NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,465, MICHAEL KONIG ta NURSING CENTER AT VINELAND and COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 1040, AFL-CIO., (Aug. 31, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Aug 31, 1994)

MICHAEL KONIG ta NURSING CENTER AT VINELAND and COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 1040, AFL-CIO.

314 NLRB No. 158.Case Nos. 4-CA-20962-2, -20984, -21083, -21093 and 21360. August 31, 1994 Michael O. Miller, Administrative Law Judge..

Before Gould, Stephens and Devaney.

Henry R. Protas, for General Counsel. Stuart Bochner (Horowitz and Pollack, P.C.), for Respondent.

Interference--Coercive Remarks--Union Organizing Activities.--Once an employer discovered that its employees were organizing, it engaged in a campaign of unfair labor practices designed to prevent the employees from supporting a union. These coercive unlawful acts included threatening to impose and imposing more onerous working conditions, interrogating employees regarding their union activities, soliciting grievances, soliciting employees to form their own union, promising benefits and granting work improvements. Section 8(a)(1).

Back reference: ¶3770.082.

Discrimination--Antiunion Motives--Discouraging Union Support.--During a union organizing campaign, an employer committed several unfair labor practices that discriminated against employees who had demonstrated union support, in an attempt to defeat the union. These unlawful acts included issuing warnings to unionists, transferring them to less desirable positions, reducing their pay and discharging them. Section 8(a)(3).

Back reference: ¶4010.408.

Unilateral Changes by Employer--Fact Finding--Work Conditions.--On the facts, an employer violated its bargaining duty by unilaterally reducing an employee’s hourly pay rate just three days after a union was certified as the employee’s representative, without notice to the union. Section 8(a)(5).

From Text of Board’s Decision

The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings, [1] and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.