NLRB Advice Memoranda, United States Postal Service, National Labor Relations Board, (Mar 26, 2025)

Good afternoon,

The Region submitted these cases for advice as to whether Postal Service Office of Inspector General (OIG) investigators are considered Postal Service representatives such that the Postal Service (the Employer) is obligated under Section 8(a)(1) of the Act to provide Weingarten rights to an employee, or obligated under Section 8(a)(5) of the Act to furnish information responding to a union steward's questions during an investigatory interview involving OIG investigators. We conclude it is unnecessary to address the status of OIG investigators at this time because there is no merit to the underlying allegations even if the OIG investigators are representatives.

On ​          ​ 2023, two agents from the Postal Service's OIG interviewed an employee regarding the alleged use of gift cards that ​          ​ found in the parking lot of ​          ​ assigned post office. A union steward from the Letter Carriers Branch 2420 (the Charging Party) was present at the interview as the employee's union representative. The OIG investigators questioned the employee for approximately two hours. After the investigators concluded the interview, the union representative asked if ​          ​ could have a minute of their time. They agreed. The union representative started to read the first question in a list of questions ​          ​ had prepared prior to the interview, “Are you aware that you must be honest and forthcoming in any Postal investigation in accordance with …” and one of the OIG investigators interrupted the union representative and said they would not answer questions. There was never any follow-up about requesting to interview the OIG investigators again.

Based on these facts, we initially conclude the Employer did not violate Section 8(a)(1) as alleged. Pursuant to Weingarten, an employee has the right to an informed union representative during an investigatory interview that the employee reasonably believes will result in discipline. J. Weingarten, Inc., 202 NLRB 446, 449 (1973), enforced, 420 U.S. 251 (1975). “The representative is present to assist the employee and may attempt to clarify the facts or suggest other employees who may have knowledge of them ….” 420 U.S. at 260. The employee here had a union representative, who was informed as to the nature of the investigation and present at the investigatory interview. The only evidence with regard to a potential Weingarten violation was the union representative's request to interview the OIG investigators, which occurred after the Weingarten interview was concluded, not during the interview. (The available information clearly states the request to interview the OIG investigators occurred after the employee's interview was over.) There is no evidence that anyone refused to permit questions during the investigatory interview. Thus, Weingarten is not implicated here.

Generally, under Section 8(a)(5), a collective-bargaining representative is entitled to information relevant and necessary to carry out its statutory duties and responsibilities, barring a legitimate justification for withholding the information. However, the Board has never affirmatively held that interview requests are cognizable as requests for information under Section 8(a)(5) and it is the Acting General Counsel's position that requests for interviews are not information requests. Therefore, the union representative's request to interview the OIG investigators was not a cognizable information request that could be the basis for a Section 8(a)(5) violation.

Accordingly, because we conclude the underlying Section 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5) allegations do not have merit, we do not reach the question of whether Postal Service OIG investigators are considered Postal Service representatives under the Act. The Region should dismiss the charges, absent withdrawal.

This email closes these cases in Advice as of today. Please contact us with any questions or concerns.

​          ​

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.