employer must furnish documentation relating to the union representative’s core responsibilities of processing griev- ances and arbitrations, enforcing compliance of existing CBAs and representing employees in the disciplinary process. In this case, no relevancy dispute exists. This is evidenced by the parties’ stipulation that the information requested by the Un- ion “is necessary for, and relevant to, the Union’s performance of its duties as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Unit.” (Stip. pars. 41, 36) That established, the only ques- tion here is whether Respondent violated the Act by straying from its practice of permitting the Union to request and receive such relevant information from a centralized operations division which Fernandez previously managed. Respondent argues that it had only been providing the Union a courtesy over the years by permitting it to request information relating to alleged cross- ing crafts among multiple facilities though the operations man- ager. Respondent also insists that it was within its rights as an employer to change course and begin requiring that the Union make individual requests to each installation or office in which each alleged crossing craft violation occurred. As a result, Re- spondent failed to respond to 56–57 information requests sub- mitted by the Union from May to December 2021. Respondent returned approximately 39 of those request to the Union marked “Return to Sender Refused” without even reviewing the requests. (Stip. pars. 29, 32, 35–39.) 16 (Jt. Exhs. 20–21). C. Respondent Violated the Act by Failing and Refusing to Provide Information to the Union 1. Respondent’s refusal to provide information by insisting the Union must obtain it from each local office violates the Act. It was only after a reduction in force (RIF) which resulted in Fernandez’ reassignment out of his operations management po- sition that Respondent began to require that the Union address each of its information requests to the individual heads of each installation/facility. Up until that time, Respondent permitted the Union to send all of its requests involving multiple offices, no matter the number, directly to Fernandez in operations and complied with many if not all requests. In all of the correspond- ence between Huertas and Aleman, Respondent never related that it was physically or technically unable to provide the infor- mation from a centralized source such had been its practice. In- stead, Respondent suddenly began relying on its interpretation of the CBA Article 17, Section 3. That provision states that a union steward, chief or other representative “may request and shall ob- tain access through the appropriate supervisor to review the doc- uments, files and other records necessary for processing a griev- ance or determining if a grievance exists…” In fact, it was not until September 23, 2021, that Respondent indicated to Aleman that Fernandez no longer handled the Union’s information re- quests. Huertas did, however, tell Aleman that she believed The only reason you would be going to OPS for the infor- mation is if the union is on a fishing expedition, which is pro- hibited in the contract. If there is a violation at a station then you can provide the RFI to the station as required and they can provide the information needed. I am sure not all offices in the San Antonio have a violation. Article 17 states the information request shall be obtained through the appropriate supervisor,” in other words, “the appropriate supervisor would be the super- visor of the station where the alleged violation has occurred. Huertas continued with, “[w]e are not refusing to provide in- formation, we are asking that the RFI goes to the appropriate supervisor as required. If the information is not provided I will contact the office to ensure the documentation is provided. Thanks.16 An employer does not avoid its obligation to provide relevant information requested by the Union by insisting that the Union obtain information from a different source, or in this case numer- ous other sources, even if the alternative source or sources is within its own ranks. New York Times Co., 265 NLRB 353 (1982). See also Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. v. NLRB, 687 F.2d 633, 638 (2d Cir. 1982). Respondent is mis- taken in its contention that it met its obligation to provide re- sponses to relevant information requests by suddenly directing the Union to resend their requests to the head of each affected facility as opposed to a centralized source. “Absent special cir- cumstances, a union's right to information is not defeated merely DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 8 because the union may acquire the needed information through an independent investigation. The union is under no obligation to utilize a burdensome procedure of obtaining desired infor- mation where the employer may have such information available in a more convenient form.” The Kroger Co., 226 NLRB 512, 513 (1976). It is certainly more burdensome for the Union to have to send an individual request to each and every station and branch in the SAPI (24 at least for city carriers and 9 for rural carriers according to the parties’ stipulated facts)17 rather than to make the request through one centralized division as it had pre- viously done. Moreover, it is the Union, and not Respondent, who should determine what information can be of use to the Un- ion. See FirstEnergy Generation, LLC., 362 NLRB 630, 636 (2015). Respondent argues that these cases are inapposite in Respond- ent has not required the Union to obtain information from an out- side source or from employees. However, what Respondent has done is equivalent to asking the Union to obtain the information through an independent investigation and multiple other sources. In doing so, Respondent appears to have arbitrarily deviated from its established practice of accepting such requests concern- ing multiple offices or stations through one centralized location. Moreover, there is no evidence that the Union had been attempt- ing a fishing expedition as implied through aforementioned cor- respondence between Respondent and the Union. Nor has Re- spondent challenged the relevancy or breadth of the requests at issue. As previously stated, Respondent has not claimed that it is suddenly unable to comply with the Union’s requests and has proven that it can by its actions in doing so at the Texas 3 district level for several years. (Jt. Exhs. 8–17.) Any argument that Re- spondent did so as a mere courtesy is simply without merit. The Board has agreed with an administrative judge’s finding that an employer could not avoid or “circumvent its obligation” to provide relevant and necessary information to a union by in- structing the union to get it from another source, the employer’s labor counsel. Wayne Memorial Hospital Assn., 322 NLRB 100, 108–109 (1996). In Wayne Memorial Hosp., the administrative law judge dismissed the employer’s argument that it had fol- lowed its established practice where its labor counsel and the un- ion dealt directly on labor disputes, including those involving in- formation requests. Id. at 109. Instead, the ALJ found the evi- dence revealed that the union more often negotiated with man- agement rather than the labor counsel. Id. In the case at hand, the Union has attempted to comply with an established practice to make its requests through the operations office. Similarly, in Dish Network Service Corp., the Board upheld the ALJ’s finding that the employer violated the Act when it refused to comply with the union steward’s request for information and directed him to make the request through another union representative to the employer’s attorney. I agree with the General Counsel’s con- tention that, as set forth in these cases, Respondent in this case cannot circumvent its duty to provide information because it is 17 (Jt. Stip. paras. 19–20). 18 Further, the relevant CBA provisions referenced herein do not ap- pear to require the Union to direct information requests to each individual also available at each individual station. As set forth above, this would result in the Union having to make at least 33 separate information requests to each station where the Union represents employees in the SAPI (the 24 where city carriers work and 9 where rural carriers work). (Jt. Stip. 20.) There is no dispute here that the information request ade- quately informed Respondent of the data needed. Therefore, Re- spondent must either provide the information or sufficient rea- sons for not being able to do so. Kroger Co., above at 513–514. There is no evidence that Respondent has sufficiently done so in this case as Respondent did not specify that it could not provide the information to the Union at the district or operations level as it had been doing. On May 21, 2022, delivery support specialist Eddie Garcia emailed Aleman and Impallari that all “Rural Units” could pull responsive information “from the RMSS Qlik Mgt Reports.” However, neither he nor Huertas indicated that the requested information was unavailable or over burdensome to retrieve at the district or operations level. (Jt. Exhs. 21, 29.) 2. Respondent’s defenses a. Respondent’s contractual defense fails Respondent argues that the CBA between the parties requires the Union to send its information requests to each individual of- fice in which the alleged violation occurred. Article 31 permits a local union representative to request information regarding lo- cal matters while Article 17 provides that a union steward, chief or other representative “may request and shall obtain access through the appropriate supervisor to review the documents, files and other records necessary for processing a grievance or deter- mining if a grievance exists…” The General Counsel contends that there is no evidence of record or in the CBA specifying who an “appropriate supervisor” would be in the context of an infor- mation request and potential grievance investigation.18 Article 31 of the CBA states that information pertaining to purely local matters should be submitted by the local union representative, which in this case is Aleman, to the installation head or his/her designee. Here, the San Antonio Postal Installation includes 24 postal stations, each with its own station manager. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude when submitting information requests relating to crossing crafts within the SAPI that they be sent to someone or office above the local office or station managers. This reasoning is even more logical given the fact that Respond- ent has been receiving these types of requests at the operations level for several years without apparent complaint or redirection. In other words, between at least 2018 and 2021, notwithstanding the parties’ practice of not strictly adhering to any local/national or specific installation or station manager designations, Re- spondent complied with multiple information requests made by the Union at the district level relating to allegations of crossing crafts among many if not all stations within the SAPI. In fact, the reason for the requests already agreed to be relevant and station manager or head or restrict the Union from submitting them at the district level. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 9 necessary for the Union to carry out its representational duties, was to find out if there had been such crossing crafts violations within the SAPI. b. Respondent’s objection to allegations outside the time pe- riod in the consolidated complaint is without merit. In its brief, Respondent objects to allegations that from 2018 through 2021, Impallari regularly made information requests on a weekly basis to Respondent through Fernandez, to which Re- spondent readily responded. However, these are not part of the alleged violation but rather provide background information as to the parties’ past or established practice of Respondent com- plying to the Union’s multiple information requests pertaining to crossing craft allegations among several different stations made in a centralized manner at the district level. As such, they were fully permitted and heard. Further, these allegations, stipulated in the record, are clearly not a violation of due process and do not warrant any further consideration. Therefore, any objections thereto and request that they be disregarded are denied. c. Respondent’s argument that the Union bargained in bad faith by refusing to bargain with management’s designated re- cipient of the Union’s information requests fails Respondent also argues that the Union’s failure to observe management’s designation of a new request for information pro- cess is “analogous to a violation of Section 8(b) of the [Act], which provides in pertinent part,” that:19 It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents – (1) to restrain or coerce … (B) an employer in the se- lection of his representatives for the purposes of collective bar- gaining or the adjustment of grievances. However, Respondent provided no basis for this contention. Instead, Respondent appears to claim that the Union’s mere ob- jection to the sudden change in established practice constituted a violation. Respondent also insists that its stance on redirecting the Union’s information requests was consistent with the man- agement rights under Article 17 and 31. However, there is no evidence to support this defense. Consequently, this argument also fails as there is no evidence that Respondent made any at- tempts to bargain over its unilateral change in practice. I have considered all of the arguments presented by the parties, includ- ing those not specifically addressed herein and find that Re- spondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing to provide the relevant and necessary information requested by the Union. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Board has jurisdiction over Respondent, the United States Postal Service, and this case by virtue of Section 1209 of the Postal Reorganization Act (PRA). 2. The American Postal Workers Union Alamo Area Local 0195 (the Union) is a labor organization within the meaning of 19 (R. Br. at 10–11). 20 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By failing and refusing to provide the Union with responses to multiple information requests on several dates beginning on May 10, 2021, through December 13, 2021, Respondent has vi- olated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Specifically, the Union made those requests, containing multiple requests, on: May 10 and 19; June 16, 21, 28; July 6, 12, 19, 26; August 9, 16, 17, 30; September 15, 21, 27; October 5, 18, 27; November 1, 9, 18, 22, 29; and December 7, 13. (Jt. Exh. 6 stip. paras. 36–37.) These requests have been deemed relevant and necessary to perfor- mance of the Union’s function as the exclusive collective-bar- gaining representative of Respondent’s Unit. 4. The unfair labor practices committed by Respondent affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the poli- cies of the Act. More specifically, having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec- tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, it shall be ordered to cease from failing and refusing to provide The American Postal Workers Union Alamo Area Local 0195 (the Union) with information rel- evant and necessary to the performance of the Union’s function as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of Re- spondent’s employees as described above. This information is as described above in this decision and set forth in Jt. Exh. 6, Appendix A and Jt. Stipulation of Facts paragraphs 36–37 Re- spondent will further be ordered to post and mail a notice to em- ployees as attached as the Appendix. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommended20 ORDER Respondent, United States Postal Service and its San Antonio, Texas 3 District, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Failing and refusing to provide The American Postal Workers Union Alamo Area Local 0195 (the Union) with infor- mation, upon request, that is relevant and necessary to the per- formance of the Union’s function as the exclusive collective-bar- gaining representative of Respondent’s employees in the follow- ing appropriate bargaining unit: Included: All maintenance employees, motor vehicle employ- ees, postal clerks, mail equipment shop employees, material distribution center employees and operating services and facil- ities services employees. Excluded: Managerial and supervisory personnel, professional employees, employees engaged in personnel work other than Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 10 in a purely nonconfidential clerical capacity, security guards [as defined in Public Law 91-375, 1201 (2)], all postal inspec- tion service employees, employees in supplemental workforce as defined in Article 7, rural letter carriers, mail handlers or let- ter carriers. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectu- ate the policies of the Act. (a) On request, furnish the Union with information as de- scribed above in this decision and set forth in Jt. Exh. 6, Appen- dix A and Jt. Stipulation of Facts paragraphs 36-37 in a timely manner that is relevant and necessary to the performance of its function as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of Respondent’s employees. (b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at all the stations and branches in Respondent’s San Antonio, Texas Dis- trict where the Union represents employees, copies of the at- tached notice marked “Appendix.” 21 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 16, after be- ing signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees and members are customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, the notices shall be distributed electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an in- ternet site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent cus- tomarily communicates with its employees by such means. Rea- sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility in- volved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current em- ployees and former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since May 10, 2021. (c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply. Dated, Washington, D.C. September 29, 2022 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 has found that we violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this notice. FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO Form, join, or assist a union 21 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be- half Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi- ties. WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to provide The American Postal Workers Union Alamo Area Local 0195 (the Union) with infor- mation, upon request, that is relevant and necessary to the per- formance of the Union’s function as the exclusive collective-bar- gaining representative of Respondent’s employees in the follow- ing appropriate bargaining unit: Included: All maintenance employees, motor vehicle employ- ees, postal clerks, mail equipment shop employees, material distribution center employees and operating services and facil- ities services employees. Excluded: Managerial and supervisory personnel, professional employees, employees engaged in personnel work other than in a purely nonconfidential clerical capacity, security guards [as defined in Public Law 91-375, 1201 (2)], all postal inspec- tion service employees, employees in supplemental workforce as defined in Article 7, rural letter carriers, mail handlers or let- ter carriers. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re- strain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL, on request, furnish the Union in a timely manner with information that is relevant and necessary to the perfor- mance of its function as the exclusive collective-bargaining rep- resentative of Respondent’s employees, including that described in the administrative law judge’s decision and in the stipulated facts of the Respondent and Union. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/16-CA-279233 or by using the QR code be- low. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940. Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.