NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,469, CBF, INC. et al. and UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO., (Sep. 12, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Sep 12, 1994)

CBF, INC. et al. and UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO.

314 NLRB No. 171.Case Nos. 6-CA-23769, -24186, -24646 and -24804. September 12, 1994 Richard H. Beddow, Jr., Administrative Law Judge..

Before Stephens, Devaney and Cohen.

Leone P. Paradise, for General Counsel. Francis Recchuiti, Norristown, Pennsylvania, for Respondent. Thomas E. Waters Jr., Blue Bell, Pennsylvania, for Respondents as alleged single employers. William Marion, Washington, Pennsylvania, for Charging Party.

Interference--Coercive Remarks--Threats to Unionism.--Once an employer discovered that its employees were engaged in a union organizing effort, the employer committed numerous unfair labor practices designed to interfere with its employees’ right to freely select a bargaining representative. These coercive unlawful acts included interrogating employees regarding their union activities, threatening plant closure and layoffs, threatening discharge and loss of benefits, soliciting grievances, promising benefits for rejecting the union and implying that an employee would not have been terminated but for his union support. Section 8(a)(1).

Back reference: ¶3770.0511.

Layoffs--Discriminatory--Employee Union Activities.--By laying off three employees, discharging four other employees and failing to recall two employees from layoff because of their union activities, an employer discriminated against them. The employees were all involved in union organizing activities and the employer attempted to diminish union support through these discriminatory acts. Section 8(a)(3).

Back reference: ¶4085.037.

Discrimination--Fact Finding--Testimony at NLRB Proceeding.--On the facts, by telling an employee that he would be “the first to go” and then terminating him because he attended an NLRB hearing as a subpoenaed witness, an employer discriminated against him. Section 8(a)(4).

Discrimination--Antiunion Motives--Layoff and Drug Testing.--By laying off an employee and reducing his overtime opportunities and by instituting a drug testing program for all employees, an employer discriminated against them. The employer was aware of union organizing activities and implemented these measures in order to diminish union support. Section 8(a)(3).

Back reference: ¶4010.409.

Refusal to Bargain--Good Faith Bargaining--Filing of Union Charges.--An employer violated its duty to bargain with a union toward a collective bargaining agreement by committing unfair labor practices that evidenced an intention not to reach an accord. These unlawful acts included unilateral changes to employee health care benefits and contractually agreed-to provisions without consulting the union, failing to provide necessary bargaining information to the union and refusing to bargain because the union was filing unfair labor practices and refusal to meet with the union at reasonable times. Section 8(a)(5).

Back reference: ¶3085.5992.

From Text of Board’s Decision

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, [1] findings, [2] and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order as modified. [3]

¹	We do not pass on the judge’s discussion of the single employer issue or the issue of derivative liability as unnecessary to the disposition of the unfair labor practice allegations.
²	The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. [19 LC ¶66,308] 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings. We also find no merit in the Respondent’s allegations of bias and prejudice on the part of the judge. Thus, we find no evidence that the judge prejudged the case, made prejudicial rulings, or demonstrated a bias against the Respondent in his analysis or discussion of the evidence. Similarly, there is no basis for finding that bias and prejudice may exist merely because the judge resolved important factual conflicts in favor of the General Counsel’s witnesses. NLRB v. Pittsburgh Steamship Co., [16 LC ¶65,207] 337 U.S. 656, 659 (1949). We agree with the judge’s conclusion that the Respondent had knowledge of union activity when it began its campaign of unlawful activity, but we do not rely on the judge’s finding of unlawful impressions of surveillance by Supervisor Joseph Persely on July 10 and 25. We disagree with the judge that Persely’s actions on those two occasions created the impression that employees’ union activities were under surveillance. We note that, in any event, the violations would be cumulative and do not affect the remedy or the Order. We correct the following inadvertent factual misstatements by the judge: John Michael Stout, Steve Stout, and James Byers were laid off on July 12, 1991, not June 12; Jacob Hartmen was laid off on July 13, 1991, not June 13; David Romito was discharged on July 25, 1991, not July 26; and the Respondent instituted drug testing on July 19, 1991, not June 19. Finally, we deny the Respondent’s motion for oral argument as the record, exceptions, and briefs adequately present the issues and positions of the parties.
³	The Order is modified to reflect the traditional language used to order reinstatement and backpay.

NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,469, CBF, INC. et al. and UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO., (Sep. 12, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Sep 12, 1994)

CBF, INC. et al. and UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO.

314 NLRB No. 171.Case Nos. 6-CA-23769, -24186, -24646 and -24804. September 12, 1994 Richard H. Beddow, Jr., Administrative Law Judge..

Before Stephens, Devaney and Cohen.

Back reference: ¶3770.0511.

Back reference: ¶4085.037.

Back reference: ¶4010.409.

Back reference: ¶3085.5992.

From Text of Board’s Decision

¹	We do not pass on the judge’s discussion of the single employer issue or the issue of derivative liability as unnecessary to the disposition of the unfair labor practice allegations.
²	The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. [19 LC ¶66,308] 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings. We also find no merit in the Respondent’s allegations of bias and prejudice on the part of the judge. Thus, we find no evidence that the judge prejudged the case, made prejudicial rulings, or demonstrated a bias against the Respondent in his analysis or discussion of the evidence. Similarly, there is no basis for finding that bias and prejudice may exist merely because the judge resolved important factual conflicts in favor of the General Counsel’s witnesses. NLRB v. Pittsburgh Steamship Co., [16 LC ¶65,207] 337 U.S. 656, 659 (1949). We agree with the judge’s conclusion that the Respondent had knowledge of union activity when it began its campaign of unlawful activity, but we do not rely on the judge’s finding of unlawful impressions of surveillance by Supervisor Joseph Persely on July 10 and 25. We disagree with the judge that Persely’s actions on those two occasions created the impression that employees’ union activities were under surveillance. We note that, in any event, the violations would be cumulative and do not affect the remedy or the Order. We correct the following inadvertent factual misstatements by the judge: John Michael Stout, Steve Stout, and James Byers were laid off on July 12, 1991, not June 12; Jacob Hartmen was laid off on July 13, 1991, not June 13; David Romito was discharged on July 25, 1991, not July 26; and the Respondent instituted drug testing on July 19, 1991, not June 19. Finally, we deny the Respondent’s motion for oral argument as the record, exceptions, and briefs adequately present the issues and positions of the parties.
³	The Order is modified to reflect the traditional language used to order reinstatement and backpay.

NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,469, CBF, INC. et al. and UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO., (Sep. 12, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Sep 12, 1994)

From Text of Board’s Decision

Footnotes

NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,469, CBF, INC. et al. and UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO., (Sep. 12, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Sep 12, 1994)

From Text of Board’s Decision

Footnotes