FY 2013 SSA Official Time

8/13/2019 FY 2013 SSA Official Time

1/24


2/24

PR I RM%,N(. h655on the question of manlall enlellt ilits constiluled e -idence of a refusal t harnaill ood faith. Respon-dent submitted its mIlanzagement-rights propo, al dur-ing the June 8, 1976, negotiating sessioln. It prox ded,intltr al/ia, that except where such riglhts are specifical-1 relinquished or limited hb the contract, the I1m-plo ver retains all prior rights and. in addition. etainsthe unquestionedl right to milnage the affairs of theclinic and to direct the work force. In addition. theJune 8 proposal conferred on Respondent a nuimlherof specific rights ith respect to the opera tion of theclinic and the utilization of emplo\ees. encluding. tii-ter alia, the right to discontinue processes or opera-tions or to discontinue their performance ,, emplo-ees: the right to relieve emploees frol dut\ for inlegitimiate reason in the best interests of' ellplo\ces:the right to prescribe. modif'. and enforce reasolln-able rules regarding discipline and work perfor-mance; and the richt to establish contracts or suh-contracts for clinic operations. minallI Respondent'sproposal provided that such rights were tlunrevie\ahlein an 5 grievance or arbitration proceedilng but thatthe manner of the exercise of such rights might besubject to the grievance procedure.Reasoning that Respondent's chief neotia tor inall probabilit} kne that the broad nlanagemlcnt-rights clause he had proposed \xould he unacceptableto the Union and would result in fruitless discussionthe Administrative Las Judge concluded that tlheclause in issue constituted another inldicium that Re-spondent's conduct was designed to prolong the ne-gotiations. We disagree. It is not illegal r w for alemployer to propose and bargain concerning a broadmanagement-rights clause.' Henee, Respondent didnot violate Section 8(a}(5) b the mere act of propos-ing the provision in question. And, \while a rigid andinflexible insistence on the inclusion in a contract ofa sweeping management-rights clause ma\ undersome circumstances constitute evidence of bad-faithbargaining, the record reveals that Respondent didnot adopt an intransigent position wvith respect to theprovision in question. After a brief discussion of themanagement-rights proposal on June 8. the partiesmoved on to discuss other issues. On Aucust 19. theUnion submitted a counterproposal dealing withmanagement rights. On August 25. Respondent sub-mitted i ts own counterproposal. which the Ilnionagreed to accept on that date. Ilence. contrar\ to theAdministrative Law Judge's conclusion. it appearsthat Respondent, though it waited 6 months t(o suh-

I' I R B ' er Iln (.,,t, 'n 41 t S )' 1S'lexis Intllirs , Int, 140 NI RB 527 i29 I1() 11I,-.. S., Is bel /h1,.,. st, ec .,e , . 2 NI RB 11173 I7,1's hIS 1197(

Gull .orss hintsrsit 224 N I RHB ts6 7' J}7, Il s ttl r H,7 lJi r ;( h',i ul1,,( ,,, (,, I, 1 1 N1 RB I1S 9t

mlit it, initial proposal of broad mIanagement ricItsthat ere not to be re\ ie\'able in a rie\anice or arbi-tration proceeding. did not in fact impede te negoti-atia process ill subIIllitting its proposal.

\ e further disagree with the A,\dmlinistraItiv'ec.ludee's conclusion that the bellicose and arulenInta-tis\e hehavior of l.eon Kowal. Responldent's chieflnedltlator. cotistituted independent e\idence of Re-sfoident's refusall to bargain in good faith. WhileKo,\\al adl i tedlJ entated in a Ill mber of rgcuments\ith unilon rpresentati\es during the nectiations,such beh;tsior often accompanies attelmpts b\ theparties to hallmmel (out an areemenlt and to conpro-mise their differences. In our \ies. Koi\al's bellicoseImaillne. standing alone, \was no1lsufficienItl\ extremer dis rulp ise to constitute evidence of refusal tobalrcail inl ood faith.

With respect to Respondent's questio)ninc of itshealth care emplo\ees about their strike intentions.the \Admilistratias.e aw Judge found that Respon-dent ma\ lax full\ engage in such qestioning butthat Resplondent \iolated Section 8a)(1) b\ tellingemllplo\ees that their jobs would he in eopard ifthe\ did not respond to the questioning. For the rea-ssiis stated bel(ow, we aree with these findings.After the I:nion sent Respondent a 10-da\ noticeconcerning tsntention to institute a strike. as re-quired b Section 8l of the Act. Diane Richards.Respondent s director, instructed Preterm's supervi-sors to ask all employees whether the\ intended to\vorlk dfurIin the strike. Subsequentl\, Yrionne Sulli-\aln. the coordinator of medical records and tele-ph1(ne counselors s ind\iJdua questioned I I ern-plo ces. asking each whether she intended to reportfor \'*ork on the first day of the strike. Sullivan ex-plained that she wuas asking for scheduling purposes.Vv'lnle to of the questioned employees. Ann Waxand J1an .Levile. refused to respond to her inquir.Sullivan told each womrnan that if she refused to an-sler Sullian would assume she Nwas not coming to\ork and was therefo)re putting her job in jeopardy.On (ctober 5. 1976. 5 da's later, Respondent cir-culate a questionnaire aong its emploees to de-termiric s\hether or not the\ would report for workdurin the strike. he memorandum which accompa-nied the questionnaire explained:

lr. Small la negotiator for the tUnionJ alsocharted Preterm u-ith having committed lln n-fair labor practice hb making inquiries concern-ing , ur intentions of reporting to work on Oc-tober 19. 1970. We are assured we can inquire ofour emplo\ees as to their intentions of comninto work at the beginning of the strike. Our pur-pose in askingyou is o make it possible to scheduleincoming patients and have employees available

PRH RM. INC. 65 5


3/24

656 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARDto take care of them. We want to assure you thatyou are free to make your own decision. No repri-sals will be taken against you whatever your deci-sion may be.If you refuse to answer, we will not know whetheryou will be working and will therefore have toschedule a replacement.

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that ahealth care institution which has received a 10-daystrike notice may properly attempt to determinewhether or not employees intend to participate in theanticipated strike. We agree. In enacting Section 8(g),Congress was concerned about insuring the continu-ity of patient health care. Accordingly, the Adminis-trative Law Judge correctly concluded that once anemployer receives a 10-day notice and a strike there-fore appears imminent he may properly attempt todetermine the need for replacements by asking em -ployees if they intend to strike.The Administrative Law Judge held, however, thatSullivan exceeded the bounds of permissible inquiryin warning employees Wax and Levine that if theyrefused to answer her inquiry she would assume theywould not report for work during the strike and weretherefore putting their jobs in jeopardy. Sullivan's re-marks could reasonably have been interpreted by theemployees as a threat to discharge them if they par-ticipated in the strike. Inasmuch as such threats vio-late Section 8(a)( 1) of the Act.7 we adopt the Adinin-istrative Law Judge's holding.In reaching his conclusions, the AdministrativeLaw Judge, in addition to analyzing Sullivan's con-versation with Wax and Levine. also stated that hebelieved the strict safeguards of Johnnie s Pouhltr (Co.and John Bishop Pouhllr ('o. should be relaxed" incases involving the interrogation of prospective strik-ers by health care institutions. The General Counselexcepted, contending that the safeguards outlined inJohnnie's Poultrr Co., supra, and Stru.vsnes Constrluc-tion Co., Inc.,9 should regulate the manner in whichsuch interrogation is dconducted. citing the Board'sdecision in Commercial Manogement, Inc., 233NLRB 665, 676 (1977).We agree with the General Counsel. In order tolessen the inherently coercive effect of the polling ofits employees. Respondent had an obligation to ex-

.S'irt, Dnrhritn g (Ctpam 219 NI.RB 1046 1105) 1975). I,,,,,(Ioqrir e (lnprc .. 169 NLRH 290, 292 (1968X). cnfd Hi part 416 2d1126(D(. ir. 1969): ( Ao utdrA. l, Ia , 15 NLRB 1182, 1186(1',166)s 146 NI.RB 770 (1964). cIlnfoceilentl deiied 344 t.2d 617 8th (i 1965)

' 16s NlRB 11)62 1967).

plain fully the purpose of the questioning, to assurethe employees that no reprisals would be takenagainst them as a result of their response. and to re-frain from otherwise creating a coercive atmosphere.By the failure of its representative to comply withthese requirements in questioning a number of em-ployees, Respondent interfered with, restrained, andcoerced its employees in the exercise of their right toengage in protected concerted activity.In contrast, however, Respondent's memorandumof October 5 satisfied these requirements in full. Thatmemorandum explained the purpose of the question-naire in a clear manner, informed the employees thatthey were free to make their own decision, and as-sured them that no reprisals would be taken againstthem because of their decision on whether or not tostrike. Hlence, in distributing its memorandum andquestionnaire, Respondent did not exceed its right todetermine the strike intentions of its employees.

Til. RtMltl)'rIn adopting the Administrative Law Judge's rec-

ommended Order, we agree with him that backpayshall commence for each striking employee 5 daysafter he or she makes an unconditional offer to re-turn to work. Drug Package Companym Inc., 228NLRB 108 (1977). This provision is, however, subjectto the caveat that if Respondent herein has alreadyrejected or hereafter rejects, unduly delays, or ig-nores any unconditional offer to return to work, orattaches unlawful conditions to its offer of reinstate-ment, the 5-day period serves no useful purpose andbackpay will commence as of the date of the uncon-ditional offer to return. Nelport NewNes Shipbuildingand Drl Dock Compani. 236 NLRB 1637 (1978). An dwhile here bound by these cases as representing theBoard majority view, Chairman Fanning and Mem-ber Jenkins note that, in accordance with their dis-sent in Drug Package Company, Inc., they wouldmake whole employees who apply for reinstatementwithout a 5-day waiting period.

Respondent excepted to the Administrative LawJudge's recommendation that Respondent be or-dered to reimburse the employee-members of theUnion's negotiating committee for any wages lostwhile attending past negotiating sessions. We havedecided to adopt the Administrative Law Judge'srecommendation. See M.F.A. Milling Company, 170NI.RB 1079 (1968), enfd. sub no. Local 676, Labor-er , 463 F.2d 953 (D.C. Cir. 1972). However, intereston such wages should be computed in the same man-ner as the interest on backpay rather than at the spe-cific rate of 7 percent specified by the AdministrativeLaw Judge.


4/24

PRETERM. INC 657Wi \\ill ,ol in an\ like or related mannerinterfere with. restrain. or coerce our employeesin the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Sec-tion 7 of the Act.W' .l 1 upon request. bargain collectivel\concerning rates of pa,. wages. hours of e-plo mcnlt. and other terms and colnditions ofernplomnent ith District 1199 Mass. National

ilnion of lospital and lealth (Care Emploees,a Division of RWI)Sl ,AFL ('10. as the exclu-si',e collective-bargaining representative of allthe employees in the appropriate unit describedbelow. and if an agreement is reached. \kww\iaembody it in a signed contract. The U[nion's cer-tification year shall extend I ear from the datesuch new hargaining negotiations begin. The ap -propriate unit is:

All full-time and regular part-time counselors,telephone counselors, the abortion coordina-tor. nurses aides, superxisor of the telephoneroom. pap clinic coordinator. medical chartclerks. admitting officers, receptionists. in-cluding the first floor receptionist and medicalcenllte'r nIl;;lner. nlailltenance cmplox\ee. andtrainees. employed at the Employer's Brook-line. Massachusetts, location, but excludinlbookkeeping employees. administrative assis-tant, administrative secretar. medicll direc-tor's secretary, all other coordinators, coun-selor trainiig assistants, and e\xaluators.student interns. registered nurses, licensedpractical nurses. physicians. phsicians' assis-tanlts. guards and supervisors as defined inthe Act.W\I \ lll reimburse eplo\ee-nlemhbers f the

union negotiating committee for ages lost, ifain., wuhile attending past negotiating sessions.with appropriate interest.

Wi S i. upon their application, offer imme-diate and full reinstatement to their former jobsor. if those jobs no longer exist, to substantiallequivalent positions without prejudice to theirseniorit\ and other rights and privileges previ-ollsls enjioed. to) all our emplo\ees l o haveengaged in a strike which began on October 19.1976, and ho have not alread been reinstated.dismissing, if necessary. anN emploees hired asreplacements since the beginning of the strike. Ifinsufficient jobs are not available for these em-ployees, they shall be placed on a preferentialhiring list and will be offered employment beforeany other persons are hired for such work.W wi lt make such applicants whole for an 'loss of earn ings. together with interest thereon.

OR[)ERPursuant to Section 10(c) of the National LaborRelations Act. as amended. the National Labor Re-lations Board adopts as its Order the recommendedOrder of the Administrative aw Judge. as modifiedbelow. and hereby orders that the Respondent, Pre-term. Inc., Brookline, Massachusetts. its officers.agents. successors, and assigns. shall take the action

set forth in the Administrative Law Judge's recom-mended Order. as so modified:I. Insert the following as paragraph (c) and relet-ter the remaining paragraphs accordingl:"(c) Coercivel interrogatinig emploees concirn-ing their intention to work during a strike and threat-ening job loss for failure to respond."2. Add the phrase as modified by the remed sec-tion of the Board's [)ecision" to the last sentence ofparagraph 2(a).3. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(d):"(d) Make whole each employee-mlemlber of thenegotiating committee of the Union for earnings lostwhile attending past bargaining sessions, with intelr-est computed in the same manner as that specified b\the Administrative Law Judge for the comiputatiaonof interest on backpa."4. Substitute the attached notice for that of theAdnministrative Law Judge.

APPEtNDLIXNoi(L( To F.I o)' aisP()s t I) Ot)R R U IiN ,1N0\ LABOR Ra I \1I(N RDAn Agency of the Ulnited States Go\erminent

After a hearing in which all parties had an opportu-nity to present evidence, to examine and cross-eamll-ine witnesses, and to submit legal briefs. it has beendetermined that we hax\e iolated the National I.aborRelations Act, and we ha\e been ordered to post thefollowing:WI A itl No fail or refuse to furnish theUnion. with reasonable promptness, informla-tion dunl requested bh it concerning etlplo\ees'wages, hours. or terms or conditions of emplo\-menit that is relevant to the tnion's collective-bargaining duties. including the adiliistratio0of any subsisting contract.Wtr.W111 No)t coercivel F interrogate emplo ecesabout their intention to work durinti a strike orthreaten job loss for their failure to responid,WiL \\ii I ci threaten to replace permanentlNany emploNees who participate i it lawful strikein protest of our unfair labor practices.


5/24

658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARDthey may suffer by reason of any refusal on ourpart to reinstate them beginning 5 days aftertheir application for reinstatement until the dateof our offer of reinstatement.

PRI IIRMN IN(DECISION

SIAII-MINI Of I11t: CASI

HFRBRI SILBERMAN Administrative Law Judge: Theseconsolidated proceedings were heard in Boston, Massachu-setts, on various days between February 28 and March 31.1977. In addition, the deposition of Yvonne Sullivan takenon April 21, 1977, was made part of the record by an Orderissued on May 2, 1977.1 Thereafter, pursuant to leave giventhe parties, briefs were filed with the Administrative LawJudge on behalf of General Counsel and Respondent.Upon the entire record in the cases and from my obser-vation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make thefollowing:FINDINGS f01FA('T

F] Ill e BI SINtSS OF RFSPOND)IN IPreterm, Inc., herein sometimes called the Company, theClinic, or the Employer, is a nonprofit Massachusetts cor-poration engaged in providing family planning services onan outpatient basis from its place of business in Brookline,Massachusetts. Respondent's annual income is in excess of$250,000, and annually it receives medical supplies, mate-rials, and equipment valued in excess of $50,000 which areshipped to its Brookline facility through channels of inter-state commerce from locations outside the Commonwealthof Massachusetts. The complaint alleges, Respondent ad-mits, and I find that the Company is an employer engagedin commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) ofthe Act.

II I iE I.ABOR OR(GANIZAION INSOI.V.D

District 1199 Mass. National Union of Hospital andHealth Care Employees, a Division of RWDSU/AFLCIO, herein called the Union. is a labor organization with-in the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.II 1LE INi AIR LABOR PR Ti('CES

A. The PleadingsThe charge and the amended charge of unfair laborpractices in Case I CA-12325 were filed by the Union onOctober 14 and November 29, 1976, respectively.2 A com-plaint thereon was issued on January 5, 1977, which was

amended on February 24, 1977, and was further amendedI Upon review of the rleposition of Y\ionne Sullivan. I find tha ti hce ale

no pending obhectlons Io any of the answers gen] bh Yonne SulIh.anAll dates refer it 1976 unless othrvise stalted.

at the opening of the hearing. The complaint, as amended,in substance, alleges that, in violation of Section 8(a)(5)and (I) of the Act, since April 14, 1976, Respondent hasrefused to bargain collectively with the Union as the dulycertified representative of a unit of the Company's employ-ees, as alleged in paragraph 13, by:(a) refusing since April 14, 1976, to submit or dis-cuss economic proposals unless the Union agreed to arecognition clause proposed by the Company which

would exclude certain job classifications included inthe collective-bargaining unit certified by the Board:(b) refusing since October 8, 1976, to submit or dis-cuss economic proposals after the Union had issued a10-day notice of strike;(c) making a proposal on October 18, 1976, the lastof 21 negotiating sessions before the commencementof a strike, increasing the number of hours of work perweek required for an employee to retain or to obtainfull-time employee status:(d) refusing to furnish the Union information re-quested by it regarding: (I) the job classifications ofemployees in the collective-bargaining unit, (2) em -ployer and employee contributions under the Com-pany's Blue Cross/Blue Shield health plan, (3) the lifeinsurance and disability insurance policies, and (4)"the names of all employees and their wages and thebase salary for job classifications":(e) imposing as a condition before it will make eco-nomic proposals that agreement be reached on allnoneconomic issues despite repeated requests by theUnion for economic proposals.

The complaint further alleges that on October 19 Respon-dent's employees went on a strike caused by Respondent'sunfair labor practices. Respondent duly filed an answer tothe complaint denying that it has engaged in the allegedunfair labor practices.By an Order of the Board on March 24, 1977, reversinga contrary ruling by the Administrative Law Judge, CaseI CA 12326 was consolidated with Case I CA-12325,and the complaint in the latter case was further amendedto reflect such consolidation and to add to paragraph 13the following:(f) interrogating employees about their strike inten-

tions and, at the same time, threatening permanentlyto replace them, which was done on October 7, 1976,by Respondent's agent. Yvonne Sullivan;(g) during negotiations, on October 18, 1976, by itsagent, Leon Kowal, in the presence of employees, reit-erating its refusal to give economic proposals becauseof the pending strike notice;(h) on October 18, 1976, by its agent, Leon Kowal,threatening permanently to replace employees who arealleged to be unfair labor practice strikers:(i) threatening to replace permanently employeeswho are alleged to be unfair labor practice strikers byRespondent's agent, Diane Richards, in a letter writ-

' charge f unfaii labor pracltices as filed bh the nionl in said case on()lohc 14


6/24

PRETERM IN('. 659ten by her to Respondent's employees on October I.1976.

These additional allegations of unfair labor practices wereduly denied by Respondent.Thereafter, during the hearing, counsel for the GeneralCounsel made a motion further to amend the complaint h,alleging that the incidents set forth in subparagraphs (f).(g), (h), and (i), of paragraph 13 of the complaint constituteviolations of Section 8(a)( I )independent of the alleged vio-lations of Section 8(a)(5). This motion was denied. Subse-quently. by a motion in writing dated Jul' 7. 1977. GeneralCounsel moved to amend the complaint by deleting sub-paragraphs (f) through (i) inclusive from paragraph 13 ofthe complaint and repeating the subparagraphs separatelas incidents constituting interference with and restraintand coercion of employees in the exercise of their rightsguaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Respondent dul filedobjections to this motion. I deny the motion for the follow-ing reasons: First, subparagraphs (f) through (i) inclusivewere added to paragraph 13 of the complaint by an Orderof the Board. I have no authority to act upon GeneralCounsel's motion. which would modify the Board's Order.Second. the proposed amendment is unnecessary. Th eevents embraced by the allegations set forth in subpara-graphs (f) through (i) were fully litigated at the hearing.The complaint alleges that they constitute iolations ofSection 8(a)(1) as well as 8(a)(5). The remedN will be thesame regardless of whether or not these allegations arepleaded as violations of Section 8(a) I) independent of an xother violations of the Act.The underpinning of the complaint. as explained bhcounsel for the General Counsel in her opening statement.is that the Company engaged in negotiations with theUnion with no intention of reaching an agreement, and theincidents set forth in paragraph 13 are illustrative of Re-spondent's bad faith.

B. Background1. The Employer's operations

Preterm. Inc., operates an ambulatory clinic in the areaof reproductive health care. It provides abortion. g)neco-logical, female sterilization. and male sterilization services.As an adjunct to the abortion clinic, the CompanN operatesa postabortion clinic which provides checkups for patients.The abortion (AB) clinic and the gynecological (GYN)clinic each serve about 12.000 patients per ear. The Com-pany employs approximately 100 persons on its regularpayroll and about 40 independent contractors, mostly ph 3-sicians. The abortion clinic, gynecological clinic. laparos-copy clinic, vasectomy clinic, and postabortion clinic arestaffed with lay counselors who provide the patients withinformation concerning the procedures involved and otherrelevant matters and, in the case of the abortion clinic, withcounselors who remain with the patients while they aresubmitting to the medical procedures.The principal management officials of the Company areJane Levin, its administrator, and Diane Richards, its di-rector. Also functioning in supervisory capacities are Deb-orah Feinbloom, coordinator for abortion counseling, and

Yvonne Sullivan, coordinator for telephone counseling andthe medical records department.2. The representation proceedings

A petition having been filed hb the Union in ('ase IR( 13642 seeking certification as a representative of the(ompan's emploees and a hearing thereon having beenheld, a Decision and Direction of Election was issued onApril 14. 1975. b the Regional Director for Region I. Th eI)ecision disposed of arious disputes concerning the com-position of the appropriate collecti\e-bargaining unit. ex-cept that no determination was made with respect to medi-cal chart clerks, the supervisor of the medical chart room,receptionists. admitting officers. and the maintenance em -plo\ee. in accordance with the Board's decision in BapitMedical (enter -Princeton. 216 NI.RB 516 (1975). andthose emploxees were permitted to vote subject to chal-lenge. Ihe talls of ballots for the election held on Ma's 1).1975. shows that of approximatelN 51 eligible voters, 39,otes were cast for the Union, 3 ,otes were cast against theUnion, and 8 ballots were challenged. As the challengedballots were not sufficient to affect the results of the elec-tion, the Regional [)irector for Region I issued a ('ertifica-tion of Representative, dated May 19, 1975, certifying theUnion as the exclusive representative of the emploees inthe following described unit:

All full-time and regular part-time counselors, tele-phone counselors, the abortion coordinator, nurses'aides, supervisor of telephone room, pap clinic coordi-nator. and trainees, employed at the Emploser'sBrookline. Massachusetts. location, but excludingbookkeeping employees, administrative assistant. ad-ministrative secretary. medical director's secretar. allother coordinators, counselor training assistants andevaluators, student interns, registered nurses, licensedpractical nurses, physicians, physicians' assistants.guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.

Subsequently, on September 8. 1976. the Regional Directorfor Region I issued a Decision and Clarification of Bar-gaining Unit in Case I UC 192, which clarified the certi-fied unit described above b adding as included categories"medical chart clerks, admitting officers, receptionists. in-cluding the first floor receptionist and medical center man-ager. maintenance employee. The Company and theUnion participated in 15 negotiating sessions before thedate on which the unit clarification decision was issued.

C. he NegoiaztionsI. Introduction

Although the certification was issued on May 19, 1975.more than 6 months elapsed before the Union requested ameeting with the Company. The explanation for the delais that, because there was a large turnover of personnelduring the summer months. the employees waited until thework force had become stable before thes hegan to drafttheir contract demands, and in consequence it was Novem-ber before thes were able to assemble their proposals.

PRETERM,N. 659Yvonneullivan, coordinator for telephone counseling and


7/24

660 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARDThe Company was represented at the negotiating ses-sions by its attorney. Leon Kowal, who sometimes was as-sisted by his associate. Harold Kowal. Jane Levin and Di-ane Richards also attended negotiating sessions, althoughneither attended all the meetings. The union representa-tives at the negotiating sessions were its president, ElliottSmall, and its organizer. Deborah Megrian. Another or-ganizer, Ken Allen, attended the December 1, 1975. meet-ing but thereafter resigned his position with the Union andattended no later meetings. Elliott Small attended all meet-ings except those on December 1. 1975, and February 9and August 19, 1976. Deborah Megrian attended all thenegotiating sessions except the one on June 14. In additionto the union representatives, the employees were repre-sented by members of their negotiating committee. Th ecommittee was informally selected. In practice, anyonewho volunteered to attend a negotiating session wasdeemed a member of the committee. From time to time,members of the Union's negotiating committee preparedand circulated among the Company's employees newslet-ters which described the progress of the negotiations andother matters of interest to the employees.The Company and the Union participated in 25 negoti-ating sessions between the first meeting on December 1.1975, and the last meeting prior to the hearing in these

cases on January 24, 1977. There were 21 meetings betweenDecember I, 1975, and October 19, 1976, when the em -ployees went on strike. The last nine meetings precedingthe strike were conducted under the auspices of Federalmediators, as were the four meetings held thereafter. Th eprincipal issue in this case is whether the Company partici-pated in the negotiations with a good-faith intention ofarriving at a collective-bargaining agreement if possible orwhether the Company attended meetings, exchanged pro-posals, and engaged in related activities merely to conveythe appearance that it was engaged in collective bargain-ing, although it had no intention of reaching an agreementwith the Union a tactic which is calculated to frustratenegotiations, disillusion employees with their representa-tive, and undermine the strength of the Union. Subsidiaryto this basic question is whether certain conduct of theCompany, independent of the Company's general negotiat-ing tactics, constitutes violations of the Act.The Company adduced considerable testimony aboutevents not directly related to the negotiations, such as thedistribution of handbills to the neighbors of Mrs. Levinand Mrs. Richards. damage to property of the Clinic andof its principals (for which union responsibility was notestablished), and union misconduct in connection with thepicketing of the Company's premises. Events occurringaway from the negotiating sessions can influence a party'sattitude in regard to the bargaining.4 The strike and otherconduct was intended to exert pressure on the Clinic toconclude an agreement with the Union. However, such tac-tics can backfire, and instead of weakening resistance tothe union's demands they sometimes strengthen the em -ployer's resolve. In this case the strike and the other pres-sures against the ('ompany were not successful. I have giv-

4See af/etar r/s Inr 233 NRB 107' (1977).

en consideration to the evidence adduced at the hearingregarding such extraneous events, and in reaching my deci-sion I have taken into account the fact that a firm resolvenot to capitulate to a strike, to force, or to other pressuresexerted away from the bargaining table is understandable,is not unlawful, and does not evidence bad faith in thecollective-bargaining negotiations.The principal witnesses in regard to the negotiationswere Deborah Megrian for the General Counsel and LeonKowal for Respondent. Both Megrian and Leon Kowal inlarge part depended on notes, which they and others hadtaken, to describe the transitions about which they testi-fied. There is considerable conflict between the testimonyof Mrs. Megrian and Mr. Kowal. The latter undertook thedifficult task of representing Respondent in the hearing ofthese proceedings and also offering himself as the principalwitness for the Company. The transition from advocate inthe case to a witness in the case is difficult to make. In thisLeon Kowal was unsuccessful. His testimony, which re-flects his passionate advocacy of his client's cause, wentbeyond the recitation of events as he remembered them toinclude perorations justifying his bargaining conduct andangry outbursts. Megrian was an unruffled and straightfor-ward witness. Although I do not accept all her testimony, Ifind that she was more creditable than Leon Kowal andwas generally a reliable witness.There were 14 days of hearing in this matter, and manyexhibits were introduced in evidence. To summarize all thetestimony and to describe all the exhibits would undulylengthen this Decision. My discussion of the evidence islimited to such facts as I believe are helpful in describingthe bases for my conclusions. The description below as towhat transpired at each of the meetings purports neither tobe complete nor to set forth the topics discussed in thesequence that they were discussed. However, my findingsare derived from consideration of all the evidence adducedat the hearing, including the conflicts of testimony, and notfrom just the events herein summarized.

2. The meetingsDecember 1, 1975: Present were Leon Kowal, the Com-pany's attorney and principal negotiator, Union Organiz-ers Ken Allen and Deborah Megrian, and four members ofthe bargaining committee. No substantive subjects werediscussed. Allen promised that he would mail to LeonKowal the Union's demands. Allen suggested, and Kowalagreed, that the negotiators would consider and discussnoneconomic issues before the economic issues.On December 5, 1975, the Union mailed to Leon Kowala draft of a contract and additional departmental de-mands. The items are simply phrased and not lengthy.5December 29, 1975, andJanuarv 26, 1976. These sessionsIn ts brief. in explaining why the negotiations were protracted. Respon-dent asserts that each of the nion's demands "had to be reviewed b theRespondentl and a response prepared. Review included the cost of eachdema;d." It is noted. howvever, that no eidence was adduced that Respon-dent had attemlpted to compute the cost of an); of the Union's demands. Atlnoneof the bargaining sessions did Respondent advert to the cost of an

itnll Iii support f its positiotn in regard thereto. Also. responses were no tsubitted all the nion's demands. and no response whatsoeser wassuhnmiltted to any of the s-called departnlental demarlds.


8/24

PRETERM. INC. 661were devoted to a review and discussion of the Union'scontract proposals. At the December 29 meeting. theUnion requested that the Company furnish job descrip-tions for all the bargaining unit positions and informationregarding its life, health, and disability insurance, includingBlue Cross/Blue Shield, which it currently was providingits employees. The Company promised that it would givethe Union the requested information.6 At the January 26meeting, the Union submitted to the Company 16 demandson behalf of the abortion counselors and 4 demands onbehalf of the gynecological counselors.7 There was very lit-tle discussion of the various departmental demands, an dafter the strike began the Union offered to withdraw all thedepartmental demands. Also at the January 26 meeting.Union President Elliott Small reaffirmed the under-standing that the noneconomic issues would be discussedbefore the economic issues.

February 2. At this meeting the Company submittedseveral proposals, which are set forth below.a. Recognition

In its contract draft (GC-3),8 the Union included thefollowing recognition clause: "Those covered under thecontract will be all aides, counselors, telephone counselors,receptionists, chart room people. autoclave technicians,and maintenance people." The Company's proposal (GC4) was as follows:The Employer recognizes the Union as the collec-tive bargaining agent for the following classificationsof its Employees who are employed at its location inBrookline, Massachusetts:All full time Abortion Counsellors. Gyn Counsel-lors and Telephone Counsellors:

Excluded are all other Employees including:Nurses Aides,Office and Medical Clerical Employees.Bookkeeping Employees.Medical Chart Clerks.Administrative Assistant.Administrative Secretary.Coordinators.Receiptionist. Office Clerical.Admitting Officers,Counsellor Training Assistants and Evaluators.Supervisor of Telephone Room and Medical ChartRoom.Student Interns,Trainees.Registered Nurses.Licensed Practical Nurses.Physician's Assistants,

"OnSeptemher 8. the ('ompans gae the k non a bookiel describieg lieemplotees' Blue (ros Blue Shield coserace It uas not until \osxernthr 2tthat the ( ormp.lans prolided all the inforritiion that the l Tinll prelouslhad requested

Stmilar departmental demands had heen suhbmitted iih the D)ceciilcontract proposals cioerine nurses llides. Iitluoclae technlcll.is .Inl ICei-phone counselors

f8or reference purposes the exhibit number, of sarioul docutu ls inesidence ill he noted i.( (' or R

Registered Nurse Practitioner.Doctors.Medical Center Manager,Maintenance Employees,Guards and Supervisors within the meaning of theAct.For the purposes of this Article only Employeeswho are regularly scheduled and are regularly em-ployed for 20 or more hours per week shall be consid-

ered full time employees.The Employer agrees to meet and bargain with ac-credited representatives of the Union on all matterspertaining to wages, hours and conditions of employ-ment.

Although the Union's recognition clause is inartfull,phrased, in general it includes the classifications describedin the May 19, 1975, certification plus the undeterminedclassifications referred to in the Decison in ase I-RC13642. The recognition clause submitted by the Company.on the other hand, almost completely ignores the Decisionin that case, which, over the objections of the Employer.specifically included in the appropriate unit the following:part-time employees; nurses aides: abortion coordinator:supervisor of telephone room; pap clinic coordinator; an dtrainees. Nevertheless. these classifications-as well as theclassifications which were permitted to vote subject tochallenge- were excluded from the recognition clause pro-posed by the Company. Leon Kowal's explanation forthese deviations from the certification is that the Unionwas "seeking to negotiate into the contract the four chal-lenged positions: and frankly, my first instinct was, sincethev were trying to add some, I would leave a few out tonegotiate." However, the difference between the Union'stactic and the Company's tactic is that the Union sought toinclude in the recognition clause the classifications as towhich the Regional Director had deferred decision, whilethe Employer sought to exclude not only those classifica-tions but also classifications which were specifically includ-ed in the certified unit. Although in the course of bargain-ing the Employer receded to some extent from itsobstructionist position regarding exclusions from the certi-fied unit. it remained steadfast in its insistence that part-time employees (except those who work at least 20 hoursper week-later changed to 16 hours per week) and train-ees should be excluded-despite the language of the certifi-cation .

During the discussions at this meeting, it was agreed thatthe abortion coordinator should be included in the recog-IhelieRcion.al I)lrectr mnade the flloing finding in the Dt)eciin and

)irection of iection i ( ase I RC 13e42: 1 lie tntpIocr claissfle, .allcnllploees uhtl, uo r more thn 32 hours per neck as ulil-illlle id tll uhio

o.rk less .as1 rl-time It is ell scitled that regiularl s chedtled parl-tiniccnlplo ees re icluded in the unit ulih full-time ernplosees I liitel, Iiiti( i .tfh. a (r.up, 213 N .RB 321 (1 741 Itur( /-(n ,t,,, .p .Ii., 141 NI RB 24). 244 245 [ 19631 Iheretore. ll regular prt-inl eitmplo\-ees Hi), ork 11 lobh lilsiflcalluon, i the unit described intrl re nicluded ithe (it I he fa[ lhatI the I nunas iu lhne to nm.lke sitie ot IIe [lioAred the I plo\er' p lllon h\ ecluding frolu the unilt palt Ilti erll-plo, ee uho uork lessrthan 12 houtrs per eek erelk suggests hi theI Ilion n\.lkllinllg i bh lld to the ( ompaln'\s ilr.nslgentce n1dnl [ tha[ht hCe( opAi had , li. re on for seeking to niodifl tIhcCcrl fiti.ll on, ill le.lrd it ip l-lllllCenpl] ec,

PRETERM.NC. 66


9/24

662 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARDnized unit and that the supervisor of the telephone roomand chart room should he excluded. Also, it was agreed toexclude the supervisor of Saturday counselors. m](

b. SeniorityThe Company's proposal (GC-5) is as follows:

(a) Seniority shall be based upon length of serviceand shall he applicable solely within classifications.(b) Seniority shall become effective upon the com-pletion of an Employee's probationary period andshall begin from his/her first day of employment inthe classification.(c) The probationary period shall be 3 months ofcontinuous employment from the date of hire, duringwhich time the Clinic, at its sole discretion may termi-nate said employment. If an Employee accepts a posi-tion in another classification she will be on probationfor an additional 3 month period.(d) The principle of seniority shall be recognized inthe laying off and rehiring of Employees insofar as it isconsistent with efficient operations.Where a layoff is to occur the Clinic will attempt toapply it in the following order within each classifica-

tion:1. Temporary Employees2. Regular part time Employees3. Regular four day Employees4. Regular 5 day EmployeesWhere it is necessary to lay off 4 and.or 5 day Em -ployees and part-time positions are available said Elm-ployee may elect to work part time with the 5 daNEmployees having the first option in order of theirseniority. Recall of Employees will be made in the in-verse order of seniority in the same manner as de-scribed above.

(e) An Employee shall cease to have seniority rightsif: (I) He/she quits voluntarily.(2) He/she is discharged for proper cause.(3) He/she is absent for five (5) consecutive work-ing days without notifying the Clinic.(4) He/she does not return to work within three (3)working days after being recalled by the Clinic by aletter sent by registered mail with return receipt re -quested, addressed to him her at the last address heshe has given the Clinic.(5) He/she exceeds a leave of absence without writ-ten approval of the Clinic.(6) An Employee has been on lay off for a period of9 months or length of service in their classification.whichever is sooner.''This is an extremely restrictive proposal which wasbound to develop controversy. First, it gives the Employer

I inda (hirchirello, the 1ccupanil (o Il l i .10 ltl6 , p cuirmluted 1o1 iltunder challenge hec;ause on Ihe rc.ord heflie liltt the KRegilnl [)de)1l ila;,U nalhle to deterTilne her super,isor s1.AL1utlhe Unon' cltract draft also irllC des al enitrlt? loiltti

wide discretion in its application, as the principle of senior-ity is recognized only "insofar as it is consistent with effi-cient operations." Second, seniority accrues only aftercompletion of a 3 months' probationary period. Third, se-niority applies within classifications only. Thus, employeeswho change positions within the Company lose their ac-crued seniority: and some classifications have very few em-plovees, so that as to them the seniority proposal is almostvalueless. Fourth, although 4-day and 5-day employeestheretofore had been considered by the Employer full-timeemployees. the Company's proposal gives preference to 5-day employees over 4-day employees.c. Grievance procedure GC 3I and arhitration (GC-14)The Company's proposals in regard to these topics differfrom the Union's proposals. Agreement on an arbitrationprovision was reached at the June 28 meeting, but therewas no agreement as to a grievance procedure. The Unionobjected to the Company's proposed grievance procedurebecause: (I) a grievance at the first step had to be in writ-ing: (2) a grievance had to be signed by an employee andcould not be signed by the Union: and (3) the employeeswere given 5 days from the date of the occurrence, ratherthan from the date on which they obtained knowledge of

the occurrence, within which to file a grievance.d. Bulletin hoard

The employer submitted the following (GC' 16):The Clinic shall provide a Bulletin Board for thepurpose of posting notices of Union meetings orUnion activities. No statements derogatory of the Em-plover shall be posted.

The corresponding provision in the Union's contractdraft is as follows:I. A representative of the Union shall have reason-able access to the Employer's premises for the purposeof conferring with the Employer, delegates of theUnion and/or Employees, and for the purpose of ad-ministering this Agreement.2. The Employer shall provide Bulletin Boardswhich shall be used for the purpose of posting properUnion notices. Such Bulletin Boards shall be placedconspicuously and at places readily accessible toworkers in the course of employment.

Agreement was reached with respect to the Company'sbulletin board proposal at the June 14 meeting.e. Meetings

The ompany submitted the following proposal (GC-12):Employees who are required to attend Clinic meet-ings for any purpose shall be paid for time spent atthe appropriate hourly rate.

This provision was agreed to in June.


10/24

PRETERM, IN('. 663f. I olutfeerv

The Compan submitted the following proposal (ti(17):

It is understood and agreed that the principle ofusing volunteers in connection with the non-profit andcommunity related interests of the clinic shall bemaintained. Employees shall cooperate fully with vol-unteers.The Union was willing to accept the provision providedthat language was added to the effect tnat volunteerswould not be used to displace bargaining-unit employees.At this meeting and at subsequent meetings, this proposalwas the subject of considerable discussion. While leonKowal insisted that it was not the intention of the (ompa-ny to replace employees with volunteers and that the ('om-pany had not done so in the past. he was adamant in hisrefusal to consider the modification suggested bh theUnion. His objection was that conflicts of opinion coulddevelop as to whether or not volunteers were used to dis-place bargaining unit members and that such disputescould lead to a plethora of arbitrations. It would not seem

that the language proposed bh the Union , namel. that vol-unteers would not be used to replace bargaining unit em -ployees. would, in practice, be subject to misinterpretationor would prevent the Employer from expanding its use ofvolunteers as its activities increase.At this meeting the Union again requested that the ('om-pany furnish it with job descriptions.February 9. Elliott Small did not attend this meeting.and Organizer Deborah Megrian acted as the Union'sspokesman. Leon Kowal complained about the fact thatMrs. Megrian was the third union representative withwhom he had to negotiate since December I. 1975, andalso complained about what he considered to have beendelays caused by the Union in the negotiations particu-larl the hiatus between the certification and the first meet-ing on December 1. 1975.There then was considerable discussion not about theinclusions or exclusions from the unit but about what pro-cedure could be followed to resolve the so-called chal-lenged positions. Leon Kowal explained that a unit clarifi-cation proceeding could be brought or the Company couldrefuse to bargain and the unit then would be resolved in anunfair labor practices proceeding but that either routewould take a long time. 2At this meeting the Compan? submitted a proposal re-garding workweek. In its contract draft. the Union includ-ed the following:

1Leol Koual testified that l.\ rellor i no, 1I1lta enc \il ee1tlllil[f-ehruar 5 9. thre in the nursec aide, ailld Ihe aut cla. l Ctlt Cilll thiIended mn part of the agreelienti. aid oin thatt da. l Io this da~. he oiixthing uc %eCIerdiscussed as far its aL onlcectC d lh.lt the routglltiinclait el, il least ti he hre ,tf ix ntnirx. ht I xlid it hef rlln I,re,ognie an classifications hich u ete In t certfied h the hBoir Ird donol credit this lesinlo '. the ncitliotn anld ei nuItnt, frOIll the unit selea recurrcnl ubject of d iscUtiSll drilltite The c ottLi. otit illd I cl K-tll'testinoin cstahlishes that, at lcat i th resplc t , ai t lten cl ,oce , idtrainees. Ihe ( mplpan\ at 1i tI aLepCPd hc detcrIte lliltllll rlected I-the Regional l)lrector, coItl on t d )lreCtllr i I lelon itld ( criltli-ttiiti

Hours The regular workweek for all full-time em -ployees shall consist of 32 hours per week.Employees get I 2 hour out of every 4 hours sched-uled work. t he taken whenever and in however manyinstallations employee wants. taking into consider-ation clinic needs. mploees are to be paid overtimeif the, aire unable to take the full break.

Ihe Company submitted the following proposal G(' 1):.4BOR OI N ( OL NS ELORS .-'I) ( N ( ) .N SE-

LORS WORK WEEK(A) It is understood and agreed that the operations ofthe clinic are conducted six da's per week. consistingof several different hourl 5 working schedules each daNwithin the hours of 7:00 am. to 10:30 p.m.(B) the (linic shall from time to time establish dailvand weekly work schedules as required to meet its op -erating needs, providing however that no Employeeshall e scheduled for more than 5 days per week witha dail, schedule not to exceed 8 hours of work:(() here sill be 45 minutes of off-duty time with paduring each full days work to be taken in 15 minute orlonger segments at times directed or appro.ed b\ thetmrployee's Supervisor.Section A of the Cnompanv's proposal was agreed upon.Fhe Union requested that section B include language tothe effect that schedule changes would not be made arbi-traril. capriciousl . or in bad faith. No agreement wasreached on this. Paragraph C represented a diminution ofan existing benefit. because employees had been receiving60 minutes' time off during each workda . l.eon Kowal'sexpla nation for this latter change was that many employeesdo not work their full shift but go home when their patientload is completed and that therefore breaktime should bereduced. The Union's position was that it wished to retainthe present breaktime of I hour. The Union also objectedto the provision that breaks would be taken onl, at times

directed or approved by the employee's supervisor. al-though it was willing that some language be included thatbreaks could be taken so long as it was conducive to run-ning the clinic. Kowal ultimately ended discussion of thissubject b\ saying that the question of whether the emplo,-ees should have 45 minutes or 60 minutes for their breaks isan economic issue which should be deferred."Also at this meeting. there was discussion about job de-scriptions. Leon Koxal stated that the Company \would notprovide the Ulnion with job descriptions because the ('om-pany did not desire job descriptions to be included in thecontract. Megrian responded that the Union did not wishto incorporate the job descriptions in the contract.

lMarch I:. Kowal repeated for the benefit of Small, whohad not attended the February 9 meeting. the Board proce-Ilitl.ll l 111.I l ctlleettln lie ( onl pall had siuhlllitted .i liige ;tid

mmoe oiiiplied .,ork, ceek p op alhih ;iliOvn thel tIiilg plO'\lde,thait [he ictltr uorktcck for [ ll-tliic iheortlit id g nccoiluo l il.] cOItiic-lrs, ilil ceS CInCitI.C .1ix. (R 4). hlerl tc ( onipiux prailtc is,

to t l~ier 4-dtaNcemplce, ix eill %d.ix einplo,. fitil-tLillc elnploC-cc, t icl ic oitipitix itttildrec tiN, propoal ind lbllitled the poi l ']' l - bsc

PRETERMN. 6 3


11/24

664 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARDdures available to resolve whether the challenged classifica-tions should be included or excluded from the unit. TheUnion indicated it was willing to exclude the maintenanceperson from the unit.

The Company's recognition clause proposes to excludefrom the unit part-time employees who work less than 20hours per week. At this meeting the Company offered toreduce this figure to 16 hours per week. The Union indi-cated that it was willing to consider 12 hours per week asthe cutoff figure.

There was discussion of the probationary period. TheUnion was willing to accept a 90-day probationary periodprovided that the probationary employees receive employ-ee benefits after 30 days of employment and be subject tothe union-security clause requiring membership in theUnion within 30 days. This was not accepted. The Com-pany's proposal regarding probationary employees wasmore complex than appears on the surface. The counselors,which were the only classifications included in the unitpursuant to Respondent's proposed recognition clause, hadto serve a training period, and therefore as trainees theywere excluded from the unit, as defined by the Company,while they were serving their probationary period. In theposture of the Company's recognition clause (GC4), itsprobationary period clause (GC-5) (both of which weresubmitted at the same meeting on February 2) had littlemeaning and led to discussion which was without pointuntil such time as Respondent was willing to agree to abroader unit than is reflected by its proposed recognitionclause.

The Company offered to include in the unit full-timenurses aides and autoclave technicians IS if the Unionwould exclude all challenged positions and trainees wh ohave worked less than 90 days. There was no agreement onthis proposal.There was discussion of the Company's workweek pro-posal, but neither party receded from the position taken atthe February 9 meeting. The Company again suggested

that discussion of paid breaktime be deferred because itwas an economic issue.The Union again asked for job descriptions.17Eileen Wachs, one of the Union's negotiating committee,complained about the fact that Leon Kowal referred to themembers of the negotiating committee as girls instead of as4 the training period for AB and (iYN counsehors s 90 da.Is It aIs

somewhat less for telephone counseliorsl'lihough utoclave technicians are nol referred t in the cernificatIni

the parlies deemed them to he nurses aides.Diane Richards testified that we agreed at that meeting March I) h

the hargaining unit ,%as eslahlished, except for those people ' hose job fellwithin the challenged categor. I find thi, tesiimon incorreci. II io 1oledIhal the ( mpan 's pr clice during the neegotiitions as to subil Its 1lo-posals and revised proposals i writing. hut the nl w itten proposal uh -mitted bh the (ompnln? with respect to the reogliition clause was the olnesubmilted on ehruar, 217 Richards testified Ihat the t nl'on requested the obh descriptiolns ind lie(iompany's response was thau theswould be furnished. Megrian tesiifiedIhal in response to the request for job descriptions Leon Koyal said thal theemployees could get them from their supermsisors and "he knew that BeissNeale hld the job descriptions anid Ilhat we had tinlet Aid thai she hadgotten them from her superlsort . Mr. Sull said io Mr. Koai. theunion has requested the ob descriptions it the ahle. We uould like soll toproside them to us a the tabile"

women and said the committee felt that the use of the term"girls" was insulting and demeaning. Kowal apologizedand explained that he did not intend anything uncompli-mentary by the use of the term.March 8: At the opening of the meeting, Betsy Nealeread a statement relating to International Women's Day.The statement ended with a sentence admonishing LeonKowal for using the word girls when referring to femalemembers of the negotiating committee, because the com-mittee considered the term diminutive and disrespectful.According to Richards, Leon Kowal became "very angryand said that [he] resented the fact they had formalizedtheir request into a written document." A union newsletterdescribed Leon Kowal as having "exploded in a character-istic temper tantrum." (GC-63.) 18

There followed discussion about the recognition clause,including an exchange of views regarding part-time em -ployees and the challenged positions. Leon Kowal madethe statement that the Company would make no economicproposals until it knew who was in the bargaining unit, thatis, until an agreement was reached regarding the recogni-tion clause.

There was further discussion of the Union's request forstatistics as to the number of employees who had beenterminated after having worked more than 30 days but lessthan 90 days. This was in connection with the Company'sinsistence on a 90-day probationary period. According toLeon Kowal, I didn't see why we should give it (the re-quested information) to them." Also, Kowal informed theUnion that they were not entitled to a job description forthe position of receptionist because, as a challenged classi-fication, "[i]t was outside of the bargaining unit."At this meeting Small requested the assistance of theFederal Mediation and Conciliation Service, because thenegotiations were being interrupted by angry outbursts andvery little progress had been made. He cited as an examplethat the parties had not even agreed upon a recognitionclause. The Company rejected the suggestion.On March 8, following the negotiating session, in a tele-phone conversation with Diane Richards, Small said thatby continuing to use the word "girls" in referring to thenegotiating committee Leon Kowal was creating hostilityand was making it impossible to proceed with the negotia-tions, that both sides wanted a contract. that the Unionwas not seeking to destroy "your organization," and that"you might want to consider getting another lawyer."On March 29, the Company filed a charge of unfair la-bor practices against the Union-Case I-CB-3243-alleging that the Union had violated Section8(b)( I )(B) and 8(b)(3) by restraining and coercing the Em -plover in the selection of its representatives for the pur-poses of collective bargaining or the adjustment of griev-ances and by refusing to meet and negotiate acollective-bargaining agreement with the Employer's desig-nated representative. By letter dated May 11, 1976, theEmployer was notified by the Regional Director that acomplaint would not issue in the matter. The Employer

I L.eol Koual has a volatile temperament and during the negotiations[requentlll engaged In angr) outbursl. Also, on occasion, he and Small ex-cha.ngcd in1sls,,


12/24


13/24

666 I)EDCISIONS OF NAI ONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARDthough the parties still were apart in regard to the proha-tionary period provision, At this meeting the Union statedthat probationary employees. after 30 days of employment,should have the benefit of a grievance procedure, but Kow-al did not then wish to discuss anvbenefits for probation-ary employees on the grounds that such subject was aneconomic issue which should he deferred.

Other subjects discussed at this meeting included thematernity leave clause, the volunteers clause. and the work-week clause.

According to Leon Kowal. the subject of job descrip-tions again arose, and he told the Union's bargaining conm-mittee that a member of the committee had picked up thejob descriptions from the desk of Personnel Director Cum-mings and "anybody who wants that job description ustgo to your supervisors, you can have all you want."June 21. There was discussion of the Company's work-week proposal, volunteers clause, management rightsclause, and challenged positions. When the union represen-tatives suggested that the parties discuss economic issues,Leon Kowal responded that the ('ompany would not giveany economic proposals until it knew for whom it was bar-gaining.June 28: No progress was made toward resolving an' ofthe contract issues. Elliott Small threatened that he wouldserve a strike notice upon the Employer and would shutdown the clinic.July 12: Prior to this meeting, the Union had solicitedemployees to attend the negotiations. When Leon Kowal.Harold Kowal. Diane Richards, and Jane Levin enteredthe room where the negotiations were to take place, therewere II employees present, plus Megrian and Small. Kow-al asked who the people were, and Small responded thatthey, were members of the negotiating committee. LeonKowal replied that he would not negotiate with a mob, andthe company representatives left.On July 15, Leon Kowal wrote a letter to the Unionprotesting the Union's tactics in connection with the nego-tiations and efforts to embarrass Jane Levin (R 6). On July27, Megrian telephoned Leon Kowal in order to discussanother meeting. In this conversation Kowal stated thatthe Union would have to limit the number of persons on itsnegotiating committee. When Megrian replied that shecould not agree to that. Kowal said. "'Hell with you. andhung up.After July 12, the Company received a 30 days' notice ofthe existence of a dispute. which was dated July 9. Ihereaf-ter Leon Kowal contacted the Federal Mediation and ('on-ciliation Service, which arranged for the next bargainingsession.

August 16:. This meeting and all later meetings were heldat the offices of the Federal Mediation and C'onciliationService. Present at the meeting, in addition to the represen-tatives of the Company and the Union, were Federal Medi-ators John Martin and Gerry Gomez. One or both werepresent at all later meetings.

At the outset of the meeting, in response to the requestof the mediators. Megrian listed the subjects which hadalready' been agreed to and the areas of disagreement. Ihesubjects of agreement as described to the mediators were:(I) bulletin board and union visitation rights: (2) seniority

in accordance with the Employer's proposal (GC-5), ex-cept that no agreement had been reached with regard tothe probationary period, promotions, and the use of theword "attempt" in connection with the layoff proposal: (3)a no-discrimination clause: (4) the Company's proposedarbitration clause: and (5) paid meetings (GC--12). Therewere approximately 27 areas of disagreement listed.The following agreements were reached at this meeting:(I) with minor modification, the Company accepted theUnion's discharge and penalties clause (art. XXI, GC-3).

which gives the Employer the right to discharge. suspend,or discipline any employee for cause; (2) with minor modi-fication the C'ompany accepted the Union's proposed no-strike and no-lockout clause (art. XXII. GC 3) and (3) theparties agreed that the Company would continue its pres-ent policies for life insurance and disability insurance forits employees.TIhe Union requested the Company to show it the poli-cies for life and disability insurance and to provide infor-mation regarding the employees' required contributions tothe Company's health insurance program, and again re-quested job descriptions. The Company promised to givethe IUnion the requested information.'Ihere also was discussion of the C'ompany's workweekproposal, the probationary period, and union security. Inregard to union security, the Union was asking for a fullunion shop. Leon Kowal responded that there would be noform of union security at the clinic. He also raised thequestion as to why the Union was insisting upon unionsecurity when in the contract it had recently negotiatedwith a similar institution in the area, Charles Circle, Inc.,there was no provision for union security.-Augu.tlr 9.- No agreements were reached at this meeting.Subjects discussed were: use of volunteers by the Compa-ny, the Company's workweek proposal, managementrights the U!nion submitted a counterproposal (GC-22) tothe C(ompany's clause a past practices clause, bereave-ment pay. jury duty pay. and union security. In explainingthe ('ompany's opposition to union security. Leon Kowalsaid that the Clinic believed in the principle of a woman'sright to choose and that principle carried over to unionsecurity: namely. that a woman had the right to choosewhether or not to join the Union.

A4ngurst 25 The C'ompany presented a new version of amanagement rights clause, which was accepted by theUnion. Agreement was reached with respect to paragraphB of the Company's workweek proposal GC I1). Theclause was amended to provide that changes in employees'work schedules would be for business reasons only. Thus.only paragraph C of the Company's workweek proposalwas still in dispute.'There was further discussion of maternity leave. TheCompany submitted jury duty and bereavement pay claus-es. (i(' 25. 26) These clauses reflected current companypractices. However, no agreement was reached, becauseunder the terms of the ('ompany's proposals part-time em -ployees were excluded from participation in these benefits.In that connection Leon Kowal stated that the Companywas in the process of revising its program of benefits forpart-time employees and would discuss the subject with theUnion at another time.


14/24

PRET:ERM. INC. 667Elliott Small requested the C'ompany to submit ecolnol-ic proposals. but Leon Kowal responded that the ('ompan>

would not make an\ economic proposals until the Boardissued its decision in the pending unit clarification pro-ceeding.September . Agreement was reached on a ur duttclause. The clause provides that the CompanN's existingpractices would be continued for full-time employees andthat part-time employees would receive no monetar\ bene-fits hut would be guaranteed their jobs after comIpleiingjury duty. There was further discussion of bereavementpay, the probationar? period, and maternity leave.The CompanN gave the Union a booklet describing theCompany's Blue ('ross.'Blue Shield coverage. The nilonrequested information regarding the respective comlpanland employee contributions to the plan. L.eon Kowal re -plied that it was half and half and that he did not have theexact figures hut would obtain them. Megrian again askedfor job descriptions, and Leon Kowal responded that theUnion was playing games because theN already had the ob h

descriptions.September 27 1976: ' he ('ompan presented a materni-ty leave proposal ((C 29). which was accepted bh the

Union. In effect, the ('ompan\ acceded to the I nion's de-mand that pregnant abortion counselors would be permit-ted to work as long as they were phvsically able.The principal, and a heated, subject of discussion at thismeeting was union security. In addition to comments bhthe union representatives. three employee members of thenegotiating committee, L.ucv Matson. Kathleen Kelly. andJean Williams. spoke in strong terms about the subject.and one of the employees said that a majorits of the bar-gaining unit believed that union securit\ was the most im-portant issue in the negotiations. Small suggested that per-haps a form of modified union shop would be moreacceptable to the ('ompany. hut l.eon Kowal's responsewas that an, form of union security was a form of compul-sion. Leon Kowal inquired whether there would he no con-tract unless the Company agreed to union securit. towhich Small replied that the Union is not frozen on theissue. The Union made a request for economic proposals.but Leon Kowal's reply was that the Company was notthen prepared to discuss economics.

October 8. Harold Kowal informed the Union's negoti-ating committee that the Clinic had received the [Union's10-day strike notice and that in his opinion it was illegal.During a caucus the union committee prepared anotherstrike notice setting 6 a.m. on October 19 as the time anddate for the strike. The notice was telegraphed to the ('lin-ic, and copies were delivered to the mediators and to Ha-rold and Leon Kowal. Elliott Small inquired whether Pre-term had any proposals to make. Harold Kowal respondedby inquiring what was the purpose of further proposals andnegotiations when there was going to be a strike anywa.Small responded that the Union was not frozen on allissue, that there were many issues open. and the partiesshould continue to negotiate. However the meeting closedwithout any bargaining taking place. Ieon Kowal in-formed the Union's negotiating committee that he and hisassociate had to return to the clinic in order to make plansfor the strike.

Octo,/er 14. The parties were kept apart at this meeting.mediator John Martin serving as h cmmunications linkwith each side. The onl\ subject considered during thissession Aas union secUrit,, lhe union representatives sug -gested a form of modified union shop hut were informedbh the mediator that there would he no fa*orahle responsefrom l.eon and Harold Kowal. According to l.eon Kowal.before the meeting concluded, Elliott Smnail suggested thatat the next session the parties discuss the following suh-jects: volunteers, 'aes, ealth henefits. and pro rata bene-fits for part-time workers: and Mediator NMartin suggested."l.ee when ou come back for the next meeting will ousee if ou can reply to what he Small] is talking ahouit"

Octod/er 15: he Co(mpany agreed to continue its currentemplo ees' life insurance progrm. although the (onlpan?h;d not directll adised the Union's negotiating committeewhat the program was. here was brief discussion of unionsecurit` with Small stating that the Union aanted a modi-fied union shop and Harold Kowal responding that the('ompan}'s position had not changed. Small again request-ed the (Cormpan' to make economic proposals. HaroldKowal answered that the Union should put its proposalson the table and the C'ompan then would respond. Megri-an pointed out that the I 'nion's economic proposals hadbeen submitted in December 1975. Then, at the request ofthe mediator. Megrian listed the issues still outstanding.Harold Kowal inquired if the parties had come to an inm-passe. and Illiott Small responded that the l:nion was no tfrozen Con as issue. Before the meeting concluded. Media-tor Martin suggested that at the next meeting. which wasscheduled for October 18. the Compan\ respond t asmalln of the outstanding union proposals as it could.-

Oclo/ber /I.- This was the last negotiating session prior tothe strike. which commenced the next mornin,. LeonKowal informed the I 'nion's committee that the ('onpa nwould not agree to submit the outstanding issues for arhi-iration as had been proposed b' the Iinion at a prior meet-ing. Ieon Kowal inquired if the Union would withdraw itsrequest for a union-securitN provision alnd wouldl acceptthe ('ompan y's volunteers clause. Tile Itnion declined.The ('ompany presented the following four proposals inwriting:I. A clause entitled "Discharge and Discipline" (((C31). 'The ('ompanN withdrew this proposal after it waspointed out that a "discharge and penalties clause hadbeen agreed to at the August 16 meeting. The proposal

l Ih, tb l gcs.1, 'i l rs . c lsldc.ablc j111'cu-ol, l O[ c\r.llltls ,I hbIL'C I' 111 lll ll llCCe K,- a:l nillkdll tilk ic .rk ilb lt 515.,,lsii i1ii t Iv.'i . c lt h i rill it lit.11h Icd \csordilng It}, I tmi k o h,.,l.is.cialllrk . 1rl,, C Ill ri ,,l i1 tihrc.il h\ i:lislil Snll ll i hcI l lli

t.1 I 1lls fCith.l 1 , istiClIlCl[i Sll li t iC .i Sl"lli i,is-g(lilg 5 .,Ik-l,ilo -ritc g'Cll , [- mxJrl luatC [te r llpzr.[ll 4ltl[. [he ('il ll 111\ AL-~.> ltlllr~1, \ Ill `11I, k1 ' M,ae lll, C 11cl/l1t'.'cloil utlih . 11 111t0l1dC,, cI is 11.1i 11a1 itlj tl ii lldteti the h.lr.;liiaiil ll i. sl sMitii 1, illtc

d1.1il .i, 1,i I)l.ci1 RlChiriTx' ilt n,Jr e I et s' .rlsll llsh l.s nl .I I h'lIIrl lC .J;.ii I i sclloC(.Trdllli 1h5 M\ grl.rfll. ftlrlh r ICsll 1CiVi\riidllc .d tOI1lUl lt U,\JICIIh r I COT1 Ko.,~;tl]'- rTmalrk .11.1,tl rfil llg Io nCCo halc-l.l

utll I [111:1il 11 iis . d .i 1 l.lS 1 I1 lhCil rCl rllSt.l si I ll . l b\ ll llc,r liltstl ills[i ltMIC Itistillc II S I t iril. CI Mls lI sr ,l)he reltl.1i1>1r t'f.1l. ti ller llC . i l.llss ,1Osi l I r tlu- ,ji I'm11hel I lln . Jht' .Ikfc~kC Ib thail}lC ':tl~c lhcrc lilcri1cl 1. 11et.>l,l[11.11 Ji.x L .lc[ ,tf~hJ *~rl %~all J11 sitlxt][ltt .1l's

PRETRMNC* 6(7


15/24

668 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARDsubmitted and withdrawn at this meeting would have giventhe Company greater latitude in regard to the disciplineand discharge of employees than the clause which hadbeen agreed to.2. A holidays clause (GC-32). This clause provided forthe same number of paid holidays as the Company wa sthen giving its employees. The Union found the proposedclause objectionable for several reasons. First, it cut backon current employee benefits in that. contrarD to existingpractice, the proposed clause would deny

employees holi-day pay for holidays that fall during scheduled vacations.Second, it gave the Clinic the right, exercisable at theClinic's sole discretion, to close on other than the namedholidays or for any period of time with or without pay tothe employees. This would preclude the Union's repre-senting the employees in connection with any plan on thepart of the Company temporarily to halt operations. Final-ly, the Company's proposal ignored the Union's request toexchange two of the current holidays for holidays to becelebrated on International Women's Day and Martin Lu-ther King's birthday.3. Overtime pay (GC 33). The provision submitted bythe Company proposed premium pay at 1-1/2 times theemployee's regular rate for work performed in excess of 40hours in a scheduled workweek and that "an employee willbe expected to (work overtime) unless she is excused forgood cause." The Union objected because the clause didnot treat the problem of GYN counselors who regularlywere scheduled to work only 37-1/2 hours.4. Abortion counselors' and GYN counselors' work-week (GC34). At the February 9 meeting the Companyhad submitted an abortion counselors' and GYN counse-lors' workweek proposal (GC I1). That proposal containedthree paragraphs. Paragraph A was agreed to at the Febru-ary 9 meeting and paragraph B. after modification, wasagreed to at the August 25 meeting. Paragraph Cof theFebruary 9 proposal, which reduced the employees' off-duty time with pay from 60 minutes per day to 45 minutesper day, had been the subject of discussion at several meet-ings. The workweek proposal submitted on October 18contained seven paragraphs instead of the original three.The first paragraph in both proposals is identical. The sec-ond paragraph of the February 9 proposal, which, as modi-fied, had been agreed to on August 25, was rewritten in theOctober 18 proposal in such fashion as to repudiate theagreement reached on August 25.22 The Union objected tothe Company's workweek proposal as submitted on Octo-ber 18 on a number of grounds: (a) Whereas under estab-lished company policy full-time employees are consideredto be those who work 4 days or a minimum of 32 hours perweek, the proposal states: "The work day for regular full-time employees shall consist of eight (8) hours. The work

On)t cehruary 9. :hen he ('orpan\ suhlitted its initial workeek po -posal (i( ' II). the lUnion objected to par;gra;ph B anid suggeted thit lIinclude language th ch;langes in work scheduleswould not be aidalhl-ltraril., capriciously. or in baid faith, the ('ornpanll did not accept ll e

ion's ltodificatio n. tlwicser.ai the ugust 25 lieetiig the piities IctcdIhat insteaCdf the mntdif' g anguage prlpose ,h thte nitn the prs is on1include a clause that changes in work schedules would he m1tide for huslitessreasons olls I hi, agreenlellt is coinlplete s Ic ieoted ill Ilhe ( llllpan\ 's() to-ber 18 proposal

week for regular full-time employees shall consist of fivework days within the period Monday through Saturday, offorty (40) hours' duration." The effect of this proposal wasto eliminate from the definition of full-time employee thoseemployees who had been working only 4 days per week.This change is of considerable significance, in that employ-ees who continued working only 4 days per week wouldcease to be full-time employees and thus would lose vari-ous benefits which the Company granted its full-time em-ployees but not its part-time employees. (b) Other sectionsof the Company's proposal gave the Company much great-er latitude in connection with making schedule changesthan the parties had previously agreed to at the August 25meeting. (c) The Company's proposal gives employees 45minutes of off-duty time with pay during each 8-hour day,which represents a cutback in existing practices, becauseemployees who work an 8-hour day receive 1 hour of off-duty time with pay. (d) The October 18 proposal provides:"Part-time workers employed up to five (5) hours per dayshall receive fifteen (15) minute rest break." This representsa cutback in current practices in that employees who workup to 4 hours per day presently receive a 15-minute restbreak.Elliott Small's response was to inform the Company'snegotiators that the union bargaining committee was angryat these proposals. He explained that on the day before

aproposed strike all the Company brought to the bargainingtable were proposals which already had been agreed to,which reflected cutbacks in present benefits, and whichdemonstrated a complete lack of interest in responding tothe Union's demands. He asked whether the Company hadany further proposals to make, and Leon Kowal respondedthat it had not.

During the meeting the Company proposed that it wouldcontinue its current practices in regard to personal daysoff.,

The nature of the proposals made by the Company atthe October 18 meeting reflects no serious effort to avoid astrike. The proposals did not deal in a conciliatory fashionwith any of the more significant unresolved issues. Al-though more than a year and a half had elapsed since therepresentation election during which time the employeeshad received no general increase in wages, the Company atthis meeting made no offer to improve the employees' wag-es even to the extent of meeting in part the attenuation oftheir earnings because of inflation. The Company's atti-tude is reflected by the comment Leon Kowal made at the

I.Leotn Koi al testified with respect to the ('oimpan 's position at the()ctobel I miteetii as foll, I lid want to make . .a concession to

licreel .Ie abe the au ser Is nol. I was tiot read to make a conces-1Otll o11 thatda. on ages h gi in hint n increased orffer. But I didaree on that date t continue all of the mlajor benefits that we had. becauseat's uat a1;1illl asked ne to do. tie said there as some question aboutullelhcl Ac wanted to do thtll. and I said there's no question in mNmind atall. na1 uill do that on the IXth and I did t . No, I wa sn't preparedto lake a colncessionll 1it that la bh giing him ain offer increasing theiUages. l touser. cinriar, to Kow(al's leoltnim)n. proposals submitted bhthe (oipn on October IX as ell .is proposals submitted by the ('ompa-11 iillp'l s 1iU ego1tatlltllg sessolns represented cutbacks in existing emplo -cc hbcnelfit \N proposal made h\ the ('ompain\ at an, session up to and

clldllgi O(ctober 18 represented an offer to increase stages or an improe-IIcllt i1 tlls bhenefit f ec1noIltic sallue such is holida, pay. aca;tin pan.teil\ ciietlt pil. etc


16/24

PRETERM, INC. 669meeting that he questioned the purpose of further negotia-tions because the parties' disagreement with respect tounion security would result in a strike anyhowu.2 4At one point during the meeting. Leon Kowal stated thatthe Clinic had the right to permanently replace employeeswho go on strike, that they would be replaced, that theClinic was not going to close its doors because of a strike.and that the employees were grown women and should beready, to accept the consequences of their actions.

In accordance with the Union's notice to the Company.a strike commenced the next morning. October 19.November 17: This was the first meeting after the begin-ning of the strike. A few understandings were reached. Th esubject of union security was discussed, but without an 'resolution of the question. Leon Kowal insisted that theClinic wanted an open shop and that even an agency shopwas unacceptable, as it constituted a form of compulsionbecause it compelled employees to pay for services no twanted. Kowal asked if the Union was prepared to with-draw its union-security demand. Small responded that inthe context of an entire agreement the Union was not in-flexible. However, agreement was reached on a union duescheckoff provision.The Company offered a 5-percent across-the-board wageincrease not a particularly generous offer. as the cost ofliving had risen 9.6 percent since the representation peti-tion was filed in April of the previous year, during whichtime the employees had received no general increase. TheUnion countered with a demand for a 10-percent wageincrease. No agreement was reached on this issue.

The Company proposed that newly hired counselors re-ceive an increase of $12.50 after 45 days and an additionalincrease of $12.50 after 90 days instead of a single $25increase at the end of 90 days. This proposal was accepted.as was the Company's bereavement pay proposal f I day fo rpart-time employees and 3 days for full-time employees.The Company also offered to eliminate the 10-monthwaiting period before part-time employees would accruecredit toward vacations. This proposal was accepted.There was discussion but no agreement with respect to asick leave clause, although the Union accepted the Com-pany's proposal that part-time employees would receive apro rata amount of sick leave. The Company also proposedto continue its present practices with respect to leaves ofabsence and to continue its present health and disabilityinsurance programs.The Union stated that it would withdraw its departmen-tal demands if the changes instituted by Deborah Fein-bloom, the newly hired coordinator of the abortion coun-seling program, were retained. There was no agreement onthis proposal. Other subjects. including holidays, the termof the contract, and probationary employees. were dis-cussed.November 19: The parties agreed on a recognition clausewhich would define the bargaining unit to be the same asthe unit certified by the Board. Several other subjects werediscussed without any agreement being reached.

'4 Sm.ll responded 1o hi) rcnuirk that lt I ill.n ..l I1.t frlzi A11 .111ISeu

December 8. The meeting was brief and no agreementswere reached.Januar 24, 1977. This was the last meeting between theparties prior to the hearing in these proceedings. Agree-ment on one minor item was reached. According to LeonKowal. "'We agreed that if a holiday fell within a person'svacation time. they would have the extra day. Which, Ithink, was the practice anyway. But we weren't sure at themoment. We agreed to it anyway." No understandingswere reached with respect to any of the other subjects thatwere discussed at this meeting.

3. Requests for informationThe complaint in paragraph 13(d) alleges:

Respondent has refused to give information whichthe Union requested, regarding the job classificationsof unit employees since April 14. 1976: the contribu-tions made by employees and Respondent under theBlue Cross 'Blue Shield health plan since September 8.1976: and life and disability insurance policies sinceApril 14. 1976: and the names of all employees andtheir wages and the base salary for job classificationssince October 18, 1976.

The Union's requests for the foregoing information weremade orally at various negotiating sessions.25 The informa-tion was furnished the Union in writing on November 26.However, there is an issue as to whether the Company' haddelayed unduly long in providing the information.a. Job descriptions: There is no dispute that at negotiat-ing sessions prior and subsequent to April 14 the Unionhad requested the employees' job descriptions. The partieshad had discussions as to the use to which such job de-scriptions would be put. Leon Kowal objected to their in-clusion in the contract. Megrian explained to him that "themembers of the negotiating committee would like to reviewthe job descriptions [in relation to the departmental de-mands]. That they were not to be part of the contract."

Respondent contends that the job descriptions were firstgiven to the Union in March, while General Counsel's wit-nesses deny this. Jane Cummings. Respondent's personnelassistant, testified that sometime in February or MarchBetss Neale asked her for the job descriptions for the em-ploees in the bargaining unit. Cummings told Neale thatthe; would be copied and would be left on Cummings'desk for Neale. After obtaining approval from Mrs. Rich-ards. Cummings made copies of the job descriptions andleft them on her desk for Neale. The next day she askedBetsy Neale whether Neale had taken the job descriptionsand Neale replied that she had. Betsy Neale contradictedCummings. According to Neale, she merely asked Cum-mings for the job description of her job, which was abor-tion counselor, and Cummings responded that "she wouldget back to me." but she never did. Neale ultimately oh-

\eigrl.n tstlietd tha t . rlitlen request fr }oh lde.cripli. had heenIlla.il and xl i l lie ifriedi f lt t lI 'I dema.nd Ililcd it the( ii ol I)c,..ciher 5, 197'. '. hiuh in the first pgc. headed "AB I)t-M . \[DS" anelde tne I read ".ohde,,rtptmwi. dutls,.alares. enefil ll defined I do not conlidcr ihi, Itei on page purportedlk IihitngI tilm.-t ,hi-bcll g nlu eu llldx for ai iglnic iepar.lllenti adtqu;lte ,oruntll~delld.lbc rquest or v ob dextrlpltln, of Alleplo~.e, ir the unit

PRETERM.NC. 669


17/24

670 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL L.ABOR RELATIONS BOARDtained the particular job description from her immediatesupervisor, Lois Schiappa.Jane Cummings testified only briefly at the hearing. Hertestimony was not directly impeached. However, in a mate-rial respect her testimony differs from the testimony ofLeon Kowal. Cummings testified that Kowal never askedher whether she had given Neale the job descriptionsKowal, on the other hand, testified in detail concerning aconversation with JaneCummings about thejobdescriptions.According to Leon Kowal, at the June 14 meeting, the subjectof delivery of the job descriptions was again raised. "So atthat point I looked at them, realizing we had had three or fourdiscussions about them .. I said, 'I want to go out and talkto Miss Cummings myself. And I did... . went out to seeJane Cummings, who I had been told had given this jobdescription to I think it was Betsy Neale. I said Jane, pleasetell me the story myself, and she did. .... Then I went backto the bargaining table and said,You people have them.' "The record does not indicate an reason, tactical orotherwise, why the Union would continue to press theCompany for copies of job descriptions after it alread hadthem.2 As I find that Betsy Neale was a credible witness.that the collateral evidence tends to support Neale's testi-mony that she never received job descriptions for the entireunit, rather than Cummings' contradictory testimony. Ifind, contrary to Respondent, that it did not provide theUnion with the requested job descriptions prior to Novem-ber 26. As the job descriptions requested by the Unionwere relevant and reasonably necessary for the proper per-formance of its duties as representative. Respondent's de-lay, which I find was unreasonably long, in providing theUnion with the job descriptions constituted a failure todischarge its collective-bargaining obligations and there-fore a violation of Section 8{a)(5) and (I).2b. Blue Cross/Blue Shield contributions: Megrian testi-fied that at the September 8. 1976. bargaining session,when the Company provided the Union with booklets de-scribing the Company's Blue ('ross/Blue Shield plan, she"asked him what the Employer's contribution was an dwhat the employee's contribution was. He said it was halfand half and he didn't have the exact figures, but that hewould get them." Megrian further testified that at the No-vember 17 bargaining session the Company "gave us insur-ance figures on Blue Cross,'Blue Shield."The nature of the alleged violation is uncertain. On Sep-tember 8. the Union was given copies of the Compan's

"( uniling It ihed that I)iane RiLh. id, had checked ith hle is ohelhel she had given the joh declipiolllS tioelt, Necile

I.eon Ko al tesified thal ione of he haririlig ,s soni . . chn M\cl-ri:n a;gain asked hini for copies of the lob descriptions. I .laid I,,tc -lA'lplalillng a ga. e ith lme. iso dol l l ar otnd, ai d a t ionepoli. shc pliltcdher fill ET at ile: he said t1 te going Io gil them to IllC on thi s table. ,ii'llihkeiha.t. AteCidiiIg 1to Mcgrianll. I ccal a onlle of the M1Arch ilcl1i1i1nlell Koal. whcn e isked fl ob dxecliltionl. 1.l dl l1 i .xttIepla\ing .imes and thai theN had hcen picked lip h l onie Aii lie Ilcgotllliicmenihbcr . . lhia e arcle.d lad thei . I reniclihetT Floll Slilltelling I on Koiaw thai xve did not haxe thcli. ii li he did not krln, .ahoulaln emiploee picking themCi up. anld thati c had Icqllusted liel ll t th ebargaining lable and e did expectl It recci:c theii." I crcdit M ci,i ii IIre% rd to this Incident

- RI.dc, ,lland (hirdct ( 4J,4 RB 130)4 ( 9( )

Blue (Cross'Blue Shield plans and was informed that con-tributions were on a half-and-half basis. 'here is no evi-dence that on that date or thereafter, prior to November17. the Union indicated to the Company that it wantedmore information. The theory of the complaint is that theUnion wanted not only the relative contributions but theexact dollar-and-cents contributions by the employees andthe Clinic. As prior to November 17 the Union had notclearly asked for such information, I find that GeneralCounsel has not proved the allegation that Respondent un-lawfully has refused to give the Union information regard-ing "the contributions made by empl

FY 2013 SSA Official Time

Documents

Transcript of FY 2013 SSA Official Time