Five Star Mfg., 1301 (2006)

Extract

---

Five Star Mfg., 1301 (2006)

Five Star Manufacturing, Inc. and Teamsters Local Union No. 245, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Cases 17–CA–22626, 17–CA–22757, 17–CA–23037, and 17–CA–23129

December 27, 2006

DECISION AND ORDER

By Members Schaumber, Kirsanow, and Walsh

On May 4, 2006, Administrative Law Judge John H. West issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, to which the General Counsel filed an answering brief.1

The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.

The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,2 and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order as modified and set forth in full below.3

The judge found, and we agree for the reasons set out in his decision, that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discharging employee David Tanksley on February 11, 2004; Section 8(a)(3), (5), and (1) by confiscating employees’ keys to its facility and changing employees’ work schedules on February 12, 2004; Section 8(a)(3), (4), and (1) by reassigning Tanksley to different and more difficult work on April 19, 2004, and to a different work location on May 20, 2004; and Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by continuing to award or deny discretionary bonuses and vacation pay after the Union’s certification.4 We also adopt the judge’s finding that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discharging Tanksley for a second time on April 26, 2005.5

Amended Remedy

The judge recommended a narrow cease-and-desist order, enjoining the Respondent from in “any like or related manner” interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. In Hickmott Foods, 242 NLRB 1357, 1357 (1979), the Board stated that a broad cease-and-desist order, enjoining a respondent from violating the Section 7 rights of employees “in any other manner,” is warranted “when a respondent is shown to have a proclivity to violate the Act or has engaged in such egregious or widespread misconduct as to demonstrate a general disregard for the employees’ fundamental statutory rights.” In either situation, the Board reviews the totality of circumstances to ascertain whether the respondent’s specific unlawful conduct manifests “an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act to protect the rights of employees generally,” which would provide an objective basis for enjoining a reasonably anticipated future threat to any of those Section 7 rights. Postal Service, 345 NLRB 409, 410 (2005).

When the Respondent was initially informed of its employees’ efforts in the Union’s organizing campaign, Jim Woodward, the Respondent’s president, predicted that the employees were “finding themselves a way out of there.”6 Faced with the Union’s successful organizing campaign, the Respondent engaged in a wide variety of egregious unfair labor practices, most of which were committed by Woodward. He followed through on his earlier prediction by discriminatorily discharging union supporter Tanksley on the day of the election, within minutes of the close of balloting. The morning after the election, the Respondent changed the locks on its facility, which denied employees the early morning access that they had enjoyed for many years prior to the election, and Woodward demanded that employees return their keys to the building and unilaterally changed employees’ work schedules and breaktimes, all without bargaining with the Union and in retaliation for the employees’ selection of the Union as their bargaining representative. During the course of the morning after the election, Woodward also made statements to employees implying that the Union’s election victory had caused the Respondent to confiscate their keys and that rejection of the Union would improve working conditions. Following the Union’s certification, Woodward continued awarding and denying employees discretionary bonuses and vacation pay without bargaining with the Union.

Although the Respondent later reinstated Tanksley to his former position, albeit without backpay, the Respondent did so only after he filed a charge of discrimination with the Board. Upon Tanksley’s reinstatement, Woodward discriminatorily reassigned him to more onerous work and to a different work location, both in retaliation for his prior union activity and because he filed a charge with the Board. The Respondent also began recording any infraction by Tanksley, however minor, in order to find some reason to discharge him. The Respondent the...

See the full content of this document

---