Stericycle, Inc., (2016)

• Date: 10 November 2016

JD–110–16

Morgantown and Southampton, PA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

DIVISION OF JUDGES

STERICYCLE, INC.

and Cases 04–CA–137660

04–CA–145466

TEAMSTERS LOCAL 628 04–CA–158277

04–CA–160621

Lea Alvo-Sadiky, Esq., for the General Counsel.

Charles P. Roberts III, Esq. (Constangy, Brooks, Smith &

Prophete LLP) of Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for the Respondent.

Claiborne S. Newlin, Esq. (Meranze, Katz, Gaudioso &

Newlin, PC), of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for the Charging Party.

DECISION

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

MICHAEL A. ROSAS, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania on August 24–25, 2016.1This controversy involves employees represented by

Teamsters Local 628 (the Union) at Stericycle, Inc.’s (the Company or Respondent)

Southampton and Morgantown, Pennsylvania facilities. The complaint, as amended,2alleges

that the Company violated Sections 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the

Act)3by: (1) refusing to bargain with the Union before unilaterally recouping health care

premiums fro m employees; (2) refusing or failing to provide relevant and necessary information

to the Union; and (3) unilaterally imposing a team member handbook that changed numerous

terms and conditions of emplo yment. The co mplaint also alleges that the Company engaged in

coercive conduct and violated Section 8(a)(1) by maintaining policies and rules that interfered

with Section 7 rights. The Company admits taking the alleged unilateral actions, failing to

provide informat ion requested and implementing the policy and rules at issue. It denies,

however, that its conduct constituted unfair labor practices.

1All dates are in 2014 unless otherwise indicated.

2At the hearing, the General Counsel amendedthe Second Consolidated Complaint to eliminate

paragraphs 8(b) and 11 of the complaint. (Tr. 8, 28–29.)

329 U.S.C. §§ 151–169.

JD–110–16

2

The Company also raised an affirmat ive defense alleging that the complaint “is tainted by the

involvement of theRegional Director of Region 4 and should be transferred to a different region

for independent review, reconsideration, and processing.”This defense referenced the Board’s

Inspector General Report OIG-I-516 of his investigation into an alleged conflict of interest on the

part of the Regional Director while volunteering on behalf of a nonprofit organization. On5

August 24, 2016, I entered an order denying the Company’s motion to dismiss or, in the

alternative, disqualify all Region 4 staff in prosecuting this case. I also denied the Genera l

Counsel’s mo tion in limine and permitted the Company to introduce the OIG report int o

evidence under seal for further consideratio n on exceptions or appeal. However, I precluded the

Company from calling Office of General Counsel staff or other witnesses in order to further 10

litigate its conflict of interest defense.4At the outset of the hearing, I provided the parties with

an opportunity to reargue the General Counsel’s motion in limine and the Company’s motion to

dismiss the co mplaint due to the conflict of interest. The argument produced nothing new,

except to clarify that the Company conceded that it did not possess evidence of an actual conflict

of interest on the part of staff lit igating the case. As a result, I reiterated my ruling that the 15

Company was precluded from offering any other evidence in support of its eighth affirmative

defense.

On the entire record,5including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and

after considering briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent, I make the follo wing20

FINDINGS OF FACT

I. JURISDICTION

25

The Company, a corporation, is engaged in providing medical waste and collect ion

treatment services to commercial customers throughout the United States, including to and from

its facilities in Southampton and Morgantown, Pennsylvania, where it annually purchases and

receives goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the Commo nwealth of

Pennsylvania. The Company admits, and I find, that it is an employer engaged in co mmerce 30

within the meaning of Sectio n 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

35

A. The Company’s Operations

The Company is the largest medical waste disposal company in the United States. The

Company performs waste treatment at its Morgantown facilityinvo lving the collection,

processing and disposal of regulated medical waste (RMW), including bandages, bodily fluids, 40

and sharp containers of needles, fro m hospitals, nursing homes, and medical, dental and

4ALJ Exh. 1.

5The General Counsel’s unopposed motion to correct the transcript, dated October 7, 2016,

is granted and received in evidence as GC Exh. 33.

JD–110–16

3

veterinary offices. Once delivered to the Morgantown facility, RMW is processed, chemically

treated, shredded in a treatment system, placed in containers and disposed of in landfills.

The Co mpany also operates a transfer station at its Southampton facility, where drivers

pick up trash which is then consolidated and brought to the Morgantown facility. These 5

employees pick up RMW from hospitals, doctor/dentist offices, and other medical facilities. The

RMW is transported to facilities fo r processing prior to disposal.

B. The Collective-Bargaining Agreements

10

1. The Southampton facility

The unio n represented Company employees at its former Montgomeryville, PA transfer

statio n from 1999 until 2006, when the Company moved those operations to Southampton. On

September 1, 2006, the Union was certified as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative 15

of employees at the Southampton facility(the Southampton unit). At all times since then, the

Union has been the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the fo llowing employees in

the Southampton unit:

All full-time and regular part-time drivers, driver techs, in house techs, helpers, 20

dockworkers and long haul drivers of the Company at its Southampton, Pennsylvania

locatio n; but excluding all other employees, office clerical emplo yees, guards, and

supervisors as defined in the Act.

On April 4, 2014, the Company and Union negotiated a collect ive-bargaining agreement25

covering the Southampton unit, retroactive to November 1, 2013, and expiring on October 31,

2016 (the 2014 Southampton Agreement). The 2014 Southampton Agreement provided, in

pertinent part, that Southampton unit employees would be required to make contributions

towards their health insurance:

30

22.3 Upon ratification, employees will contribute on a pre-tax basis one (1%) of their straight

time hours paid per week to the cost of health coverage. The employer shall deduct this amount

bi-weekly and offset itagainst the employer’s monthly contributions to the Teamsters Health and

Welfare Fund as specified in 22.2 above . . .6

35

2. The Morgantown facility

On September 1, 2011, the Union was certified as the exclusive co llective-bargaining

representative of the Morgantown unit.Respondent and the Unio n subsequent ly entered into an

initial collective-bargaining agreement fo r the term of September 6, 2013,to February 29, 2016.7

40

A new CBA was ratified in June 2016.

6GC Exh. 2.

7GC Exh. 3 at 1.