Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LABOR NEWS—NLRB declines to address whether Postal Service OIG investigators are representatives, (May 6, 2025)

By Patricia K. Ruiz, J.D.

The Board concluded that it is unnecessary to address the status of OIG investigators, as there was no merit to the underlying allegations, even if the OIG investigators are representatives.

The National Labor Relations Board (Board) in an advice letter found no merit to allegations that OIG investigators refused to answer the questions of an employee’s union representative during an investigatory interview, in violation of J. Weingarten, Inc. (202 NLRB 446, 449 (1973)), as the union representative sought to ask questions after the Weingarten interview concluded. In another advice letter, the Board found no evidentiary or legal basis to impute the remarks of a manager working at a different subsidiary of the employer.

Questions by union representative. A case was submitted for advice as to whether Postal Service Office of Inspector General (OIG) investigators are considered Postal Service representatives such that the Postal Service (employer) is obligated under Section 8(1) to provide Weingarten rights to an employee or is 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. In 2023, two agents from the Postal Service’s OIG interviewed an employee regarding the alleged use of gift cards found in the parking lot of the employee’s assigned post office. A union steward was present at the interview as the employee’s union representative. The OIG investigators did not permit the union representative to ask them any questions.

Under Weingarten, an employee has the right to an informed union representative during an investigatory interview that the employee reasonably believes will result in discipline. The Board found that 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. There is no evidence that anyone refused to permit questions during the investigatory interview. The Board concluded that it is unnecessary to address the status of OIG investigators, as there was no merit to the underlying allegations, even if the OIG investigators are representatives.

Imputation of manager’s remarks. A case was submitted for advice as to whether a discharge violated Section 8(a)(1) where the employer, A&M Communication, a subsidiary of Congruex, lacked knowledge and animus toward the charging party’s protected concerted activities. The Board found no evidentiary or legal basis to impute the remarks of a manager working at a different Congruex subsidiary to the employer in order to prove these elements. Even if the charge were proper, the Board found, the charge only names the parent corporation, Congruex, and a newly filed charge against the correct employer would be untimely. The Board determined there is no evidence that the parent company caused the subsidiary to violate the Act, and there is no assertion or evidence of a single or joint employer relationship; thus, there is no basis to pursue the discharge allegation. The Board further determined there is no basis to prosecute certain statements made by agents of the employer and by agents of another subsidiary not named in the charge, assuming that they were unlawful.

Companies: A&M Communication; Congruex

News: LaborNews Labor UnionsMembers AgencyNews