NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,585, A.M.F.M. OF SUMMERS, INC. and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, CLC., (Dec. 14, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Dec 14, 1994)

A.M.F.M. OF SUMMERS, INC. and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, CLC.

315 NLRB No. 112.Case Nos. 11-CA-15659 and 11-RC-5949. December 14, 1994 Phillip P. McLeod, Administrative Law Judge..

Before Gould, Stephens and Cohen.

Patricia L. Timmins, for General Counsel. Larry P. Rothman (Smith, Hennan & Althen), Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Interference--Coercive Remarks--Employer Pre-election Conduct.--In an attempt to hinder a union’s bid for election as an employee representative, an employer committed several unfair labor practices designed to adversely influence its employees. These coercive acts included granting promotions and raises to employees, telling nurses that they were supervisors and could not engage in union activity and telling employees that, if the union was elected, their facility would close. Section 8(a)(1).

Back reference: ¶3770.082.

Discrimination--Attendance at Board Hearing--Employer Retaliation.--In retaliation for their union activity, which included testifying before the NLRB on behalf of a union, an employer unlawfully issued disciplinary warnings against certain employees. The employer attempted to justify its actions on the basis that the employees displayed poor conduct, but that defense was demonstrated to be pretextual. Section 8(a)(4).

Back reference: ¶4085.471.

Discrimination--Fact Finding--Antiunion Motives.--On the facts, an employer discriminated against its employees during a pre-election period because of their union activities by suspending employee evaluations and wage increases that would have resulted from those evaluations. Section 8(a)(3).

Elections--Fact Finding--Rerun.--On the facts, an employer’s numerous discriminatory and coercive unfair labor practices destroyed any chance of a free and fair union representation election and, therefore, the NLRB ordered a second election. Section 9(c).

From Text of Board’s Decision

The questions presented here are whether the judge correctly found that the Respondent engaged in various actions which violated Section 8(a)(4), (3), and (1) of the Act and interfered with employee free choice in a representation election. [1] The Board has considered the decision and record in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings, [2] and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.