Interstate Transport Security

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 26, 1979

240 N.L.R.B. 274 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Interstate Transport Security/Division of PJR Enter-
prises, Inc. and Vandenberg Security Association
and Robert S. Dudzik. Cases 31-CA-7708 and 3 1
CA-7961
January 26, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, MURPHY, AND TRUESDALE
On September 20, 1978, Administrative Law Judge
Richard J. Boyce issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, General Counsel and Re-
spondent filed exceptions and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached 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 modified herein.2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified
below, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Inter-
state Transport Security Division of PJR Enterprises,
Inc., Los Angeles, California, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in
the said recommended Order, as so modified:
I. Insert the following as paragraph 2(d) and relet-
ter the subsequent paragraphs accordingly:
"(d) Notify and, upon request, bargain with the
Vandenberg Security Association prior to making
any changes in the wages, hours, and terms and con-
ditions of employment of the employees in the ap-
propriate unit. The appropriate unit is:
'Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to over-
rule 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 are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products. Inc., 91
NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
2 The General Counsel has taken exception only to the Administrative
Law Judge's failure to include in his recommended Order and notice to
employees the recommendation that Respondent also he required to notify
and bargain on request with the Union concerning changes in wages, hours,
and terms and conditions of employment. We find merit in the General
Counsel's request, and we shall modify the Order and notice accordingly.
240 NLRB No. I I
"All guards employed by the Employer at its
Vandenberg Air Force Base facility, excluding
all other employees, including office clericals,
management employees and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had an opportunity
to present evidence and state their positions, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has found that we have
violated the law and has ordered us to post this no-
tice.
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act
gives all employees the following rights:
To organize themselves.
To form, join, or support unions.
To bargain as a group through a representa-
tive they choose.
To act together for collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection.
To refrain from any or all such activity ex-
cept to the extent that the employees' bargain-
ing representative and employer have a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement which imposes a
lawful requirement that employees become
union members.
WE WILL NOT suspend Robert S. Dudzik, or
any other employee, for engaging in concerted
activities protected by the Act.
WE WILL NOT tell employees that promotions
and raises are "in the mill," to discourage their
support of the Union, and imply that they will
be withheld should the employees bring in the
Union; tell employees that we will "wait until
after the election to see how it turns out before
any raises are going to be given out"; and tell
employees that "anybody who voted union
would go to part-time and guard wages of $2.65
an hour."
WE WILL NOT attempt to arrange employee
grievance meetings to undermine support of the
Union; tell employees that we have changed
things and will continue to change things be-
cause of the Union's coming in; tell employees
in substance that their sick leave policy has been
changed, as concerns doctors' certificates and
INTERSTATE TRANSPORT SECURITY 275
charging against allotted sick leave time, be-
cause the Union has been voted in.
WE WILL NOT forbid employees to talk to the
Union about job-related matters.
WE WILL NOT withhold previously planned
postprobation raises of 13 cents per hour, and
WE WILL NOT change sick leave policy in the two
particulars described above after the NLRB
election, because of the employees' support of
the Union.
WE WIL.L NOT reduce the size of the day shift
for one day-shift employee and cut the com-
pensable hours of other employees; and WE WILL
NOT otherwise change any term or condition of
employment without first giving Vandenberg Se-
curity Association, as the duly designated bar-
gaining representative of the employees in the
appropriate unit, a chance to bargain over such
changes.
WE WILLt. NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in
the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the
Act.
WE WILL make Robert S. Dudzik whole, with
interest, for any wages and benefits lost because
of our unlawful suspension of him; WE WILL re-
move from our records any reference to the sus-
pension and notify him in writing that this has
been done; and WE WIL.L in all other respects re-
store his ob status to that which would have
obtained ad the suspension never occurred.
WE WILL institute the postprobation wage in-
crease of 13 cents per hour unlawfully withheld,
retroactive to the end of the affected employees'
probationary periods, with interest on amounts
subject to retroactive payment.
WE WILL rescind the postelection changes in
sick leave policy, restoring the status quo as con-
cerns the employees' sick leave allotments, and
WE WILL notify and, upon request, bargain with
the Vandenberg Security Association prior to
making any changes in the wages, hours, and
terms and conditions of employment of the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit. The appropriate
unit is:
All guards employed by the Employer at its
Vandenberg Air Force Base facility, excluding
all other employees, including office clericals,
management employees and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
WE WILL rescind the February 1, 1978, reduction
in size of the day-shift crew, the attendant elimi-
nation of paid time off for one day-shift employ-
ee, and the cutting of compensable hours of two
employees, making those two employees whole,
with interest, for wages and benefits lost because
of the unlawful cutting of their hours.
INTERSTATE TRANSPORT SECURITY/ DIvISION
OF PJR ENTERPRISES. INC.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RICHARD J BOYCE Administrative Law Judge: This mat-
ter was heard before me in Santa Maria, California, on
August 22, 1978. The charge in Case 31-CA-7708 was filed
on February 7, 1978, and amended on March 21, by Van-
denberg Security Association (Union). The charge in Case
31-CA-7961 was filed on March 4, 1978, by Robert S.
Dudzik, acting in his individual capacity (Dudzik). A con-
solidated amended complaint issued on June 28, 1978, al-
leging that Interstate Transport Security/Division of PJR
Enterprises, Inc. (Respondent) had violated Section
8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act
(Act).'
The parties were permitted during the hearing to intro-
duce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses, and to argue orally. Post-trial briefs were waived.
[ JURISDICTION
Respondent is a California corporation, headquartered
in Los Angeles, engaged in providing security services. On
July 1, 1977, it began performing under a contract to pro-
vide certain security services at Vandenberg Air Force
Base, near Santa Maria, which contract yielded revenues to
it in excess of $50,000 through June 30, 1978.
It is concluded that Respondent's activities just de-
scribed exert a substantial impact on national defense, and
that it therefore is an employer engaged in and affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)
of the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION
The Union bargains collectively with employers, on be-
half of their employees, concerning wages, hours, and other
terms and conditions of employment. It is concluded that
the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
Ill. ISSUES
The consolidated amended complaint alleges that Re-
spondent independently violated Section 8(a)(1) on April
26, 1978, by suspending Dudzik for voicing certain com-
plaints about late issuance of paychecks, and that it also
violated Section 8(aX ) in December and January 1977-78
by sundry verbal acts; that it violated Section 8(a)(3) and
iThe consolidated amended complaint superseded a complaint that had
issued in Case 31-CA-7708 on March 31, 1978
276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(I) by withholding raises since January 9, 1978, and by
changing its sick leave policy on January 23, 1978, because
of the employees' union activities; and that it violated Sec-
tion 8(aX5) and (1) by the just-mentioned change in sick
leave policy and by changing employee hours and the time-
off policy on the day shift, all without first giving the
Union a chance to bargain over the changes.
The answer denies any wrongdoing.
IV. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Respondent began performing security services at Van-
denberg Air Force Base on July 1, 1977, replacing Federal
Electric Corporation in that role. Its complement has con-
sisted of about nine employees at relevant times, under the
immediate supervision of Caskell Sauls, project manager.
On November 23, 1977, the Union filed a petition with
the NLRB for an election among Respondent's Vanden-
berg employees.2 An Agreement for Consent Election was
approved by the Regional Director of Region 31 on Janu-
ary 3, 1978, and an election followed on January 20. The
Union won five to two, with one challenged ballot. The
Regional Director issued a Certification of Representative
on January 30, containing this unit description:
INCLUDED: All guards employed by the Employer at its
Vandenberg AFB facility.
EXCLUDED: All other employees, including office cleri-
cals, management employees and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
It is concluded that this is an appropriate unit.
B. The Allegedly Unlawful Suspension of Dudzik
1. The evidence
Designated paydays at relevant times were the 10th and
25th of each month. Paychecks, which were prepared in
Los Angeles, usually did not arrive at the base for distribu-
tion to the employees until 4:30 or 5 p.m. This meant that
the employees often did not receive them in time to go to
the bank the same day. It also meant that the first-shift
employees (midnight to 8 a.m.) had to make a special trip
to the base or await the next day's shift to be paid, and that
the second-shift employees (8 a.m. to 4 p.m.) had to linger
after their shift for their checks.
This was a continuing source of irritation to at least
some of the employees. They complained about it among
themselves from time to time, and Dudzik and Carolyn
Lands, both unit employees, each complained to Sauls on
occasion.
On the payday of April 25, 1978, Dudzik and Lands
discussed the problem, deciding that Dudzik should talk to
the base accounting contracting officer (ACO) about it.
Dudzik also spoke with coworkers Donald Mercer and
Clarence Young about the problem on April 25, impa-
2 Case 31 RC-006.
tience being expressed all around. Thus motivated, and
with Young at his side, Dudzik telephoned the ACO that
same day, asking why the checks were "constantly late."
The ACO, a Captain Bryant, indicated that the Air Force
had little control over the matter, but nevertheless asked
for Sauls' telephone number.
When Dudzik arrived at work the next morning. Sauls
asked if he had contacted the ACO. Upon Dudzik's admit-
ting that he had, Sauls announced that he was "suspended
for calling the ACO and not going through management."
Sauls was carrying out the instructions of Respondent's
president, Joseph Rodrigues, having informed Rodrigues
earlier of Dudzik's action. Dudzik accordingly left the job
on the morning of April 26.
On May 2, not having worked in the interim, Dudzik
was called to the base to meet with Rodrigues and Sauls.
Once there, he was reproached by Rodrigues for violating
section 8 of Respondent's "policies and procedures" manu-
al, and cautioned that if he ever again went to "the client"
with an employee problem he would be terminated. Sec-
tion 8 states:
Employees shall not reveal information on company
records to unauthorized persons. Employees shall not
publish material where a connection with the compa-
ny is expressed or implied without submitting such
material to the appropriate company official for re-
view and approval before publication.
The meeting ended with Rodrigues telling Dudzik to return
to work the next day, which he did.
2. Conclusion
It is concluded that Dudzik's suspension violated Section
8(a)(1), as alleged. His calling the ACO was a protected
concerted activity, inasmuch as he was calling on behalf of
several employees regarding what was plainly a condition
of employment. The suspension for so doing consequently
was unlawful.
C. Other Alleged Independent 8(a)(1) Violations
I. Paragraphs 11 (a), (b), and 19
Paragraphs 1 l(a) and (b) of the complaint allege that, on
an unknown date in December 1977, Sauls "offered and
promised benefits to its employees to induce them to with-
hold support from the Union . . . [and] . . . told an em-
ployee that it would be futile for employees to select the
Union as their representative." Paragraph 19 alleges that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by each utterance.
The evidence: One of the unit employees, Carolyn Lands,
testified about a conversation with Sauls in mid- to late
December 1977 in which Sauls raised the subject of the
Union. Sauls broached the subject, according to Lands, by
stating, "I know I'm not supposed to talk about the Union,
but I'm going to do it anyway," after which he said that he
"really hated" to see the employees "go union" because he
had had personal experience with unions and felt that all
they did was "hurt" the employees instead of help them.
Sauls added, as Lands related, that he knew that Respon-
INTERSTATE TRANSPORT SECURITY 277
dent "had things in the mill" that would help the employ-
ees "in the way of promotions and raises."
Sauls, in his testimony. denied saying that he felt that
unions only hurt employees. His testimony did not address
Lands' assertion that he mentioned things being "in the
mill." To the extent that their versions differ, Lands is
credited. She was an exceptionally forthright and able wit-
ness. Sauls' testimony, although at times contrary to his
and Respondent's interests, was often evasive and self-
serving.
Conclusions. It is concluded that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(l), as alleged, by Sauls' statement that there
were "things in the mill" that would help the employees "in
the way of promotions and raises." Given the context of
this remark, it can only be construed as a promise of bene-
fit meant to discourage Lands' support of the Union.3
It is concluded that Sauls' other remark-that he felt
from personal experience that unions hurt rather than help
employees-likewise violated Section 8(a)(1) as alleged.
While such a comment in isolation might well be a permis-
sible expression of opinion, its juxtaposition in this in-
stance with the statement about "things in the mill" con-
cerning promotions and raises bore the unmistakable
implication that the promotions and raises would be with-
held should the employees bring in the Union.
2. Paragraphs I 1(c) and 19
Paragraph I (c) of the complaint alleges that, on about
January 9, 1978, Sauls told employees that Respondent
"was withholding previously promised wage increases, and
that it would await the outcome of the Labor Board elec-
tion before determining whether or not to grant any wage
increases." Paragraph 19 alleges that Respondent thereby
violated Section 8(a)(1).
The evidence: One of the unit employees, Clarence
Young, testified that, during a prehire interview by Sauls
and either Joseph Rodrigues or Joseph's brother, Earl, Jo-
seph or Earl stated that Young would be on probation for
6 months, after which there would be the "possibility" of a
raise. Sauls held forth the same prospect, according to
Young. Similarly, Dudzik and Donald Mercer testified that
Sauls told them, at about the time of their hire, that they
would receive raises of 13 cents per hour upon completion
of their 6-month probationary periods.
Young additionally testified that, in January 1978, Sauls
acknowledged that Young's probationary period was over,
then stated that Respondent "was going to wait until after
the election to see how it turns out before any raises are
going to be given out."
Sauls' testimony did not deal with the January wait-and-
see remark attributed to him by Young. Joseph Rodrigues
testified that he interviewed Young, among ohers, but de-
nied raising the possibility of a postprobation increase. He
explained that Respondent always has been opposed to au-
tomatic, as opposed to merit, raises, and that tile policy
was especially pertinent in this situation because Respon-
dent was performing under a fixed-price contract. Joseph
3Sauls admittedly had heard a "rumor" in November or December that
Lands had contacted the Union about representing the employees.
did not reveal whether anyone else was present during his
interview of Young.
Earl Rodrigues testified that he, too, interviewed
Young-with Joseph present. Earl initially testified that
Sauls was present as well, only to reverse himself. Earl like-
wise denied any mention of an automatic postprobation
raise, as did Sauls.
Young, Dudzik, and Mercer are credited that the pros-
pect of raises at the end of the probationary period indeed
was raised. They were direct and seemingly conscientious
witnesses, and their versions gain credence from Sauls' fail-
ure to refute Young about the wait-and-see remark. Sauls,
as earlier indicated, was not an impressively credible wit-
ness, and the testimony of the two Rodrigueses was simi-
larly flawed by evasiveness and self-serving generality.4
Conclusion. It is concluded that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(l), as alleged, by Sauls' January statement to
Young that raises would be contingent upon the outcome
of the election.
3. Paragraphs 1 l(d) and 19
Paragraph I l(d) of the complaint alleges that, on about
January 12, 1978, Sauls "threatened . . . employees with
loss of wages and scheduled work hours if the Union were
successful in its organizational efforts." Paragraph 19 alleg-
es that Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(l).
The evidence: Carolyn Lands testified that, in early Janu-
ary 1978, Sauls declared to her and another unit employee,
Brady Winniford, that "anybody who voted union would
to go to part-time and guard wages of $2.65 an hour."
Lands and Winniford were then receiving $4.47 an hour.
After the election, as is more fully developed later, Winni-
ford was reduced from 40 to 24 hours per week, and anoth-
er unit employee, Jose Blanchard, from 40 to 32.
In his testimony, Sauls denied making this remark. Win-
niford did not testify. As previously noted, Lands was an
impressive witness; Sauls was not. Lands is credited in this
instance both for that reason and because Respondent in
fact did reduce the hours of the two employees after the
election.
Conclusion: It is concluded that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(l), as alleged, by Sauls' comment.
4. Paragraphs Il(e), Il(f), Il(g), and 19
Paragraphs I l(e), (f), and (g) allege that, on about Janu-
ary 23, 1978, Respondent, through Sauls "solicited griev-
ances directly from an employee, . . . told an employee
that it was harassing employees because of their union ac-
tivities and threatened that it would continue to do so, ....
[and] . . . informed the employees that it was instituting a
less favorable sick-leave policy because the employees had
designated the Union as their collective-bargaining repre-
4Not ignored in making these credibility resolutions is the testimony of
Charles Cook, who asserted, consistently with Sauls and the Rodrigucses,
that nothing was said to him in his prehire interview about an automatic
postprobation raise. Cook, who was given the title of lieutenant by Respon-
dent in February 1978, conveyed the impression as he testified of being
more beholden to Respondent's dictates than to the testimonial oath. It is
altogether unlikely, moreover, that his interview conformed in all details
with those of others.
278 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sentative." Paragraph 19 alleges that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) in each respect.
The evidence: Carolyn Lands testified that, a few days
after the election, in Sauls' office, she mentioned to him
that it "would have been nice" if the employees could have
met with him and "brought all their gripes out into the
open." Sauls responded that it was "a good idea," as Lands
recalled, and she said that it was "too late" now that the
employees had voted for the Union. Sauls then stated, ac-
cording to Lands, that "it's never too late," and asked that
she "check with" with employees about such a meeting.
Lands' version continued that she presently talked to "a
couple" employees about it, exciting no interest, and that, a
few days later, Sauls asked her if she had checked with the
employees. Lands testified of replying that she had not,
prompting Sauls to complain that he did not "understand
what their gripes are" and that Lands did. Lands related
that she said she could only speak for herself, that Sauls
invited her to do so, and that she then detailed her com-
plaints.
Sauls' version, although not as rich in detail, is in funda-
mental accord with Lands'.
Donald Mercer testified that, on about January 23, he
learned that his work schedule had been changed despite
earlier assurances from Sauls that he could plan on a dif-
ferent schedule for purposes of taking classes in a commu-
nity college. Mercer related that he thereupon accused
Sauls of "changing things around since the Union came
in," to which Sauls replied, "Yes, and things are going to
continue to be changed." Jose Blanchard testified that he
overheard the conversation, and that it was as described by
Mercer; and Sauls conceded that he "may have made a
similar statement." Attempting to explain, Sauls testified
that he had in mind changes "based on the requirements
by the Union."
Lands credibly testified that "a few days after the elec-
tion" Sauls informed her that it was now company policy
to require a doctor's certificate for even I day of sick leave,
and that there would be "no more free time off" for illness-
related absences. Medical certificates had not been re-
quired before that time, nor had absences for health rea-
sons been charged against the employees' sick leave allot-
ment. Lands testified that she responded by characterizing
the new policy as "chicken-shit," which evoked this from
Sauls: "That's the way you want it and that's the way it's
going to be." Sauls refuted none of this testimony.
Conclusions: It is concluded that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1), as alleged, in each particular. Sauls' at-
tempt to arrange a rievance meeting through Lands, being
without precedent' and coming on the heels of the elec-
tion, was an implicit promise of benefit plainly intended to
weaken support of the Union; his remark to Mercer that
"things are going to continue to be changed," admittedly in
Sauls testified of individual conferences with employees to evaluate their
performances and give them a chance "to discuss any specific or general
problems," these having been instituted at the employees' request and sup-
posedly having been held on a semiperiodic basis from July 1, 1977. The
purport of this testimony presumably was to show that the meeting con-
templated by Sauls in his remarks to Lands was to be but another in a long
line antedating the Union. This is rejected. The contemplated meeting plain-
ly was to be different in format and basic purpose.
the context of the Union's winning the election, necessarily
carried a recriminatory thrust; and the disclosure of the
new sick leave policy because "that's the way you want
it"-a transparent reference to the recent election-like-
wise bespoke antiunion recrimination.
5. Paragraphs 1 I(h) and 19
Paragraph I I(h) of the complaint alleges that on about
January 27, 1978, Sauls "warned an employee not to com-
municate with the Union with respect to work-related
problems." Paragraph 19 alleges that Respondent thereby
violated Section 8(aX ).
The evidence: Lands testified that Sauls told her on Janu-
ary 26 that he had "just about decided" to cut employee
hours from 40 to 32 per week, and that, early on January
27, she told the Union's president, Anthony Savini, what
Sauls had said. Later on January 27, according to Lands,
Sauls commented about her disclosure to Savini, declaring:
You have no business talking to Savini about anything
to do with PJR [Respondent].... You're not union
yet; all you've done is voted to be union, and until
you're union you do not talk to other people about
this company.
Sauls did not controvert Lands' testimony in this regard,
and it is credited.
Conclusion. It is concluded that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(l), as alleged, by this restriction on Lands'
union activity.
D. The Alleged 8(a)(3) and (1) Violations
1. Paragraphs 12, 18, and 19
Paragraph 12 of the complaint alleges that, "since on or
about January 9, 1978 . . . Respondent withheld wage in-
creases from employees in the unit .... " Paragraphs 18
and 19 allege that Respondent thereby violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1).
The evidence: As earlier detailed, Dudzik and Donald
Mercer both credibly testified that, at about the time of
their hire by Respondent, Sauls told them that they would
receive raises of 13 cents per hour upon completion of their
6-month probationary periods; Clarence Young credibly
testified that both Sauls and one or the other of the Ro-
drigueses mentioned to him the "possibility" of a postpro-
bation raise; and Young further credibly testified that in
January 1978 Sauls acknowledged that Young's probation-
ary period had ended, only to state that Respondent "was
going to wait until after the election to see how it turns out
before any raises are going to be given out."
Also in January, according to Dudzik's credible and un-
refuted testimony, he twice asked Sauls about the raise
now that the probationary period had ended. Sauls replied
the first time that they would "have to wait" until it came
from the office in Los Angeles, and did not respond the
second time. No one received a raise at the end of the
probationary period.
Conclusion: The weight of evidence compels the conclu-
sion that postprobation raises of 13 cents were intended,
INTERSTATE TRANSPORT SECURITY 279
and that the plan was aborted when the Union entered the
picture. The failure to grant the raises therefore violated
Section 8(a)(3) and () as alleged.
2. Paragraphs 1O(c), 18, and 19
Paragraph 1O(c) of the complaint alleges that "on or
about January 23, 1978, Respondent . . . changed its poli-
cy with respect to sick leave for the employees in the unit
... ." Paragraphs 18 and 19 allege that Respondent there-
by violated Section 8(a)(3) and (I).
The evidence: As previously developed, Sauls told Lands
"a few days after the election" that it was now company
policy to require a doctor's certificate for even I day of sick
leave, and that there would be "no more free time off" for
illness-related absences. Also as earlier set forth, Lands re-
sponded that the changes were "chicken-shit," prompting
Sauls to explain, in a manifest allusion to the election:
"That's the way you want it and that's the way it's going to
be."
Sauls admitted that, after the election, sick leave policy
was changed in the two respects just mentioned. All credi-
ble evidence indicates, however, that the new policy con-
cerning doctors' certificates has not been enforced.
Conclusion: Both from their timing and from Sauls' ex-
planation to Lands, it is apparent that these changes were
prompted by the outcome of the election. It is concluded,
therefore, that they violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) as al-
leged.
E. The Alleged 8(a)(5) and (I) Violations
I. Paragraphs 10(c), 17. and 19
Paragraph 10(c) of the complaint alleges that on about
January 23, 1978, "Respondent unilaterally, without prior
consultation with the Union, changed its policy with re-
spect to sick leave for the employees in the unit .... "
Paragraphs 17 and 19 allege that Respondent thereby vio-
lated Section 8(aX5) and (1).
The evidence. Respondent's postelection changes in sick
leave policy-to require a doctor's certificate and to charge
all illness-related absences against the sick leave allot-
ment-are described above. The Union was given no
chance to bargain over these changes.
Conclusion: It is concluded that Respondent violated
Section 8(aX5) and (1), as alleged, by its postelection unila-
teral institution of these changes. That they may have been
made before issuance of the Certification of Representative
is of no moment. E.g., Allis-Chalmers Corporation, 234
NLRB 350, fn. 3 (1978).
2. Paragraphs 10(a), 10(b), 17, and 19
Paragraphs 10(a) and (b) of the complaint allege that on
about February 1, 1978, "Respondent unilaterally, without
prior consultation with the Union, changed the working
hours of the employees in the unit . . .[and] . . . changed
its policy with respect to granting time off with pay for the
third scheduled day-shift employee in the unit .... "
Paragraphs 17 and 19 allege that Respondent thereby vio-
lated Section 8(aX5) and (1).
The evidence: Until February 1, 1978, three employees
regularly were assigned to the second shift (8 a.m. to 4
p.m.), even though the shift required only two. As a result,
the unneeded third employee commonly was given a half
or full day off with pay. The purpose of this arrangement
was to give all the employees 50 hours of compensable time
each week.
As of February I, this was changed. The second shift
was reduced to two employees and, as an offshoot, the time
off with pay was eliminated and the compensable hours of
two employees were reduced-Jose Blanchard, from 40 to
32 per week; Brady Winniford, from 40 to 24.
The Union was given no chance to bargain over these
changes.
Conclusion: It is concluded that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1), as alleged, by making these changes
in conditions of employment without affording the Union
a chance to bargain over them, the employees previously
having designated the Union as their bargaining agent.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By suspending Robert S. Dudzik from April 26 to
May 3, 1978, as found herein, Respondent violated Section
8(a)(l) of the Act.
2. By telling an employee that promotions and raises
were "in the mill," to discourage her support of the Union,
and implying that they would be withheld should the em-
ployees bring in the Union; by telling an employee that
Respondent "was going to wait until after the election to
see how it turns out before any raises are going to be given
out"; by telling employees that "anybody who voted union
would go to part-time and guard wages of $2.65 an hour";
by attempting to arrange an employee grievance meeting to
undermine support of the Union; by telling an employee
that Respondent had changed things and would continue
to change things because of the Union's coming in; by
telling an employee in substance that sick leave policy had
been changed, as concerns doctors' certificates and as con-
cerns charging against allotted sick leave time, because the
Union had been voted in; and by forbidding an employee
to talk to the Union about job-related matters, all as found
herein, Respondent in each instance violated Section
8(aX I) of the Act.
3. By withholding previously planned postprobation
raises of 13 cents per hour, and by changing sick leave
policy in the two particulars described above after the
NLRB election, both because of the employees' support of
the Union, as found herein, Respondent in each instance
violated Section 8(aX3) and () of the Act.
4. By changing sick leave policy as above described after
the NLRB election, and by reducing the size of the day-
shift crew from three to two as of February 1, 1978, and in
so doing eliminating paid time off for one day-shift em-
ployee and cutting the compensable hours of two employ-
ees, all without giving the Union a chance to bargain over
the changes, as found herein, Respondent in each instance
violated Section 8(aX5) and () of the Act.
5. These unfair labor practices affect commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
280 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclu-
sions of law, and upon the entire record, and pursuant to
Section 10( ) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recom-
mended:
ORDER 6
The Respondent, Interstate Transport Security/Division
of PJR Enterprises, Inc., Los Angeles, California, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Suspending Robert S. Dudzik, or any other employ-
ee, for engaging in concerted activities protected by the
Act.
(b) Telling employees that promotions and raises are "in
the mill," to discourage their support of the Union, and
from implying that they will be withheld should the em-
ployees bring in the Union; from telling employees that
Respondent "was going to wait until after the election to
see how it turns out before any raises are going to be given
out"; from telling employees that "anybody who voted
union would go to part-time and guard wages of $2.65 an
hour"; from attempting to arrange employee grievance
meetings to undermine support of the Union; from telling
employees that Respondent had changed things and would
continue to change things because of the Union's coming
in; from telling employees in substance that sick leave poli-
cy had been changed, as concerns doctors' certificates and
as concerns charging against allotted sick leave time, be-
cause the Union had been voted in; and from forbidding
employees to talk to the Union about job-related matters.
(c) Withholding previously planned postprobation raises
of 13 cents per hour, and from changing sick leave policy
in the two particulars described above after the NLRB
election, both because of employees' support of the Union.
(d) Changing sick leave policy, reducing the size of the
day-shift crew and in so doing eliminating paid time off for
one day-shift employee and cutting the compensable hours
of other employees, and otherwise changing any term or
condition of employment without first giving Vandenberg
Security Association, as the duly designated bargaining
representative of the employees in an appropriate unit, a
chance to bargain over such changes.
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
6 All outstanding motions inconsistent with this recommended Order
hereby are denied. 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.
straining, or coercing employees in their exercise of rights
under the Act.
2. Take this affirmative action necessary to effectuate
the policies of the Act:
(a) Make Robert S. Dudzik whole, with interest, for any
wages and benefits lost because of his unlawful suspen-
sion,7 remove from its records any reference to the suspen-
sion and notify him in writing that this has been done, and
in all other respects restore his job status to that which
would have obtained had the suspension never occurred.
(b) Institute the postprobation wage increases of 13
cents per hour unlawfully withheld, retroactive to the end
of the affected employees' probationary periods, with inter-
est on amounts subject to retroactive payment.
(c) Rescind the postelection changes in sick leave policy,
restoring the status quo as concerns the employees' sick
leave allotments; and rescind the February 1, 1978, reduc-
tion in size of the day-shift crew and the attendant elimina-
tion of paid time off for one day-shift employee and the
cutting of compensable hours of two employees, making
those two employees whole, with interest, for wages and
benefits lost because of the reduction of their hours.
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records neces-
sary to analyze the amounts owing under the terms of this
recommended Order.
(e) Post at its office at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Cali-
fornia, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 8
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 31, after being duly signed by Respon-
dent's authorized representative, shall be posted by Re-
spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and shall be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees customarily are posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
7Wherever provided for in this recommended Order, backpay shall be
computed in accordance with F. W Woolworth Compan.v, 90 NLRB 289
(1950), with interest to be computed as set forth in Florida Steel Corporation,
231 NLRB 651 (1977). See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716 (1962).
8 In the event that this Order is enforced by ajudgment 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 Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."
OAA