NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,588, WASTE STREAM MANAGENMENT, INC. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 687, AFL-CIO., (Dec. 22, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Dec 22, 1994)

WASTE STREAM MANAGENMENT, INC. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 687, AFL-CIO.

315 NLRB No. 128.Case Nos. 3-CA-16717, -16871 and -16976. December 22, 1994 Jesse Kleiman, Administrative Law Judge..

Before Gould, Browning and Cohen.

Robert Ellison, for General Counsel. Daniel S. Cohen, Utica, New York, for Respondent. Christy Concannon, Washington, D.C., for Charging Party.

Discrimination--Pretextual Nature of Reason--Warnings and Termination.--By issuing warnings, adverse evaluations and otherwise harassing an employee, and by terminating him, all because of his union activities, an employer discriminated against the employee. As a pretext for these actions, the employer used the employee’s refusal to drive an unsafe company vehicle. However, the employer was demonstrated to have a deeply-rooted anti-union animus. Section 8(a)(3).

Back reference: ¶4095.1745.

Interference--Coercive Remarks--Employer’s Antiunion Conduct.--Once an employer discovered that its employees were organizing a union, it committed several unfair labor practices designed to interfere with the employees’ union activities. These coercive acts included interrogating employees regarding union support, soliciting employees to spy on other employees, informing employees that it wanted to force an employee to quit because of his union activities and granting benefits to dissuade employees from supporting the union. Section 8(a)(1).

Back reference: ¶3770.0441.

From Text of Board’s Decision

The questions presented here are whether the administrative law judge correctly found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by taking several adverse employment actions, including discharge, against employee Vern Arno, and that it engaged in other conduct which violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by taking several adverse employment actions, including discharge, against employee Vern Arno, and that it engaged in other conduct which violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. [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.