NOTICE: This
opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Executive
Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
United Steel
Service, Inc., d/b/a Uniserv and
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of
December 31, 2007
DECISION AND ORDER
By Members Liebman, Schaumber, and
Kirsanow
On September 22, 2006,
Administrative Law Judge Karl H. Buschmann issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a
supporting brief, the General Counsel and the Charging Party filed answering
briefs, and the Respondent filed a reply 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,1
and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order as modified2 and set forth in full below.
ORDER
The National Labor
Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified and set forth in full below and orders that the Respondent, United
Steel Service, Inc., d/b/a Uniserv,
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Unilaterally changing
employees’ terms and conditions of employment, including their health care coverage
and the attendance, holiday and vacation, substance abuse, and physical
examination policies, without first giving the Union notice and an opportunity
to bargain about such changes.
(b) Laying off unit
employees without giving notice to the
(c) Failing and refusing in
a timely manner to provide the
(d) In any like or related
manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary
to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request of the
(b) Before implementing any
changes in wages, hours, or other terms and conditions of employment of unit employees,
notify and, on request, bargain with the
All full-time and regular
part-time production and maintenance employees employed by the Employer at its
(c) To the extent that it has not been
previously furnished, furnish the
(d) Within 14 days from the
date of this Order, offer those employees who were discharged as a result of
the Respondent’s unlawful unilateral changes (other than the “zero tolerance”
policy) and who were laid off in September, November, and December 2002, and
February 2004 full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no
longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
(e) Make unit employees
whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the Respondent’s
unlawful unilateral changes and layoffs in the manner set forth in the remedy
section of the judge’s decision as modified by the Board’s decision.
(f) Within 14 days from the
date of this Order, remove from its files any reference to discipline or discharge
resulting from the Respondent’s unlawful unilateral changes, and within 3 days
thereafter notify the affected employees in writing that this has been done and
that the discipline or discharge will not be used against them in any way.
(g) As to employees
discharged under the unilaterally implemented “zero tolerance” substance abuse
policy, if any such employees would not have been discharged under the
preexisting discretionary policy, take the following actions: offer those employees full reinstatement to
their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights
or privileges previously enjoyed; make those employees whole for any loss of
earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the Respondent’s unlawful
unilateral change in its substance abuse policy, in the manner set forth in the
remedy section of the judge’s decision as modified by the Board’s decision.
(h) Preserve and, within 14
days of a request, or such additional time as the Regional Director may allow
for good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the Board or
its agents, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records, including an electronic
copy of such records if stored in electronic form, necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(i) Within 14 days after
service by the Region, post at its facility in
(j) Within 21 days after
service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn certification of
a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps
that the Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated,
______________________________________
Wilma B. Liebman, Member
______________________________________
Peter C. Schaumber, Member
______________________________________
Peter N. Kirsanow, Member
(seal) National
Labor Relations Board
APPENDIX
Notice
To Employees
Posted
by Order of the
National
Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the
The National Labor
Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has ordered us
to post and obey this notice.
federal law gives you
the right to
Form, join, or assist a
union
Choose representatives to
bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other
employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any
of these protected activities.
We
will not unilaterally change your terms
and conditions of employment, including your health care coverage and the
attendance, holiday and vacation, substance abuse, and physical examination
policies, without first giving notice and an opportunity to bargain about such
changes to the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, Region 2-B.
We
will not lay off unit employees without
giving notice to the
We
will not fail and refuse in a timely manner
to provide the
We
will not in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights set forth
above.
We
will, on request of the
We
will, before implementing any changes in
unit employees’ wages, hours, or other terms and conditions of employment,
notify and, on request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of employees in the following bargaining
unit:
All full-time and regular
part-time production and maintenance employees employed by us at our
We
will, to the extent we have not
previously done so, furnish the
We
will, within 14 days from the date of the
Board’s Order, offer those employees who were discharged as a result of our
unlawful unilateral changes (other than the “zero tolerance” substance abuse
policy) and who were laid off in September, November, and December 2002, and
February 2004 full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no
longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
We
will make our unit employees whole, with
interest, for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of
our unlawful unilateral changes and layoffs.
We
will, within 14 days from the date of the
Board’s Order, remove from our files any reference to discipline or discharge
resulting from our unlawful unilateral changes, and we will, within 3 days thereafter, notify the affected
employees in writing that this has been done and that the discipline or
discharge will not be used against them in any way.
We
will offer reinstatement to employees
discharged under the unilaterally implemented “zero tolerance” substance abuse
policy who would not have been discharged under the preexisting discretionary
policy, we will make such
employees whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from
their discharge.
United Steel Service, Inc., d/b/a Uniserv
Susan Fernandez, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Peter Grinstein, Esq. (Nadler, Nadler &
Burdman, Co., LPA), of
Fritz Neil, Esq. (Joyce Goldstein &
Associates), of
DECISION
Statement of the Case
Karl H. Buschmann, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in
Findings of Fact
i. jurisdiction
The Respondent Uniserv is an
ii. alleged unfair labor practices
In December 2000, the production and
maintenance employees of Uniserv decided that they wanted to be represented by
the
All full-time and
regular part-time production and maintenance employees employed by the Employer
at its
Uniserv filed objections to the election. On
April 4, 2001, the Board overruled the objections and issued its Decision and
Certification of Representative, certifying the
In the meantime, the Respondent made certain
changes in its employment policies. The complaint alleges that Uniserv has made
multiple unilateral changes relating to wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment that are mandatory subjects for purposes of collective
bargaining. These changes were made in
attendance policy and holiday/vacation policy, health care coverage, the
implementation of a substance abuse policy, the implementation of a physical
examination policy, as well as employee layoffs on September 20, on November
15, on December 6, 20002, and finally employee layoffs on February 8, 2004. By
this conduct, Uniserv is accused of having interfered, restrained, or coerced
employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights and in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. Furthermore, Uniserv has failed and
refused to bargain collectively and in good faith with the Union as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its employees within the
meaning of Section 8(d) of the Act and in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and
(5). The Respondent has engaged in
similar violations since May 22, 2001, by failing to respond to the Union’s
request for information, and by refusing to furnish the
Uniserv denies that it unilaterally changed
policies, or that it had a duty to bargain with the
iii. changes in attendance policy
On June 26, 2001, Uniserv posted its “Attendance
Policy” effective July 1, 2001 (GC Exh. 6).
Dennis Menold, an employee, noticed the attendance policy posted on the
Respondent’s in-plant bulletin board in the summer of 2001. Robert Baker, also an employee, testified
that he received the policy along with his paycheck in the summer of 2001. Randy Kawczynsky, the Company’s president,
testified that this policy, effective July 1, 2001, is the policy now in effect
at the plant and that it is contained in the “United Steel Service, Inc.
Employee Handbook” (GC Exh. 5; R. Exh. 7).
Kawczynsky also admitted that employees have been disciplined in accordance
with the policy which not only provides for certain sanctions for unexcused
absences but also for late arrivals or early departures. The policy provides
inter alia:
· 3 days off—Employee warning notice issued with
counseling on attendance policy.
· 4 days off—Employee warning notice issued with
counseling on attendance policy, and 3 days off without pay.
· 5 days off—Employee warning notice issued with
counseling on attendance policy, and 5 days off without pay and subject to
termination.
· 6 days off—Employment terminated.
This policy superseded the attendance policy
which the Respondent had in effect prior to the
· Due to current absenteeism issues, United
Steel
Service, Inc. will address its attendance policy.
· Effective January 1, 2001 the new policy will
be determined on the basis of each individual’s attendance and tardiness
record.
· Management will monitor each employee’s attendance.
· All disciplinary action will be reviewed and
handled by the plant supervisor.
· Tardiness and leaving early will also be
monitored and addressed as necessary.
· Plant Supervisor decisions are final.
Charles Pitts, production supervisor,
testified that this attendance policy did not dictate a finite number of days
that would initiate disciplinary proceedings, and that it was up to management’s
discretion. Pitts also clarified that
this policy, which lasted for 6 months from January 1, 2001, to the end of June
2001, was the only existing policy governing employee attendance until it was
replaced by the policy posted on June 26, 2001.
According to the Respondent, prior to
January1, 2001, Uniserv had yet another policy in effect since at least 1980
(R. Exh. 30). This policy allowed up to
8 unexcused absences before incurring any discipline. More specifically,
Uniserv had maintained the following policy:
· 8 days—verbal warning from Plant Manager
· 9 days—employee is given 3 days off without
pay
· 10 days—employee is given 5 days off without
pay
· 11 days—employee is dismissed as an employee
of United Steel Service, Inc.
Menold explained that Uniserv had this
attendance policy in effect since he began work at the plant about 25 years
ago. The Respondent admitted that this
written policy, in existence prior to January 2001, permitted up to eight
unexcused absences, although the subsequent policy left it all up to management’s
discretion. The Respondent further
admitted that this “[l]ast absenteeism policy [i.e., the one commencing in
January 2001] was changed once again.”
Nevertheless, the Respondent maintains that
the allegation that the Respondent unilaterally changed its attendance policy “is
false and untrue.” The record is clear,
however, that on April 4, 2001, the Board issued its certification of the
The policy also imposes penalties for late
arriving and early departing employees.
It provides that if an employee is 1 minute late, the employee will be
docked a half an hour of pay. Employee Robert Baker testified that under
previous policies a worker who was less than 3 minutes late would not have received
any reduction in pay, and that an employee would have to be more than 3 minutes
late before he or she would be docked.
Pitts testified that under the previous policy a penalty could be
imposed for late arrivals and early departures, but it was at the discretion of
management.
The Respondent’s claim that these policies
were all the same, that the Respondent made no changes in policies, or that the
previous policy was “just reduced to writing and made more refined” by the June
policy is clearly wrong. Indeed, the Respondent’s
assertions in its brief are contradictory and inconsistent, making statements
such as, the last absenteeism policy was changed once again, and this last
policy was more lenient, and the last policy was entirely discretionary. I also
reject the argument that the changes were minor.
Robert Baker notified David Fascia, the union
representative, about the new attendance policy. By letter of September 14, 2001, Fascia
addressed his written request to Jeffrey Bayman, company president, that the
Company bargain over the attendance policy and other alleged unilateral changes
(GC Exh. 27). Fascia testified that the
Company did not give prior notice to the
iv. changes in the
Until May 22, 2001, Uniserv maintained a
holiday and vacation policy which permitted an employee who took a vacation
which included a holiday, to receive pay for that holiday in addition to the
vacation days. Subject to manning requirements,
the employee could also take an additional unpaid day off work. In short, employees were given additional
time if a holiday falls during the employee’s vacation time. The policy provided as follows (GC Exh. 9; R.
Exh. 8):
If a holiday falls during an employee’s vacation, the employee shall receive a full week’s pay plus additional holiday pay. Additional time-off due to holiday’s falling during vacation is subject to manning requirements.
After the certification of the
If a holiday falls during an employee’s vacation, the employee shall receive a full pay plus holiday pay. Due to manning requirements, additional time-off due to a holiday has been eliminated.
Pitts testified that in the past there were
times when employees were granted an additional day off because a holiday fell
during their vacation but that manning requirements no longer permitted it,
because the “work force got leaner and leaner,” and Uniserv did not have the people
to cover all the extra days off.
On September 14, 2001, David Fascia wrote
President Bayman, requesting that Uniserv bargain over the change in holiday
and vacation policy, as well as other unilateral policy changes Uniserv had
made since the
v. changes in health care coverage
Following the
Uniserv denies responsibility for implementing
the changes to the health care policy, taking the position that changes in
health care policy were directed by the insurance carrier, Blue Cross and Blue
Shield.
Pitts wasn’t sure if the Company had an option to change insurance
carriers, although he acknowledged that the Company had done so in the
past. These changes affected everyone at
the Company including the employees in the bargaining unit. In any case, the Respondent could have but
failed to notify the
On December 7, 2001, Fascia wrote to
Kawczynski, company president, requesting to bargain over these unilateral
changes, but the Respondent did not responded to the request.
vi. changes in the substance abuse and physical
exam policies
A. Substance Abuse
By memorandum dated, March 14, 2002, Mark
Jones, safety director, announced to employees’ the Company’s substance abuse
and physical exam policies (GC Exh. 15).
Baker testified that he received a copy of this substance abuse policy
in his paycheck. Fascia received this memo from employees
along with copies of the substance abuse and physical exam policies. The
substance abuse policy jeopardizes continuing employment with the Company after
a violation (GC Exh. 13; R. 13). The Corrective
Action section of this policy reads that “Uniserv has adopted a
zero-tolerance for employees who violate any provisions of the policy and/or
who refuse to comply with the policy. In
such cases employees will be subject to immediate termination without recourse.”
Eleven particular incidents are specified when
an employee must be drug tested.
a. Unacceptable absenteeism, which may include an unacceptable tardiness record, continuous unavailability. Or frequency of unacceptable occurrence.
b. A poor work-related accident record when reviewed with regard to the type of accident, frequency of accident, or severity of accident.
c. Involvement in work-related accident, which there is a reason to believe, might be caused by human error.
d. Display of abnormal behavior on the job as observed by a supervisor, manager, or co-workers.
e. Inability to perform usual/routine tasks.
f. Poor overall employment record, including attendance records, disciplinary actions, performance reviews or accident records.
g. Involvement in the use or unauthorized delivery of drug without authenticated medical explanation.
h. Information made available to Uniserv from an outside source or from other Uniserv personnel, which, upon review and investigation, is considered by Uniserv to be a reasonable basis to require a drug or alcohol-screening test.
i. Involvement in the use, unauthorized possession, misappropriation, or unauthorized delivery of a drug or alcohol while on duty or on Uniserv property.
j. Arrest on criminal charges of possession, use or delivery of a drug.
k. All work-related incidents, accidents and injuries require medical evaluation with drug testing and blood alcohol when detected.
Pitts testified that the substance abuse
policy that went into effect in April 2002, merely incorporated the policy that
was unwritten up until that point. He also testified that the Company always
had a substance abuse policy. This
policy included preemployment testing, return-to-work testing, testing for
illnesses and accidents, suspicion testing, and postaccident testing. An articulation of the Company’s substance
abuse policy could be found in the employee handbook (GC Exh. 14). According to that policy, employees were
prohibited from engaging in the use of unlawful or unauthorized drugs as well
as reporting for duty with alcohol in their system. Employees were also prohibited from the unauthorized manufacture,
distribution, sale or possession of drugs or alcohol in the workplace. Any employee who violated this policy was
subject to termination, but would be permitted, at management’s discretion, to
participate in appropriate treatment, counseling, or rehabilitation as a
condition of continued employment. Pitt’s testimony declaring that the prior
policy was equally subject to zero tolerance is therefore not credible. He also could not cite to any instances where
the Respondent had exercised such a deterrent.
The record shows that under the former policy,
the Respondent made no announcements and did not inform employees under what
circumstance they would be subject to drug testing. Kawczynski confirmed that
the specific incidents which triggered testing under the new policy were not
mandated prior to the implementation of the policy. For example, in December 2000, when Baker cut
his finger at work, he was taken to the hospital, but he was not subjected to a
drug test. Similarly some time in 1990,
when he broke a finger and was examined by a doctor, he was not tested for
drugs. Menold was injured at work in the mid 1980s and likewise did not receive
a drug test. However, under the current
substance abuse policy these injuries would mandate a drug test, which means,
according to Kawczysnki, that an employee would be suspended for 5 days, pending
the results of the drug test.
Furthermore, if an employee requested help for
a substance problem, he would receive help under the prior policy. For example,
Baker testified that employee, Tom Stewart, admitted an abuse problem. Not only was he treated, but he returned to
work. Baker testified that he was not
fired, but suspended for 3 days in 1980 for an alcohol violation. Pitts’ testimony that the current zero
tolerance approach does not represent a change from the previous policy is
belied by the record. Since the policy
went into effect, five employees have been terminated as a result of the
Company’s new policy.
By letter of April 2, 2002, to President
Kawczynski, Fascia requested to bargain over the changes in the substance abuse
policy (GC Exh. 29). But the
B. Physical Examination
The Respondent’s physical examination policy
was similarly distributed to the employees and went into effect on April 1,
2002, the same day as the substance abuse policy. According to Kawczynski, the
policies are interrelated, so that drug testing may or may not entail a complete
physical examination. Kawczynski was not able to identify a
similar policy in force prior to this date. The policy specifies which
classifications of employees are affected and under what circumstances they
will be required to undergo a physical examination (GC Exh. 11; R. Exh.
14).
Circumstances requiring physical examination
of present employees and new hires are listed as follows:
1. All employees:
A. All new hires prior to employment
B. Following any absence from work, for reasons other than illness, injury or vacation exceeding 30 calendar days.
C. As required for mobile equipment and crane operators, and drivers of company provided vehicles as prescribed by Uniserv equipment examination policy.
D. Following absence from work due to illness or injury requiring the below listed conditions.
1) Requiring confinement in a hospital, excluding hospitalization for tests only.
2) Absence of more than seven (7) consecutive calendar days due to illness or injury.
3) Any illness or injury occurring while at work resulting in the employee leaving work to receive treatment. In the event that the employee is unable to undergo a urinalysis drug screen and/or breathe alcohol test due to their medical condition, Uniserv does authorize the use of a blood test to achieve the same results. (Once medically clear, the employee will be permitted to return to work pending the results of the urine analysis test.)
E. All work related incidents or accidents and following absences from work of one (1) turn or more due to compensable injury.
F. As required for employee affected by Uniserv policy dealing with specific hazardous occupation.
G. Cases and incidents that fall within the guidelines of the “Drug Free Workplace Policy.
Uniserv denies that there has been a change in
the Company’s physical examination policy. However, according to the new policy
an employee is required to undergo a physical examination for an “absence from
work, for reason other than illness, injury or vacation exceeding 30 calendar
days.”
Menold, however, testified that he was not required to take a drug
test after he came back from a 7 or 8 week layoff in 2001. Of the 12 employees who came back to work
after the layoff lasting more than 30 days, Menold was only aware of one employee
who was required to submit to a physical examination under the old system. Baker corroborated Menhold’s recollection
of the scenario. The record is clear
that that the newly adopted policy was not merely a written version of an
existing policy.
The April 2, 2002 letter from the
vii. unilateral employee layoffs
The Respondent laid off bargaining employees
on four separate occasions allegedly because of business considerations. The record shows and the Respondent does not
deny that the employees were informed by memorandum that 12 employees were
placed on “Layoff Status” effective Friday, September 20, 2002 (GC Exh. 18; R.
Exh. 15). Three more employees were
notified of their layoff effective Friday, November 15, 2002 (GC Exh.19; R. Exh
16). One of the employees, Terry Paskel,
was an employee of the receiving department and therefore not a member of the
bargaining unit. Six additional bargaining unit employees were laid off
effective Friday, December 6, 2002 (GC Exh. 20; R. Exh. 17). And effective February 8, 2004, six more
employees were laid off (GC Exh. 32; R. Exh. 18). The employees who were on layoff, with the
exception of the one in November 2002, were members of the bargaining
unit. And in each instance the Company
stated in the respective memorandum that the Company’s action was due to “slow
business conditions.” Pitts testified
that seniority was not followed in the past when selecting employees for
layoffs.
The Respondent justifies its unilateral actions,
arguing that in each instance the affected employees were given 1 week advance
notice of the impending layoffs in several meetings with the employees, and
that notices were posted on the Thursday prior to the Manday layoff. The
Respondent also argues that compelling business reasons and economic necessity
justified the Company’s actions, citing a drop in the tonnage of steel.
That Uniserv unilaterally laid off the
employees without providing notice or opportunity to bargain is supported by
the testimony of Fascia and Pitts who admitted that he did not attempt to
contact the
viii. request for information
Following the Union’s certification on April
4, 2001, the
1) A list of current employees, including date of hire, job classifications, and rate of pay address, telephone number, and current employment status.
2) Copy of all current company personnel policies, practices or procedures.
3) Copies of all current classifications, job descriptions, and wage or salary plans.
4) Copy of employment manuals or other documents showing all company fringe benefit plans, including pension, profit sharing, severance, vacation, health care, apprentice program, training programs, or any other plans applicable to bargaining unit employees.
5) Copies of all disciplinary policies, attendance policies, records or warning of disciplinary notices or any other personnel actions in effect.
6) Copies of any employee entitlements such as stock incentives, 401K plans, pension vesting, benefits credits or optional plans.
7) Copy of company health and safety policies.
Fascia testified that he sent the request for
information along with a request to bargain. Fascia also attempted to contact
More than 4 years later, after the Respondent
had exhausted all appeals and the Sixth Circuit had ordered enforcement, the
Analysis
This Employer has avoided its obligation under
the Act for more than 4 years by refusing to bargain in good faith with the
Union and unilaterally making significant changes in the employees’ working
conditions without notifying the
The
By memorandum to the employees, the Respondent
announced a change in its holiday and vacation policy effective May 23,
2001. The change was made without notice
to the Union and without bargaining with the
On November 1, 2001, the Respondent also
changed the unit employees’ health care coverage by increasing the employees’
copayments and by adding vision coverage. Again the changes were made after the
certification of the Union and without notice to or bargaining with the
By memorandum of March 14, 2002, the
Respondent announced to the employees updated substance abuse and physical examination
policies effective April 1, 2001. The
Respondent implemented the policies without notice to the
The Respondent laid off unit employees on four
separate occasions, in September, November, December 2002, as well as in
February 2004, resulting in 26 layoffs.
Contrary to the Respondent’s argument, the record shows that the
Respondent’s decisions were made without notice to the
Finally, the record shows that by letter of
May 22, 2001, the
Conclusions of Law
1. United Steel Service, Inc., d/b/a/ Uniserv
is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act.
2. The
3. As of April 4, 2001, the
All full-time and
regular part-time production employees employed by the Employer at its
4. By unilaterally changing or implementing
the following company policies and
working conditions, found to be mandatory subjects of bargaining, the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act: (a) attendance policy;
(b) holiday and vacation policies; (c) health care coverage; (d) substance
abuse policy; and (e) physical examination policy.
5. By unilaterally laying off unit employees
on about September 20, November 15, and December 6, 2002, and February 8, 2004,
a subject which relates to terms and conditions of employment, without notice
to the Union and without bargaining with the Union, the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) an (5) of the Act.
6. By failing and refusing to furnish the
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Remedy
Having found that the Respondent has engaged
in certain unfair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act. The Respondent
having failed and refused to bargain with the
Having further found that the Respondent
unilaterally changed and implemented policies and working conditions for Unit
employees, the Respondent must be ordered to rescind those policies and to make
the employees adversely affected whole.
Employees who lost their jobs pursuant to the change in the attendance
policy must be reinstated. They and
those who were suspended should be made whole, as provided above. Similarly, employees who lost their jobs as a
result of the new drug and physical examination policies must be reinstated and
made whole, as provided above. Employees
who were adversely affected as a result of the changed health care policies
must be made whole, as provided above.
Finally, the Respondent must be ordered to provide the
On these findings of fact and conclusions of
law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommended[1]
ORDER
The Respondent, United Steel Service, Inc.,
d/b/a/ Uniserv,
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain in good faith with the
All full-time and
regular part-time production and maintenance employees employed by the Employer
at its
(b) Unilaterally changing the employees’
wages, hours, terms and conditions of employment, including the attendance policy,
holiday and vacation policies, health care coverage, substance abuse policy,
physical examination policy, without first giving notice to and bargaining with
the
(c) Laying off unit employees without notice
to the
(d) Failing and refusing in a timely manner to
provide the
(e) In any like or related manner, interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
them by the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, meet and bargain in good faith
with the Union as the exclusive representative of the Respondent’s employees in
the above unit regarding wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment and if an agreement is reached, embody it an a signed document.
(b) On request of the Union, rescind the unilateral cha