NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,555, INDIANA HOSPITAL, SUBSIDIARY OF INDIANA HEALTH CARE CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING INGINEERS, LOCAL 95-95A, AFL-CIO., (Nov. 25, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Nov 25, 1994)

INDIANA HOSPITAL, SUBSIDIARY OF INDIANA HEALTH CARE CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING INGINEERS, LOCAL 95-95A, AFL-CIO.

315 NLRB No. 87.Case Nos. 6-CA-24546, -24604, -24609, -24831, -24853 and -25057-1. November 25, 1994 Leonard M. Wagman, Administrative Law Judge..

Before Gould, Browning and Cohen.

Stephanie E. Brown, for General Counsel. James B. Brown (Cohen & Grigby), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Respondent. Timothy P. O’Reilly (O’Brien, O’Reilly & Finkel), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Charging Party.

Discrimination--Antiunion Attitude--Warnings, Work Changes.--In retaliation for its employees’ selection of a union as their bargaining representative, an employer committed several unfair labor practices that demonstrated its antiunion attitude toward them. These discriminatory acts included issuing a critical evaluation to an employee because he supported the union, issuing a verbal warning to a unionist, changing its employees’ benefits and changing employees’ work schedules because they supported the union. Section 8(a)(3).

Back reference: ¶4080.652.

Refusal to Bargain--Refusal to Recognize Union--Changes in Employment Terms.--Although a union was elected and duly certified as an employees’ representative, an employer refused to recognize the union and committed several unfair labor practices affecting employee work conditions. These violations included unilaterally changing the employees’ wages and hours, changing work policies, changing employee schedules and refusing to furnish the union with necessary requested information. Section 8(a)(5).

Back reference: ¶3082.144.

From Text of Board’s Decision

On January 13, 1994, Administrative Law Judge Leonard M. Wagman issued the attached decision. [1] The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief and the General Counsel filed limited exceptions and a supporting brief. [2] The Respondent and the General Counsel filed answering briefs, and the Respondent filed a reply brief.

. . .

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, findings, [3] and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.

¹	On February 8, 1993, the Board issued an unpublished Decision and Order in Case 6-CA-24965 finding that by refusing to bargain with the Union, certified in Case 6-RC-10615 on September 30, 1992, the Respondent had engaged and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Subsequently, the Respondent filed a petition for review of the Board’s Order with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and the Board filed a cross-application for enforcement. In an opinion dated November 26, 1993, the court denied enforcement of the Board’s Order and remanded the case to the Board for further proceedings. 10 F.3d 151 (1993). The Board accepted the court’s remand and, on May 11, 1994, ordered a hearing before an administrative law judge on the issues remanded by the court. The judge issued his supplemental decision on August 11, 1994, reaffirming the prior finding of an 8(a)(5) violation, and on September 22, 1994, in the absence of any exceptions, the Board adopted the judge’s findings and conclusions.
²	No exceptions were filed to the judge’s dismissal of the allegation that the Respondant violated Sec. 8(a)(5) of the Act by changing the job description of the position of lead groundskeeper and by changing its policy regarding the release of information to employees.
³	The General Counsel and the Respondent have 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. In adopting the judge’s finding that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discriminatorily forbidding nonpowerhouse employees from taking their lunch or other breaks in its powerhouse building, we find it unnecessary to rely on the judge’s discussion of a regulation under the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,555, INDIANA HOSPITAL, SUBSIDIARY OF INDIANA HEALTH CARE CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING INGINEERS, LOCAL 95-95A, AFL-CIO., (Nov. 25, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Nov 25, 1994)

INDIANA HOSPITAL, SUBSIDIARY OF INDIANA HEALTH CARE CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING INGINEERS, LOCAL 95-95A, AFL-CIO.

315 NLRB No. 87.Case Nos. 6-CA-24546, -24604, -24609, -24831, -24853 and -25057-1. November 25, 1994 Leonard M. Wagman, Administrative Law Judge..

Before Gould, Browning and Cohen.

Back reference: ¶4080.652.

Back reference: ¶3082.144.

From Text of Board’s Decision

. . .

¹	On February 8, 1993, the Board issued an unpublished Decision and Order in Case 6-CA-24965 finding that by refusing to bargain with the Union, certified in Case 6-RC-10615 on September 30, 1992, the Respondent had engaged and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Subsequently, the Respondent filed a petition for review of the Board’s Order with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and the Board filed a cross-application for enforcement. In an opinion dated November 26, 1993, the court denied enforcement of the Board’s Order and remanded the case to the Board for further proceedings. 10 F.3d 151 (1993). The Board accepted the court’s remand and, on May 11, 1994, ordered a hearing before an administrative law judge on the issues remanded by the court. The judge issued his supplemental decision on August 11, 1994, reaffirming the prior finding of an 8(a)(5) violation, and on September 22, 1994, in the absence of any exceptions, the Board adopted the judge’s findings and conclusions.
²	No exceptions were filed to the judge’s dismissal of the allegation that the Respondant violated Sec. 8(a)(5) of the Act by changing the job description of the position of lead groundskeeper and by changing its policy regarding the release of information to employees.
³	The General Counsel and the Respondent have 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. In adopting the judge’s finding that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discriminatorily forbidding nonpowerhouse employees from taking their lunch or other breaks in its powerhouse building, we find it unnecessary to rely on the judge’s discussion of a regulation under the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,555, INDIANA HOSPITAL, SUBSIDIARY OF INDIANA HEALTH CARE CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING INGINEERS, LOCAL 95-95A, AFL-CIO., (Nov. 25, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Nov 25, 1994)

From Text of Board’s Decision

. . .

Footnotes

NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,555, INDIANA HOSPITAL, SUBSIDIARY OF INDIANA HEALTH CARE CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING INGINEERS, LOCAL 95-95A, AFL-CIO., (Nov. 25, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Nov 25, 1994)

From Text of Board’s Decision

. . .

Footnotes