Extract
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 911 (1969)
PITTSBURGH PLATE GLASS CO. 911
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, Chemical Division and Local Union No. 1, Allied Chemical and Alkali Workers of America. Case 8-CA-4202July 9, 1969 DECISION AND ORDERBY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERSFANNING, BROWN AND JENKINS The complaint in this proceeding alleges that Respondent (the Employer) violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act by unilaterally modifying a negotiated hospitalization and surgical insurance plan for retired employees which was part of an outstanding collective-bargaining agreement between Respondent and the Charging Party (the Union).On April 14, 1967, Trial Examiner James V.Constantine issued a Decision finding that Respondent's conduct did not transgress the Act and recommending that the complaint be dismissed. The General Counsel, the Respondent, and the Charging Party filed exceptions and supporting briefs.' The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.' Those rulings are affirmed. The Board has also considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs of the parties, the briefs of the amici curiae,' and the entire record. We hereby adopt the Trial Examiner's findings and conclusions only to the extent that they are consistent with this Decision.A. The Union has represented employees in an appropriate unit at Respondent's Barberton, Ohio, plant since 1949. In 1950 the parties negotiated a contract which included provisions for a pension and a hospitalization and surgical insurance plan. They also reached an oral understanding that retired employees could elect to participate in the insurance plan by contributing the total cost of insurance premiums which would be deducted from their pension payments. Doubtless this was a meaningful benefit because it enabled retired employees to enjoy health insurance protection at the group rate. Except for a unilateral improvement made by Respondent in 1954, this oral understanding was effectuated without change for 9 years.In 1959 the parties negotiated an improvement in the insurance plan for retired employees by 'The Respondent's and the Charging Party's requests for oral argument are hereby denied because the record, including the exceptions and briefs, adequately presents all of the issues.'The Trial Examiner inadvertently stated in his Decision that the hearing was held in Mansfield , Ohio In fact it was held in Akron, Ohio.'Amicus curiae briefs were filed urging approval of the Trial Examiner's Decision by the Chamber of Commerce of the United States and the National Association of Manufacturers . Briefs urging reversal of the Trial Examiner's Decision were filed by the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,UAW, the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, and the Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO.increasing the maximum amount of daily hospitalization benefits. The parties also reduced to writing their understanding respecting the participation rights of retired employees.' During contract negotiations in 1962, the insurance plan was improved when Respondent agreed to contribute $2 per month towards the cost of insurance premiums for employees who retired after June 27, 1962, and who elected to participate in the plan. In these negotiations the parties also agreed to make age 65 the mandatory retirement age.In their negotiations for a new labor contract in 1964, the parties again bargained about insurance benefits for retired employees. The Respondent agreed to increase its monthly contribution for each participating retired employee from $2 to $4 per month. However, anticipating Congress' enactment of Medicare legislation, the parties agreed that upon that occurrence the Respondent could reduce its contribution by the amount of the 1964 increase (i.e., $2 per month).On November 23, 1965, following the enactment of Medicare and during the term of their outstanding collective-bargaining agreement, the Union asked the Respondent to engage in mid-term bargaining for the purpose of negotiating insurance benefits for retired employees of a type not available under Medicare. Respondent's industrial relations director, Rogers, took the request under advisement.Several months went by without any response. Then in Ma...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
