The Respondent has employed Teresa Boyd since August 1998, and she has been a city letter carrier for over 18 years. Boyd has held various positions with the Union, including serving as president and chief shop steward since 2018. The judge found that Boyd has filed over 200 grievances and numerous unfair labor practice charges in her capacity as a Union official. During her employment, Boyd has sustained several work-related injuries and, at various times, has received a limited duty job offer (also known as a “2499 modified assignment”) to accommodate those injuries. To create a 2499 modified assignment, management relies on a duty status report form (CA-17 form), which an injured employee can obtain from the employee’s supervisor and have completed by a physician. The employee submits the completed CA-17 form to the employee’s supervisor, who provides a copy to the Respondent’s Occupational Health Claims Office (OHCO) and the Department of Labor (DOL). Management then conducts a search for limited duty work within the restrictions set out by the physician and determines what work is available. Based thereon, management prepares a 2499 modified assignment, which the OHCO reviews to ensure that the duties do not exceed the medical limitations.

As detailed in the judge’s decision, on February 11, 2020, supervisor Waylon Morrison offered Boyd a 2499 modified assignment related to her 987 claim that gave her 1.5 hours per day of work casing mail. Boyd objected that it was not a suitable offer. After Morrison responded that this was all he had available, Boyd accepted this work schedule and continued to work under this 2499 modified assignment at the time of the hearing in this proceeding. On May 29, 2020, the Union filed an unfair labor practice charge in Case 12–CA–261361 alleging that, since about April 24, 2020, the Respondent had discriminated against Boyd by not providing her with limited-duty assignments in order to discourage Union activities and membership.

The crux of the General Counsel’s theory underlying the complaint allegation is that, as of October 7, 2020, Boyd’s medical documentation was sufficient to establish that Boyd could work a full-time schedule with appropriate assignments consistent with her medical restrictions but that the Respondent unlawfully failed to offer Boyd a full-time work schedule in retaliation for her protected activities.

We find that the record establishes that Boyd was cleared to work a full-time schedule with appropriate assignments as of October 7, 2020, and, further, that an application of Wright Line warrants a conclusion that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by failing to offer Boyd a full-time work schedule since October 7, 2020, as alleged in the complaint.

In addition, we find, as the judge did, that the May and July 2020 emails of two high-level management officials (in which they referenced Boyd’s protected activity and expressed their hope that disciplinary actions issued to her would stick) conveyed hostility towards her activities as a Union official and therefore satisfy the animus element of the General Counsel’s initial burden.

Abstract by Don Cheney, Tacoma WA

See: Carrier’s Denial of Limited Duty Work Violated the NLRA.pdf