I

COHEN, WEISS - SIMON COUNSEWRS AT h W

330 WEST 42 STREET N W >-om. N. Y. 10036 -

1 1 1 1 1 563-4100

M 00546

COUNSEL %mnr J. GOHEN -

WASHMOXW, D. C. O m C t lSl2 SUNDE- PLILZ. N. W. a0036

12021 7E5-OB95 '

November 30, 1981

0'

M r . Francis J. Conners Vice- Pres iden t National Association of

Letter Carriers lo0 Indiana Avenue, N.W. Washington, D . C . 20001

Dear Frank:

James Edgemon which should be of general interest . YOU disagree, I think it would be appropriate t o distribute coples o f th i s l e t t e r t o a l l the NBA s and resident officers

I enclose a l e t t e r that I have written today t o Unless

Sincerely yours,

KES/mS

cc: Vincent R. Sombrotto

1

c

M 00546

,

November 30, 1981

M r . James Edgemon National Association of

Letter Carriers 2300 Q h n t Way, #211 P.Q. BQX. 1269 Eugene, Oregon 97440

Re: Role of Shop Stewards During

Pos ta l Inspector Interrogation of Employees

Dear Jim:

This is t o follow up on OUT telephone conversation today concerning a grievance you are handling. involves an interrogation of a letter car r ie r by postal i n - spectors. the ca r r i e r ' s shop steward t o remain s i len t . ea r l i e r requested representation by the steward during the in- berrogation.

The grievance

During the interrogation the interrogatar required The car r ie r had

k,

As we discussed, the conduct of the inspector that you described was clearly unlawful mder the National Labor Relations Act. Recent decisions of the National Labor Rela- t ions Board and the United States Court of Appeals €or the

, Ninth Circuit established that: (1) when an employee bekng inte-ewed by an employer i s canfronted by a reasonable risk that discipline would be imposed, the employee has a r ight to the assistance of - not mere presence of - a mion representa- t ive ; and 2 that an employer d o l a t e o the A c t when i t "re- fus[es] t: iermit the representative t o I t speak, and re legat les] him t o the role of a passive obsemer.

W . James Edgemon Page 2 November 30, 1981

COHEX. WEISS ~ K D SIMON M 00546

I

Enclosed are copies of these rPcent decisions.

Sincerely yours,

I keith E. Secular

KEs/ms '

Enclosures

cc: Vincent R. Sombrotto Francis J . Conners

M 00546

TEXACO. PIC.. bnaccltes. wash. and OIL CHEBdICAL & ATOMIC W0P.KERS. M C A L 1-391. AFLCIO. Case No 19cA-9950, A u g W 27. 1990. 255 h732B No. 63

W W . T. Grimm. for General Cum- sel: John R. Tadlock. Denver, Colo.. for uuon; Wmam D. Evans. Lcs Anmpelu. cpuf.. for employer; Admtnlstrsti~e h~' fudge George Chrhtemen

Belore NLRB: FaaIIlne. ChnFnnan; Jenkins. Penello. and Ruesd+le. Mm-

?if 00546

105LRRpd 1240 TEZ4CO (l)inthenewoolPdembusJenkk~~and Truexlale. an employee !s not entitled to union representauon at meetings that have role purpose of hnpounp predecemmed discipbe. but here ern. ployer went beyond nct of Impcmng du- a p h e when I t sought and seared em- ployte’s uimtsslon of possiSle nucon- Ber Pendo fmd U t employee wp85 en- titled to union representaUon rr- wdless of ahether mtemew Is termed “dsciplman‘’ or “lav.ui~@&ry ’’

-E~ployee internes t 50.728

duct; (2) Chhalnnan -P m d Mm-

M OQ546 105LRRM 1241

// / I

M 001546

TEXACO 105LXRM 1242

"On

Laa n e

i Y

'103

?I 00546

105LRRM 1244 TEXACO

role at me IntervIev. We therefore flnd tbrt a-ith regard to the Shtc r insemeu Respond- en1 mmmIL%ed no We- nolauon

Eav;np found v11. Responden: did not nc- late Lke Act w:h regard to S u w . we hereby

. la the v ~ ~ t a n c use. we believe that

Deurtch was plpinlr entitled to a m o n re. uruenmuve rega rdks of uhether h v m e r - viea mas termed u1vatwatov or disciulw-

orexnulive. Reswndent mndtdoned tlre y AlthQUgh DeufsCh was provided ath 1 re- reuresentatlve's presence w o n hls ~ m ~ 9 - lnc silent nt the mww:eu We u n e with Lhe mjonts 'hll such cIrcum%cnpcIon at Lhe rr presenuuve I role violated Section 8 m ~ 1 1 of me k t

Wlth respect &a t h e Slater gtmrvlea. the m o r i s y finds that the andtiion of dlence

&mas 10 found. Member Truadrle then

that Reswndenr did not re& on Inionnation obuined at the unlawful Intenleu in lrt d e w o n u) divupllnt.

It Lr exyemcly dUficult to ducem Boa an aaployer a u l d (1) decide u) ronlinue ita in- vaueauon Of cm~loy+e pLumndYet through an inruvreu' oi the urused rmolovee. (2 ) ai.

W l u d e S Lo hw di.Smt tmm the remedy

pG&tmm-im-mmd ~ L I rdmm to the

mew. In lu recent deasion In llllnols Bell Telephone Campms. 251 NLRB No. 128.105 WRM 1236 (1980). t h e Board set forth the remedul sun- L P P ~ P ~ ~ ~ W for Wclnprr t en molatlom. There t h e Board held that

r e p m d recelved by DeuLSCb st U t Om-

rcind t h e diXtplint:-. T h e abvlous effect 01 this aPorOaCh is lQ

. .-_ - .- 0: a pnsoh The B m c ordered t h e employer 'lo remsute the employe md U, e x p u n ~ e tmm !u records ~ n v reference to t h e nasuCI.

M 00546

SO-BEUTEL

Suadalupe RuLz, far General C o w - s e t Greg Frszer arid :oe I Randle. Emstor. Tex.. for employer: h'ete.fra. p e r SeIW ( W W h'. Wheat d: Asoci- ate51 Exston T u . for * d o = : Ad- minhr~uve LOP J.Jdgc -on C. Lac- KLC.

Before hLW: Fannlno. C ~ a r m a r : J e n k ~ ~ s . Penello, and Tmesdale. Mea. ben

rnmRnxzh'm see 8:a::I) --Investigaton l n t e m e w b 50.728 Emplcyer vio:ated LMF-4 when. at ID.

ves:iotorp h r e f i i e w L?ot a p i o y e e reasonab!r feared mgh: resul: rn d w i - p b e , !: demeo employee unioc r e x e . sen'.aLic= by repurrng union s r e r z r l :o re- silen:. :I! Employer arwr?red from o u w t oi rntemea (0 n d l e &?I

vie- (2 ) vher. secw.fy S'Jpemor ?e- manded sttwph!3 sllence. there ID~F, nc l l l d t c0~0~ f.hat stewk-d had sought or would seek to r.m interviev ?nto cc3ec- tive 5arcoLnmg or adversary ccnlmntn. tion; (3) employee WBS codronted at La- terrlea by superv'tor who w s m e d ln lnterropsuon rechniaues and who used thcrc tccpcl~ues to procure em. plopec's coafession that he had m l e n ccnpuw 3roperty.

pmicipa<iOc by SteUard d V ? g Inter.

.. .

b p l O y C r dld 30: V l O k C e ahen I: reqwed d o c representative tc re mrla silent st meetin# Ln which super- v w r tnlormed employee of her drs. w e . (1) In Eatan Rouge Water W o r k (103 LRRM :OM). mjorlty of t o ry right to umcn representation a: meet- held lo:eIy to hform employee NLRB hdd that employee hu CO 6tOCU-

-Rein& tc twrds3~ information t 54.5235 t 54.5237

iDnplogcr that suspended e v e r . for allegedly lying about his r a t f i c nola. tions when he filled out employment application violated LMRA when it de- nied union's request for CQPY of applica- tion as well BS copy of dnver's driving record ShBz employer had received from state authorities. (1) Requested docu- ment~ were relevant and ne- lor perfomlance of d o n ' s SKatUtOry f u n C . tion in repmentino driver: (2) DO merit is found in empioyer's contention that denlal of union's request ~ F ~ L S lawful be- muse brlver had not authorized release of information from his personnel fibe.

QRDER 5ec lO(c) --Reinstatemcut a n d back pay

P 56.4252 Emplogee Tho Uniariully was de-

pri9ed of union representation at io- vestigatom interviev that resulted in his suspension and termination is e x i - tled to relnsatement and back prs, where employer's decision to discharoe employee was bssed on mfonnstion that it obtained at interview.

[Tmll The AbmlnisvsUve l a w Judge found. Lnter Ili& thht the RCSL)ondmt: (13 violated Section Bta)(l) of thr Act by rtpllir. Iru employee GoLUEhrUr's union steward U, remain silent during L I ~ hwesticatorp mer- viea mnctmlng Qotuchalk. thereby dcpriv. h g h b of Nr -on represenutive's counsel m d a&sunce during fhe LsLemIeW. (21 dld not VlriolbLe Section Btn)(ll by UeSedlP d e a r l a cnrployn B r w b of union rcuR- Senration st an 0ferview at which she wns informed of her discharge: md (3) did not nolaLc Section 8(a1(0) by re!usiru fo iurnuh the Wrdon with copies of cercrln daeumencr t m m unu>oyee hCuUn's pcmrmel file Wth- out Mmin'r p?tLten pcpuuh The Rapcnb eut hu exceuled, LIlftr Ilia fo the MmInb m U v e Law ,Judie'r lfndlnD tht It is not per. Wtted fo require a union rearrrcnuuve to

vler of UI e ~ ~ p l o y e e . ?he Oenernl 'Counrel hrr exceuted Lo the AdmtnLttnUst Iav

re& S U a 6 d W g UI fnVUUZ.tOf7 Om?.

Judre'r f k d h g lhrt B-kS SU Mt d d e d

I

!

! I : : ; . .

1 '

M 00546

SOUTEWESTERN BELL "EL-

So- B U - PHONE COMPANP. Houston, Tez and COMMDKICATIONS WOR- EERS. LOCAL 12222. M Z C I O . Cmc

g u t 21. 198Q. 251 KLRB No. 61 Guadalme Rulz. for General Coun-

sel: Greg m e r and Joe L Randle. Houston Tex.. for employer. Neta.Ra- zier Seibcr (WlLpm N. Wheat B Assod- ares). Souston, T e r fur union: Aal. minuhatlPe Law Judze Morion C. Lad-

NOS 23-CA-7024, -7072. and -7151, Au-

ken

IXrnREZRENCE sef $(al(l) --Inresbgatcy interview t 50.728 Employer*olatedL?GL4 when. at m.

vesbgawn m e m e w that employee reasonablr feared mght result In disci. pllns. it o a e d employee m a n repre sentation by reputring m o a steuard t o re- silent (1) Employer attempted from outset of intenlea to M e a n y partidpation by steward duping inter. mea; (2) when s e m t y supemor de- manded neaard's silence, there wpss no lndiation that steward had sought or would seek Lc S u m fntenriew tntc collec- tive baqaining or adversary confront& Uon: (3) employee a confronted a t in. bmiea by supemsor who U-YBS traraed m latemopation techniques and who used those techniques tc p m e em. ployec's confession that he hod stolen mrnpplly property.

-Union representation at interview t 511.72%

of. and act on premouly d e dYcipU- narY deddon: (21 Members Jenlripc a d Truesdale find that fmal dKvion to diti c h a q e anplo~ee had been reached prior to meeting. that declnon n based on facts and rmdence obtalhed

-: (33 Chvrman FaanLng and M e m k Penello, who W t t d in Baton Rouge Water Works. would lmd that meeting rose to level of fnterview req- Wcrnganen (88 LRRM 2689) proorrctlon and that employer therefore violated Art

R E N S X G TQ BARGAIN Sec 81a)(5)

prior t.0 meetbg, and that sole purpose Of m e e m UFgs t.0 & O m ~ P l O Y ~ Of

Employer that suspended driver for allegedly lying a u t hk W i c viola- tions when he illled out employment appUcation Pdolated LMRA when lt de- nied union's request far copy of applica- tion as well as COPS of driveis dririne w r d that employer had received from state authorities. (1) Requested docu- men= were relevant and ne- tor performance of unlon's statutory twnc. don in repmating driver. (2) no merit is found in mpPoyer's contention that denid of aml0n"s request w laMul Be- cause 'driver had not authorized release of Momstion from Ms pemnnel file.

- PLcincSadcment amd back pay t 56.4212

Employee uho unlawfulis was de-' prived of union representation at in- v e s i g a o r y inremew that resulted % his suspension and termination LZ entl- tied t o reinstatement :snd back pay, =here employer's declsion to discharge employee ens based 'on mfonnation that ir obtilnctl at interview.

M 00546

t~s&niso;j. when Hubbud d m h y e d the swlen p r o m y (which bad been rec~vcred from a pawn shop) and beean 2 5 U n O Gotfs:halk about his I n P O I V a I m I f In t h e II- leged theft. Gotuchalk requcmd union Pep rcsentsion. Union S t e a d MeQuiUer 'was d e d m and informed of the abgbtioni against Gottschalk. Hubbard then MOmed McQuiller that he did not am1 htm to sas Z I I ~ L ? ~ ~ . and :hat he ranred GCtlsChalk to ansure: m h u o m c0rds.i Eubbard then ques:ione$ Gotiwhrlk funher. informtnp him that L' he did nor EOnf(C.I to ncollng propeny he would be arr-d by a Do. .tcemiri wno xes nlresd! on hu us7 to the Respondent's offrCS.t GOtuchalk became very cpsel ana began w e-, and ahof& theregter he conieued to the theft of the c o r n ~ a n ~ " s propex? s a-ell PI LO several OLhe: thefu of eomp?.n? p.ropenT. Mer a written corileuion cs nsned. Rubbud asked McQuiller K ht h id anvthlw S W . Tnereafter. Gkncr suspended GOu3ehllt pending t e m n u i a n

NLR.B. v. J. weinguten. h . 1 to the mere

3 the 1-I c u e . t h e Reswnda:. b? de. m d l n g Lhe ri:cnce o! Gotuchak I union steward UnLU Ult: GotucnaU U d can.

I

. .

M 0054E

~ . . .- - b&n able tu renew the documen& It m&ht hwe been able tu . b a r -In Y tu wheth. er he ahauld mlm fmm the RcmondmL or

M 00546

~~ ...... ... .~. . W. Bohrnnon &d M O U Npernsar~ Cold emulOYees sr thelr work ruUonr on tne d.0 of (he elecoon thrt cney mould v o u and