NLRB Advice Memoranda, United Parcel Service, National Labor Relations Board, (Dec 17, 2025)

The Region submitted this case for advice on whether to defer to a grievance settlement that resolved the termination at issue in the unfair labor practice charge. We conclude that tinder the circumstances in this case, the Region should defer to the grievance settlement and dismiss the charge, absent withdrawal.

Briefly, the Charging Party, ​     ​, was ​     ​. The instant charge alleges that ​     ​ 2023, discharge was issued in retaliation for ​     ​ Union and other protected conduct. The Employer had issued The Charging Party the termination for dishonesty ​     ​. The evidence established that the Employer also terminated other employees for the same conduct. In each instance, the Union negotiated settlements utilizing the grievance and arbitration procedure to return each of the employees to work in exchange for time served as an unpaid suspension. However, the Charging Party's resultant suspension length was longer than the other employees' suspensions and additionally, as a condition of ​     ​ settlement, the Charging Party agreed to wait until the new contract was in effect (which was about ​     ​ later) to file any additional grievances. The Charging Party then returned to work on the agreed upon return date. Other than an isolated issue that has been resolved via the grievance and arbitration procedure, the Charging Party has been working and continuing to exercise ​     ​ right to file grievances tinder the new CBA without issue since ​     ​ reinstatement.

The Board will defer to a grievance settlement when the proceedings were fair and regular, all parties agreed to be bound, and the resolution is not clearly repugnant to the principles and policies of the Act. Alpha Beta Co., 273 NLRB 1546, 1547 (1985), review denied sub nom. Mahon v. NLRB, 808 F. 2d 1342 (9th Cir. 1987) (extending NLRB deferral principles to settlement agreements reached during grievance and arbitration proceedings); see Catalytic, Inc., 301 NLRB 380, 381-82, 386 (1991) (grievance settlement not repugnant even though it provided for reinstatement without backpay where employee allegedly engaged in “gross insubordination” by countermanding the employer's orders regarding reporting times), review denied sub nom. Plumbers Local 520 v. NLRB, 955 F.2d 744 (D.C. Cir. 1992). Here, the settlement resolving the Charging Party's termination was negotiated by the Union and the Employer, largely following their standard procedure. All parties, including the Charging Party, agreed to and signed the written settlement agreement. The Charging Party was not disciplined for protected conduct; instead, ​     ​ does not deny engaging in the misconduct for which ​     ​ was terminated. The alleged waiver of the right to file grievances was for a very limited duration and there was no restriction on the Charging Party's right to access any NLRB processes. Considering these particular circumstances, we do not find that the settlement was repugnant to the Act.

Therefore, in light of the Acting General Counsel's recognition that deferral furthers the purposes and policies of the Act favoring private resolution of labor disputes, see Memorandum GC 25-10, Guidance for Deferring Unfair Labor Practice Cases, dated Aug. 7, 2025, and because we conclude that this grievance settlement met the requirements for deferral in Alpha Beta, the Region should dismiss the charge, absent withdrawal. Please contact us with any questions or concerns.

​     ​

Division of Advice

​     ​

Please be aware that this email may be subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act or other authorities, though exceptions may apply for certain case-related information, personal privacy, and other matters.