Golconda Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 30, 1972

195 N.L.R.B. 1108 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

1108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Bastian -Blessing , Division of Golconda Corporation
and Local 893, United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO. Case 7-CA-
8433
March 30, 1972
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
On December 16, 1971, a three-member panel of the
National Labor Relations Board issued its Decision
and Order herein,' finding that Respondent's unilateral
cancellation of the Aetna group health insurance plan
for its employees and substitution of a self-insured plan
constituted a violation of Section 8(a)(5). On January
5, 1972, Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsidera-
tion, contending that the identity of the insurance car-
rier is not a mandatory subject of collective bargaining
and that our Decision and Order is therefore incorrect
in the light of the decision of the United States Supreme
Court in Allied Chemical & Alkali Workers ofAmerica,
Local Union No. 1 v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company,
Chemical Division, 404 U.S. 157.
In Pittsburgh Plate Glass, the Supreme Court held
that retired employees are not "employees" within the
meaning of the Act, and are not included in the "bar-
gaining unit," and therefore that the employee group
health insurance plan negotiated by the Company and
the Union was only a permissive and not a mandatory
subject for bargaining with respect to the Company's
retired employees. For these reasons, the Court con-
' 194 NLRB No. 95.
cluded that the Company's unilateral mid-term modifi-
cation" . . . of a permissive term such as retirees'
benefits ... " did not violate the Act. On the other
hand, the Court affirmed well established prior hold-
ings of the Board and the Courts that . . . mandatory
subjects of collective bargaining include pension and
insurance benefits for active employees, and an em-
ployer's mid-term unilateral modification of such be-
nefits constitutes an unfair labor practice."
In our Decision and Order herein, we found that the
Aetna insurance plan for active employees was a provi-
sion of the contract between the Union and Respond-
ent, and we therefore held that Respondent's mid-term
unilateral change to a self-insured plan for its active
employees was a violation of Section 8(a)(5). Benefits
for retired employees were not involved.
It may be that, as Respondent attempts to demon-
strate by analogy, benefit levels are in some circum-
stances severable from their source or "brand name."
We need not decide that broad question here. In our
previous decision in this case, we found that Respond-
ent's change from Aetna involved a substantive loss, at
least in terms of Aetna's administration and funding.
Thus, under the facts of this case, the identity of the
carrier was a mandatory subject of bargaining,' and the
benefit to be restored is a single "ball of wax"-the
preexisting Aetna plan.
We conclude that our Decision and Order herein was
not rendered incorrect by the Supreme Court's decision
in Pittsburgh Plate Glass and that Respondent's Mo-
tion for Reconsideration is without merit.
' Contrary to the Respondent's position, our decision is not inconsistent
with the opinion of the court in Sylvania Electric Products, Inc. v. N.L.R.B.,
291 F.2d 128 (C.A. 1). The court there decided that the cost of a noncon-
tributory plan was not a mandatory subject of bargaining, but indicated that
such cost would be a mandatory subject if the plan were "contributory." The
plan in the present case is contributory. The court in Sylvania was not
presented with the issue of the identity of the carrier.
195 NLRB No. 167