🗞️ Show Me the Money: Kansas Postal Union Ordered to Disclose Grievance Settlement Figures

On March 20, 2026, Administrative Law Judge Charles J. Muhl issued a decision finding that American Postal Workers Union (APWU) Local 238, Kansas Kaw Valley Area Local, violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by refusing to provide grievance settlement information to Eva Ayalla, a former postal custodian and retired union steward.

The dispute arose from "Line H grievances" — periodic claims filed by the union on behalf of custodial workers at the Shawnee Mission Main Office Installation (SMMO) in the Kansas City/Overland Park area. These grievances allege that the U.S. Postal Service failed to schedule at least 90 percent of required annual custodial work hours, entitling affected employees to compensation for those non-worked hours. The union filed such grievances for fiscal years 2015/2016 and 2021/2022, both of which resulted in monetary settlements paid to covered custodians.

After receiving her share of the 2021/2022 settlement in May 2023, Ayalla spoke with two current bargaining-unit employees who shared her suspicion that the payment amounts were too low. Between June and October 2023, she submitted multiple written requests to union steward Skylar Wessely and union president Michelle Fitzpatrick asking for the total monetary remedy secured under each settlement, the number of custodians who received payments, and the individual amounts each custodian received. The union denied each request, citing employee privacy and the potential for workplace conflict. Ayalla was told only what she personally received and how that amount was calculated.

Judge Muhl addressed three central legal questions. First, he found that the union's refusals were not time-barred under Section 10(b) of the NLRA, which imposes a six-month statute of limitations. Because the limitations period runs from a union's clear and unequivocal refusal — not from an employee's initial request or awareness of the underlying issue — the first legally cognizable refusal did not occur until July 6, 2023, well within the filing window. Second, despite Ayalla's retired status at the time of her requests, the judge concluded the union still owed her a duty of fair representation. The contract violations giving rise to the grievances occurred while she was an active bargaining-unit employee, and the union had not yet fully discharged its representational obligations to her. Third, and most significantly, the judge held that the union's refusal was arbitrary. Under established NLRB precedent, a union breaches its duty of fair representation when its conduct is arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. Employees have a recognized, particularized interest in verifying that grievance settlement funds were fairly calculated and distributed — an interest that, in this case, outweighed the union's asserted privacy concerns. Ayalla's offer to accept redacted information (removing employee names) further undercut the union's rationale.

The judge ordered the union to immediately provide Ayalla with all requested settlement information and to post remedial notices at SMMO facilities for 60 consecutive days.

The case reinforces a broader principle in labor law: unions serving as exclusive bargaining representatives cannot use privacy or administrative convenience to shield the mechanics of grievance settlements from the employees those settlements are meant to benefit. The decision affirms that employees have a right to request information necessary to determine whether the union processed their claims fairly, and that the union has a corresponding obligation to provide it.

Key Points

• The grievances: APWU Local 238 filed "Line H" grievances for fiscal years 2015/2016 and 2021/2022, claiming the Postal Service failed to schedule the required 90% of annual custodial work hours; settlements resulted in monetary payments to covered custodians.
• The requests: Between June and October 2023, retired custodian Eva Ayalla made eight documented requests to the union for total settlement amounts, the number of recipients, and per-employee payment figures; the union refused or failed to respond to each.
• The union's defense: APWU Local 238 argued that the information was private, disclosure would cause workplace division, and that Ayalla's requests were untimely under the NLRA's six-month filing window.
• The ruling: Judge Muhl found all requests timely, held that the union owed Ayalla a duty of fair representation despite her retirement, and determined the refusals were arbitrary in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A).
• The standard: Under the duty of fair representation, a union's refusal to provide information is unlawful when it is arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. Conduct is arbitrary only when it falls so far outside a wide range of reasonableness as to be irrational; here, the employees' particularized interest in verifying fair payment distribution outweighed the union's privacy rationale.
• The remedy: The union was ordered to immediately disclose the requested settlement data and post official notices for 60 days at relevant facilities.
• Broader context: USPS OIG audits have previously identified millions of dollars in inaccurate Line H grievance payments systemwide, underscoring why employees may have legitimate reasons to scrutinize local settlement distributions.

Primary Source Author: Charles J. Muhl, Administrative Law Judge, National Labor Relations Board

Primary Source: American Postal Workers–Union 238 Kansas Kaw Valley Area Local (United States Post Office), Case 14–CB–332603, JD–17-26 (NLRB ALJ Mar. 20, 2026)

Primary Source Link: https://www.nlrb.gov/case/14-CB-332603

Supplemental References

• NLRB – Right to Fair Representation
• USPS OIG – Accuracy of Grievance Settlement Payments
• USPS OIG – Custodial Workhours (Line H Compliance Audit)
• APWU – Maintenance Craft Agreement with USPS Resolving Line H Dispute
• APWU – Winning 'Automatic' Remedies for Staffing Violations
• ArentFox Schiff – NLRB GC Clarifies Duty of Fair Representation Standards