Extract
Talsol Corp., 290 (1995)
Talsol Corporation and United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO-CLC and Darryl Denham.Cases 9-CA-28466-1, 9-CA-28517-1, -2, -3, -4, 9-CA-28624, 9-CA-28665, 9-CA-28725, 9- CA-28887, 9-CA-28974, 9-CA-29114, 9-CA- 29183, 9-CA-29351, 9-CA-29459, and 9-CA- 29895-2May 8, 1995DECISION AND ORDERBY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS COHEN AND TRUESDALEOn December 30, 1993, Administrative Law Judge George F. McInerny issued the attached decision. The Respondent and the General Counsel each filed exceptions and supporting briefs.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 conclusions1 and to adopt the recommended Order as modified and set forth in full below.2 1. The judge found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing to follow its past practice of granting wage increases to certain employees. The Respondent had a policy of evaluating employees in the spring of each year and subsequently granting raises to certain unit employees later in June. On May 31, 1991, after a May 10 representation election but before the Union's certification as representative, the Respondent advised the Union that it did not want to give the June increases because of its ''legal obligation to maintain the status quo pending negotiations.'' In its June 5 response, the Union urged the Respondent to continue its past practice of granting the June increases. The Respondent then proposed in a June 7 letter that the June increases be postponed ''pending negotiations for a contract.'' The Union did not respond.In addition, on June 24 the Respondent advised the Union that it planned to increase the wages of certain paintmakers. By June 27 letter the Union rejected the Respondent's proposed increase and advised the Re- spondent that it was willing to negotiate the wages for all employees.The judge found that the June wage review program was a term and condition of employment and that the Respondent's unilateral change in that term and condition of employment was a violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1). The Respondent had a preexisting practice of reviewing employee performance in the spring of the year and awarding raises to worthy employees in June. By letter dated May 31, 1991, the Respondent informed the Union that it would not be awarding the raises in June 1991. In our view, this belated letter did not give the Union reasonable notice and opportunity to bargain, and, a fortiori, was prior to impasse. Accordingly, a violation exists under either of the views expressed in Daily News of Los Angeles, 315 NLRB 1236 (1994).Accordingly, we find that the Respondent's discontinuance of its customary wage increases in June 1991 violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 2. The General Counsel has excepted to the judge's finding that there was no complaint allegation that employee Pam McNew had been unlawfully transferred to the aerosol line and his statement that he would make no finding on the transfer.3 We agree with the General Counsel. On May 27, 1992, at the hearing, the judge allowed the General Counsel to orally amend paragraph 7(e) of the sixth consolidated amended complaint to allege McNew's unlawful transfer. In his decision, the judge made findings of fact consistent with the legal conclusion that McNew's transfer violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1). In that regard he found that McNew was transferred a few days after the Respondent received the Union's April 15, 1991 letter identifying McNew as an in-plant organizer. The judge further found that other union activists were unlawfully transferred to the aerosol line and that the aerosol room ''lent itself to use as a kind of insulated holding pen to prevent the spread of unionism among its employees'' (sec. III,F,2, 11th paragraph) and that ''it follows, then, that the assignment to the aerosol line was a punishment for union activities, and a separation of known union activists.'' (Sec. III,F,2, 12th paragraph.) Thus, we find merit to the General Counsel's exception and we conclude that McNew was unlawfully transferred. We shall modify the conclusions of law, remedy, Order, and notice accordingly. 3. The judge found, inter alia, that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by imposing more onerous working conditions on employee Curtis Compton, issuing a warning and suspension to employee Geraldine Broadus, issuing a disciplinary warning to employee Sue Brewer, transferring Brewer and employee Velvie1 In agreeing with the majority that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(1) by discharging employee Darryl Denham because of remarks concerning employee safety that he made at a safety meeting also atten...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
