NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,397, E.G. & G. ROCKY FLATS, INC. and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION 8031, AFL-CIO-CLC., (July 22, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Jul 22, 1994)

We find that the judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the Respondent’s motion to permit telephonic testimony by Gene Ideker, a retired official of the Respondent. The Respondent conceded to the judge that Ideker would “come willingly” to the trial to testify, but that the Respondent did not want to impose on him and preferred the use of telephonic testimony. In these circumstances, where no impediment existed to the availability of the witness except for the Respondent’s reluctance to call the witness to testify, the judge reasonably denied the Respondent’s motion to permit telephonic testimony.

We have nevertheless reviewed the Respondent’s offer of proof with respect to the testimony of Ideker and find that it does not establish that the Union consented or otherwise agreed to the Respondent’s unilateral modification of the method of familiarization set forth in the 1991 RPT progression program. The Respondent stated in its offer of proof that Ideker conducted three meetings with union officials in which he proposed to modify familiarization training, and that the union officials “did not agree with that suggestion [and] did not disagree with that suggestion, and that was the way it was left.” Accordingly, the testimony of Ideker would not affect the outcome of this case, and the Respondent was not prejudiced by the judge’s ruling.

The Respondent contends in its exceptions that its unilateral modification of the familiarization component of the 1991 RPT progression program was permissible pursuant to various provisions of the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement. We have carefuly examined the collective-bargaining agreement, along with the progression programs incorporated into that agreement, and find the Respondent’s contention to be meritless.

We note that although the Respondent’s operation of a nuclear weapons facility presents unique safety concerns which must be carefully considered, the Respondent here failed to establish that any particularized exigent threat to satisfy existed at the Rocky Flats facility which would have justified the Respondent’s unilateral action.