NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,600, EXXON COMPANY, U.S.A. and LOCAL 877, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, AFL-CIO., (Dec. 16, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Dec 16, 1994)

EXXON COMPANY, U.S.A. and LOCAL 877, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, AFL-CIO.

315 NLRB No. 137.Case No. 22-CA-18405. December 16, 1994 Steven Davis, Administrative Law Judge..

Before Devaney, Browning and Cohen.

Bradley R. Williams, for General Counsel. B.F. Flaherty, Linden, New Jersey, for Respondent.

Unilateral Changes By Employer--Insurance Benefits--Transfer of Health Plan.--An employer acted unlawfully by transferring bargaining unit employees from a contractually mandated health insurance plan to a new plan during the term of the employer’s collective bargaining agreement with the union. Although company headquarters authorized local management to bargain with the union to permit unit employees to remain covered under the contractual plan for the duration of the collective bargaining agreement, the union was never informed of that authorization. Moreover, the local management repeatedly stressed the need for hasty union decisions regarding the transfer of plans even though the decision to terminate the plan and the timetable for that termination were within the employer’s control at all times. Section 8(a)(5).

Back reference: ¶3145.2831.Back reference: ¶3145.2831.

From Text of Board’s Decision

On May 17, 1994, Administrative Law Judge Steven Davis issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.

The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.

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, and conclusions as modified and to adopt the recommended Order as modified.

1. The Respondent, a division of Exxon Corporation, was directed by the latter to transfer unit employees from the contractually mandated Northeast Medical Plan, [1] to the Exxon Medical Plan (EMP) during the term of the Respondent’s collective-bargaining agreement with the Union. Exxon corporate headquarters, however, authorized local management to bargain with the Union to permit unit employees to remain covered by the Northeast Medical Plan for the duration of the contract. The Respondent did not inform the Union of this authorization, which the judge referred to as a “choice” or “possibility” open to the parties through bargaining. We note, however, that the retention of the Northeast Plan for the duration of the extent contract was more than merely a possible bargaining concession. Rather, it was the Respondent’s contractual obligation and the Union’s contractual right, subject only to the Union’s agreement to a change in plans during the terms of the contract.

2. In its discussions with the Union about the termination of the Northeast Medical Plan and the transfer of coverage to the EMP, the Respondent repeatedly stressed to the Union the need for union representatives to act quickly in light of the pending date for termination of the Northeast Plan. We note, however, that the decisions to terminate the Northeast Plan and not to continue that plan for the duration of the contract, as well as the timetable for the Northeast Plan’s termination, were within the Respondent’s control at all times and not decisions dependent on outside events or circumstances that might properly be invoked as legitimate reasons for demanding hasty action on the part of the Union.

3. We shall modify the judge’s recommended Order and substitute a new notice to more closely reflect the circumstances of this case and the violations found.

Specifically, having found that the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by unilaterally implementing the EMP, we shall order the Respondent to restore the health and medical insurance coverage benefits that were provided to unit employees before the Exxon Northeast Medical Plan was unilaterally eliminated. We do not find that it is necessary here, however, to order that the Northeast Plan itself be reinstituted as an entity. In addition, the Respondent shall reimburse unit employees for any expenses ensuing from the unilateral change, as set forth in Kraft Plumbing & Heating, [1980-81 CCH NLRB ¶17,652] 252 NLRB 891 fn. 2 (1980), enfd. 661 F.2d 940 (9th Cir. 1981), such amounts to be computed in the manner set forth in Ogle Protection Service, [1970 CCH NLRB ¶22,068] 183 NLRB 682 (1970), enfd. [65 LC ¶11,855] 444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971), with interest as prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, [1986-87 CCH NLRB ¶18,750] 283 NLRB 1173 (1987). We shall also order the Respondent to bargain over any changes in medical benefits.