Florida Steel Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 31, 1977

231 N.L.R.B. 923 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

Florida Steel Corporation and United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO. Case II -CA-6327
August 31, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, MURPHY, AND
WALTHER
On January 5, 1977, Administrative Law Judge
Karl H. Buschmann issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the Charging Party and
the Respondent filed exceptions and supporting
briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,
and conclusions' of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt his recommended Order, 2 as modified
herein.
We agree with the Administrative Law Judge that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (I) of the
Act by unilaterally changing wages, hours, and
conditions of employment, including prohibiting the
continued use of credit cards, reducing reimburse-
ment rates for lodging and meal expenses, and
stating that it would deduct one-half hour pay for
lodging and meal expenses. We find further, in
agreement with the Administrative Law Judge, that
these reductions in benefits, considered with the
increase in benefits for Respondent's nonunionized
employees, discriminated against Respondent's
unionized employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1).
Our dissenting colleague agrees that the elimina-
tion and reduction of certain benefits constituted
conduct in violation of Section 8(a)(5), but he would
find that there is no evidence to support a finding
that Respondent's actions were motivated by a desire
to discourage membership in the Union. We note
that when Respondent unilaterally changed the
working conditions for its drivers in Croft, it almost
simultaneously increased the benefits in the non-
unionized plant in Tampa. Our colleague espouses the
fiction that the labor policies at Respondent's various
I In the Administrative Law Judge's Decision there is some possible
ambiguity with respect to whether or not he found that the Respondent
independently violated Sec. 8(aX I) b threatening drivers that 30 minutes
sould be deducted from their time if the); claimed a $1.75 meal allowance.
Members Jenkins and Murphy conclude that no such finding was in fact
made: Member Walther would view such a finding, assuming it was made,
as improper. because no such violation was alleged in the complaint or
urged bs the G