US Postal Service

252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD United States Postal Service and American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO (San Angelo, Texas Local). Case 16-CA-8366(P) August 15, 1980 DECISION AND ORDER BY M.MBFIRS JENKINS, PEN.I.O, AND TRUESDAII.F. On February 19, 1980, Administrative Law Judge Burton Litvack issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex- ceptions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. We agree with the Administrative Law Judge's finding that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by issuing warning letters to employees O'Harrow and Woods in connection with a griev- ance meeting held on February 2, 1979. In con- cluding otherwise, our dissenting colleague argues that, even if the events that culminated in the im- position of discipline were part of the res gestae of the grievance meeting, the employees' "insubordi- nate conduct" in ignoring an order to return to work was "so extreme" as to render their conduct unprotected. We find our colleague's argument un- persuasive. In the first place, it is worth noting that the dis- sent discounts almost out-of-hand the reason most prominently advanced by Respondent for its con- duct, i.e., the employees' alleged "loud, abusive and profane language," and instead insists that the reason Respondent acted was the employees' al- leged refusal to return to work. Apparently the dis- sent recognizes that, in the circumstances here, Re- spondent could not rely on the employees' lan- guage as a lawful ground for imposing discipline; hence, the dissent seeks to focus on the employees' alleged "insubordination." However, the facts do not support the dissent's analysis. In brief, this is not a case where employees ada- mantly refused to leave the meeting room when asked to pursue their grievance later and to return to work. Nor is this a case in which the employees tried to impede others who sought to leave. Here, the two employees followed the two supervisors back to the workroom floor. At least to this point their only "insubordination," if it can be called 251 NLRB No. 33 such, was in continuing to talk about their griev- ance as they walked along. When the employees and the supervisors reached the timeclock, Super- visor Love turned and said, "I am giving you a direct order. I want you to go back to work now." After what was by all accounts a momentary hesi- tation, and apparently before Love had to repeat the order, the two employees complied with it. We agree with the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that to permit Respondent to bifurcate the conduct in issue, as our colleague apparently is willing to do, "would enable an employer by its own whim to define the nature of protected activi- ty .... " Moreover, from a practical standpoint, some latitude must be given to participants in these incidents. Indeed, although we might wish it other- wise, it is unrealistic to believe that the principals involved in a heated exchange can check their emotions at the drop of a hat. Of course, employ- ees can lose the protection of the Act by conduct that fairly can be characterized as opprobrious or extreme. In the instant case, however, neither ap- pellation is warranted. Thus, as shown above, the employees merely continued to dispute verbally the merits of a grievance after tempers had run high on both sides and after they were told to return to work. As indicated previously, the interval be- tween being told to go back to work and the em- ployees' compliance with that order was very brief and was not marked by violence or abusive lan- guage on their part. And Respondent does not con- tend, nor does the record show, that the employ- ees' conduct had any adverse impact on the work of other employees, or otherwise had consequential disruptive effects. Accordingly, we see no reason to strip these employees of the protection afforded them by the Act. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, United States Postal Service, San Angelo, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. MEMBER PENELLO, dissenting: Contrary to my colleagues, I would reverse the Administrative Law Judge and find that Respond- ent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) and (3) by issu- ing warning letters to employees O'Harrow and Woods for their insubordinate conduct in ignoring direct orders to return to work at the end of a grievance meeting. As no exceptions were filed to UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 253 the Administrative Law Judge's recommendation that the other allegations of the complaint be dis- missed, I would dismiss the complaint in its entire- ty. The facts in this case may be stated briefly. Em- ployees O'Harrow and Woods are president and vice president, respectively, of the Local Union which represents the employees at Respondent's facilities in San Angelo, Texas. In late January 1979, O'Harrow and Woods were warned verbally on several occasions by their supervisor, Robert Nichols, about talking while working next to each other on the distribution line. On February 2, 1979, they observed John Love, manager of mail proc- essing, talking to two other employees on the dis- tribution line. Thinking that this demonstrated that management had a double standard about employ- ees talking while working on the distribution line, they asked Supervisor Nichols to arrange a meet- ing with Love about this problem. Love, Nichols, O'Harrow, and Woods then met in a small confer- ence room where grievance meetings are usually held. After a heated discussion as to whether man- agement had the right to talk to employees work- ing on the distribution line, Love stated that the meeting was over, ordered O'Harrow and Woods to go back to work, and stated that they would resume the meeting later when everyone had calmed down. Love and Nichols then left the con- ference room, but O'Harrow and Woods followed them out into the distribution area stating that the Union would not tolerate this situation. As neither O'Harrow nor Woods had shown any signs of complying with Love's first order that they return to work, Love turned to them and stated, "I am giving you a direct order .... I want you to go back to work now." O'Harrow and Woods did not move or respond to this second order, but rather continued to harangue Love and Nichols. When Love started to repeat the order a third time, O'Harrow and Woods finally stopped arguing and walked away to their work stations. On February 3, 1979, Nichols gave O'Harrow and Woods warning letters, signed by Love, which stated that they were being warned for insubordi- nation. Specifically, both letters described the con- versation at the meeting on February 2, 1979, noting that O'Harrow had "used loud, abusive and profane language," both letters stated that Love had terminated the meeting and had asked the em- ployees to return to work, noting that neither em- ployee had done so but rather they had "kept making attempts to interrogate Mr. Nichols and [Mr. Love]," and both letters noted that Love had to give them three direct orders to return to their work assignments before they would do so. I agree with my colleagues that the Adininistra- tive Law Judge was correct in finding that O'Har- row and Woods were engaged in the informal reso- lution of a potential grievance at the February 2, 1979, meeting and that they were thus essentially insulated from discipline for insubordinate state- ments made to management officials during this protected collective-bargaining activity, unless their conduct was so opprobrious or extreme as to warrant the denial of such protection under the Act. I also agree with my colleagues that the con- duct of O'Harrow and Woods during the grievance meeting in the conference room was not so oppro- brious or extreme as to deny them the protection of the Act.' However, I disagree with the major- ity's conclusion that the conduct of O'Harrow and Woods after leaving the conference room at the end of the meeting was not so opprobrious or ex- treme that it became unprotected. Assuming, with- out deciding, that the Administrative Law Judge properly found that the events which occurred out- side the conference room just after the meeting ended were part of the res gestae of the grievance meeting, I would conclude that the insubordinate conduct of O'Harrow and Woods in ignoring direct orders to return to work was, in the circum- stances of this case, so extreme as to become un- protected. In my opinion, the behavior of O'Harrow and Woods after Love terminated the grievance meet- ing went beyond verbal insubordination, since they engaged in overt acts by defying two of Love's orders that they return to work. Furthermore, it should be noted that their second refusal to return to work as ordered occurred in a production area during working time when other employees were likely to be present. 2 Under these circumstances, their overt acts of defiance would clearly tend to undermine Respondent's right to maintain order and respect. Thus, their failure to return to work when ordered to do so was not protected even though they continued to discuss their grievance. Therefore, I would find that Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act when it disciplined O'Harrow and Woods for ignoring sev- eral direct orders to return to work. 3 i In this connection. I note that their only misconduct was O'Harroo's use of several profane words and one obscene word, none of which were used as epithets directed at the management officials, and this misconduct occurred in a private conference room out of the presence of other em- ployees. 2 The Board has usually considered such factors relevant to its deter- mination as to whether an employee has lost the protection of the Act hi opprobrious conduct while engaged in protected concerted actiity See, e.g., Atlantic Steel Company, 245 NLRB No. 10 (1 )79). a Although the warning letters issued to O'Harrow and Woods de- scribed the events which occurred during the grievance meeting and Continued 254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Moreover, it continues to disturb me that cases of this nature are still congesting the Board's docket and wasting the Board's scarce resources, at a time when the Board is struggling to cope with a dramatically expanding caseload and a growing backlog of cases awaiting hearing. This case should never have been litigated to a Board decision; rather it should have been deferred under Collyer4 to the grievance and arbitration procedures agreed upon by the parties in their collective-bargaining agreement. The majority's decision here illustrates once again my colleagues' lack of wisdom in nar- rowing the application of Collyer. In view of the national labor policy favoring collective bargaining and the arbitration of disputes, the Board should encourage the parties to resort to their existing contractual methods for private dispute resolution rather than promoting litigation before the Board of such relatively minor issues. Accordingly, I would dismiss the complaint in its entirety. refer to O'Harrosw's use of "loud, abusive, and profane language" at the meeting. I would find that Respondent disciplined them solely because of their failure to return to work when ordered to do so. I am convinced that the references in tihe letters to the events of the meeting were merely included as background identifying the particular meeting involved and giving Respondent's position as to the legitimate reasons for Love's ac- tions in terminating the meeting and ordering the employees back to work I note that he record reveals that O'Harrow and Woods were iin- volsed in more than one grievance meeting on February 2, 1979, and that the warning letter issued to Woods also referred in identical wording IIt O'tlarrow's language at the meeting and to the other events of the meet- ilig even though Woods himself had not used any abusive or profane lan- guage or engaged in any insubordinate conduct during the meeting 4 Colver Insulated Wire, A Gulf and Western Systems Co.. 192 NLRB 837 (1971). My iews on deferral have recently been restated at length in Rot, Robinson. Inc.. d/b/a Royv Robinson Chevrolet, 228 NLRB 28 (1977), and Member Walther's and my dissent in General American Iransporration Corporation, 228 NLRB 808 (1977). DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE BURTON LITVACK, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard by me in San Angelo, Texas, on Septem- ber 18 and 19, 1979, pursuant to a complaint issued by the Regional Director for Region 16 on May 25, 1979, pursuant to an original and a first amended charge filed by American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO (San Angelo, Texas Local), herein called the Local, on March 5, 1979, and April 30, 1979, respectively. The complaint alleges, in substance, that United States Postal Service, herein called Respondent, violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act, by dealing directly with employees in derogation of their designated representative for pur- poses of collective bargaining, Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by issuing warning notices to employees because they engaged in union or other protected concerted ac- tivities, and Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening em- ployees with discipline and the issuing of written repri- mands because of their union membership, activities, and desires. Respondent filed an answer, denying the com- mission of any unfair labor practices. All parties were af- forded full opportunity to appear, to introduce evidence, and to examine and cross-examine witnesses. Briefs were filed by counsel for the General Counsel and by Re- spondent and each has been carefully considered. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my ob- servation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and having carefully considered the post-hearing briefs, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that jurisdiction is asserted herein by virtue of Section 1209 of the Postal Reorganization Act, 39 U.S.C. § 101, et seq., herein called the PRA. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS Although the status of American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, is not alleged in the complaint, the record establishes that said entity engages in collective bargaining with Respondent, has negotiated successive collective-bargaining agreements with Respondent on a national basis, with the most recent of said agreements, effective from July 21, 1978, until July 20, 1981, and represents employees in the proc- essing of grievances. Accordingly, I find that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. United States Postal Service, 208 NLRB 948 (1974). Additionally, the complaint alleges, Respond- ent admits, and I find that the Local is a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II111. ISSUES 1. Whether Respondent, on or about February 3, 1979, violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by issuing written reprimands to employees because said employees engaged in union or other protected concerted activities? 2. Whether Respondent, on or about February 2, 1979, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening to write up employees because of their union membership, activities, and desires? 3. Whether Respondent, on or about February 2, 1979, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by orally threatening to file insubordination charges against employees because of their union membership, activities, and desires? 4. Whether Respondent, on or about March 28, 1979, violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by bargaining directly with its employees? IV. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Alleged Threats and the Warning Notices 1. Facts The record establishes that the San Angelo, Texas, Post Office consists of two separate facilities, a main building and a secondary facility called the Herring Sta- tion, and that during the period January through March UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 255 19791 Longino Monreal was the postmaster, John Love was the manager of mail processing, Robert Nichols was the supervisor of mails, and Hubert D. Sanders was a relief supervisor. 2 The record further establishes that the Union has represented postal clerks and other employees of Respondent for approximately 10 to 12 years, that the Union has negotiated successive collective-bargaining agreements with Respondent during the period, and that the Local, as the agent of the Union and pursuant to the national agreement, has negotiated local supplements to said agreement with the San Angelo, Texas, postmaster. It appears that beginning in November 1978, at approxi- mately the time Monreal was appointed postmaster, and continuing through March 1979 relations between the Local and the San Angelo post office management gradually became strained and querulous. Thus, soon after he assumed office, Monreal instituted more strin- gent rules concerning the investigation and filing of em- ployees grievances.3 These changes, in turn, resulted in the filing of several grievances by the Local and, I be- lieve, significantly contributed to the rather tense work- ing atmosphere which seems to have existed by Febru- ary. With the foregoing as background, R. P. O'Harrow, a distribution clerk and president of the Local, and Jack Woods, another distribution clerk and vice president of the Local, testified that they were warned several times in late January for talking to each other while working. Both O'Harrow and Woods worked a 4 a.m. until 12.30 p.m. shift at the Herring Station facility and were sta- tioned alongside each other on the distribution line. Ac- cording to Woods, there was no work rule regarding talking to other employees while working, such had always been done, and no employee had ever been disci- plined for talking while working. On February 2, O'Har- row and Woods commenced working at 4 a.m. and, ac- cording to Woods, by 5:30 a.m. supervisors had spoken to him two times regarding talking to O'Harrow while they were working. At approximately 5:30, O'Harrow observed John Love walk to the end of the distribution line and engage employees Norman McClausky and Kent Edborg in conversation. Believing that a double standard existed regarding talking on the distribution line, O'Harrow spoke o Robert Nichols, his supervisor, and asked Nichols if he had time to discuss a grievance. Nichols said that he did, and O'Harrow replied that he needed Woods and Love in the discussion.4 All dates herein, unless otherwise specified, are in 1979 2 The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that Monreal. Love, Nichols, and Sanders are supervisors within the meaning of Sec. 2(11) of the Act. s It is undisputed that, commencing in or about November 1978, Post- master Monreal began instituting changes in the method whereby officials of the Local were permitted to investigate and process employee griev- ances. Among the changes instituted by Monreal were requirements that stewards state the amount of time necessary for the investigation of a po- tential grievance, that employees discloae to supervisors the nature of a potential grievance before receiving permission to see their union repre- sentative, that stewards could not type or xerox" grievances while "on the clock," and that limitations were placed on the amount of time stew- ards were permitted to speak to potential grievants about problems. As stated above, grievances were filed by members of the Local regarding these changes. 4 Art. XV of the current collective-bargaining agreement between Re- spondent and the Union sets forth the grievance-arbitration procedure. A few minutes later, Woods, O'Harrow, Nichols, and Love met in the small conference room in the back of the Herring Station. 5 O'Harrow testified that he began the meeting by asking Love if the latter were talking business with the clerks at the end of the line. Love re- plied that he was not, and O'Harrow asked if Love were "just passing the time of day?" Love replied that he was. O'Harrow then asked Love if he thought it was right for him to waste a clerk's time by standing there passing the time of day when Woods and O'Harrow were "coun- seled" a day or so before for doing the same thing. Love replied that "he didn't have to answer my questions and that the meeting was terminated." Love then turned to Nichols and said "put those fellows back to work and keep a close eye on them and if they get out of line, write them up." At that point, acccording to O'Harrow, Woods asked if they were going to have a grievance dis- cussion or were they returning to work. When Nichols said nothing, Love turned to him and said, "This meet- ing is terminated. Put them back to work." On cross-ex- amination, O'Harrow admitted that grievances usually were discussed after 8:15 a.m. and that, during the con- versation, Love questioned the manner in which O'Har- row was talking to him. Woods contradicted O'Harrow, testifying that he, and not O'Harrow, initiated the meeting by requesting per- mission from Nichols to have the meeting. According to Woods, O'Harrow began the meeting by asking Love why they were being reprimanded for talking while Love was "chit-chatting with the employees about things that didn't pertain to the post office business." Love re- plied that he could say anything he wanted to anyone about anything for as long as he wanted to and that he did not have to take that kind of talk from O'Harrow. Then, according to Woods, Love turned to Nichols and said, "Bob, put these two guys back to work, keep a close eye on them, and if they get out of line, write them up." Woods further contradicted O'Harrow, denying that anyone said that the meeting was terminated. John Love testified that he arrived at work on Febru- ary 2 at approximately 5 a.m. and that, after checking for personal mail, he walked to the end of the distribution aisle and spoke to employees McClausky and Edborg for During the initial step in the process, the aggrieved employee discusses his grievance with his immediate supervisor. According to the collective- bargaining agreement, a union official may or may not be present. If the grievance is unresolved at the initial step, it must be appealed in writing to the head of the installation. Such constitutes step 2 of the grievance procedure. It was undisputed that, to initiate the grievance procedure, an individu- al must receive permission from the supervisor to either discuss a poten- tial grievance with a local official or to discuss an actual grievance with his supervisor. However, the witnesses disagreed over what words initi- ate the procedure. Thus, Jack F. Woods testified that he would use the word "grievance" only if the matter involved a violation of the national agreement, while he would use the word "problem" if the matter in- volved anything less serious. On the other hand, John Love testified that employees always used the word "grievance" if they desired to meet with either a steward or their immediate supervisor. However, Love did admit that on occasion employees will just state that they have a prob- lem. In these cases, according to Love, the supervisor will follow by asking if the matter involves a grievance. I The conference room is a sparsely furnished room consisting of a double desk, chairs at both ends of the desk, and a small stool by one of the walls. 256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD approximately 2 minutes. At approximately that same time, according to Robert Nichols, he was called over by O'Harrow and Woods who stated that they would like to speak to Love. Nichols thereupon walked over to Love and, according to Love, told the latter that Woods and O'Harrow wanted a meeting because "they think that we can iron out some of the problems we have been having around here if we get together and have a little discussion." Love assented to the meeting, and, a few minutes later, Nichols brought O'Harrow and Woods to the conference room where Love was waiting for them. According to both Love and Nichols, O'Harrow sat down on one of the desk chairs, leaned back in the chair, placed his legs on the desk, and clasped his hands around the back of his head. Love and Nichols generally cor- roborated each other as to what was said during the meeting. Thus, they testified that O'Harrow began the meeting by asking Love, "What the hell were you talk- ing to those two employees about?" Love asked O'Har- row what he meant, and O'Harrow replied that he wanted to know if Love was talking about official busi- ness or "were you just bullshitting with the employees?" Love responded that he did not appreciate the way O'Harrow was talking to him and asked O'Harrow not to speak in that manner. O'Harrow thereupon accused Love of evading the issues and responded that he would speak to Love with "any language I damn well please in here." O'Harrow then asked once again whether Love was "just bullshitting with the employees." Love re- sponded that what he was talking about with the two employees was not official business and that such was none of O'Harrow's business either. At that point, both Woods and O'Harrow stated that Nichols had spoken to both of them about excessive talking and that, if manage- ment were going to talk to the employees about exces- sive talking, management had no right to talk to the em- ployees. At that point, with O'Harrow and Woods re- peating that management was unfair, Love announced that the meeting was over, that he wanted O'Harrow and Woods to go back to work, and that they would resume the meeting when everyone had calmed down. Love and Nichols then left the room. However, O'Har- row and Woods followed, repeating that the Union would not tolerate what was happening. The four of them reached the employee timeclock, and Love turned to O'Harrow and Woods, stating, "I am giving you a direct order. I want you to go back to work and I want you to go back to work now." Neither O'Harrow nor Woods moved; however, as Love attempted to repeat the command, the two employees just stopped talking and walked away. During the meeting, according to Ni- chols, O'Harrow and Woods were not yelling but rather were "just talking loud" and they used no curse words other than "bullshitting." Finally, both Love and Nichols denied that Love ordered Nichols to watch O'Harrow and Woods and to write them up if necessary. Robert Nichols testified that, at 8:15 that morning, Woods approached him and said that he wanted to talk to his steward. Nichols replied that Woods should go to the conference room and that he would tell O'Harrow about the meeting. Nichols thereupon proceeded to look for O'Harrow but could not find him. Meanwhile, ac- cording to O'Harrow, he was likewise searching for Ni- chols in order to obtain permission to speak to Woods about a grievance. While looking for Nichols, O'Harrow passed through Love's office. According to O'Harrow, Love asked if he could help. O'Harrow replied, "I don't suppose so unless you know where Robert Nichols is." Love responded that he did not know where Nichols was and asked why O'Harrow wanted him. O'Harrow replied that he wanted to discuss a grievance, and Love replied, "I have already told him and Woods that ycu cannot discuss the grievance." According to O'Harrow, he and Love then walked out of Love's office and were joined by P. G. Ecomomidas, the customer service man- ager. O'Harrow testified that he asked Ecomomidas why he was not being given permission to discuss a grievance, and Ecomomidas replied that he did not know. At that point, according to O'Harrow, Monreal, the postmaster, walked over to them and asked what the problem was. After O'Harrow told him, Monreal suggested that they go into the office. By this time, according to O'Harrow, both Nichols and Woods had joined them. Accordingly, Monreal, Love, Nichols, Woods, and O'Harrow entered an office where H. D. Sanders was already present. Monreal began the discussion by asking Love what was wrong. Love replied that he told O'Harrow that the latter could not discuss a grievance. O'Harrow asked Love why, and Love replied, "the next time you put your finger in my face and talk to me that way I am going to file insubor- dination charges against you." O'Harrow responded, asking Love why he wanted to file insubordination charges against him. Love replied, "You're not going to talk to me that way and poke your finger in my face and the next time you do it, I'm going to charge you with insubordination." To that, according to O'Harrow, he said, "Why don't you go ahead and charge me with in- subordination?" Love responded, "I will the next time you poke your finger in my face and talk in that manner." At that point, Monreal said that, since Nichols had given O'Harrow and Woods permission to discuss the grievance, he (Monreal) would permit them to go ahead and discuss the grievance, and the meeting ended at that point. On cross-examination, O'Harrow admitted that he did not deny Love's accusation that he (O'Har- row) put his finger in Love's face but averred that he had no knowledge to what Love was referring. Love testified to a different version of the facts. Thus, according to Love, at approximately 8:30 a.m. on Febru- ary 2, O'Harrow came through his office walked into the outer office, and then came back into Love's office. Love asked if he could help. O'Harrow replied, "Who the hell made you the official helper around here." O'Harrow then turned to leave again, but Love stood up, stating "What in the world is wrong with you." At that point, with Love standing no more than a foot from O'Harrow, the latter turned around and said, while pointing a finger at Love's face, "Get your ass back in your office and get back there now." Accordinq to Love, he replied that O'Harrow could not speak to him like that. O'Harrow responded by asking Love what the latter was going to do about it. Love replied that he UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 257 could give O'Harrow a warning letter or write him up. O'Harrow then asked if Love had any witnesses, and after Love said that he did not, O'Harrow replied that it was Love's word against his. Love responded that he could still give O'Harrow a warning letter, and O'Har- row turned and left the office. Love further testified that, at approximately 8:45 a.m., O'Harrow came back through his office carrying a brief case. Ecomomidas was in Love's office, and Love asked O'Harrow never to stick his finger in Love's face again or talk to Love like he did previously. O'Harrow asked if Love was threatening him. At that point, Ecomomidas interrupted, saying that such was not a threat but that Love just did not want O'Harrow talking like that. O'Harrow responded by again pointing his finger at Love and saying, "I will talk anyway I want to." Ac- cording to Love, Monreal then entered the room and asked what was going on. O'Harrow responded by saying that Love was obstructing the grievance proce- dure. Love replied that he did not want O'Harrow stick- ing his finger in Love's face and talking to him like he had done. O'Harrow repeated that Love would not let him discuss a grievance. Monreal told him to go ahead and have the discussion, and the meeting ended.6 Jack Woods testified to the following conversations on the morning of February 2. At approximately 10 a.m., after the first class mail had been distributed, he and Ni- chols were in the conference room waiting for O'Har- row to arrive. John Love entered the room and told Ni- chols that, unless Woods told him specifically what he wanted to discuss, he would not allow Woods to speak to O'Harrow. Woods replied that, under those circum- stances, he did not want to have a meeting with O'Har- row at that time and left the conference room to return to work. Neither Nichols nor Love denied the occur- rence of, or the substance of, this meeting. Woods next testified that, at approximately 12 noon, he and O'Har- row walked into Monreal's office where Love and Eco- momidas were already present. According to Woods, he and O'Harrow asked Monreal for permission to have a grievance meeting. Monreal said that they could have the meeting because Nichols had previously given per- mission. At that point, Love turned to O'Harrow and said that, if he ever spoke to him that way again, he (Love) would write him up for insubordination. O'Har- row did not corroborate the occurrence of this meeting, and Woods did not recall any 8:30 or 9 a.m. meetings with Monreal on that day. On February 3, Nichols gave O'Harrow a warning letter, dated February 2 and signed by Love. The letter stated the following reasons for the warning: 6 Love's testimony was corroborated by other witnesses. Thus. Hubert Sanders testified that, while he was sitting in an outer office during the morning of February 2, he overheard Love say several times, "I am asking you, please, not to shake your finger in my face," and that he heard O'Harrow reply. "What are you going to do about it?" He then heard Love respond. "I will write you up" Also. Robert Nichols, who testified that he was not present during any of the latter conversations between Love and O'Harrow. testified that while he was searching for O'Harrow at approximately 8:30 that morning, he heard Love state, "I asked you please, Pat. don't put your finger in my face again" Finally. Monreal corroborated the version of the conversation given by .oive after Monreal entered the discussion with O'Harrow 1. Insubordination: Specifically on 2-2-79 you and Full-time Clerk J.S. Woods . . . requested, thru your immediate Supervisor R.L. Nichols, a meeting between the four of us. At 05:05 this requested meeting was held. At that time you questioned my talking to employees on the work room floor, be- cause you had had a discussion with Mr. Nichols that concerned excessive talking on the previous day. You used loud, abusive, and profane language. When I asked you to refrain from using such lan- guage in our conversation, you stated, "I will use any language that I damn well please." At this point I terminated the meeting and asked you and Mr. Woods to return to your work assignment. You and Mr. Woods did not comply with my request and kept making attempts to interrogate Mr. Nichols and myself. I had to give you and Mr. Woods three direct orders to return to your work assignment before you would do o. 2. Insubordination: Specifically on 2-2-79 at 08:30 you came into my office carrying an attache case. You walked thru my office into the outer office and returned. As you were leaving I asked if I can help you and you replied, pointing a finger in my face, "who appointed you helper around here?" I stated that maybe you should return to your work assignment and you told me "shut up and get back into your office." I asked you to remove your finger from my face and to not talk to me in that manner. You asked me what I was going to do about it and I stated that I would give you a letter of warning. You said "good, let's get it on." Also on February 3, Nichols gave a warning letter, dated February 2 and signed by Love, to Jack Woods. The letter stated the following reason for the warning: Insubordination: Specifically on 2-7-79 you and Full-time Clerk R. P. O'Harrow . . . requested thru your immediate Supervisor R. L. Nichols a meeting between the four of us. At 05:05 this requested meeting was held. At that time Mr. O'Harrow's lan- guage was loud, abusive, and profane. I terminated the meeting and asked you and Mr. O'Harrow to return to your work assignment. You and Mr. O'Harrow did not comply with my request and kept making attempts to interrogate Mr. Nichols and myself. I had to give you and Mr. O'Harrow three direct orders to return to your work assign- ment before you would do so. 2. Conclusions Paragraph 6(a) of the complaint alleges that Respond- ent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when Love alleg- edly instructed Nichols to put O'Harrow and Woods back to work, to watch them, and to write them up if necessary. O'Harrow and Woods attributed this state- ment to Love during the 5.30 a.m. meeting in the Her- ring Station conference room on February 2. Both Ni- chols and Love specifically denied that Love made such a statement. I credit their denials. Neither O'Harrow nor Woods impressed me as forthright or truthful witnesses 258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and both appeared vindictive toward Respondent be- cause of the procedural changes which were instituted by Monreal. Also, on some points, they specifically con- tradicted each other and, on others, they could not cor- roborate each other. Moreover, I found incredible O'Harrow's assertion that he did not know to what Love was referring during their later conversation of that morning when Love accused O'Harrow of shaking his finger at Love and speaking in an insubordinate manner. This is especially compelling, for O'Harrow neither denied Love's accusation at the time nor demanded an explanation as to what Love was talking about. Finally, in contrast to O'Harrow and Woods, Love and Nichols appeared to be honest and candid witnesses and general- ly corroborated each other where necessary. According- ly, I credit the testimony of Love and Nichols regarding this conversation and shall recommend that paragraph 6(a) of the complaint be dismissed. As to paragraph 6(b) of the complaint, inasmuch as Love admitted that, during his 8:30 a.m. conversation with O'Harrow on February 2, he threatened O'Harrow with a warning letter, the determination as to whether said statement was violative cf Section 8(a)(l) of the Act depends upon an analysis of the surrounding circum- stances. In this regard, for the aforementioned reasons and inasmuch as his testimony was corroborated by other witnesses, I credit Love as to this conversation and specifically discredit the testimony of O'Harrow. Thus, I believe that Love uttered his threat to O'Harrow only after the latter shook his finger in Love's face and or- dered Love to "get your ass back in your office and get back there now" and after O'Harrow sarcastically de- manded to know what Love could do about O'Harrow speaking in that manner. Further, while O'Harrow may well have been searching for Nichols to ask permission to investigate a grievance when he entered Love's office, O'Harrow clearly was not engaged in protected activities when he spoke to Love in the above-described insubordi- nate manner. Moreover, there is no credible evidence that Love uttered his threat in response to any protected concerted activities in which O'Harrow may have been engaged. Rather, I believe that Love was responding to what he perceived as insubordination by an employee. "The right of an employer to maintain order and to insist on a respectful attitude by his employees toward their supervisor is an important one." Court Square Press, Inc., 235 NLRB 106, 109 (1978). Accordingly, I shall recom- mend that paragraph 6(b) of the complaint be dismissed. With respect to paragraphs 6(c), 7, and 8 of the com- plaint, Respondent admits that warning notices, dated February 2 and signed by John Love, were issued to em- ployees O'Harrow and Woods but denies that said warn- ing notices were issued in response to their attempts to process a grievance. Analysis of the two warning letters reveals that one of the reasons for the warning letter to O'Harrow and the sole reason for the warning letter to Wood was their conduct during the meeting with Love and Nichols at 5:30 a.m. in the Herring Station confer- ence room on February 2. In particular, the letters assert that O'Harrow used "loud, abusive, and profane lan- guage," and that neither O'Harrow nor Woods complied with Love's request to return to their respective work assignments. In describing this meeting, counsel for the General Counsel contends that "O'Harrow and Woods were attempting to process a grievance," over supervi- sors speaking to them regarding talking when working while supervisors were permitted to interrupt the work of other unit employees during worktime and engage in nonofficial business. If, in fact, O'Harrow and Woods were engaged in the processing of a grievance, the Board has traditionally held that while employees are en- gaged in collective bargaining, including the presentation of grievances, they are essentially insulated from disci- pline for statements made to management representatives which, if made in another context, would constitute in- subordination. Ryder Truck Lines, Inc., 239 NLRB 1009, 1010 (1978). Moreover, "the lack of... diplomacy does not render conduct unprotected. Any attempt to dictate the exact language to be used in a collective-bargaining atmosphere can only have the affect of stifling that bar- gaining." Hawaiian Hauling Service, Ltd., 219 NLRB 765, 766 (1975). Respondent's defense that O'Harrow and Woods acted in an insubordinate manner during the 5:30 a.m. meeting rests upon three bases. First, Respondent argues that O'Harrow and Woods were not engaged in protected ac- tivity and, more specifically, that the meeting was not for the purpose of adjusting a grievance. In support of this argument, Respondent asserts that neither O'Harrow nor Woods announced to Nichols that they wished to hold a grievance meeting, that the proper parties for the first step of the grievance procedure were not present, that no grievance was ever filed over the incident, and that the purpose of the meeting was solely to "dress down" Love. While Respondent may be accurate that the technical procedures of the contractual grievance procedure were not followed, I nevertheless believe that the parties were involved in grievance adjusting during this meeting. Thus, Love admitted that, prior to the meeting, Nichols told him that the purpose of the meet- ing was that, "[O'Harrow and Woods] think that we can iron out some of the problems we have been having around here if we get together and have a little discus- sion." Moreover, even if the technical procedures of the grievance and arbitration machinery were not followed, "the informal resolution of latent grievances is a recog- nized, and indeed, essential component of . . . [a] griev- ance procedure. Without such informal resolutions, there is a risk of destroying the effectiveness of that procedure by weighing it down with formalized grievances." Ryder Truck Lines, Inc., supra at 1011. Also, both Love and Ni- chols admitted that the main subject of the meeting was the complaint by O'Harrow and Woods of unequal treat- ment-clearly, I believe, a grievable subject. Finally, I believe that employees must be assured of being treated as equals as much in informal meetings as informal ones and that they must be confident of being able to speak their minds without fear of discipline. If such fear exists, I believe that effective and, indeed, meaningful collec- tive-bargaining can never occur. Respondent next argues that, even if the 5:30 a.m. meeting constituted protected activity, O'Harrow and Woods engaged in such "opprobrious conduct" so as to UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 259 lose the protection of Section 7 of the Act. While the Board did recognize in Hawaiian Hauling, supra, that if an employee engages in opprobrious conduct during col- lective bargaining he may lose the protection of the Act, it has never really defined the term "opprobrious." How- ever, in a recent decision, the Board held that it would examine four factors in determining whether an employ- ee's conduct at a grievance meeting would result in the loss of the protection of the Act. Atlantic Steel Company, 245 NLRB No. 107 (1979). These factors include the lo- cation of the meeting, the subject matter of the meeting, the nature of the conduct, and whether any employer unfair labor practices may have provoked the outburst by the employee. Herein, while there is no evidence that Respondent committed any unfair labor practices which would have provoked the conduct of O'Harrow and Woods, their actions can hardly be classified as "extreme behavior." Sea-Land Service, Inc., 240 NLRB 1146 (1979) (dissent of Member Penello). Thus, Nichols admitted that the only curse word used by O'Harrow was "bullshit- ting" and that neither O'Harrow nor Woods was shout- ing but rather merely "talking loud." Further, according to Nichols, the word "bullshitting" was uttered by O'Harrow during a question about what Love was talk- ing to employees McClausky and Edborg that morning- "well, was it official business or were you just bullshit- ting with them?" Furthermore, the location of the meet- ing was the conference room which, I believe, was cus- tomarily used for grievance discussions, and I have pre- viously held that the meetinq did, indeed, involve the in- formal adjusting of a matter which was perceived by O'Harrow and Woods as an employee grievance. Ac- cordingly, while the conduct of O'Harrow and Woods may have been reprehensible to Love, it cannot be classi- fied as "opprobrious" or "extreme" so as to deny O'Har- row and Woods the protection of Section 7 of the Act. Sea-Land Service, Inc., supra; Ryder Truck Lines, Inc., supra; Thor Power Tool Company, 148 NLRB 1379 (1964). Finally, Respondent asserts that O'Harrow and Woods continued to argue with Love after the meeting had been terminated and that employees do not have the right to keep a supervisor captive to a barrage of "indiscriminate rhetoric" after a grievance meeting has ended. In sup- port, Respondent cites United States Postal Service, 242 NLRB No. 39 (1978). Contrary to Respondent, I find that decision by the Board to be inapposite as it involved allegedly unlawful discipline for the act of filing a griev- ance, while the instant case involves discipline for con- duct engaged in by union representatives during the proc- essing of a grievance. Furthermore, Respondent has seemingly bifurcated the conduct of O'Harrow and Woods, finding protected that which cccurred prior to Love's announcement and unprotected that which oc- curred thereafter. Such an argument, however, would enable an employer, by its own whim, to define the nature of protected activity, and I believe that such an argument is repugnant to the policies of the Act. More- over, and contrary to the contention of Respondent, I believe that the entire conduct of O'Harrow and Woods during the 5:30 a.m. meeting was within the res gestae of the grievance meeting. Atlantic Steel Company, supra. Accordingly, I believe that the portion of the February 3 warning notice to O'Harrow which defines as insubordi- nation O'Harrow's conduct during the 5:30 a.m. meeting is violative of Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act. Like- wise, I believe that the February 3 warning notice to Woods which cites Woods' conduct during the 5:30 a.m. meeting as insubordinate is also violative of Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act. Ryder Truck Lines, Inc., supra; Hawaiian Hauling Service, Ltd. supra. B. The Alleged "Direct Dealing" 1. Facts According to the testimony of employee Louis C. Loe, a mail clerk at the Herring Station, and Hubert D. Sanders, a relief supervisor, Loe approached Sanders at approximately 10:30 a.m. on March 22 and requested permission to speak to O'Harrow. Sanders gave his per- mission and, thereafter, Loe and O'Harrow met in the conference room in the rear of the facility. A few min- utes later, as O'Harrow and Loe were just beginning their meeting, Sanders entered the conference room and announced that he had overlooked some procedural mat- ters. He turned to Loe and asked him for the nature of the meeting and how long Loe believed the meeting would last. Loe responded that he had a medical prob- lem but that he did not know how long the meeting with O'Harrow would last. Thereupon, Sanders turned to O'Harrow and asked the same question. O'Harrow re- plied that he did not know and told Sanders that, unless the latter wished to discuss the grievance, he must leave the room. At that point, an argument ensued between O'Harrow and Sanders regarding the right of the latter to inquire into the nature of the grievance and the esti- mated time that it would take to investigate it. Finally, O'Harrow stated to Loe that he was going to terminate the grievance discussion because Sanders was interfering with the process. Thereupon, O'Harrow picked up his brief case and left the conference room. Sanders and Loe also left the room but continued their discussion outside. Sanders told Loe that he did not want to do anything which would interfere with Loe calling a doctor but that he should not permit a procedural dispute between the Local and management to interfere with his right to present a grievance. According to Sanders, Loe replied that he felt any sick leave discussions were questioning his integrity and stated, "I have tried it your way, now I'm going to try it theirs." The meeting essentially ended at that point. Approximately 5 or 6 days later, Loe was on his way to the timeclock to punch out at the end of the day when he met Sanders. According to Loe, Sanders initiat- ed the discussion, stating, "Louie, I know you have a health problem. I haven't seen your grievance and until I have seen your grievance, I can't rule on it." Loe replied that he would have to talk to O'Harrow. Sanders re- sponded, "You don't need Pat . . . or anyone else to represent you in a grievance. You can come to me, we can discuss it, and chances are we can work something out." According to Loe, he responded that he would have to see O'Harrow and walked away. For the most part, Sanders' version of the conversation corroborates 260 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that of Loe. Thus, according to Sanders, he began the conversation by asking Loe if he had filed a grievance. Loe responded that he had not and, according to Sand- ers, he replied, "You know, until you discuss this with your supervisor, until he knows what the problem is, there is nothing in the world that he can do for you. You can sit down and talk to your supervisor about it. You don't have to have the Union at step one to discuss a grievance, you can sit down and talk to your supervisor and maybe you can work it out .... " Sanders testified that Loe ended this conversation the identical way he ended their earlier meeting, stating, "I have tried it your way, now I'm going to try it theirs." 2. Conclusions Counsel for the General Counsel, without supplying any case support, argument, or rationale, asserts that Sanders' conduct constituted direct dealing with bargain- ing unit employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. Respondent does not dispute that Sanders in- vited Loe to discuss a grievance but contends that Sand- ers' invitation was merely a restatement of the collective- bargaining agreement. Respondent further argues that, even if Sanders attempted to individually bargain with Loe, such should not be deemed unlawful inasmuch as it had a negligible impact on the Local's ability to act as the bargaining representative for Loe. As noted above, step one of the contractual grievance and arbitration pro- cedure contemplates a meeting between the grievant and his immediate supervisor, and "the employee, if he or she so desires may be accompanied and represented by the employee's steward or a Union representative." Thus, the contract makes permissible, but not mandatory, that an employee be accompanied by a union representative. Moreover, analysis of the testimony of both Loe and Sanders leads to the inescapable conclusion that Sanders was, in fact, merely setting forth for Loe what the con- tract provides-that, at the initial stage of the grievance procedure, Loe would have to meet with Sanders and that, if he so chose, Loe did not need a union representa- tive present when he spoke to Sanders.7 Furthermore, there is no evidence that Sanders pursued the matter with Loe or coerced Loe into discussing the merits of the grievance, that Sanders' actions in any way hindered Loe in filing a grievance over his problem, or that either Loe or the Local, on behalf of Loe, ever attempted to file a formal grievance over Loe's problem. Accordingly, I do not believe that, by a preponderance of the evi- dence, General Counsel has established that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by dealing di- rectly with bargaining unit employees. Accordingly, I shall recommend that paragraph 13 of the complaint be dismissed. I Clearly, by the wording of the grievance-arbitration provision of the existing collective-bargaining agreement, the Union has expressly waived any mandatory right to be present during first-step grievance meetings. Such a waiver has been sanctioned by the Board and the courts. The Dow Chemical Company, 215 NLRB 910 (1974), reversed on other grounds United Steel Workers ofAmerica, AFL-CIO v L.R.B., 536 F 2d 551) (3d Cir. 1976). CONCI.USIONS OF LAW 1. The National Labor Relations Board has jurisdiction over this matter by virtue of Section 1209 of the Postal Reorganizational Act. 2. The Union and the Local are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By issuing a warning notice, which is partially based on his conduct during the presentation of a grievance, to employee R. P. O'Harrow, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. 4. By issuing a warning notice, which is solely based upon his conduct during the presentation of a grievance, to employee Jack F. Woods, Respondent violated Sec- tion 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. 5. These unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 6. Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(l) and (5) of the Act by dealing directly with its employees. 7. Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening its employees with the imposition of any disciplinary action or by threatening to write them up because of their union membership, activities, and de- sires. REMEDY Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent unlawfully issued a letter of warning to employee Jack F. Woods, I shall recom- mend that it be required to revoke and expunge from its records all copies of said letter and take no action against Woods based, in whole or in part, on that warning letter. Having also found that Respondent unlawfully issued a letter of warning to employee R. P. O'Harrow based, in part, on his conduct during the presentation of a griev- ance, I shall recommend that it be required to revoke and expunge from its records those portions of all copies of said letter which refer to O'Harrow's conduct during the 5:30 a.m. meeting on February 2 at the Herring Sta- tion and take no action against O'Harrow based, in whole or in part, upon that portion of the letter of warn- ing which refers to O'Harrow's participation in said meeting. Upon the basis of the entire record, the findings of fact, and the conclusions of law and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recom- mended: I have previously concluded herein that O'Harrow was acting in an insubordinate manner when he confronted I.ove in the latter's office at 8 30 a.m on February 2. Accordingly. I concluded that Love's threat to file charges based on that incident was inot unlawful Thus, insofar as the February 3 warning notice refers to that incident. I find it to be lawful. Moreover. inasmuch as he two incidents appear to be separate and unre- lated and as the later confrontation appears to be separate grounds for insubordination, I shall not order that the entire letter be revoked and ex- punged from Respondent's records UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 261 ORDER 9 The Respondent, United States Postal Service, San Angelo, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and as- signs, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Issuing letters of reprimands to or threatening to discharge or discipline employees because of their pro- tected participation in grievance meetings. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Revoke and expunge from its records the letter of warning issued to Jack F. Woods on February 3, 1979, and take no action against him based, in whole or in part, on that reprimand. (b) Revoke and expunge from its records those por- tions of the letter of warning issued to R. P. O'Harrow on February 3, 1979, which refer to his participation in a 5:30 a.m. meeting on February 2 at the Herring Station and take no action against him based, in whole or in part, on that portion of the letter of warning. (c) Post at its San Angelo, Texas, facilities copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' 0 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 16, after being duly signed by Respondent's au- thorized representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con- secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or cov- ered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint should be dismissed insofar as it alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) and (5) of the Act by direct deal- ing with its employees and that Respondent violated Sec- tion 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening to discipline em- ployees or to write up employees because of their union membership, activities, and desires. 9 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the find- ings, 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. o1 In the event that 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 Pursu- ant 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 After a hearing at which all sides had an opportunity to present evidence and state their positions, the National Labor Relations Board found that we have violated the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and has or- dered us to post this notice. The Act gives employees the following rights: To engage in self-organization To form, join, or assist any union To bargain collectively through representa- tives of their own choice To engage in activities together for the pur- pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection To refrain from the exercise of any or all such activities. WE WILL NOT issue letters of reprimand to our employees or threaten them with discharge or disci- pline because of their protected participation of grievance meetings. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner in- terfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in the Act. WE WILL revoke and expunge from our records all copies of the letter of warning issued to Jack F. Woods on February 3, 1979, and WE WILL take no action against Jack F. Woods based, in whole or in part, on that letter of warning. WE WILL revoke and expunge from our records those portions of all copies of the letter of repri- mand issued to R. P. O'Harrow on February 3, 1979, which refer to his participation in a grievance meeting and WE WILL take no action based, in whole or in part, on that portion of said letter of warning. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE