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,
Honeywell Electronic Materials Manufacturing, LLC[1] and International
August 28, 2008
DECISION AND ORDER
By Chairman Schaumber and Member Liebman
On March 26, 2008, Administrative Law Judge William G. Kocol issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions, a supporting brief, and an answering brief, and the Respondent filed an answering brief and a reply brief.
The National Labor Relations 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,[2] and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.[3]
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended
Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, Honeywell
Electronic Materials Manufacturing, LLC,
Dated,
______________________________________
Peter C. Schaumber, Chairman
______________________________________
Wilma B. Liebman, Member
(seal) National
Labor Relations Board
Daniel
Sanders, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Bruce
Michael Cross, Esq. (Perkins Cole, LLP), of
Richard
E. Pound, International Representative, for the
DECISION
Statement of the Case
William G. Kocol, Administrative
Law Judge. This case was tried in
On the entire
record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after
considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel and Honeywell, I make the
following
Findings of Fact
i. jurisdiction
Honeywell, a
corporation, is engaged in the business of manufacturing and supplying
components and materials for the semiconductor industry at its facility in
ii. alleged unfair labor
practices
A.
Background
There are about 363 persons working at
Honeywell’s
Honeywell is committed to maintaining union-free work environments where they currently exist and at all new facilities.
Honeywell is committed to managing its businesses in an open, participatory and customer-supportive manner, so that employees will not consider seeking an [sic] union.
Multiple avenues available for addressing issues/concerns:
· Skip levels & town hall meetings
· HR/Leadership team members always available
· Code of Business Conduct Leader & Access Line
Skip level meetings are usually composed
of about 8 to 10 employees whose immediate supervisor is not present, but the
next higher level supervisor and others do attend. About three or four of these small meetings
are held every 3 months. According to a
template used by Honeywell managers the purpose of the skip level meetings it
to provide an opportunity to discuss current issues and concerns the employees
have. Among the topics that may be
discussed, according to that template, are safety, recent rumors or water
cooler conversations, leadership, resources, processes that they would like to
see changed, improved, or continued, and frustrations, roadblocks, and best
practices. Among the talking points to
be used at these meetings is the desire to keep channels of communication open,
that the skip level meetings are not intended to be the only time for
communication to happen—other avenues such as the open door policy remain—and
the need to ask employees for ideas concerning the problems they raise at the
meeting. Larger groups of employees
attend about one town hall meeting per month.
These meetings cover safety, plant performance and other related matters
and end with a question and answer session where employees are free to raise
work related concerns.
Twice a year Honeywell surveys its
employees by asking them to respond online to the following 15 statements:
1. My manager is consistent in the administration of policy.
2. My manager is sensitive to the need for personal and family time.
3. Leaders respond to questions, problems, and complaints in a timely fashion.
4. My manager often asks for and listens to my opinion and ideas.
5. I feel that I can talk to my manager when I have concerns.
6. I feel that there are opportunities for career growth, skill development and learning in my job.
7. My work environment is safe.
8. I fell [sic] that the Honeywell benefits are competitive.
9. I feel that my pay is competitive.
10. I feel the facility has steps for me to resolve my problems and concerns.
11. I believe my work environment is positive.
12. I feel that I am properly informed about company initiatives and future direction.
13. I feel that there is job security at Honeywell.
14. I fell [sic] that my performance is evaluated fairly.
15. I feel my work is appreciated.
Honeywell uses the survey responses to
determine if there are areas that it needs to focus on in the upcoming months.
B.
The 8(a)(1) Allegations
The complaint alleges that in mid-April,
Honeywell violated Section 8(a)(1) by telling employees that there would never
be a union at Honeywell’s facility and by soliciting employees’ complaints and
grievances and promising employees increased benefits and improved terms and
conditions of employment in response to the Union’s organizing campaign. Al Cutrone is Honeywell’s plant manager. At meetings with employees well before the
About 15 or 20
minutes later Cutrone approach Curry as Curry was working. Cutrone said hello and asked how Curry was
doing; Curry had not met Cutrone before and introduced himself to Cutrone. Curry said he did not know much about
Cutrone, to which Cutrone answered by saying he knew a lot about Curry. Curry asked why that was and Cutrone repeated
that he just knew a lot about Curry.
Curry asked Cutrone why he was down on the work floor. Cutrone answered that he was there to learn
about their work processes and to understand what they did. Curry mentioned that Cutrone had been there
for about 2 years and that he and other employees thought that things were
getting worse instead of better and that was the reason the employees were
seeking union representation. Cutrone
asked Curry what were the problems.
Curry said that there were quite a few, that there were good things
about the company and there were bad things.
Cutrone asked if Curry was willing to meet with his leadership team to
discuss the grievances. After thinking
about it for a moment Curry said that he would not be willing to meet with
Cutrone’s leadership team alone, but that he would be happy to meet with them
if he was allowed to have a witness or somebody on his behalf. Cutrone asked who Curry was talking about,
and Curry answered either his personal attorney or a union representative. Cutrone answered that was not going to happen. Cutrone said that he needed Curry’s help,
that Curry knew the people there, Curry had been there a long time and people
talked to him. Cutrone said that he
would like some of those people to either write down some of their grievances
or at least attend a meeting with him to discuss the grievances. Cutrone said that communication was important
and that he did not think management and the employees were communicating well;
Curry agreed. Cutrone said he was going
to have to trust Curry, that he wanted Curry to help him out, and that he would
be very disappointed if the employees did not talk to him. Curry replied that he thought Cutrone was
giving him too much credit and that he did not have control over everyone. Curry said he did not know if the employees
were willing to meet with Cutrone.
Cutrone asked Curry again to have the employees write down their
grievances. At some point during the
discussion Cutrone looked directly at Curry and told him that there will not be
a
Later Curry did
ask other employees to write down some of their grievances and they did. Two lists were created. But Curry decided that it was not a good idea
to meet with management, so he never gave the lists to Cutrone.
Cutrone admitted
that he had wanted “to be out and engaged on the floor” but that his “busy
calendar” prevented him from doing that until he decided to do so in early
April by visiting Curry’s work unit.
Cutrone testified that Curry stated that it looked like Cutrone had decided
to appear on the work floor because of the union activity. Cutrone answered that it was not the
reason. Cutrone testified that Curry
raised a number of issues and that he was surprised because he had not learned
of the issues before. He claimed that he
told the employees:
I care about those issues, and for me that
they’re communicated so that we can address those issues. So I expressed that if at any point in time
[Curry], other people, a group, et cetera, wanted to come and sit down and talk
whether it be with supervisors, with Human Resources, with me, do so, but bring
the issues forward, and I’m still very happy to sit down with people to
understand what all these issues are since I don’t know about them.
Cutrone denied that he ever told Curry
that there would never be a union at Honeywell.
However, he also unconvincingly denied that Honeywell told employees
that it preferred to remain nonunion. I
have decided to credit Curry’s testimony to the extent that it conflicts with Cutrone’s. Curry’s demeanor was convincing; his
testimony was detailed and seemed to flow naturally.
I have described
above how Cutrone told Curry that there would never be a union at Honeywell’s
facility and then repeated the statement again but adding a guarantee the
second time. By telling employees that
there would never be a Union at Honeywell’s
Next, the complaint
alleges that in mid-April and on August 7 and 8, Honeywell violated Section
8(a)(1) by restricting nonwork-related conversations among employees because
the employees were seeking to be represented by the
In April, Ray
Cropp became Curry’s temporary supervisor.
Curry continued to be open about his support for the
In mid-April,
Honeywell’s health and safety manager asked Curry to participate in a
conference call concerning the development of a robotic arm for a new machine
for Honeywell. Curry agreed, but asked
that the manager to clear it with Cropp ahead of time. The manager then did so. The conference call lasted from 8:30 to 9:15
a.m.; Curry’s regular break period was from 9 to 9:15 a.m., so Curry took his
break in the smoking shack after the call ended. After a few minutes into the break Cropp
angrily approached him in the smoking shack and asked what was going on and
what did Curry think he was doing? After
Cropp was reminded of the conference call Cropp stiffened some, said “oh” and
turned around and walked away. The
conversation lasted a minute or so.
Cropp essentially confirmed Curry’s testimony, but explained that he had
simply forgotten that Curry was otherwise engaged that morning. He denied following Curry around that morning
because of Curry’s support for the
Curry raises
chickens and sometimes gives eggs to fellow employees. Later the same day as the conference call
employee Steve Anderson approached Curry at his work area.
Curry then
decided to talk to his regular supervisor, Lamont Cloy. Curry told Cloy about the events with
Cropp. They spoke with Tony O’Neill, a
subordinate of Cutrone, who said he would investigate the matter. Later that day Curry was summoned for a
meeting with Hallie Krogh, a human resources representative, and Cropp. After someone mentioned that Curry talked a
lot instead of working Curry noted that Krogh kept computerized records of
Curry’s work performance and Curry asked her whether there was a problem with
his work performance. Krogh replied that
there was not, but that the meeting was not about his work performance. So Curry asked exactly what it was
about. Krogh replied that Honeywell was
instructing its supervisors to clamp down on employees talking and leaving their
workstations. Curry disagreed that he
was talking too much. Curry asked
whether the matter would be documented or would go in his personnel file and
Krogh answered that it was not a disciplinary matter and no record would be
made.
In August, Curry
was asked to help another work group. At
the end of Curry’s work day on about August 7, the lead person for the night
shift for that work group, Craig Cox, arrived.
Curry had worked with Cox several years earlier. Per normal procedure, Cox asked Curry what
part he had been working on and how the machines were running. Curry told Cox the part he was running and
that there were no problems. Cox mentioned
about how they had worked together years ago but then he looked at Curry and
asked if that was Curry’s supervisor who was standing behind them and looking
at his watch. Thinking that Cox was
joking, Curry laughed. Cox indicated
that he was not joking, so Curry looked around and saw Cropp standing about 10
feet behind them looking and pointing at his watch. Curry also thought Cropp was joking, so he
turned back and resumed talking to Cox.
Cropp then came up to them and asked Curry what he was doing there,
still pointing to his watch. Curry
pointed to his watch and asked Cropp what he was doing there because Cropp did
not normally supervise that work group.
Cropp said that he was serious.
Curry then decided to avoid another escalation so he walked away and
punched out. Cloy, who witnessed this
event, and Cropp, for the most part, confirmed Curry’s testimony concerning
this incident. But Cloy testified that
he asked Cox what he and Curry had been talking about and Cox said Curry was trying
to solicit him to be a steward for the
The next day
Curry was at another workstation. As
Curry was working employee Tom Peltier came over and asked whether Curry had
heard that another employee had been fired under suspicious circumstances. Curry replied that he had heard the story already. Peltier said okay and kept walking. The conversation took a matter of
seconds. As Curry looked around he saw
Cropp and a lead person looking at him from about 30 feet away. About 10 minutes later Cropp came over and
asked Curry just what he thought he was doing.
Cropp claimed that Curry was talking all the time and everyone talked to
Curry all day long. Curry looked at
Cropp and told him that he did not agree with that. Cropp again said that he was trying very hard
to be professional and that Curry was not cooperating. Curry asked what Cropp was referring to,
whether it was Peltier just coming by talking to him. Cropp said no, that was not what he was
talking about, that he was referring to everyone else that Curry talked
to. Curry immediately asked for an
example of who else he had been talking to.
After more words were exchanged Cropp walked away. Curry proceeded directly to human resources
into Krogh’s office. Curry told Krogh
that he was having a serious problem and needed Krogh to do something about it;
Curry said Cropp was harassing him.
Cropp then walked in and joined Curry and Krogh. Cropp asked if the leadman could join them
and Krogh and Curry agreed. Krogh
mentioned that she needed to talk to Curry about another matter. She then handed Curry a subpoena to appear as
a witness on behalf of the
The facts in the
preceding paragraphs are based on a composite of credible portions of the
testimony of Cloy, Krogh, and Curry.
Cloy confirmed parts of Curry’s testimony, including that Krogh said
that there were a lot of “distractions” in the plant, referring to the union
drive, and that the supervisors should keep the employees at their machines and
help them remain “focused” so they can continue to do their jobs. Krogh, for her part, admitted that Wright
raised the subject of the
Not on purpose, no. I mean naturally where his [work] area was,
he was highly visible and often was approached by a lot of different members in
the area. So there was always conversation
going on. So naturally I was always
interested in what was going on so I could learn, you know, whether it was a
production issue or is there something I could help with. So I was always approaching the situation
when I saw people discussing personal, you know, any kind of conversation. Most of [sic] time I didn’t even ask about
what it was about, but just my approach and it ended up being a natural barrier
between [Curry] and myself automatically, just my approach of walking up. So he’d be on the defense right off the bat.
This testimony
is revealing at several levels. First,
Cropp’s testimony that “there was always conversation going on” is supported by
no one else and seems exaggerated. Read
in its entirety, Cropp’s testimony is that Curry indeed was the target of his
effort to monitor conversations of employees.
Cropp’s excuse that the location of Curry’s work area caused this more
careful monitoring rings hollow.
Moreover, in other instances Cropp’s testimony was evasive and
inconsistent; his demeanor was unconvincing, particularly when I asked him questions
near the end of his testimony.
There are no
written work rules concerning employees talking to each other about nonwork-related
matters. Employees often talk about
matters such as sports. Krogh admitted
that personal conversations about nonwork-related matters, like telephone calls
and internet usage, “a little bit is allowed but as long as it isn’t excessive
and interrupting.” She testified that
she did not countermand Cropp’s interruptions of Curry’s conversations because
she was able to conclude that Curry had stopped working and was standing and
talking. However, this testimony too is
unsupported by credible evidence; even Cropp did not claim work had stopped
during these conversations. Rather, the
thrust of his testimony was that the conversations were too frequent and too
long in duration. Cloy testified that on
one occasion he talked to an employee who he observed spending too much time
going back and forth to the drinking fountain.
He described another occasion involving a performance improvement plan
for an employee who was spending time walking around the floor, talking to
employees and staying in the packaging area too long.
In December
2004, Curry’s supervisor spoke to Curry about what the supervisor perceived to
be Curry’s excessive talking to other employees.
Analysis
The evidence
described above shows that in April and again in August Honeywell interrupted
the conversations that Curry had with other employees. Curry was a known union supporter and was the
subject of Cutrone’s unlawful statements.
His temporary supervisor, Cropp, who interrupted the conversations, knew
of Curry’s union support and had expressed incredulity of that support in light
of how well Honeywell had treated Curry during his period of disability. As indicated, Honeywell does not have any
written work rules concerning employee conversation about nonwork-related
matters and such do occur. There is no
credible evidence that the brief conversations that Curry had with other
employees were more frequent, long lasting, or disruptive than other
conversations that Honeywell allows. I
take into account the fact that Curry had been warned before about excess
talking, but that warning occurred more than 2 years earlier. More immediate in time was the
C.
The 8(a)(3) Allegation
Honeywell
contends that it fired Terri Bedell because she gave a coworker a Honeywell
award of $25 for work the coworker did on Bedell’s motorcycle. Bedell worked for Honeywell as a packaging
specialist from December 2000, until her termination on May 1, 2007. She performed quality control functions on
the product produced by the machinists.
Bedell actively supported the
Honeywell has a
program where employees can reward and recognize each other for work-related
performance. This program, called Bravo,
is designed to make “it easy to shine the spotlight on someone who deserves
extra praise for their hard work and create a memorable moment for them.” The program has several levels. One level allows employees to give one
another a $25 award for work that goes above and beyond the daily
performance. Employees are limited to
giving four such awards per year. To do
so employees go online and enter a website, indicate the name of the employee
to receive the award, and select from among several phrases to describe the
work effort of the award recipient. The
award recipient’s supervisor then receives electronic notification of the
award; that supervisor or the awarding employee then may print the certificate
and present it to the employee. No
supervisory approval is needed to award the $25.
Bedell owns a
Harley motorcycle; she broke some parts on her motorcycle. Ken Gairson is a machinist for Honeywell; he
does some machining work on the side at his home. In October 2006, Bedell asked Gairson if he
could take a look at the broken parts to see if he could repair them. Because this was at the end of the cycling
season in
Bedell regularly
gave three or four Bravo awards per year.
On March 22, about the same time she received the repaired parts, Bedell
gave Gairson a Bravo award. The award
certificate indicated that it was from “Terri ‘Biker Babe’ Bedell.” Bedell selected the following language from
among several choices to explain on the award certificate why she was giving
the award to Gairson: “The pride of a ‘CRAFTSMAN’ is reflected in the quality
of his work. Thank you for all that you
do.” Bedell printed the certificate,
placed it in an envelope, and asked Gairson’s supervisor, Lamont Cloy, to give
it to Gairson. Bedell told Cloy that she
thought Gairson was about the best machinist she had ever come across and he deserved
the award. She also told Cloy that
Gairson had repaired her motorcycle parts and she was very pleased with the
work he had done. She offered to show
Cloy the parts that Gairson had worked on.
The next day Cloy gave Gairson the certificate but Gairson became
concerned about the matter and gave the certificate back to Cloy. Gairson told Cloy that he felt Bedell gave
him the award because he had done some work on Bedell’s motorcycle parts. Gairson and Cloy later had another conversation
and Cloy said he would try and cancel the award.
Bedell had
inspected Gairson’s work in the past and had praised it but never before given
him a Bravo award for his work at Honeywell.
But since June 2006, Gairson was working on the weekend shift. Bedell rarely, if ever, inspected Gairson’s
work during that time period. At the
trial in this case Bedell candidly admitted that she decided to give the award
to Gairson because he had recently returned the motorcycle parts to her. She also explained that after receiving the
motorcycles parts she remembered that Gairson was a great machinist.
A week or so
later Bedell was summoned to human resources where Krogh and Vicki Singer, a
production supervisor, were present.
Krogh asked Bedell why she gave the award to Gairson. Bedell answered that she gave Gairson the
award because Gairson was an excellent machinist. Krogh asked if it had anything to do with
Gairson’s working on Bedell’s motorcycle.
Bedell told Krogh that she gave Gairson the award because of his excellent
craftsmanship and not as payment for the work he had done for her. Krogh asked whether Bedell paid Gairson for
the work he had done; Bedell did not answer, instead telling Krogh that she did
not think what she and a coworker did off of Honeywell property was of concern
to Honeywell. About 2 weeks later Bedell
again met with Krogh and Singer. Krogh
stated that it looked very coincidental that Bedell gave Gairson the award
after Bedell received the motorcycle parts.
Bedell again told Krogh that the award was not payment for the
parts. Krogh again asked if there were
any financial arrangement for the work and Bedell again gave the same
response. Still later Bedell again met
with Krogh and Singer; this time Terry Samona, Honeywell’s human resources manager,
was also present. The same questions
were asked and answers were given. This
time Samona mentioned that Gairson was concerned about possible disciplinary
action and had offered to return the $25 to Honeywell. Samona asked why she signed her name as Terri
“Biker Babe” Bedell; Bedell answered that she wanted to make sure Gairson knew
who she was because he might not know her last name. Samona said the matter would be investigated
further. During this same time period
Samona, Cloy, and Krogh spoke several times with Gairson who assured them that
he did not work on Bedell’s motorcycle parts while at work. Gairson told them that he thought Bedell gave
him the award because he had worked on the motorcycle parts and that he had not
done work that Bedell had inspected in quite some time. He also stated that he did not want to get
Bedell in trouble. At some point Gairson
placed $25 on a table in an effort to return the money to Honeywell; Honeywell
declined to accept the money. Samona
then instructed Cloy to examine the records to determine how long it had been
since Bedell might have inspected Gairson’s work. Cloy’s search revealed that Bedell would not
have had occasion to see Gairson’s work for several weeks before giving him the
award. On April 26, Samona prepared a
detailed summary report of the investigation, recommended that Bedell be fired,
and submitted the report and recommendation to his superiors. An incident report detailing the reasons for
Bedell’s discharge indicated:
Because of the inconsistencies in her
story and her inability to substantiate the business need for awarding this
BRAVO, Terri Bedell was found to have violated both Honeywell’s Conflict of
Interest and Theft/Misuse of Property policies.
The Bravo program provides the opportunity to recognize co-workers and
give them meaningful recognition, including Peer Star $25 awards. However, it is clearly stated on the Bravo
[unreadable] in page, that any abuse or misuse uncovered by continuous audits
of the program could result in discipline, up to and including termination of
employment. Additionally, Terri appeared
to be less than truthful during the investigation and there is no finished work
product that can be directly identified as Ken Gairson’s for at least six weeks
prior to the BRAVO award being given. Honeywell cannot tolerate instances where
employees knowingly and willfully disregard established policies. Her poor judgment and disregard for corporate
policies are not the kind of behaviors that we want our employees to emulate.
Finally, on May
1, Bedell was fired. In the presence of
Samona and Krogh, Singer read Bedell’s termination letter to her. That letter read, in pertinent part:
Effective today, your employment with
Honeywell is terminated as a result of your actions on March 22, 2007 which included
inappropriate use of the Honeywell Bravo system.
Bedell has been
the only employee disciplined for improper use of the Bravo system since
January 15, 2005, to the date of the trial.
On the other hand, there is also no evidence that Honeywell has allowed
employees to give Bravo awards for nonwork-related matters. Eleven employees have received verbal
warnings, in written form, for operator errors involving parts that were
scrapped and that were frequently valued in excess of $1000 and higher.
The facts in
this section of the decision are based on a composite of the credible testimony
of Bedell, Samona, Cloy, and Krogh. I
questioned Samona rather extensively concerning why he decided to fire Bedell
instead of imposing lesser discipline; he explained that what Bedell did
amounted to a conflict of interest and theft and misuse of company
property. I credit this testimony. Samona’s demeanor was convincing and this testimony
fits easily with the record as a whole.
I apply Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd.
662 F.2d 889 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982), in determining
whether Bedell’s discharge was unlawful.
The General Counsel has shown that Bedell supported the
I find that
Honeywell could reasonably conclude that Bedell gave Gairson the $25 not
because of any work-related reason but rather because he repaired her
motorcycle parts. The General Counsel
argues that the amount of the award was fairly insignificant, especially when
compared to the costly errors that Honeywell has tolerated from other
employees. But Honeywell persuasively
argues that those errors were unintentional whereas Bedell purposefully gave
the award to Gairson. Moreover, at issue
was not merely the amount of the award but the efficacy of the award program
itself. Finally, I have credited Samona’s
explanation as to why Honeywell did not give Bedell a lesser punishment. I note that Honeywell thoroughly investigated
the matter and did not act precipitously in discharging Bedell. I also note the investigation was triggered
by the concerns Gairson expressed about the legitimacy of the award and not by
a search for wrongdoing by Honeywell.
All this leads me to conclude that Honeywell has shown that it would
have fired Bedell even in the absence of her union activity. I shall dismiss this allegation of the complaint.
Conclusions of Law
Respondent has
engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act by:
(a) Telling
employees that there would never be a Union at Honeywell’s
(b) Soliciting
employees’ grievances and promising to address them in order to undermine
employee support for the union.
(c) Interrupting
an employee’s nonwork-related conversations with other employees because the
employee supported the
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.
On these
findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended2
ORDER
The Respondent,
Honeywell Electronics Materials Manufacturing, LLC,
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Telling
employees that there would never be a Union at Honeywell’s
(b) Soliciting
employees’ grievances and promising to address them in order to undermine employee
support for the union.
(c) Interrupting
nonwork-related conversations among employees because employees support 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) Within 14
days after service by the Region, post at its facility in
(b) 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.
It is further ordered that the complaint
is dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically
found.
Dated,
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 tell employees that there would never be a Union at
Honeywell’s
We will not solicit employees’ grievances and promise to address them
in order to undermine employee support for the union.
We will not interrupt nonwork-related conversations among employees
because employees support the
We will not in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the
Act.
Honeywell Electronics Materials Manu-facturing, LLC
[1] We change the caption consistent with the parties’ stipulation.
[2] The Respondent has 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. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings.
The judge inadvertently found that Plant Manager Al Cutrone
visited employee Jeffrey Curry’s work group in “about mid-April.” Based on the credited testimony, Cutrone visited
Curry’s work group in early April, after Cutrone became aware of the
In adopting the judge’s finding that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act by interrupting an employee’s nonwork-related conversations with other employees because the employee supported the Union, where those conversations were short and nondisruptive, Chairman Schaumber does not rely on the judge’s finding that Supervisor Ray Cropp “had expressed incredulity of [Curry’s union] support in light of how well Honeywell had treated Curry during his period of disability.”
[3] Effective midnight December 28, 2007, Members Liebman, Schaumber, Kirsanow, and Walsh delegated to Members Liebman, Schaumber, and Kirsanow, as a three-member group, all of the Board’s powers in anticipation of the expiration of the terms of Members Kirsanow and Walsh on December 31, 2007. Pursuant to this delegation, Chairman Schaumber and Member Liebman constitute a quorum of the three-member group. As a quorum, they have the authority to issue decisions and orders in unfair labor practice and representation cases. See Sec. 3(b) of the Act.
1 All dates are 2007, unless otherwise indicated.
2 If no exceptions are
filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48
of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
3 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a