Extract
Atlas Refinery, Inc., (2010)
Atlas Refinery, Inc. and Local 4-406, United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied, Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFLCIO. Case 22CA28403
January 15, 2010DECISION AND ORDER By Chairman Liebman and Member SchaumberOn August 7, 2009, Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Rosas issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions, a supporting brief, and an answering brief. The General Counsel filed exceptions, a supporting brief, and an answering brief. The National Labor Relations Board[1] has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judges rulings,[2] findings,[3] and conclusions as modified and to adopt the recommended Order as modified and set forth in full below.[4] We adopt the judges findings, for the reasons he stated, that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening to discharge employees who would not return to work under the new terms and conditions of employment that the Respondent unlawfully implemented; and by soliciting employees to withdraw from the Union; that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging employees Gilbert Alers, Raymond Ardiente, Bibiano Dechavez, Aybar Braudilio, and Alexander Nunez because they supported the Unions efforts to continue collective bargaining; and that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by (1) refusing to bargain with the Union as long as Jeff Gilliam was part of the bargaining committee,[5] (2) unilaterally implementing new terms and conditions of employment on June 9, 2008,[6] absent a valid impasse,[7] and (3) locking out employees in order to evade its duty to bargain with the Union. The General Counsel has excepted to the judges apparently inadvertent failure to find and remedy the Respondents unlawful withdrawal of recognition. We find merit in the exception. At the hearing, the judge granted the General Counsels motion to amend the complaint to allege that the Respondents withdrawal of recognition from the Union on June 13 violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. As the judge found, the Respondent unlawfully solicited employees to sign letters resigning from the Union. Therefore, the letters were tainted and the Respondent could not rely on them as evidence of the Unions loss of majority status.[8] Although the judge failed to conclude as a matter of law that the Respondent unlawfully withdrew recognition, the judges decision and recommended Order clearly contemplates a continuing bargaining relationship. We therefore find that the Respondents June 13 withdrawal of recognition, based solely on the unlawfully solicited resignation letters, violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. The judge also correctly found unlawful, but failed to specifically remedy, the Respondents June 9 implementation of new terms and conditions of employment and its lockout of unit employees on June 9. Accordingly, we have amended the conclusions of law and the remedy and substituted a new Order and notice to reflect the violations found and to conform to the Boards standard remedial language. Amended Conclusions of LawSubstitute the following for the judges Conclusion of Law 6.6. By refusing to bargain with the Union as long as Jeff Gilliam was part of the bargaining committee; unilaterally implementing new terms and conditions of employment on June 9 without bargaining to a valid impasse; locking out employees in order to evade its duty to bargain with the Union; and withdrawing recognition from the Union on June 13, the Company violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.Amended RemedyHaving found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Specifically, having found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discriminatorily discharging Gilbert Alers, Raymond Ardiente, Bibiano Dechavez, Aybar Braudilio, and Alexander Nunez, we shall order it to offer them reinstatement and make them whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits, computed on a quarterly basis from the date of discharge to the date of proper offers of reinstatement, less any net interim earnings, as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest, as computed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).[9]Having found ...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
