Inductive Components, 1448 (1984)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

Inductive Components, Inc. and Local 1922, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFLCIO. Cases 29-CA-8987, 29-CA-9241, and 29-CA-9300

6 September 1984 DECISION AND ORDER

BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS

ZIMMERMAN AND HUNTER

On 28 December 1983 Administrative Law Judge Winifred D. Morio issued the attached decision. The Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions and supporting briefs.

The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a threemember 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 conclusions2 only to the extent consistent with this Decision and Order.

The judge found that the Respondent had committed numerous violations of Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act. Although we adopt the judge's other findings, we do not adopt her findings that the Respondent unlawfully granted employee Millian a lower wage increase than other employees and unlawfully caused employee Sciarpelletti to quit her job with the Respondent.

In July 1981 the Respondent granted wage increases of only 10 cents per hour to employees Millian, Bowers, and Underwood while granting its approximately 36 other employees wage increases from 15 to 30 cents per hour. The judge found that the Respondent granted the lower increases to Millian, Bowers, and Underwood because they had accompanied the Union's representatives when they met with the Respondent's president to demand recognition. Accordingly, the judge found that these lower wage increases violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.

While we adopt the judge's finding that the 10cent-per-hour wage increases granted Bowers and Underwood were unlawful, we find that the Respondent met its Wright Line3 burden of showing In the absence of any exceptions thereto, Chairman Dotson adopts pro forma the judge's findings that the Respondent coercively interrogated employees Winter and Aiello on 17 April and 2 June 1981, respectively.

2 The judge found that the Respondent had unlawfully reprimanded employee MacMillen for door slamming, but inadvertently neglected to include this finding in her Conclusions of Law or in that part of her recommended Order requiring the Respondent to expunge all such warnings from its record We have modified the Conclusions of Law and Order accordingly.

3 Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980).

271 NLRB No. 209 that it would have granted Millian a 10-cent-perhour wage increase even absent her union activity.

The record clearly establishes that, unlike Bowers and Underwood, Millian was never considered a good employee. Thus on completion of her probationary period in November 1980 Millian also received only a 10-cent-per-hour salary increase, an increase lower than that received by other employees on completion of their probationary periods. At her next salary review in January 1981 Millian again received the same 10-cent-per-hour increase, the lowest amount given employees at that time.4

During both of these salary reviews, Millian was advised that her increase was lower than that of other employees because she lacked versatility.

Further, there is no evidence to suggest that Millian's performance subsequently improved. Indeed, all the evidence suggests just the opposite. Between her January and July 1981 salary reviews Millian received four warnings for poor work, a warning for not checking with her supervisor about her duties, and a warning and a 3-day suspension for leaving work without permission. None of these warnings or the suspension was found unlawful by the judge.

With respect to Sciarpelletti, the judge found that the Respondent's unlawful conduct in assigning her more onerous work and isolating her in a corner of the workshop because of her union activities caused her to quit. Accordingly, the judge found that the Respondent had constructively discharged Sciarpelletti in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.

We disagree. The judge's own factual findings, which are supported by the record, establish that Sciarpelletti quit because of personal problems and because of recent disciplinary actions taken against her, actions which the judge found were justified and lawful.5

The record is barren of any testimony or other evidence that the Respondent's unlawful conduct in assigning her more onerous work6 and 4 In contrast, Bowers received merit wage increases of 20 and 25 cents per hour and Underwood increases of 15 and 35 cents per hour at their immediately preceding two salary reviews.

5 Thus, in sec. VII of her decision, the judge states:

After this suspension la 3-day suspension for harassing another employeel, Sciarpelletti concluded that the Company was 'setting her up,' if they could not discharge her for attendance, or poor work performance, they would fabricate things about her. According to Sciarpelletti, she was then having personal problems and she could no longer face the uncertainty about her job, and she decided to resign.

a Member Hunter agrees with his colleagues' conclusion that the Respondent unlawfully changed Sciarpelletti's work assignments. However, in doing so, he does not adopt the judge's finding that she was assigned to more 'onerous' work. The record shows that Sciarpelletti, a skilled and competent employee, was, following her involvement in union activities, more regularly assigned to routine assembly work. This work involved tasks which were less complicated than those to which she had Continued 1448

INDUCTIVE COMPONENTS isolating her in a corner of the workshop caused her to quit. Thus, insofar as its unlawful conduct did not cause Sciarpelletti to quit, and the conduct which did cause her to quit was not unlawful, we find that the Respondent did not constructively discharge her in violation of the Act.7

Finally, in agreement with the General Counsel we find that the judge erred in refusing to order the Respondent to make whole its employees for their lost earnings resulting from the Respondent's unlawfully lowering the average amount of wage increases granted all employees in July 1981. Contrary to the judge, we find that the amount of increase each employee would have received is not too speculative, particularly in view of the evidence of several prior wage increases already in the record. The exact amount due each employee can be determined in a compliance proceeding.

AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Substitute the following for Conclusion of Law 4(c).

'(c) By discriminatorily issuing warnings to its employees Debra Winter, Dorian Millian, Judith Bowers, Helen Underwood, and Kathleen McMillen because of their union activities.' 2. Insert the following as Conclusion of Law 4(e) and delete the subsequent paragraphs.

'(e) By granting a lower wage increase to its employees Judith Bowers and Helen Underwood.' ORDER

The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Respondent, Inductive Components, Inc.,

Hauppauge, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (

1. Urging its employees to abandon their support for the Union.

   previously been assigned and generally more typical of the work assigned a beginning or less skilled employee While this work may have been less desirable to Sciarpelletti. the record fails, in Member Hunter's opinion, to support any finding that it was more onerous. This distinction notwithstanding, he finds, in light of the Respondent's knowledge of Sciarpelletti's union activities and its failure to advance a credible basis for the change in nature of her work assignments, that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(3) and (1) when it began regularly assigning Sciarpelletti to less complicated tasks.

   7 See Crystal Refining Co., 222 NLRB 1068 (1976). In light of our finding that the Respondent's unlawful conduct was not the reason Sciarpelletti quit, we find it unnecessary to decide whether that conduct would make her situation ''so physically or emotionally impossible' as to license [her] receiving the benefits of discharge while quitting.' Van Pelt Fire Trucks, 238 NLRB 794. 802 (1978).

   While Member Hunter agrees with his colleagues that the judge's factual findings show that Sciarpelletti quit for 'personal reasons,' he also finds for the reasons noted in fn. 6, supra, that the change in the nature of her work and working conditions was not sufficiently aggravated to force her to resign, and thus does not warrant the conclusion that she was constructively discharged.

   (b) Coercively interrogating its employees about their union activities.

   (c) Enforcing, on a more stringent basis, its work rules relating to the time to return from break periods, the time employees may leave their work area at quitting time, and the use of the bathroom facility, and its safety rules, because the employees engaged in union activities.

   (d) Assigning its employees to more onerous work conditions because of their union activities.

   (e) Assigning its employees to isolated work areas because of their union activities.

   (f) Discriminatorily issuing disciplinary warnings to its employees because of their union activities.

   (g) Suspending its employees because of their union activities.

   (h) Granting lower wage increases to its employees Judith Bowers and Helen Underwood because they participated in the demand for recognition of the Union and for their other union activities.

   (i) Changing the manner in which it gave wage increases to its employees because of their union activities.

   (j) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other activities together for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any...