Stepan Co., 79 (2008)

Stepan Company and United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (UE), Machine Tool & Die Local 155. Case 4–CA–34417

February 14, 2008

DECISION AND ORDER

By Members Liebman and Schaumber

On February 21, 2007, Administrative Law Judge Wallace H. Nations issued the attached decision. The General Counsel and Charging Party Union filed exceptions and supporting briefs; the Respondent filed an answering brief; and the General Counsel filed a reply brief.

The National Labor Relations 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[2] and to adopt the recommended Order.[3]

ORDER

The recommended Order of the administrative law judge is adopted and the complaint is dismissed.

Jennifer R. Spector, Esq., for the General Counsel.

Adam C. Witt, Esq. and David L. Christlieb, Esq., of Chicago, Illinois, for the Respondent.

Joseph Cohen, Esq., of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for the Charging Party.

DECISION

Statement of the Case

Wallace H. Nations, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on November 7, 2006. The charge was filed by United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (UE), Machine Tool & Die Local 155 (Union) on January 24, 2006. The Union filed an amended charge on July 20, and a further amendment on July 26. The Regional Director for Region 4 issued complaint and notice of hearing on July 31. The complaint alleges that Stepan Company (Stepan or Respondent) engaged in certain conduct in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). Respondent filed a timely answer, admitting, inter alia, the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint.

On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel, the Union, and Respondent, I make the following

Findings of Fact

i. jurisdiction

The Respondent, a corporation, engages in the manufacture and sale of specialized chemicals at its facility in Fieldsboro, New Jersey, where it annually sold and shipped goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside of the State of New Jersey. The Respondent admits and I find that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

ii. alleged unfair labor practices

As noted above, Respondent operates a manufacturing facility in Fieldsboro, New Jersey. At all material times, its management at the facility consisted of Hector Cuello, plant manager, Michael Prising, production manager, and Charlie Worden, human resources manager for Respondent’s Millsdale, Illinois plant. At all material times since it was certified on January 18 or 19, 2005, the Union has represented the employees of Respondent in the unit described below:

All full-time and regular part-time production, maintenance and laboratory employees, including Operators, Production Assistants, Maintenance Mechanics, E and I techs, Warehouse Employees, Boiler Operators and Lab Technicians employed by Respondent at the Plant; excluding all other employees, management employees, clerical employees, guards and supervisors as defined by the Act.

The initial collective-bargaining agreement between Respondent and the Union is effective for the period November 28, 2005, through November 27, 2008. The complaint alleges that negotiations leading to this contract were conducted from April 2005 until about May 1, 2006. On or about January 17, 2006, as part of the negotiations, the Union, by letter, requested the following information:

  1. In any year prior to 2004-5, did Stepan Chemicals utilize the Hourly Wage Survey Data collected by the chemical company association, which you previously supplied to us, to determine the level of wage increases at Fieldsboro (decreases or freezes) which it provided to employees now represented by our union? If your answer is affirmative, please provide us with copies of all of those surveys for each year in which such survey impacted wage actions taken by the Company from 1994 through the present date.

  2. Copies of any and all additional wage surveys used by Stepan Company in evaluation and adjusting the wage structure for Fieldsboro employees from 1994 to the present:

  3. A listing of annual wage adjustments (increases, decreases, or freezes) provided to Fieldsboro employees from 1994 to the present, which includes the following information:

    a. The amount of each such increase or decrease;

    b. The effective date of each such increase or decrease;

    c. The basis for calculating the amount of such in creases or decreases;

    d. The classifications which each increase, decrease or wage freeze affected;

    e. Notation of years in which no increase was given, along with the reason no increase was given.

    The Union sought additional information in this letter, information that the General Counsel does not deem relevant or necessary to the Union’s role as the unit employee representative. It is alleged in the complaint that the Respondent thereafter refused to supply the requested information for approximately 2 months. From on or about January 24, 2006, until on or about May 4, 2006, the Respondent locked out its unit employees. The complaint alleges that Respondent’s refusal to timely supply the requested information violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act and made unlawful the lockout for the period of time that Respondent withheld the requested information.

    1. Evidence Adduced Relating to the Complaint Allegations

  4. Evidence adduced by the General Counsel

    James Ermi is a field organizer for the International Union. He works with a number of locals, including Local 155, on contract administration, grievances, and contract negotiations. He was the chief negotiator for the Union in bargaining for the initial contract. At the outset of negotiations, on April 6, 2005, the Union presented Respondent with a complete proposed contract, including wage proposals. The Union’s wage proposal represented an attempt to address what some employees believed to be wage inequities between various job classifications as well as proposing a 5-percent wage increase in all wage classifications in the first year, and a 4-percent increase for the other years to be covered by the proposed contract. Stepan responded by deferring discussion of economic issues until all other issues had been settled and did not make a wage proposal until November 30, 2005. In the period between April and November 2005, the parties met five or six times a month for bargaining.

    Respondent’s bargaining committee consisted of Charles Worden, Stacie Santoleri, and Mike Prising throughout the negotiations. Sitting in for some of the sessions were the plant managers at the time, Damien Burke and Hector Cuello. At some sessions, Respondent’s Mayberry, New Jersey plant manager, Don Watson, sat in as did the Fieldsboro human resources manager. The Union’s committee consisted of Ermi as lead negotiator, and committee employee members Frank Donaghy, Mark Bowman, George Olshansky, Ron McCullough, and Steve Cameron.

    Ermi characterized the Respondent’s November 30 wage proposal as outrageous, as it called for between a 25- and 30-percent wage cut for most job classifications. During the day of November 30 and the next day, December 1, the parties made a number of wage proposals and counterproposals. There was some movement by both sides. Ermi testified that in justification for its wage proposal, Respondent told the Union that it had been paying a premium wage to the Fieldsboro employees for many years. Ermi added that the Respondent stated that the wages at Fieldsboro were in the top 7 or 8 percent of industry wages in the involved part of the country. Respondent noted that its other unionized facilities were watching the involved negotiations and Respondent did not want to set a new standard or pattern for all of its union represented facilities. Respondent also supplied the Union with an area-wage survey involving 16 or 17 companies compiled by the Ocean Spray Cranberry Company.

    Ermi testified that at the end of the day on December 1, the parties were not close on the issue of wages. The Respondent, according to Ermi, was proposing a slight reduction in some wage classification and/or a continuation of an ongoing wage freeze. The Union was mindful of an alleged statement by the Respondent during the union organizing campaign in December 2004 or January 2005 that it had budgeted a 3-1/2-percent wage increase for employees in 2005. A Stepan document that Ermi had seen stated that the increase was withheld because of contract negotiations. Based on Respondent’s alleged statement, the Union believed that there were meaningful wage increases to be obtained for the first year of the contract.

    The next bargaining session took place on December 7, 2005. The parties discussed wages throughout the day and at the close of the session Respondent presented the Union with what it termed its last, best, and final offer on wages. The parties left with an agreement to meet the next day. At the next meeting, the Union counterproposed that the employees in the wage classifications that Respondent proposed to reduce be red-circled and exempted from the reductions for the duration of the contract. According to Ermi, the Respondent agreed to red-circle at least some of the affected positions. Ermi also testified that at this meeting Worden, on behalf of Respondent, noted that Respondent had not only relied on the Ocean Spray wage survey, but had also looked at a wage survey taken by the New Jersey Chemistry Council. Respondent offered to make this survey available to the Union if it wanted to see it. Both surveys were given to the Union, though a cover page to the Chemistry Council survey was not...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT