Extract
Georgia Power Co., 192 (2004)
Georgia Power Company and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 84. Case 10–CA–33361
June 30, 2004DECISION AND ORDERBy Chairman Battista and Members Schaumber and WalshOn September 12, 2002, Administrative Law Judge Pargen Robertson issued the attached decision. The General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed an answering brief. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, the Charging Party International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 84 (the Union) filed an answering brief, and the Respondent filed a reply brief.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, and conclusions as modified and to adopt the recommended Order as modified and set forth in full below.1 1. For the reasons set forth in his decision, we agree with the judge’s dismissal of the complaint allegation that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act by creating its Workplace Ethics program, and by recognizing, supporting, and assisting it. A prerequisite to finding such a violation is that the entity involved is a “labor organization” as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act. Crown Cork & Seal Co., 334 NLRB 699, 700 (2001). The record supports the judge’s key finding that Workplace Ethics is not a labor organization under Section 2(5) because it does not exist, even in part, for the purpose of “dealing with” the Respondent. Id. Compare Keeler Brass Co., 317 NLRB 1110, 1114 (1995) (“dealing with” found because “grievance procedure functioned as a bilateral mechanism, in which the Respondent and the committee went back and forth explaining themselves until an acceptable result was achieved”).  2. The judge found, and we agree for the reasons set forth in his decision, that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by making unilateral changes in bargaining unit employees’ terms and conditions of employment by implementing the Workplace Ethics program, without providing the Union notice and adequate opportunity to bargain.2 In addition, we agree with the judge, as set forth in his decision, that the Respondent bypassed the Union and dealt directly with bargaining unit employees in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by communicating directly to unit employees regarding the formation of Workplace Ethics by its memorandum dated June 1, 2001. See Southern California Gas Co., 316 NLRB 979, 982 (1995) (direct dealing occurs when respondent communicates directly with union-represented employees to the exclusion of the union, for the purpose of establishing or changing terms and conditions of employment or undercutting the Uni...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
