ABB, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Sep 4, 2009

14-CA-029219 (N.L.R.B. Sep. 4, 2009)

JD(ATL)–17–09
Jefferson City, MO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
ATLANTA BRANCH OFFICE
ABB, INC.
and CASE 14–CA–29219
LOCAL 2379, UNITED AUTOMOBILE,
AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL
IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA
Kathy J. Talbott–Schehl, Esq.,
for the Government. 1
Richard Porter, Esq., and
Jerry M. Hunter, Esq.,
for the Company.2
Gerald Kretmar, Esq.
for the Union3
DECISION
Statement of the Case
WILLIAM N. CATES, Administrative Law Judge. This case concerns allegations
that ABB, Inc. (Company) unilaterally changed the job description for Code 18 Electronic
Electricians without prior notice to Local 2379, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agriculture
Workers of America (Union), the production and maintenance employees’ exclusive
collective bargaining representative; and, after the Union orally requested the Company
bargain over the Code 18 Electronic Electrician’s job description, the Company has failed
and refused to do so. It is alleged job descriptions are mandatory subjects for the purposes of
collective bargaining. It is alleged the Company, by its actions, has failed and refused to
bargain collectively in good faith with the Union as the exclusive collective–bargaining
representative of it employees within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National
Labor Relations Act (Act).

1 I shall refer to Counsel for General Counsel as Counsel for the Government or Government.
2 I shall refer to Counsel for the Company as Counsel for the Company or Company.
3 I shall refer to Counsel for the Union as Union Counsel or Union.
JD(ATL)–17–09
2
I heard this case in trial in Jefferson City, Missouri, on June 1, and 2, 2009. The case
originates from a charge filed by the Union on January 16, and amended on April 30, 2008,
against the Company. The prosecution of this case was formalized on February 27, 2009,
when the Regional Director for Region 14 of the National Labor Relations Board (Board), 5
acting in the name of the Board’s General Counsel, issued an Amended Complaint and
Notice of Hearing (Complaint) against the Company.
The Company, in a timely filed answer to the Complaint, denies having violated the
Act in any manner alleged in the Complaint. 10
The parties were given full opportunity to participate, to introduce relevant evidence,
to examine and cross–examine witnesses, and to file briefs. I carefully observed the
demeanor of the witnesses as they testified. I have studied the whole record, the post trial
briefs, and the authorities cited therein. Based on more detailed findings and analysis below, 15
I conclude and find the Company violated the Act substantially as alleged in the complaint.
Findings of Fact
I. Jurisdiction, Labor Organization Status and Supervisory Status20
The Company is a Delaware corporation with an office and place of business in
Jefferson City, Missouri, where it is, and has been, engaged in the manufacture and non–retail
sale of electrical transformers. During the twelve months ending January 31, 2009, a
representative period, the Company sold and shipped from its Jefferson City, Missouri 25
facility, goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the State of Missouri.
The parties admit, and I find, the Company is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.
The parties admit, and I find, the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of 30
Section 2(5) of the Act.
It is admitted, and I find, that Matt Boyle, Michael Hoffman, Susan McAdams, and
Eric Mercer are, among others, supervisors and agents of the Company within the meaning of
Section 2(11) and 2(13) of the Act.35
II. The Unit
It is admitted the following employees of the Company, herein called the Unit,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining with the meaning of 40
Section 9(b) of the Act.
All production and maintenance employees employed by the Company
at its Jefferson City, Missouri facility, excluding all office clerical and
professional employees, technical employees, salaried employees, 45
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
JD(ATL)–17–09
3
It is admitted that since about May 7, 1998, and at all material times, the Union has
been the designated exclusive collective–bargaining representative of the Unit and since then
the Union has been recognized as the representative by the Company. This recognition has
been embodied in 1) A collective–bargaining agreement, effective from February 1, 1999 5
through January 31, 2002; 2) In the implemented “Terms and Conditions of Employment”
effective from February 1, 2004 though January 25, 2008, and extended to February 4, 2008;
and, 3) In a collective–bargaining agreement, effective from February 4, 2008 through
February 3, 2012.
10
III. The Government’s Evidence
A somewhat detailed review of the party’s collective bargaining history is helpful
background in deciding the issues surrounding the allegation of changes to the Code 18
Electronic Electrician job description.15
Negotiations for the first collective bargaining agreement began July 1998, and, as just
noted, resulted in an agreement effective from February 1, 1999 though January 31, 2002.
Thirty three year employee Thomas Zewe served as a Union bargaining committee member
and testified regarding the initial contract negotiations, however, the Union’s chief 20
spokesperson was Don Burgess. The first agreement did not contain job descriptions
although job descriptions were discussed during the negotiations. Zewe testified that around
November 1998, Burgess requested the Company provide a copy of all maintenance
employee job descriptions. According to Zewe, the Company provided the copies including a
job description for Code 18 Electronic Electrician. The Code 18 Electronic Electrician job 25
description provided by the Company, at that time, was dated June 15, 1995, and approved
and signed by Company Human Resources Representative R. L. Pickering and Manufacturing
Manager R. Woods on August 14, 1997, [herein after referred to as the 1995 job description].
Zewe testified the Union reviewed the job descriptions, found them to be “pretty much” “what
the proper job descriptions” were and Union spokesperson Burgess told the Company’s Chief 30
Spokesperson Human Resources Manager Stephen Buckley, the Union “could accept the job
descriptions as written.” The Union informed the Company it wanted to spend time
negotiating other unresolved issues. Zewe said Burgess made no mention of waiving the right
to thereafter bargain about job descriptions and added there were no further discussions of job
descriptions during the initial contract negotiations that resulted in the 1999 to 2002 labor 35
agreement.
Twenty year employee Richard Jorgensen participated in and testified regarding the
contract negotiations that took place upon the expiration of the 1999 to 2002 agreement;
however, Matt Snell was the Union’s chief spokesperson at the negotiations. The negotiations 40
started in 2002 and continued into 2004. Jorgensen testified the Union, on January 16, 2002,
made several information requests of the Company including a request for a listing of the jobs
in the plant and for existing job descriptions and codes for the jobs and the date of the last
changes to the job descriptions. Jorgensen said the parties discussed job descriptions adding
that Snell mentioned the Union had a book of job descriptions and asked Company Chief 45
Spokesperson Buckley if any changes had been made to the job descriptions. Buckley said
JD(ATL)–17–09
4
there had not been any changes that everything remained the same. Buckley wrote on the
Union’s written request of January 16, 2002, that the job descriptions had already been
provided and that Zewe confirmed that fact. Zewe testified Buckley said, “we had all copies
of job descriptions and there had been no changes to the job descriptions.” Zewe added,
Buckley said “the ones we had in our possession that we received in the first negotiations 5
were the job descriptions still in effect.”
In 2004, the parties reached bargaining impasse and thereafter, from February 1, 2004
to February 4, 2008, operated under the Company’s last, final and complete contract offer
referred to as “Terms and Conditions of Employment.”10
Union Bargaining Chairman Jorgensen testified negotiations for the current collective
bargaining agreement commenced in January 2006, and resulted in the agreement effective
February 1, 2008 through January 31, 2012. Jorgensen said job descriptions were not
discussed during these negotiations.15
The Government contends the instant case actually begins on or about July 17, 2007,
with an incident involving Code 18 Electronic Electrician employee Phillip Porter.
Union Steward Rice, a calibration analyst and twenty five year employee of the 20
Company, testified that prior to his current job assignment he served as a Code 18 Electronic
Electrician at the Company for approximately 3 years. Rice, at various times, also served as a
Union Steward. Rice became involved as Union Steward for Porter on July 17, 2007, as a
result of Porter being suspended pending an investigation regarding Porter’s failure to
perform a project assigned him by the Company. Rice was called to Maintenance Supervisor 25
Michael Hoffman’s office during the morning hours of the 17th to meet with Hoffman and
Porter’s immediate supervisor, Manufacturing Supervisor Eric Mercer. Rice was told the
Company had a project on the three phase tank line they wanted Porter to perform and he
would not agree to do so. Rice said he considered that whether an employee agreed to
perform that type project was, as it had been in the past, voluntary.30
Rice testified Hoffman and Mercer showed him a job description with yellow
highlighted portions. Hoffman and Mercer told Rice the highlighted portions of the job
description showed Porter should be able to perform the project and was, “what they felt was
going to be their means to make him do this project.” Hoffman and Mercer gave Rice a copy 35
of the highlighted job description. Rice said he had seen the description before but it was at a
time when it was unsigned and undated and he figured it was something the Company was
working on. Rice explained he had seen the unsigned and undated job description on his
supervisor, David Lunford’s, office desk when he was a Code 18 Electronic Electrician. Rice
was a Code 18 Electronic Electrician from approximately 2003 to 2006. Rice identified the 40
Code 18 Electronic Electrician job description he was given on July 17, 2007, as one
indicating it was revised in April 1999 (herein after the 1999 job description). Rice said he
gave the job description [April 1999] to Union Bargaining Chairman Richard Jorgensen later
that evening, July 17, 2007.
45
JD(ATL)–17–09
5
Jorgensen testified Union Steward Rice made him aware of Porter’s suspension late on
July 17, 2007, telling him Porter “had been suspended for allegedly refusing to do some work,
which it has been the Union’s position that it was beyond the scope of his job description.”
Jorgensen said Rice also gave him a copy of the job description the Company had given him
that day when he met with them regarding Porter. Jorgensen testified he had never, prior to 5
July 17, 2007, seen the job description Rice provided him that day. Jorgensen identified the
job description given him that day as the 1999 Code 18 Electronic Electrician job description.
Jorgensen testified he and Union Spokesperson Snow met with HR Manager Matt
Boyle on July 18 and 19, 2007, about Porter’s situation, which Boyle informed them was 10
under investigation, but the job description was not mention.
On July 26, 2007, Jorgensen and Rice met with HR Manager Boyle and Labor
Relations Manager Susan McAdams at which time the Company provided the Union a
proposal to resolve the Porter matter. Jorgensen testified it was at this point:15
I asked the Company, now that I’ve had time to take a look at
the 1999 job description and take a look at the ones that I have
on file at the office that for sure this 1999 one has never been
presented to the Union before. So I asked the Company, which 20
of the two, the 1995 one, which we do have on file at the Union
Hall, and this new 1999 one, which one that the Company feels
is their current job description. Their reply was the 1999 one.
My reply was if that is in fact the case, then I’m requesting
negotiations.25
Jorgensen said he had the 1995 job description with him, which had been approved
(signed and dated), by the Company on August 14, 1997. Jorgensen said the 1995 job
description for a Code 18 Electronic Electrician had been given to the Union in the book of
job descriptions provided by the Company in 1999. Jorgensen testified the Union had never 30
been given any Code 18 Electronic Electrician job description other than the 1995 description.
According to Jorgensen, HR Manager Boyle nor McAdams made any response to his request
to negotiate the Code 18 Electronic Electrician job description.
Jorgensen testified the Union and Company met and exchanged counter proposals and 35
additional proposals on August 2 and 7, 2007, regarding the Porter matter.
Jorgensen met with HR Manager Boyle and Labor Relations Manager McAdams on
August 10, 2007, and told them the Company’s proposals were unacceptable to Porter.
Jorgensen said he knew what was then going to happen; that if Porter did not take voluntary 40
retirement, the Company would terminate him. Jorgensen testified,
So, again, I requested that if your position is still the same, that
the 1999 job description is your current job description, again,
I’m requesting negotiations.45
JD(ATL)–17–09
6
Jorgensen said the Company made no response to his request. Porter was terminated
on August 10, 2007, and Jorgensen filed a grievance on his behalf on August 14, 2007.
IV. The Company’s Evidence
5
HR Manager Buckley testified he served as chief spokesperson for the Company
during the 1998 negotiations for an initial contract. According to Buckley, the Union
requested to negotiate unit job descriptions. Buckley said the subject matter, thereafter, came
up from time to time. Buckley said the Union, because of a press for time, informed the
Company sometime in October 1998, “they did not want to spend the time to negotiate[e] 10
over the job descriptions,” that their time could be better spend on other areas of
disagreement. Buckley agreed, the Company would be willing to negotiate job descriptions at
a later time. As noted elsewhere, the parties arrived at their initial agreement in February
1999.
15
HR Manager Buckley testified the parties commenced very extended bargaining in the
first week of January, 2002 toward a successor collective bargaining agreement. Buckley said
about a week or two after bargaining began the Union made, in writing, an information
request of the Company for, among other things, a copy of all job descriptions. The Union’s
request dated January 16, 2002, specifically requested, “existing job descriptions and codes 20
for jobs in the plant at the current time and date of last change.” Buckley told Union Chief
Spokesperson Matt Snell, as they discussed the Union’s various information requests, the
Union did not need to again ask for job descriptions; “you already have the job descriptions in
the union hall.” Buckley noted the codes were already defined in the collective bargaining
agreement. Buckley testified Union bargaining committee member Zewe agreed with his 25
(Buckley’s) comments and added, “yes, they are in the union hall, we have it.” Buckley
testified that at some point the job descriptions were, in fact, updated or revised. He testified:
“There had been some revisions, nothing major, you know,
onesie, twosie kind–of changes.30
There had been some revisions, but, the –– , not close in the
timeframe of 2002.”. . . .
They were prior to, long time prior to.35
Buckley said he was referring to the active job descriptions when he made reference to
the Union already having the job descriptions. According to Buckley current job descriptions
are kept in a “three ring binder type book” in the HR offices.
40
Buckley testified that “periodically”, during the extended contract negotiations that
started in January 2002, the subject of job descriptions would come up and then go away but,
“It just was never formally bargained.”
Former HR Hourly Employee Relations Manager Robert Pickering, who reported to 45
HR Manager Buckley, testified he maintained job descriptions in a three ring binder in his
JD(ATL)–17–09
7
office on his credenza. Pickering testified that, on June 24, 1999, he received a written
request from Union bargaining committee member Zewe for Material Marshaller A and B job
descriptions which he provided. Pickering made a notation to himself on Zewe’s request that
this was the second time he had provided this information to the Union. Pickering also noted
on the request, “we ran a complete copy and gave to the Union previously, also.” Pickering 5
explained “a complete copy” meant he gave the Union a copy of all the job descriptions and
added; “It would have been in the summer of ‘99, prior to the date of 6/24/99”.
Pickering said he gave the complete revised (April 1999) job descriptions to the Union
Chairperson Thomas Shackelford. Pickering testified that in April 1999, he updated all 10
Occupational Progression Channel (OPC) numbers on all job descriptions based on what had
been negotiated in the collective bargaining agreement. Pickering said that when the OPC
numbers were updated, the job descriptions, if needed, were also revised. He testified,
revisions were made in April 1999, and he thought some of the job descriptions were in fact
revised and added, “but, I can’t tell you the list of what jobs would have been [revised].” 15
According to Pickering, the Code 18 Electronic Electrician job description was included in
the job descriptions he gave to Shackelford during the summer of 1999.
Pickering testified he provided union bargaining committee member Zewe a one page
copy of all maintenance employee job codes on September 15, 1999. Pickering said he not 20
only gave Zewe the job codes but added, “He would have received a complete set of job
descriptions, along with this document”.
Thomas Shackelford worked at the Company from October 1972 until February 2003,
in various positions as a maintenance employee, manager and supervisor. Shackelford 25
testified that for part of 1999, he was Chairperson of the bargaining committee for the Union.
Shackelford said his time as Chairperson was after the parties had arrived at an initial
collective bargaining agreement. Shackelford testified that some where in the middle of June
1999, Former HR Hourly Employee Relations Manager Pickering gave him a list of the job
descriptions and; “He explained to me, that’s what they were and that they were requested 30
from him and he gave them to me.” Shackelford testified he was not sure if he was told what
time period the job descriptions covered but added they were the revised ones. Shackelford
said the job descriptions were contained in a binder but he did not go through them.
Shackelford said that within a day or so he took the job descriptions to the Union hall laid
them on a table but did not know what, thereafter, happened to them. Shackelford could not 35
recall who, from the Union, requested the job descriptions and on cross–examination said it
could have been him. Shackelford said the Union requested the job descriptions because of
the OPC’s being changed.
On cross–examination Shackelford acknowledged the Union removed him as 40
Chairperson but four months later reinstated him. He thereafter resigned. Shackelford first
testified he had not spoken with anyone about his testimony before testifying. Shackelford
specifically said no one contacted him nor had he talked with anyone about his testimony
prior to testifying. However, after being asked by Company Counsel on redirect, he
acknowledged company counsel had contacted him and asked him questions about the job 45
descriptions and Pickering.
JD(ATL)–17–09
8
Labor Relations Manager Susan McAdams testified that in March 2005, Union
International Representative John Morris came to the Company to review the maintenance
jobs and job descriptions to ascertain if the maintenance department qualified for the Union’s
journeyman program. McAdams attended a meeting with Morris, HR Manager Buckley and 5
Union Chairperson Jorgensen about maintenance employee job descriptions. McAdams said
Morris told them he had reviewed the maintenance job descriptions and had a copy of the
descriptions with him at the time. McAdams testified Morris did not ask HR Manager
Buckley for job descriptions nor did he express a need for job descriptions. According to
McAdams, they discussed at their meeting, the Code 18 Electronic Electrician job description. 10
McAdams said she did not examine to see what job descriptions Morris actually had with him
nor did he show the descriptions to her.
Former HR Hourly Employee Relations Manager John Lee Suttenfield, III, testified he
commenced working for the Company in May 1976, and became an HR Manager in July 15
2002. He said he was advised by e–mail in 2005, that Union International Representative
Morris was coming to visit the Company in connection with the possibility of establishing a
journeyman training program at the Company for maintenance employees. Suttenfield said he
was provided a sample form letter from the Union regarding certain information on each
maintenance employee the Union wanted. The information the Union requested was for the 20
employees name, social security number, and dates and classifications. Suttenfield prepared
the information on each maintenance employee and presented it to HR Manager Buckley who
in turn provided the information to Union Chairperson Jorgensen. Suttenfield testified
Jorgensen did not ask for any maintenance employee job descriptions, that Jorgensen told him
he already had the job descriptions. Suttenfield said he kept a copy of all maintenance 25
employee job descriptions, in a binder, in a metal cabinet in his office.
Manufacturing Supervisor Eric Mercer testified the Company decided in July 2007,
that a transfer cart improvement was needed to move products throughout the Company and
established a project toward that end. Mercer discussed the matter with Company Process 30
Engineer Phillip Schieffer and it was decided to assign the transfer cart job duties to Phillip
Porter, a Code 18 Electronic Electrician.
Mercer and Schieffer met with Porter on July 16, 2007, and told him he would have
responsibility for the project. According to Mercer, Porter first raised some safety concerns 35
about the project but then stated he would not take the job because it was outside the scope of
his electrician’s job. Mercer ended the meeting telling Porter he would investigate whether
the job was within the scope of Porter’s duties.
Mercer met with his immediate supervisor, as well as, with Maintenance Supervisor 40
Hoffman. Hoffman gave Mercer a copy of Porter’s current job description. Hoffman testified
he highlighted portions of the job description that pertained to the job Porter was being asked
to perform. Hoffman gave Mercer the April 1999 copy of the Code 18 Electronic Electrician
job description.
45
JD(ATL)–17–09
9
Mercer testified he scheduled a second meeting with Porter for the next morning July
17, 2007. Mercer, Supervisor Shane Stewart and Porter attended. Mercer testified.
I explained to Mr. Porter that I’d investigated his statement that
the job was outside of his scope. I told him directly that on my 5
investigation the job was within his scope and handed him the
job description. He looked at it briefly. He said that, yes, he’s
familiar with it, he helped write it, and handed it back to me.
Mercer said Porter refused the assignment, in part, because in the past he had received 10
higher pay for performing additional duties and explained he no longer received the higher
pay so the job was no longer within his scope. Mercer told Porter he would take it to the next
step. Porter asked for union representation. Mercer contacted Union Steward Rice and
arranged another meeting for later that day.
15
Mercer, Hoffman, Rice and Porter met later that day. Mercer testified he handed Rice
a copy of Porter’s job description with selected portions highlighted but Rice handed it back
saying he recognized it as the correct description for Porter’s job. Hoffman testified he tried
to give Rice a copy of the job description with highlighted portions but Rice looked at it and
returned it because he had a copy and knew what was in it. Porter’s matter was not resolved 20
at this meeting.
Mercer testified that after the meeting Rice told him he would talk with Porter “to
convince him to take on the assignment.”
25
Hoffman testified Union Steward Rice reported back to Mercer that Porter was not
going to do the Job. Mercer then brought Porter to Hoffman’s office where, according to
Hoffman, Porter repeatedly refused to do the job.
Hoffman, Mercer and Porter then proceeded to the Human Resources Department. 30
Hoffman asked Union Steward Rice to join them. Hoffman testified; “we went back over the
scenario” and Porter kept refusing to do the job and was suspended pending further
investigation.
HR Manager Matt Boyle testified that following Porter’s suspension he met with 35
Union International Representative Snow and Union Bargaining Chairman Jorgensen on July
18, 2007, at a third step prescheduled grievance meeting unrelated to Porter’s situation. Boyle
said he and Jorgensen traded Code 18 Electronic Electrician job descriptions. Boyle
explained he gave Jorgensen the most updated April, 1999 description while Jorgensen gave
him the 1995 description. Boyle said he and Jorgensen had also spoken the day before about 40
Porter. Boyle testified they then discussed what portions of the 1999 job description covered
the duties the Company was asking Porter to perform. Boyle specifically stated that neither
Snow nor Jorgensen made any request on either July 17 or 18, 2007, to bargain over the job
description.
45
JD(ATL)–17–09
10
Boyle testified a third step meeting was held on July 31, 2007, at which Porter’s
situation was discussed but stated neither Snow nor Jorgensen made any request to bargain
over the Code 18 Electronic Electrician job description. Boyle testified that neither Snow nor
Jorgensen requested, at any time, from July 18, 2007, through the end of 2007 to bargain
about the Code 18 Electronic Electrician job description. Boyle added that as of the trial 5
herein, the Union had not made any request, in writing, to bargain about the Code 18
Electronic Electrician job description.
HR Manager Boyle testified he met in his office on August 10, 2007, with Labor
Relations Manager McAdams and Jorgensen and made a proposal to settle the Porter matter. 10
He said his proposal was rejected and he notified Jorgensen the Company’s final decision was
to terminate Porter.
V. Analysis, Discussion and Conclusions
15
It is well settled and accepted that absent waiver or impasse an employer may not
unilaterally change terms and conditions of employment for employees represented by a labor
organization. NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.A. 736 (1962). Stated differently, as a general
proposition an employer commits an unfair labor practice if, without bargaining to impasse or
obtaining a waiver, it effects a unilateral change of an existing term or condition of 20
employment. Litton Financial Printing v. NLRB, 501 U.S. 190, 198 (1991). It is undisputed
the production and maintenance employees herein were and continue to be represented by the
Union in an appropriate unit. It is undisputed the Company has recognized the Union as the
exclusive collective bargaining representative of its employees and has entered into two
collective bargaining agreements with the Union covering the employees. The second of the 25
collective bargaining agreements is currently in effect. It is undisputed the Company had
certain job descriptions in effect at the time the parties commenced negotiation for an initial
collective bargaining agreement in July 1998. Included therein was a job description for a
Code 18 Electronic Electrician dated June 15, 1995, and approved and signed by the
Company on August 14, 1999.30
It is undisputed the Company in April 1999, changed some job descriptions and
specifically changed the job description for a Code 18 Electronic Electrician, the job
description at issue herein.
35
Numerous terms and conditions of employment have been held to be mandatory
subjects of bargaining and the Company herein does not question that job descriptions are a
term and condition of employment and a mandatory subject of bargaining. For that matter,
HR Manager Buckley agreed during the 1998 negotiations for the initial collective bargaining
agreement the Company would negotiate concerning job descriptions.40
It is likewise undisputed that the 1999 Code 18 Electronic Electrician job description
was not signed by any Company official. It is undisputed that the Union learned on or about
July 17, 2007, the Company considered the 1999 Code 18 Electronic Electrician job
description to be in effect at that time because it advised Code 18 Electronic Electrician Porter 45
it was assigning him job duties for a work project pursuant to duties outlined in the 1999 job
JD(ATL)–17–09
11
description. The Union was notified on that same date and began at that point to represent
Porter before the Company.
The question then becomes; did the Company make the Union aware of the April 1999
changes to the 1995 job descriptions at any time prior to July 17, 2007?5
I note that while the general proposition holds an employer commits on unfair labor
practice if, without bargaining to impasse or obtaining a waiver, it effects a unilateral change
to existing terms and conditions of employment; an employer is not absolutely prohibited
from making changes, however, an employer is required before making changes in “terms and 10
conditions of employment” pursuant to Section 8(d) of the Act, to notify the union before
effecting the changes so as to provide the union a meaningful opportunity to offer counter-
proposals and counter arguments. If upon notification by an employer, the union does not
timely request bargaining, the employer is then free, under the Act, to make the changes
outlined in its proposal for changes.15
Back to the question of whether the Company herein provided notice of the 1999
changes to the job descriptions prior to July 2007, and if so, did the Union timely seek or
request bargaining with the Company? In order to answer certain of these questions it is
necessary to make some credibility determinations.20
Although many of the facts herein are undisputed and/or admitted, there are some
sharp credibility conflicts in the accounts of relevant events provided by certain witnesses
regarding notice to the Union of the revised 1999 job descriptions specifically of the Code 18
Electronic Electrician job description at issue herein.25
It is appropriate to make certain observations regarding my credibility resolutions. I
have carefully reviewed the trial record and exhibits whether or not I have made reference to
or discussed such herein. There are certain credibility resolutions that are essential to resolve.
However, I have not attempted to resolve and/or reconcile every conflict; only those I deem 30
pertinent in resolving the issues herein. When necessary to resolve conflicting testimony my
findings have rested, to a degree, on witness bias established, admitted or uncontested facts,
corroboration of testimony and inherent probabilities. In addition to the above considerations
I was greatly impacted by impressions I formed while watching the witnesses as they testified.
The impressions I gathered were based on a combination of the witnesses’ mannerisms, how 35
they spoke and their overall, “on the witness stand” bearing. I, to use a colloquial expression,
“sized up” the witnesses in deciding whether their testimony struck me as fair, candid and
believable. Having said that I certainly am not unmindful that resolutions of credibility
conflicts are often difficult, requiring the weighing of plausible narrations of testimony by
witnesses who appear truthful and no more biased or prejudice than others testifying 40
differently. Indeed, resolutions by a judge, or a jury in a jury trial, are simply a practical
solution, not a mark of absolute truth.
I find there is a lack of reliable, credible and valid evidence the Company notified the
Union of changes to the 1995 job descriptions or that the Company, after the start of 45
negotiations in 1998, provided the Union copies of the revised job descriptions prior to July
JD(ATL)–17–09
12
2007. In arriving at these findings, I credit the testimony of Government witnesses Jorgensen,
Zewe and Rice, and where in conflict, I do not accept the testimony of Company witnesses
Buckley, Pickering and Shackelford. Jorgensen, Zewe and Rice, all currently employed by
the Company, appeared to be truthfully testifying, as best they could, about the job
descriptions and when and how that subject came up over the years including in bargaining 5
negotiations.
During negotiations for the initial contract between the parties the Union, in
November 1998, requested, and the Company provided, a copy of all maintenance employee
job descriptions including the description for the Code 18 Electronic Electrician position. The 10
Code 18 Electronic Electrician job description provided was dated June 15, 1995, and had
been approved and signed by Company representatives on August 14, 1997. Zewe credibly
testified the Union at the beginning of the initial negotiations reviewed the job descriptions
and concluded the descriptions pretty much described the duties the maintenance employees
performed in the various jobs. The Union at that time accepted the job descriptions as written 15
but made no mention of waiving the right to thereafter bargain concerning job descriptions.
Company HR Manager Buckley said that during the 1998 negotiations the Company agreed it
would be willing to negotiate job descriptions at some future date. The credible evidence
establishes this 1998 occasion just described was the only time the Company provided the
Union with job descriptions of all maintenance employees until the Company brought the 20
issue back to the front when it provided the Union a revised job description for a Code 18
Electronic Electrician in July 2007.
Former HR Hourly Employee Relations Manager Pickering kept employee job
descriptions in a binder on the credenza in his office. Pickering testified, and it is not 25
disputed, that Union bargaining committee member Zewe, on June 24, 1999, requested, in
writing, job descriptions for the Material Marshaller A and Material Marshaller B positions
and Pickering provided the two requested job descriptions to the Union and noted that fact on
Zewe’s written request. Pickering also noted on Zewe’s request, “This is the 2nd time I gave
this to Tom and we ran a complete copy and gave to the Union previously also.” Pickering 30
added, “I would have given them to the Union.” I do not credit Pickering’s explanation that
he gave a “complete copy” of the job descriptions to the Union, specifically to then Union
Chairperson Shackelford in the summer of 1999. In light of certain Union official’s denials,
my total rejection of Shackelford’s testimony and the logical sequence of events, I simply find
Pickering’s testimony about providing Shackelford a copy of the revised job descriptions in 35
the summer of 1999, to be unbelievable. There is no showing the Company had advised the
Union of any revisions to the job descriptions that might have alerted the Union to make any
such request. Although Pickering testified he updated the Occupational Progression Channel
numbers for the maintenance employees in April 1999, and he thought some job descriptions
were in fact, revised at the time, he could not say which jobs were revised nor did he say the 40
Union was notified the Company had made or was making any such revisions. There was no
stated reason for the Union to have requested a complete copy of all job descriptions at the
time not knowing of any revisions. I do not find believable the testimony that the Company
just continued to supply copies of the job descriptions over and again to the Union.
45
JD(ATL)–17–09
13
I do not credit former Chairperson for the Union bargaining committee, as well as,
Former Manager and/or Supervisor Shackelford’s testimony about being given a revised copy
of the job descriptions for the maintenance employees in book binder form in June 1999,
while he was serving as Chairperson for the Union. In addition to my having carefully
watched Shackelford as he testified there are a number of other factors that causes me to 5
reject his testimony. First, I note Shackelford seemed to have little problem recalling a
specific conversation that occurred 10 years ago with Former HR Hourly Employee Relations
Manager Pickering and at a time when he had been retired and away from the Company for
six years but had trouble recalling certain other things fully or accurately. He recalled he was
specifically told the job descriptions were the revised ones but only after first being asked in a 10
leading manner and then by questions that inferred or suggested the answer sought.
Shackelford, on direct examination, could not recall being told what time period the job
descriptions covered nor, at first, could he say if he received all of the job descriptions
explaining he did not go through them. Second, on cross-examination by Government
Counsel, Shackelford testified he resigned his Chairperson position with the Union; and only 15
on cross-examination, by Union counsel did he acknowledge the Union membership had
removed him as chairperson, later reinstating him and he then, thereafter, resigned. It seemed
to me Shackelford did not wish to be fully candid in his testimony. Thirdly, in discrediting
Shackelford, I note he could not recall, when questioned on cross-examination by
Government Counsel, who from the Union had requested the job descriptions he asserted he 20
was given. When pressed further on cross-examination by Union Counsel, Shackelford was
again not sure who from the Union requested the job descriptions he said he was given. After
being questioned about the power held by those in leadership positions at the local Union
Shackelford acknowledged he was assumedly the most powerful person but still again could
not recall who from the Union might have requested the job descriptions. He then added he 25
probably requested them himself. Shackelford then testified he requested the job descriptions
at the behest of the shop stewards, yet, even though he claimed he requested the job
descriptions, he did not even examine them to see what he had been provided but merely took
the job descriptions to the Union hall and placed them on a table. Simply stated, and as
previously noted, I do not credit Shackelford’s testimony. With regard to Shackelford’s 30
creditability one factor was very persuasive, namely, his specifically denying, on cross-
examination, of having spoken with anyone prior to testifying at trial about his testimony
regarding job descriptions. He specifically stated, on cross-examination by Union Counsel,
that he answered the questions he was asked about the job description conversations he had
that took place 10 years ago for the very first time when he responded to those questions on 35
direct examination. On redirect, Shackelford acknowledged he had been questioned by
Company Counsel regarding, among other things, whether he had gotten job descriptions
from Pickering years ago. I am persuaded Shackelford wanted to mold and shape his
testimony in a manner he perceived would help the Company without regard for being candid
and telling the full and complete truth.40
I find no credible evidence that Shackelford requested from the Company and/or
provided the Union with a copy of job descriptions in June 1999.
Former HR Employee Relations Manager Pickering testified, without challenge, that 45
on September 15, 1999, he provided the Union, specifically Zewe, a one page list of all job
JD(ATL)–17–09
14
codes and titles for the maintenance employees and wrote on the list “given to Tom Zewe 9-
15-99, at 9:00 am.” I do not credit Pickering’s further testimony that he also provided Zewe a
complete set or copy of all job descriptions at the same time he gave Zewe the one page list of
job codes. First, there is no showing the Union requested a copy of all the job descriptions,
nor is it shown the Union was aware of any April 1999 Company revisions of job 5
descriptions. Second, Pickering made no notation he had, yet again at that particular time,
provided a copy of the job descriptions to the Union. Third, Zewe denied being given any
copies of revised job descriptions.
It is undisputed the parties commenced negotiations in 2002, for a successor collective 10
bargaining agreement. It is uncontested the Union, on January 16, 2002, made a number of
requests for information from the Company including a request for “existing job descriptions
and codes for jobs in the plant at the current time and date of last change.” I specifically
credit Jorgensen’s testimony Company Chief Spokesperson and/HR Manager Buckley said
there had not been any changes to the job descriptions that everything remained the same. I 15
also specifically credit Zewe’s testimony that Buckley told them the job descriptions the
Union “had in our possession that we received in the first negotiations were the job
descriptions still in effect” “…and there had been no changes to the job descriptions.” I reject
Buckley’s testimony, to the extent it suggests, he gave a copy of the job deceptions to the
Union several days after the 2002 negotiations began.20
Jorgensen credibly testified that during the 2002 negotiations and until the Company
implemented its Terms and Conditions of Employment, job descriptions were not discussed
and were not part of the 2004 implemented Terms and Conditions of Employment. HR
Manager Buckley testified that periodically during the extended contract negotiations starting25
in January 2002, the subject of job descriptions would come up and go away but never
formally bargained about.
It is undisputed that Union International Representative John Morris visited the
Company on March 10, 2005, regarding the Union’s journeyman program. Morris reviewed 30
maintenance jobs, observed maintenance employees working. Morris advised HR Manager
Buckley and Labor Relations Manager McAdams he had reviewed the job descriptions and
had copies with him at the time. The job descriptions were provided to Morris by Union
Bargaining Chairman Jorgensen. The Company did not provide Morris any job descriptions
nor did either Buckley or McAdams review the job descriptions Jorgensen had provided to 35
Morris. Again, to this point, there is no credible showing the Company provided the Union
with all the revised 1999 job descriptions or specifically provided the Union the revised Code
18 Electronic Electrician job description.
There is no evidence the Company provided the Union a copy of the revised job 40
descriptions in January 2006, at the start of contract negotiations resulting in the current
collective bargaining agreement. I credit Jorgensen’s testimony that job descriptions were not
discussed during these negotiations.
It is undisputed that on July 16, 2007, Manufacturing Supervisor Mercer and Process 45
Engineer Schieffer met with Code 18 Electronic Electrician Porter about a specific job
JD(ATL)–17–09
15
assignment the Company wanted Porter to perform. It is likewise undisputed Porter raised
safety concerns about the project and advised he could not take the assignment because it was
outside the scope of his job description. It is undisputed Mercer agreed to look into the job
description issue and get back with Porter.
5
It is undisputed that on July 16, 2007, Supervisor Mercer discussed the Code 18
Electronic Electrician job description with Maintenance Supervisor Hoffman. Hoffman gave
Mercer a copy of the job description with highlighted portions that pertained to Porter. It was
concluded by Hoffman and Mercer the duties Porter was asked to perform where within the
duties outlined in the job description.10
It is undisputed Mercer met with Porter and Supervisor Steward on the morning of
July 17, 2007. It is undisputed Mercer showed Porter the job description and Porter continued
to refuse to perform the job duties because he was not paid extra for doing so and the duties
requested were not within the scope of his duties. Mercer told Porter he would take his 15
refusal to the next level and Porter asked for Union representation. It is undisputed Mercer
contacted Union Steward Rice and arranged for another meeting on the issue that day.
It is undisputed Union Steward Rice met with Supervisors Hoffman and Mercer in
Hoffman’s office mid-morning on July 17, 2007, to discuss the Porter matter. Rice told the 20
Company he considered the assignment for Porter to be voluntary. It is undisputed Hoffman
and Mercer showed Rice a copy of a Code 18 Electronic Electrician job description. Rice
acknowledged he had seen the job description before at sometime between 2003 to 2006
when he, Rice, was a Code 18 Electronic Electrician, but he explained, the one he saw then
was unsigned and undated and he assumed it was simply a work in progress by the Company. 25
I credit Rice’s testimony that he was given the highlighted copy of the job description
notwithstanding the testimony by Company witnesses they only showed him the copy. I am
fully persuaded that after the Company took the time to highlight the job description in order
to demonstrate their position Porter could be required to do the job, they wanted Rice to take
the copy and review it. I credit Rice’s testimony the highlighted Code 18 Electronic 30
Electrician job description he was given indicated it was revised April 1999. As the evidence
discussed hereinafter will further demonstrate, I find this was the first time the Union had
been placed on notice or made aware the Company had changed the Code 18 Electronic
Electrician job description from the 1995 job description the Union had been given in 1998.
35
It is undisputed Porter was suspended pending investigation on July 17, 2007. I credit
Jorgensen’s testimony that on July 17, 2007, Union Steward Rice made him aware of Porter’s
suspension and gave him the highlighted copy of the Code 18 Electronic Electrician job
description Rice had been given by Hoffman and Mercer. I specifically credit Jorgensen’s
testimony he had never, prior to that date, seen that revised job description before. Jorgensen 40
identified the job description he was given that day as the 1999 Code 18 Electronic Electrician
job description.
It is undisputed there were discussions on July 18, and 19, 2007, concerning the Porter
matter but nothing was resolved.45
JD(ATL)–17–09
16
I credit Union Bargaining Chairman Jorgensen’s testimony regarding the meeting he
and Union Steward Rice had with HR Manager Boyle and Labor Relations Manager
McAdams on July 26, 2007. The Company provided a proposal to resolve the Porter matter
but it was unacceptable to Porter. Jorgensen explained to Boyle and McAdams he had
examined the 1999 job description they had given the Union on July 17, 2007, and “for sure 5
this 1999 one has never been presented to the Union before.” Jorgensen asked, “which of the
two, the 1995 one” that the Union had on file at the Union hall, or, “this new 1999 one” did
the Company contend was the “current job description.” Jorgensen was told the 1999 one. I
specifically credit Jorgensen’s testimony; “my reply was if that is in fact the case, then I’m
requesting negotiations.”10
It is undisputed the Company and Union met on more than one occasion in early
August in an effort to resolve the Porter matter but without success.
It is undisputed Jorgensen met with Boyle and McAdams on August 10, 2007, at 15
which time the Company’s proposal to settle the Porter matter was rejected. It is undisputed
the Company’s decision at that time was to terminate Porter. What is disputed is whether
Jorgensen requested negotiations regarding the revised job description. HR Manager Boyle
denied Jorgensen ever made a request to bargain the April 1999 job description. I, however,
credit Jorgensen’s testimony he told Boyle and McAdams that if their position, “is still the 20
same, that the 1999 job description is your current job description, again, I’m requesting
negotiations.” In addition to my earlier described observations regarding Jorgensen’s
demeanor, I note the Union consistently took the position the job descriptions were negotiable
and upon learning the Company had changed the Code 18 Electronic Electrician job
description it is logical and extremely likely Jorgensen again requested negotiations as he had 25
earlier done on July 26, 2007.
In summary to this point, it is clearly established and I find, the Company initially
changed the Code 18 Electronic Electrician job description in 1999 without prior notice to the
Union. Notice was first provided to the Union when the Company implemented its 30
unilaterally changed Code 18 Electronic Electrician job description on July 17, 2007. It is
clear that almost immediately, that is on July 26 and August 10, 2007, the Union requested
negotiations regarding the Code 18 Electronic Electrician job description. It is clearly
established the Company failed and refused to bargain as requested.
35
I turn now to the issue of whether the unilateral changes to the Code 18 Electronic
Electrician job description were material, substantial and significant. Generally, an employer
has a duty to bargain with its employees exclusive collective bargaining representative before
making changes in wages’ hours or other terms and conditions of employment; however, that
duty only arises if the changes are material, substantial, and significant ones affecting the 40
terms and conditions of employment. Millard Processing Services, 310 NLRB 421, 425
(1993).
The duties in the 1999 job description for the Code 18 Electronic Electrician were
enhanced over the duties outlined in the 1995 job description. Duties that were added in the 45
1999 job description listed under “Position Summary” included: “modify and edit machine
JD(ATL)–17–09
17
language controls”, “build machine controls, GW basic and visual basic programming”, and
“setting up computer systems and installing various software systems.” There is a completely
different list of tools needed in the 1999 job description from the 1995 job description. In the
1995 job description the workers were required to have items such as volt meters, tube testers,
small hand tools, grinders and sanders. Under the 1999 “Tools and Equipment” portion of the 5
job description the workers are required to have various equipment including scope meters,
circuit board testers, Quad and Dual trace scopes, robot and CNC programming and
diagnostic equipment and all plant computer systems including various software and
processors. The “Materials” section of the 1999 job description is revised completely. Some
of the materials listed in the 1999 job description but not included in the 1995 job description 10
were: “Hydraulic servo, transducers, E-proms, encoders, power supplies, PC boards, DC
drivers, transformers, PLC’s, converters, rectifiers, SCR’s, diodes, capacitors, transistors,
motors, starters, switches, coils, conduit and fittings, relays [and] timers”. The 1999 job
description under “Essential Functions” added 14 new functions for the Code 18 Electronic
Electrician to perform. Some of the additional functions included: “design and fabricate 15
electronic controls”, “develop and assemble upgrades to electronic controls”, “test, repair and
set up hydraulic servo controlled equipment”, “understand and use various machine-
programming languages” and “calibrate robot arm and re-teach”. The 1999 job description
contains a newly required “Education, Experience and Skills, Required” section that sets forth
specific educational degrees and/or training requirements for the job.20
It is clear, and for that matter does not appear to be challenged, that the changes to the
Code 18 Electronic Electrician job description, contained in the 1999 revision, were material,
substantial and significant.
25
I find the Company unilaterally changed the Code 18 Electronic Electrician job
description, as implemented, on July 17, 2007, and refused on July 26 and August 10, 2007,
after being requested by the Union, to bargain about the Code 18 Electronic Electrician job
description. These acts of the Company violate Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act and I so
find.30
I turn now to the certain defenses raised by the Company and, as explained below, find
each is without merit. The company asserts the changes to the Code 18 Electronic Electrician
job description took place in April 1999, and notes the Union did not file its unfair labor
practice charge until January 16, 2008, (approximately 7½ years thereafter) well outside the 6 35
month statue of limitation imposed by Section 10(b) of the Act. Simply stated, in the
Company’s view, the charge is time barred by Section 10(b) of the Act.
Section 10(b) of the Act provides in pertinent part that “no complaint shall issue based
upon any unfair labor practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge 40
with the Board and the service of a copy thereof upon the person against whom such charge is
made.” Here the facts establish the Union did not have notice of changes to the Code 18
Electronic Electrician job description until July 17, 2007. There is simply no credible
showing the Union had clear and unequivocal notice of the changes prior to that time. Thus,
the charge was timely filed and is not barred by the Section 10(b) statute of limitations.45
JD(ATL)–17–09
18
The Company also contends it is entitled to dismissal of the allegations set forth in the
Government’s amendment to amended complaint wherein it is alleged the Company failed
and refused to bargain in response to alleged oral bargaining requests from the Union because
no just circumstances existed to allow the Government to validly amend its already amended
complaint. I reject the Company’s assertions on this point. I have concluded the Company’s 5
unilaterally changing the Code 18 Electronic Electrician job description violated the Act and
was based on a timely filed charge. The Union did not become aware of the changes to the
job description in question until the Company held Code 18 Electronic Electrician Porter to
the revised standards contained therein and disciplined him as a result thereof. Immediately
upon notice of the changes the Union asked to bargain about the revised job description. 10
Bargaining over the changes to the Code 18 Electronic Electrician job description flows out of
and is inextricably intertwined with the unilateral change of the job description itself. Each
arose from the same factual circumstances and are part of the continuing sequence of events.
The bargaining request issue is sufficiently grounded in the original timely file charge such as
to support the complaint allegations related to the bargaining requests. The mere fact the 15
Government waited until a few days before trial to amend the amended complaint to include
the bargaining request in no way warrants a different conclusion.
The Company’s contention the Union waived its right to bargain over the substance of
the April 1999 revisions of the Code 18 Electronic Electrician job description is without 20
merit. The record evidence establishes the Union never at any time clearly and unmistakably
waived its right to negotiate job descriptions. Quite the contrary, the Union, from the initial
contract negotiations, made it clear to the Company it was not waiving its right to negotiate
job descriptions. The Company acknowledged the Union was not waiving its right to
negotiate job descriptions thereafter. The Company’s chief spokesperson at the initial 25
negotiations even expressed the Company’s willingness to thereafter negotiate job
descriptions. The Union at the start of each of the negotiations toward a new collective
bargaining agreement inquired about the status of the job descriptions and was told each time
the job descriptions remained the same. The Union did not waive its right to negotiate job
descriptions by inaction. In fact as soon as the Union was put on notice of changes to the 30
Code 18 Electronic Electrician job description in July 2007, it immediately sought to bargain
over that job description.
Conclusions of Law
35
1. The Company, ABB, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 2379, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Workers of
America is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.40
3. The Company violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by on or about July
17, 2007 unilaterally changing the job description for Code 18 Electronic Electricians; and, by
on or about July 26 and August 10, 2007 failing and refusing to bargain with the Union over
the Code 18 Electronic Electrician job description.45
JD(ATL)–17–09
19
4. The Company’s unfair labor practices specified in 3 above, affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.
Remedy
5
Having found that the Company has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find it
necessary to order the Company to cease and desist there from and to take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act as set forth in the recommended Order
below.
10
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended:4
ORDER
15
The Company, ABB, Inc., Jefferson City, Missouri, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
20
(a) Unilaterally changing the Code 18 Electronic Electrician job
description, or any other job description, without prior notice to the Union and without
affording the Union the opportunity to bargain with respect thereto.
(b) Failing and refusing to bargain with the Union concerning changes to 25
the Code 18 Electronic Electrician or any other job description.
(c) 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.
30
2. Take the following affirmative action:
(a) Upon request of the Union rescind the April 1999 Code 18 Electronic
Electrician job description and bargain in good faith with the Union concerning changes to the
Code 18 Electronic Electrician job description. 35
(b) Post at its Jefferson City, Missouri, facility copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix.”5 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 14, after being duly signed by the Company’s authorized representative, shall be

4 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.
5 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice
reading “POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD” shall read
“POSTED PURSUANT TO A JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
ENFORCING AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.”
JD(ATL)–17–09
20
posted by the Company immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Company to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that,
during the pendency of these proceedings, the Company has gone out of business or closed 5
the facilities involved in these proceedings, the Company shall duplicate and mail, at its own
expense, a copy of the notice to all current and former employees employed by the Company
at any time since July 17, 2008.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in writing, within 20 days 10
from the date of this Order, what steps the Company has taken to comply herewith.
Dated, Washington, D.C., September 4, 2009.
15
William N. Cates
Associate Chief Judge20
JD(ATL)–17–09
21
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally change the Code 18 Electronic Electrician job description, or any other
job description, without prior notice to the Union and without affording the Union an opportunity to
bargain with respect thereto.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to bargain with the Union concerning changes to the Code 18
Electronic Electrician or any other job description.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, upon request of the Union, rescind the April 1999 Code 18 Electronic Electrician job
description and bargain in good faith with the Union concerning the Code 18 Electronic Electrician
job description.
______ ABB, Inc. _____
(Employer)
Dated: __________________________ By: _______________________________________
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor Relations Act. It
conducts secret–ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it investigates and remedies unfair
labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under the Act and how to file a charge or election petition,
you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the
Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
1222 Spruce Street, Room 8.302, Saint Louis, MO 63103–2829
(314) 539–7770, Hours 9a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST
NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS
NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER (314) 539–7780.