05/14/2025: Postal Service Dinged for Delaying Response to Information Request
A new ALJ Bench Book was released.
United States Postal Service, JD-41-25, 07-CA-300756 (ALJ Decision)
This case involves an unfair labor practice charge filed by the American Postal Workers Union (APWU) against the United States Postal Service (USPS) regarding a dispute at the Benton Harbor, Michigan facility. Administrative Law Judge Christine E. Dibble issued her decision on May 13, 2025.
The dispute centered on the Union's request for information about employee discipline records. On July 15, 2022, while engaged in an ongoing arbitration concerning allegations of racial discrimination against Black employees, the Union requested "a copy of any and all discipline issued to any and all employees regardless of craft" from January 1, 2019, to present. The Union clarified on August 2, 2022, that the request was limited to the Benton Harbor facility.
The request came after USPS introduced discipline records of three Caucasian letter carriers during the arbitration hearing. The Union sought the additional disciplinary records to substantiate its claim that Black employees were being disciplined more harshly than non-Black employees for similar infractions.
USPS delayed providing the requested information until September 27, 2022, arguing that the information request was burdensome, overbroad, constituted bad-faith bargaining, and was irrelevant. USPS also contended that the request amounted to prohibited pre-arbitration discovery.
Judge Dibble rejected USPS's arguments. She found that the requested information regarding unit employees was presumptively relevant to the Union's role as the bargaining agent. For non-unit employees, she determined the information was still relevant because it pertained to the Union's role in the grievance process. The Judge noted that the Union credibly established that it needed the information to assess the credibility of the Respondent's rebuttal in arbitration and to weigh the strength of the Union's case.
The Judge also rejected USPS's claim that the Union's request constituted prohibited pre-arbitration discovery. She determined that the Union had a legitimate purpose for the information in representing bargaining unit employees and processing grievances. The fact that the Union requested the information during ongoing arbitration did not render it improper pre-arbitration discovery.
Judge Dibble concluded that the Respondent's nearly two-month delay in providing the information was unreasonable, especially given the lack of evidence that obtaining the disciplinary records involved complex or voluminous documents. She found that USPS failed to explain why it took almost two months to obtain what should have been simple and limited information.
The Judge held that USPS violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act by unreasonably delaying the provision of necessary and relevant information to the Union. She ordered USPS to cease and desist from such practices and to post appropriate notices.
Significant Cases Cited
NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149 (1956): Established that an employer must provide a union with relevant information necessary for proper performance of its duties.
NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432 (1967): Held that the duty to bargain extends beyond contract negotiations and applies to labor-management relations during the term of an agreement.
Detroit Edison Co. v. NLRB, 440 U.S. 301 (1979): Addressed the scope of an employer's duty to provide information to a union.
West Penn Power Co., 339 NLRB 585 (2003): Established that in assessing the promptness of a response to an information request, the totality of the pertinent circumstances must be considered.
Whitesell Corp., 352 NLRB 1196 (2008): Affirmed that information requests regarding bargaining unit employees' terms and conditions of employment are "presumptively relevant" and must be provided.
Neil Jones Food Company Dba Toma-Tek, 32-RC-362939 (Regional Election Decision)
This case involves a representation petition filed by Teamsters Local 856 seeking an Armour-Globe self-determination election to add two Research and Development (R&D) Lab Technicians to an existing bargaining unit of approximately 1,127 employees at Neil Jones Food Co. d/b/a Toma-Tek's facility in Firebaugh, California.
The parties stipulated that the petitioned-for unit constitutes a distinct, identifiable segment of the Employer's employees. The key issue was whether the R&D Technicians share a sufficient community of interest with the existing bargaining unit to warrant a self-determination election.
The Regional Director analyzed several community of interest factors:
Organization of the Plant: R&D Technicians work in a different department from bargaining unit employees, which weighs slightly against finding a community of interest.
Skills and Training: The R&D Technician position requires no formal certifications or higher education, similar to bargaining unit positions. There are overlapping required skills between R&D Technicians and Quality Assurance Technicians and Batchers. This factor weighs in favor of finding a community of interest.
Job Functions and Work: Significant overlap exists between the job functions of R&D Technicians and QA Technicians, including using the same laboratory equipment and evaluating product attributes. This factor strongly favors finding a community of interest.
Functional Integration: R&D Technicians rely on unit employees to accomplish their core functions, and vice versa. The manufacturing employees would have nothing to produce without the work of the R&D Technicians. This factor strongly favors finding a community of interest.
Contact between Employees: R&D Technicians have regular contact with unit employees, sharing break areas and lunchrooms, and interacting with various departments to accomplish their work. This factor heavily favors finding a community of interest.
Interchange between Employees: No unit employee can temporarily replace an R&D Technician, though one current R&D Technician had transferred from a unit position. This factor weighs against finding a community of interest.
Terms and Conditions of Employment: R&D Technicians' wage rates fall within the range of bargaining unit pay rates, but their hours and benefits differ. This factor is neutral.
Supervision: R&D Technicians and unit employees do not share common direct supervision. The first common manager is the California Operations Vice President. This factor weighs against finding a community of interest.
Balancing these factors, the Regional Director concluded that despite separate departmental organization, lack of interchange, and lack of common supervision, the similarities in job function, skills, functional integration, and employee contact support finding a community of interest between R&D Technicians and the existing bargaining unit.
The Regional Director directed a self-determination election to allow the R&D Technicians to decide whether to join the existing bargaining unit or remain unrepresented.
Significant Cases Cited
Armour & Co., 40 NLRB 1333 (1942): Established the framework for self-determination elections where unrepresented employees may vote to join an existing bargaining unit.
Globe Machine & Stamping Co., 3 NLRB 294 (1937): Early case establishing principles for self-determination elections in representation proceedings.
Warner-Lambert Co., 298 NLRB 993 (1990): Clarified that an Armour-Globe election is the proper method to add unrepresented employees to an existing unit.
United Operations, Inc., 338 NLRB 123 (2002): Outlined the community of interest factors to consider in representation cases.
Walt Disney Parks & Resorts, U.S., Inc., 373 NLRB No. 99 (2024): Recent case discussing functional integration and stating job functions need not be completely identical to weigh in favor of finding a community of interest.
Substantive Additions to the 2025 NLRB ALJ Bench Book (Manual)
The Administrative Law Judge Bench Book was updated yesterday. The Bench Book, which is subtitled “An NLRB Trial Manual,” provides a digest of the various procedural rules that govern ALJ proceedings. The book is written for the ALJs but contains information that is useful for legal practitioners that bring cases at the NLRB.
Read the new version of the Bench Book here. Read a list of the changes and additions that were made to the Bench Book here.