ABB Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 22, 2010

355 N.L.R.B. 13 (N.L.R.B. 2010)

ABB, INC.
355 NLRB No. 2
13
ABB, Inc. and Local 2379, United Automobile, Aero-
space & Agricultural Implement Workers of
America. Case 14–CA–29219
January 22, 2010
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBER SCHAUMBER
On September 4, 2009, Administrative Law Judge
William N. Cates issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the
General Counsel and the Charging Party filed answering
briefs.
The National Labor Relations Board1 has considered
the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, find-
ings,2 and conclusions3 and to adopt the recommended
Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, ABB, Inc., Jefferson City,

1 Effective midnight December 28, 2007, Members Liebman,
Schaumber, Kirsanow, and Walsh delegated to Members Liebman,
Schaumber, and Kirsanow, as a three-member group, all of the Board’s
powers in anticipation of the expiration of the terms of Members Kir-
sanow and Walsh on December 31, 2007. Pursuant to this delegation,
Chairman Liebman and Member Schaumber constitute a quorum of the
three-member group. As a quorum, they have the authority to issue
decisions and orders in unfair labor practice and representation cases.
See Sec. 3(b) of the Act. See Teamsters Local 523 v. NLRB, ___F.3d
___, 2009 WL 4912300 (10th Cir. Dec. 22, 2009); Narricot Industries,
L.P. v. NLRB, 587 F.3d 654 (4th Cir. 2009); Snell Island SNF LLC v.
NLRB, 568 F.3d 410 (2d Cir. 2009), petition for cert. filed 78 U.S.L.W.
3130 (U.S. Sept. 11, 2009) (No. 09-328); New Process Steel v. NLRB,
564 F.3d 840 (7th Cir. 2009), cert. granted ___S.Ct.___, 2009 WL
1468482 (U.S. Nov. 2, 2009); Northeastern Land Services v. NLRB,
560 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2009), petition for cert. filed 78 U.S.L.W. 3098
(U.S. Aug. 18, 2009)(No. 09-213). But see Laurel Baye Healthcare of
Lake Lanier, Inc. v. NLRB, 564 F.3d 469 (D.C. Cir. 2009), petition for
cert. filed 78 U.S.L.W. 3185 (U.S. Sept. 29, 2009) (No. 09-377).
2 The Respondent excepts to some of the judge’s credibility findings.
The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an administrative law
judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the
relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry
Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir.
1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for
reversing the findings.
3 Applying the “clear and unmistakable waiver” standard reaffirmed
in Provena St. Joseph Medical Center, 350 NLRB 808, 811 (2007),
Member Schaumber agrees with the judge that the Union did not waive
its right to bargain over changes to the job description for Code 18
Electronic Electricians. Although Member Schaumber adheres to the
position that the Board should instead apply a “contract coverage” test,
he acknowledges that the “clear and unmistakable waiver” standard is
extant Board law and applies it for the purpose of deciding this case.
See Verizon North, Inc., 352 NLRB 1022, 1022 fn. 2 (2008).
Missouri, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the Order.

Kathy J. Talbott–Schehl, Esq., for the Government. 1
Richard Porter, Esq. and Jerry M. Hunter, Esq., for the Com-
pany.2
Gerald Kretmar, Esq., for the Union.3
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WILLIAM N. CATES, Administrative Law Judge. This case
concerns allegations that ABB, Inc. (the Company) unilaterally
changed the job description for code 18 electronic electricians
without prior notice to Local 2379, United Automobile, Aero-
space & Agriculture Workers of America (the Union), the pro-
duction 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 pur-
poses 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 (the
Act).
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 (the Board), acting in the
name of the Board’s General Counsel, issued an amended com-
plaint and notice of hearing (the complaint) against the Com-
pany.
The Company, in a timely filed answer to the complaint, de-
nies having violated the Act in any manner alleged in the com-
plaint.
The parties were given full opportunity to participate, to in-
troduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross–examine wit-
nesses, and to file briefs. I carefully observed the demeanor of
the witnesses as they testified. I have studied the whole record,
the posttrial briefs, and the authorities cited therein. Based on
more detailed findings and analysis below, I conclude and find
the Company violated the Act substantially as alleged in the
complaint.

1 I shall refer to counsel for General Counsel as counsel for the Gov-
ernment or Government.
2 I shall refer to counsel for the Company as counsel for the Com-
pany or Company.
3 I shall refer to counsel for the Union as union counsel or Union.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

14
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION, LABOR ORGANIZATION STATUS, AND SUPER-
VISORY STATUS
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 nonretail sale of
electrical transformers. During the 12 months ending January
31, 2009, a representative period, the Company sold and
shipped from its Jefferson City, Missouri facility goods valued
in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the State of Mis-
souri. The parties admit, and I find, the Company is an em-
ployer 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 organiza-
tion within the meaning of 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, supervi-
sors and agents of the Company within the meaning of Section
2(11) and (13) of the Act.
II. THE UNIT
It is admitted the following employees of the Company, (the
unit), constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining with the meaning of 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 employ-
ees, salaried employees, guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act.

It is admitted that since about May 7, 1998, and at all mate-
rial times, the Union has been the designated exclusive collec-
tive–bargaining representative of the Unit and since then the
Union has been recognized as the representative by the Com-
pany. This recognition has been embodied in (1) A collective–
bargaining agreement, effective from February 1, 1999, through
January 31, 2002; (2) In the implemented “Terms and Condi-
tions 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.
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.
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. 33
year employee Thomas Zewe served as a union bargaining
committee member and testified regarding the initial contract
negotiations, however, the Union’s chief spokesperson was
Don Burgess. The first agreement did not contain job descrip-
tions although job descriptions were discussed during the nego-
tiations. Zewe testified that around November 1998, Burgess
requested the Company provide a copy of all maintenance em-
ployee 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
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 re-
viewed the job descriptions, found them to be “pretty much”
“what the proper job descriptions” were and union spokesper-
son Burgess told the Company’s chief 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 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 negotia-
tions. The negotiations 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 dis-
cussed job descriptions adding that Snell mentioned the Union
had a book of job descriptions and asked Company Chief
Spokesperson Buckley if any changes had been made to the job
descriptions. Buckley said 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 descrip-
tions 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 were the job descrip-
tions still in effect.”
In 2004, the parties reached bargaining impasse and thereaf-
ter, 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.”
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 descrip-
tions were not discussed during these negotiations.
The Government contends the instant case actually begins on
or about July 17, 2007, with an incident involving code 18 elec-
tronic electrician employee Phillip Porter.
Union Steward Rice, a calibration analyst and 25 year em-
ployee of the 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
ABB, INC.

15
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 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 em-
ployee agreed to perform that type project was, as it had been in
the past, voluntary.
Rice testified Hoffman and Mercer showed him a job de-
scription with yellow highlighted portions. Hoffman and Mer-
cer 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 of the high-
lighted 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 de-
scription 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 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.
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 July 17, 2007, seen the job de-
scription Rice provided him that day. Jorgensen identified the
job description given him that day as the 1999 code 18 elec-
tronic 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 under inves-
tigation, 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:

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 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.

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 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 ex-
changed counterproposals and 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 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.

Jorgensen said the Company made no response to his re-
quest. Porter was terminated on August 10, 2007, and Jorgen-
sen filed a grievance on his behalf on August 14, 2007.
IV. THE COMPANY’S EVIDENCE
HR Manager Buckley testified he served as chief spokesper-
son for the Company during the 1998 negotiations for an initial
contract. According to Buckley, the Union requested to negoti-
ate 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 negoti-
ate[e] 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.
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 writ-
ing, 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 for jobs in the plant at the current time
and date of last change.” Buckley told Union Chief Spokesper-
son Matt Snell, as they discussed the Union’s various informa-
tion requests, the Union did not need to again ask for job de-
scriptions; “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 bar-
gaining committee member Zewe agreed with his (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:

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

16
“There had been some revisions, nothing major, you know,
onesie, twosie kind–of changes.

There had been some revisions, but, the—, not close in the
timeframe of 2002.”

They were prior to, long time prior to.

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.
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 HR Manager Buckley, testified he
maintained job descriptions in a three-ring binder in his 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 re-
quest, “we ran a complete copy and gave to the Union previ-
ously, also.” Pickering 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 Occupa-
tional Progression Channel (OPC) numbers on all job descrip-
tions based on what had been negotiated in the collective-
bargaining agreement. Pickering said that when the OPC num-
bers 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].” 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 1-page copy of all maintenance employee job
codes on September 15, 1999. Pickering said he not 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 testified that
for part of 1999, he was Chairperson of the bargaining commit-
tee for the Union. Shackelford said his time as Chairperson
was after the parties had arrived at an initial collective-
bargaining agreement. Shackelford testified that somewhere in
the middle of June 1999, Former HR Hourly Employee Rela-
tions 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 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 con-
tained 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, thereaf-
ter, happened to them. Shackelford could not 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 chairperson but 4 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 descriptions and Pickering.
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 quali-
fied for the Union’s journeyman program. McAdams attended
a meeting with Morris, HR Manager Buckley and Union Chair-
person Jorgensen about maintenance employee job descrip-
tions. 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 dis-
cussed at their meeting, the code 18 electronic electrician job
description. 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 Com-
pany in May 1976, and became an HR Manager in July 2002.
He said he was advised by email in 2005, that Union Interna-
tional 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 em-
ployee the Union wanted. The information the Union requested
was for the 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 Chair-
person 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 employee job descriptions, in
a binder, in a metal cabinet in his office.
Manufacturing Supervisor Eric Mercer testified the Com-
pany decided in July 2007, that a transfer cart improvement was
needed to move products throughout the Company and estab-
lished a project toward that end. Mercer discussed the matter
ABB, INC.

17
with Company Process 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. Accord-
ing to Mercer, Porter first raised some safety concerns 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 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.
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 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 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 represen-
tation. Mercer contacted Union Steward Rice and arranged
another meeting for later that day.
Mercer, Hoffman, Rice, and Porter met later that day. Mer-
cer testified he handed Rice a copy of Porter’s job description
with selected portions highlighted but Rice handed it back say-
ing he recognized it as the correct description for Porter’s job.
Hoffman testified he tried to give Rice a copy of the job de-
scription 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 at this meeting.
Mercer testified that after the meeting Rice told him he
would talk with Porter “to convince him to take on the assign-
ment.”
Hoffman testified Union Steward Rice reported back to Mer-
cer that Porter was not going to do the Job. Mercer then
brought Porter to Hoffman’s office where, according to Hoff-
man, Porter repeatedly refused to do the job.
Hoffman, Mercer, and Porter then proceeded to the Human
Resources Department. 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 pend-
ing further investigation.
HR Manager Matt Boyle testified that following Porter’s
suspension he met with 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 Porter. Boyle
testified they then discussed what portions of the 1999 job de-
scription 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.
Boyle testified a third step meeting was held on July 31,
2007, at which Porter’s situation was discussed but stated nei-
ther 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 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. He
said his proposal was rejected and he notified Jorgensen the
Company’s final decision was to terminate Porter.
V. ANALYSIS, DISCUSSION, AND CONCLUSIONS
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 organiza-
tion. NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S. 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
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 collec-
tive-bargaining agreements with the Union covering the em-
ployees. The second of the 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.
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.
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 bargain-
ing. For that matter, HR Manager Buckley agreed during the
1998 negotiations for the initial collective-bargaining agree-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

18
ment the Company would negotiate concerning job descrip-
tions.
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 elec-
tronic electrician job description to be in effect at that time
because it advised code 18 electronic electrician Porter it was
assigning him job duties for a work project pursuant to duties
outlined in the 1999 job 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 Un-
ion aware of the April 1999 changes to the 1995 job descrip-
tions at any time prior to July 17, 2007?
I note that while the general proposition holds an employer
commits on unfair labor practice if, without bargaining to im-
passe 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
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.
Back to the question of whether the Company herein pro-
vided notice of the 1999 changes to the job descriptions prior to
July 2007, and if so, did the Union timely seek or request bar-
gaining with the Company? In order to answer certain of these
questions it is necessary to make some credibility determina-
tions.
Although many of the facts herein are undisputed and/or ad-
mitted, there are some sharp credibility conflicts in the accounts
of relevant events provided by certain witnesses regarding no-
tice to the Union of the revised 1999 job descriptions specifi-
cally of the code 18 electronic electrician job description at
issue herein.
It is appropriate to make certain observations regarding my
credibility resolutions. I have carefully reviewed the trial re-
cord 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 perti-
nent 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, cor-
roboration of testimony, and inherent probabilities. In addition
to the above considerations I was greatly impacted by impres-
sions I formed while watching the witnesses as they testified.
The impressions I gathered were based on a combination of the
witnesses’ mannerisms, how 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 con-
flicts 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 differently.
Indeed, resolutions by a judge, or a jury in a jury trial, are sim-
ply 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 negotiations
in 1998, provided the Union copies of the revised job descrip-
tions prior to July 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 negotiations.
During negotiations for the initial contract between the par-
ties 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 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 nego-
tiations reviewed the job descriptions and concluded the de-
scriptions pretty much described the duties the maintenance
employees performed in the various jobs. The Union at that
time accepted the job descriptions as written but made no men-
tion 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 descrip-
tions of all maintenance employees until the Company brought
the 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 disputed, that union
bargaining committee member Zewe, on June 24, 1999, re-
quested, 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 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 the summer of 1999, to
be unbelievable. There is no showing the Company had ad-
vised the Union of any revisions to the job descriptions that
ABB, INC.

19
might have alerted the Union to make any such request. Al-
though Pickering testified he updated the Occupational Pro-
gression 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 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 de-
scriptions 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.
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 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 6 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 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 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 as-
serted he 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 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 creditability one factor was very persuasive,
namely, his specifically denying, on cross-examination, of hav-
ing 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 ques-
tions 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 direct examination. On redi-
rect, 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.
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 on September 15, 1999, he provided the
Union, specifically Zewe, a 1-page list of all job 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 1-page list of job codes. First, there is no show-
ing the Union requested a copy of all the job descriptions, nor is
it shown the Union was aware of any April 1999 company revi-
sions of job 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-bargaining agreement. It is uncon-
tested the Union, on January 16, 2002, made a number of re-
quests 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 also spe-
cifically 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.
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 starting 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 maintenance
jobs, observed maintenance employees working. Morris ad-
vised HR Manager Buckley and Labor Relations Manager
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

20
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 Com-
pany did not provide Morris any job descriptions nor did either
Buckley or McAdams review the job descriptions Jorgensen
had provided to Morris. Again, to this point, there is no credi-
ble showing the Company provided the Union with all the re-
vised 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 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 Super-
visor Mercer and Process Engineer Schieffer met with code 18
electronic electrician Porter about a specific job 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.
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 per-
tained 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.
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 re-
fusal 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 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 Com-
pany. I credit Rice’s testimony that he was given the high-
lighted copy of the job description notwithstanding the testi-
mony 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 posi-
tion Porter could be required to do the job, they wanted Rice to
take the copy and review it. I credit Rice’s testimony the high-
lighted code 18 electronic 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 electri-
cian job description from the 1995 job description the Union
had been given in 1998.
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 testi-
mony he had never, prior to that date, seen that revised job
description before. Jorgensen 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.
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 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 descrip-
tion.” 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.”
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 which time the Company’s proposal to
settle the Porter matter was rejected. It is undisputed the Com-
pany’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 Jorgen-
sen ever made a request to bargain the April 1999 job descrip-
tion. I, however, credit Jorgensen’s testimony he told Boyle
and McAdams that if their position, “is still the 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 nego-
tiable 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 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 electri-
cian job description in 1999 without prior notice to the Union.
Notice was first provided to the Union when the Company
implemented its unilaterally changed code 18 electronic electri-
cian 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 electri-
ABB, INC.

21
cian job description. It is clearly established the Company
failed and refused to bargain as requested.
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 terms and conditions of employment.
Millard Processing Services, 310 NLRB 421, 425 (1993).
The duties in the 1999 job description for the code 18 elec-
tronic electrician were enhanced over the duties outlined in the
1995 job description. Duties that were added in the 1999 job
description listed under “Position Summary” included: “modify
and edit machine 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 sand-
ers. Under the 1999 “Tools and Equipment” portion of the 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 were: “Hydraulic servo, transducers, E-proms,
encoders, power supplies, PC boards, DC drivers, transformers,
PLC’s, converters, rectifiers, SCR’s, diodes, capacitors, transis-
tors, motors, starters, switches, coils, conduit and fittings, re-
lays [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 in-
cluded: “design and fabricate 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 re-
quirements for the job.
It is clear, and for that matter does not appear to be chal-
lenged, that the changes to the code 18 electronic electrician job
description, contained in the 1999 revision, were material, sub-
stantial, and significant.
I find the Company unilaterally changed the code 18 elec-
tronic 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.
I turn now to the certain defenses raised by the Company
and, as explained below, find each is without merit. The com-
pany 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 7-1/2 years thereafter) well outside the 6-
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 oc-
curring more than 6 months prior to the filing of the charge
with the Board and the service of a copy thereof upon the per-
son against whom such charge is made.” Here the facts estab-
lish 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 un-
equivocal notice of the changes prior to that time. Thus, the
charge was timely filed and is not barred by the 10(b) statute of
limitations.
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 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 re-
vised standards contained therein and disciplined him as a re-
sult thereof. Immediately upon notice of the changes the Union
asked to bargain about the revised job description. Bargaining
over the changes to the code 18 electronic electrician job de-
scription 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 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 merit.
The record evidence establishes the Union never at any time
clearly and unmistakably waived its right to negotiate job de-
scriptions. Quite the contrary, the Union, from the initial con-
tract 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 negotiations even expressed the Company’s will-
ingness 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 de-
scriptions and was told each time the job descriptions remained
the same. The Union did not waive its right to negotiate job
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

22
descriptions by inaction. In fact as soon as the Union was put
on notice of changes to the code 18 electronic electrician job
description in July 2007, it immediately sought to bargain over
that job description.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
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 & Agricul-
tural Workers of America is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
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 bar-
gain with the Union over the code 18 electronic electrician job
description.
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
Having found that the Company has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I find it necessary to order the Company to
cease and desist there from and to take certain affirmative ac-
tion designed to effectuate the policies of the Act as set forth in
the recommended Order below.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended4
ORDER
The Company, ABB, Inc., Jefferson City, Missouri, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Unilaterally changing the code 18 electronic electrician
job description, or any other job description, without prior no-
tice to the Union and without affording the Union the opportu-
nity to bargain with respect thereto.
(b) Failing and refusing to bargain with the Union concern-
ing changes to 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.
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 elec-
tronic electrician job description.
(b) Post at its Jefferson City, Missouri facility copies of the
attached notice marked “Appendix.”5 Copies of said notice, on

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 pur-
poses.
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 14, after
being duly signed by the Company’s authorized representative,
shall be posted by the Company immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days there-
after, 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 al-
tered, 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 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 from the date of this Order, what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
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 vio-
lated 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 be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.

WE WILL NOT unilaterally change the code 18 electronic elec-
trician 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 con-
cerning changes to the code 18 electronic electrician or any
other job description.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, 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.

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 Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”