Illinois Institute of Technology

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 20, 1973

201 N.L.R.B. 941 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 941
Illinois Institute of Technology and College University
and School Employees Union , Local 321, AFL-
CIO. Case 13-CA-11432
supervisors of Respondent . Since Respondent has thereby admitted
responsibility for the transfers , we find this exception to be without ment.
APPENDIX
February 20, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND PENELLO
On November 9, 1972, Administrative Law Judge
William J. Brown issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed
a brief in answer to Respondent 's exceptions.
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, as
herein modified.2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that Respondent, Illinois Institute of
Technology, Chicago , Illinois , its officers, agents
successors , and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the said recommended Order, as herein modified.
Substitute the attached notice for the Administra-
tive Law Judge's notice.
i The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Administrative Law Judge . It is the Board 's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge 's resolutions with respect to
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions were incorrect . Standard Dry Wall
Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd . 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3). We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
2 Respondent excepted to the Administrative Law Judge 's finding that
Illinois Institute of Technology is the Employer herein , contending that the
employer is the Institute of Gas Technology, an affiliate of Respondent. The
collective-bargaining agreement between Respondent and the Charging
Party specifically includes the Institute of Gas Technology . More impor-
tantly, however, the complaint alleged and the answer admitted that the
persons, or person , who effected the transfers herein were agents and
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in
College University and School Employees Union,
Local 321, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organi-
zation by discriminatory transfers or any other
discriminatory action affecting conditions of
employment.
WE WILL offer employees John Budz and
Joseph Haracz immediate transfer back to their
former assignments at our Pulaski and State
Street operations , respectively, and make them
whole for added travel cost incurred during the
period of their transfer from March 1 , 1972, to the
date of their return to work at the locations where
they worked immediately prior to our discrimina-
tion against them on March 1, 1972.
ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
We will notify immediately the above -named indi-
viduals, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of
the United States, of the right to full reinstatement,
upon application after discharge from the Armed
Forces, in accordance with the Selective Service Act
and the Universal Military Training and Service Act.
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 compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office , Everett McKinley Dirksen Building,
Room 881 , 219 South Dearborn Street , Chicago,
Illinois 60604, Telephone 312-353-7572.
201 NLRB No. 156
942 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DECISION
WILLIAM J . BROWN , Administrative Law Judge: This
proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , hereinafter referred to as the
Act, came on to be heard at Chicago , Illinois, on
September 7, 1972.1 The original charge of unfair labor
practice was filed April 24 by the above-indicated
Charging Party, hereinafter sometimes referred to as the
Union , and the complaint was issued June 29, by the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board
acting through the Board 's Regional Director for Region
13. It alleged , and the duly filed answer of the above-
captioned Respondent denied , the commission of unfair
labor practices within the scope of Section 8(aX3) and (1)
of the Act.
At the hearing the parties appeared and participated, as
noted above, with full opportunity to present evidence and
argument on the issues . Subsequent to the close of the
hearing , written briefs were received from the General
Counsel and the Respondent Employer and have been
fully considered . On the entire record herein and on the
basis of my observation of the witnesses , I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The pleadings and evidence establish and I find that
Respondent is a private nonprofit corporation organized
and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of
Illinois . Respondent maintains its principal office and
place of business at 3300 South Federal Street, Chicago,
Illinois , where it is engaged in the operation of an
educational institution. An affiliate of Respondent, The
Institute of Gas Technology,2 maintains facilities at 3500
South Pulaski and 3424 South State Street, in Chicago.
During the calendar year preceding issuance of the
complaint herein, Respondent 's business operations prod-
uced a gross revenue in excess of $ 1 million and in the
course of such operations Respondent purchased and
received at its Chicago location, directly from points
outside the State of Illinois , materials valued in excess of
$50,000 . I find , as Respondent concedes , that it is an
employer engaged in commerce within the purview of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The pleadings and evidence establish, and I find that the
Union is, and has been at all matenal times , a labor
organization within the purview of Section 2(5) of the Act.
111. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction to the Issues
At all matenal times there has been in effect between the
Union and Respondent a collective-bargaining agreement
governing labor relations in the unit here involved with a
provision relating to the handling of grievances and
arbitration of unresolved differences.
The collective-bargaining agreement covers 24 out of the
employer's 260 full-time employees ; of this Union group of
24, 16 work at the State Street location and 8 at the Pulaski
location . The State Street operation generally handles
theoretical research whereas the Pulaski operation consists
of full scale plant experimentation . Employee John Budz
had worked as maintenance mechanic at the Pulaski
location since his hiring date of 1962. Since 1967 he has
been the union steward . Employee Joseph Haracz, hired as
maintenance mechanic in 1961 , worked at the State Street
location from 1963 until his transfer to the Pilot Plant on
March 1, 1972.
General Counsel contends that Budz was transferred
because of his activities as the union steward and that
Haracz was transferred to replace Budz , both transfers
being in reprisal for Budz' activities as union steward. At
all material times Dean R. Dietrich has been vice president
for business operations of the IGT Division and a
supervisor within the purview of the Act, and Henry
Dirksen has been pilot plant manager of the IGT Division
and a supervisor as defined in the Act.
A grievance was filed under the collective-bargaining
agreement respecting the transfers here involved and
meetings held through the three steps resulting in denial of
the employees' protest against the transfers . The final step
in the grievance procedure, arbitration, was not timely
demanded and the transfers became final insofar as the
contract procedures are concerned.
Dietrich testified that the decision to transfer Budz was
made on February 15 or 16 and was based on his history of
conflict with his supervisor, Dirksen . The decision to act
evidently was motivated at least in part by Bude conduct
during a tour of the pilot plant on February 11, in which
management and union officials, together with a concilia-
tion commissioner, participated and in the course of which
Budz pointed out alleged instances of nonunit employee's
doing unit work as well as certain alleged unsafe working
conditions . Budz testified that Dietrich indicated, during
the tour, his anger at Budz' observations. I credit Budz'
testimony which is not denied by Dietrich.
B. Conclusions From the Evidence
The evidence virtually inescapably compels the conclu-
sion that the primary reason for the transfer of Budz was
based on the longstanding difference between the Union
and the Company on the matter of the job jurisdiction of
the Union as specifically presented by the actions of Budz
in the course of the management -union tour of the plant.
In this regard I credit the testimony of Budz that Dietrich
indicated anger at Budz ' comments throughout the tour
relating to instances of technicians performing unit work.
This situation appears to be one in which Dietrich
regarded the conduct of Budz during the course of the tour
as being embarrassing to the Employer. It is also not
without significance that the transfers here involved
appears to have been the only instance of involuntary
I Dates hereinafter , unless otherwise noted , relate to the calendar year 2 Sometimes referred to as IGT.
1972
ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 943
permanent transfers within the history of the Union at the
plant. The fact that the transfers would inevitably work
hardship and added costs in travel to and from their new
work locations , both to Budz and Haracz, establishes the
extent of the injury caused by the transfers and reveals a
situation calling for the redress of the discriminatory
treatment meted out by the transfers.
I find the evidence to preponderate in favor of the
conclusion that, as alleged in the complaint as amended,
the Company transferred Budz and Haracz in reprisal for
Budz' activity in the performance of his steward's
functions and thereby engaged in unfair labor practices
within the purview of Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the purview
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discriminatorily transferring employees Budz and
Haracz in reprisal for Budz' activity on behalf of the
Union, the Respondent Company has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the purview of Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the purview of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and upon the entire record herein, I
hereby issue the following recommended: a
ORDER
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Company set forth in section III,
above, and there found to constitute unfair labor practices,
occurring in connection with the business operations of the
Company as set forth in section I, above , have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade , traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing such commerce
and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
In view of the findings above set forth to the effect that
the Company has engaged in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, it will be recommended that it be
required to cease and desist therefrom and, in view of the
finding of discriminatory treatment, from any unfair labor
practices. It will also be recommended that the Company
be required to take such affirmative action as appears
necessary and appropriate to effectuate the policies of the
Act, including the offer to Budz and Haracz of return to
their former assignments and the payment of their
additional travel costs incurred by them during the period
of their discriminatory transfer, with interest on such costs
at the rate of 6 percent per annum.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon
the entire record in this case I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the purview of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become
its findings. conclusions, and Order , and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
Respondent , Illinois Institute of Technology , its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in the Union or any other
labor organization of its employees by discriminatorily
transferring employees in reprisal for their activities on
behalf of the Union or any other labor organization of its
employees.
(b) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under the
Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which appears
necessary and appropriate to effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Offer employees Budz and Haracz immediate
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions at their former locations and make them whole
for increased travel expenses incurred as a consequence of
the discrimination against them in the manner set forth in
the section above entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Post at its Pulaski and State Street locations copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." 4 Copies of said
notice , on forms provided by the Board's Regional
Director for Region 13, shall, after being duly signed by
Respondent's authorized representative be posted immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof and maintained for 60 consecu-
tive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Company to ensure
that said notices are not altered, defaced , or covered by
any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in
writing, within 20 days from receipt of this Decision, what
steps have been taken to comply with the terms hereof.
4 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
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."