Extract
Webasto Sunroofs, Inc., 1222 (2004)
Webasto Sunroofs, Incorporated and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL–CIO. Case 7–CA–43470
September 23, 2004DECISION AND ORDERBy Chairman Battista and Members Liebman and SchaumberOn July 26, 2001, Administrative Law Judge Jerry M. Hermele issued the attached decision. Counsel for the General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The Respondent filed an answering 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,1 and conclusions only to the extent consistent with this Decision and Order.2The complaint alleged that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by distributing a memo to foreign-born employees with a provision entitled “Accepting NO for an answer.” The judge found that the Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by distributing this memo to employees. We disagree for the reasons set forth below. The complaint further alleged that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by refusing to change temporary employees to full-time permanent status during the union organizing effort.3 Applying the test established in FES, 331 NLRB 9 (2000), appeal after remand 333 NLRB 66 (2002), enfd. 301 F.3d 83 (3d Cir. 2002), the judge dismissed this allegation. We agree with the judge’s finding that the Respondent did not violate the Act in this regard; however, we reach this conclusion by application of the Board’s Wright Line test, rather than FES, as discussed below.4BackgroundThe Respondent manufactures automobile sunroofs at its Livonia, Michigan facility. There are 200 employees at this facility, many of whom are foreign-born temporary employees.5 From 1998 through May 2000,6 the Respondent worked with Olsten Staffing Services (Olsten) to obtain temporary employees for its Livonia facility. The agreement between Olsten and the Respondent stated that the Respondent “may hire any staffing service assignment employee directly after that assignment employee remains on staffing service payroll for a period of 520 working hours,” or approximately 90 days. The Respondent also had the additional requirement that any temporary employees, in order to be eligible for permanent status, must exhibit good work performance and a permanent job opening must be available.On...See the full content of this document
