Urban Laboratories, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 28, 1979

246 N.L.R.B. 590 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Urban Laboratories, Inc. and Carolyn Ramseur, and
National Maritime Union of America, AFL-CIO,
ITPE Division and Jacqueline C. Williams and Es-
peranza Rodriguez. Cases I-CA-14531, I-CA-
14554, I CA-14587, and I-CA--14588
November 28, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS PENELLO,, MURPHY, AND TRUESDAII,
On July 6, 1979, Administrative Law Judge Elbert
D. Gadsden issued the attached Decision in this pro-
ceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the
Charging Party 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,2 and
I In his Decision, the Administrative Law Judge granted the General
Counsel's motion for "default judgment." Inasmuch as Respondent filed an
answer to the complaint, admitting in part and denying in part the allega-
tions in the complaint, and since the Administrative Law Judge's Decision is
not based solely on the pleadings but also on evidence, including the testi-
mony of witnesses, presented by the General Counsel at the hearing, we do
not affirm the Administrative aw Judge's ruling on the motion for default
judgment. Our Decision herein is based on Respondent's admissions in its
answer to the complaint and the uncontested evidence presented by the
General Counsel.
2 We hereby note the following inadvertent errors of the Administrative
Law Judge, which are insufficient to affect the results of our decision: In sec.
II of his Decision, the Administrative Law Judge states that on July 8, 1978,
at 3:45 p.m., a telegram was received by the Regional Director advising that
Dr. Burke was on medical leave, whereas the record shows that the telegram
was received by the Regional Director on December 8, 1978. In sec. IV of his
Decision, the Administrative Law Judge, in summarizing the testimony of
employee Sadie Williamson, states that Williamson testified she had been
employed by Respondent since January 8. 1978, whereas the record indicates
that she had been employed by Respondent since January I, 1978. Also with
respect to Williamson's testimony, the Administrative Law Judge states that
Williamson said her hours were cut by "one half off," and that she and other
employees were ordered to punch out at 9:30 instead of 10:30 a.m. William-
son's testimony, however, was that her hours were cut by "one half hour"
and that previously employees had punched out at 10 a.m. In various places
in his Decision, the Admininstrative l.aw Judge refers to Gerald Burke.
Lamont Combs, and Robert Halliburton as president of Respondent. The
record shows that Burke is Respondent's president and that Combs and
Halliburton are its vice presidents.
Contrary to the findings of the Administrative Law Judge. Respondent in
its answer to the complaint did not deny that the Union had requested that
Respondent bargain with it. Respondent, however, did deny the allegation
that it had refused the Union's requests to bargain. Shortly before the hear-
ing, the General Counsel served on Respondent's a notice of intent to amend
the consolidated complaint by deleting the general refusal to bargain allega-
tion which had been denied by Respondent. While the General Counsel did
not so amend the complaint at the hearing, he presented no evidence that
Respondent had violated Sec. 8(a)(5) by a general refusal to bargain with the
Union. Although the Administrative Law Judge made no finding of such a
violation and did not include a provision in his recommended Order for such
a violation, he did include a general bargaining provision in his notice. Un-
der these circumstances, we find the general bargaining provision in the
Administrative Law Judge's notice inappropriate, and we shall not include
such a provision in our notice.
conclusions3 of the Administrative Law Judge, as
modified herein.
1. We agree with the Administrative Law Judge
that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act
by unilaterally deducting money from employee's
salaries for payment of a life insurance program and
by reducing employee work hours without notice to
or consultation with the Union. However, we find
merit in the General Counsel's and Charging Party's
exceptions to the Administrative Law Judge's failure
to find that Respondent's unlawful unilateral changes
affected employees other than the four employees
specifically named by him.
As more fully set forth in the Administrative Law
Judge's Decision, employees Jacqueline Williams,
Carolyn Ramseur, Sadie Williamson, Esperanza Rod-
riguez, and Doris Tolley attended a December 28,
1977, meeting during which Respondent directed all
employees at the Groton facility to complete life in-
surance forms. Shortly thereafter, these employees
noticed that money was being deducted from their
paychecks. In March 1978, 4 Sidney Kalban, an attor-
ney for the Union, notified Respondent by mail that
he had learned that Respondent was withholding $.16
per hour from the salary of each of its employees. In
addition, the testimony of employee witnesses with
respect to a May 22 meeting of all Groton facility
employees indicates that Respondent's vice president,
Combs, asked all employees to sign again for the in-
surance policies "because money has already been
taken out for the insurance." We therefore find that
Respondent's unilateral implementation of the man-
datory life insurance program and its deduction of
money from employees' paychecks affected all em-
ployees at the Groton facility who were represented
by the Union. Accordingly, we shall amend the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge's Conclusions of Law to re-
flect this finding and we shall include an appropriate
remedial provision in our Order.
As noted above, the Administrative Law Judge fur-
ther found that Respondent unilaterally reduced the
In view of our agreement with the Administrative Law Judge that Re-
spondent violated Sec. 8(a(3) and (I) of the Act by placing employee Caro-
lyn Ramseur on "on call" status and by assigning her more onerous and less
desirable work, and, inasmuch as our remedy would not be materially af-
fected, we find it unnecessary to pass on the Administrative Law Judge's
conclusion that such conduct was additionally violative of Sec. 8(a)(4) of the
Act.
The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the nature of Respondent's
unfair labor practices warranted the use of the board cease-and-desist lan-
guage, "in any other manner." In his recommended Order and notice, how-
ever, the Administrative Law Judge used neither the broad cease-and-desist
language nor the narrow language, "in like or related manner." We have
considered this case in light of the standards set forth in Hickmorrt Foods,
Inc., 242 NLRB 1357 (1979), and have concluded that a broad remedial
order is inappropriate, inasmuch as it has not been shown that Respondent
has a proclivity to violate the Act or has engaged in such egregious or wide-
spread misconduct as to demonstrate a general disregard for employees'
fundamental statutory rights. Accordingly, we shall use the narrow injunc-
tive language in our Order.
' Unless otherwise indicated, all dates hereinafter refer to 1978.
246 NLRB No. 93
590
URBAN LABORATORIES, INC.
working hours of employees Williams, Ramseur, Wil-
liamson, and Rodriguez. The record shows, however.
that Respondent unilaterally changed the work
schedules of other employees, as well as those of the
four named employees, by requiring that employees
"punch out" for their morning break from 9:30 to 11
a.m., rather than from 10 to 11 a.m. Shop Steward
Ramseur testified that Respondent instituted this
practice in January and that she began receiving com-
plaints from members of the unit shortly thereafter.
Employee Williamson testified that the change in
work schedule applied to all employees except "those
that work in the vegetable preparation room, and
some of the guys." We find that Respondent's unilat-
eral change in employees' work schedules affected
more than the four named employees. We therefore
shall amend the Conclusions of Law to reflect this
finding and we shall include an appropriate remedial
provision in our Order.5
2. The Administrative Law Judge found that Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
by discriminating against employees Williams, Ram-
seur, Williamson, and Rodriguez because they re-
fused to sign life insurance forms. This discrimination
included placing these employees on "on call" status
and assigning them more onerous and less desirable
work. Although we agree with the Administrative
Law Judge that Respondent discriminated against
employees Williams, Ramseur, and Rodriguez be-
cause of their refusals to sign the life insurance forms
and their insistence that they were entitled to union
health and welfare benefits, we find nothing in the
record to support the Administrative Law Judge's
conclusion that Respondent discriminated in this
manner against employee Williamson. We therefore
shall amend the Administrative Law Judge's Conclu-
sions of Law accordingly.
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Substitute the following Conclusions of Law for the
Administrative Law Judge's Conclusions of Law 3
through 7:
"3. All full-time and regular part-time civilian em-
ployees employed at Respondent's Groton, Connecti-
cut, facility, exclusive of guards, supervisors as de-
fined in Section 2(11) of the Act, and all other
employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act.
"4. By placing employees Williams, Ramseur, and
Rodriguez on 'on call' status and by assigning them
more onerous and less desirable work because they
I We shall leave to the compliance stage of this proceeding the determina-
tion of the identity of the employees, other than those specifically named by
the Administrative Law Judge, who were affected by Respondent's unilateral
changes in violation of Sec. 8(aX) of the Act.
would not sign life insurance forms and insisted that
they were entitled to union health and welfare bene-
fits, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act.
"5. By unilaterally deducting money from the sala-
ries of its employees for payment of a life insurance
program and reducing the work hours of its employ-
ees without notice to or consultation with the Union,
the exclusive bargaining representative of the employ-
ees in the above-described unit, Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
"6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act."
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Ur-
ban Laboratories, Inc., Groton, Connecticut, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in or support of ac-
tivities on behalf of National Maritime Union of
America, AFL-CIO, ITPE Division, by placing em-
ployees on call, assigning them more onerous work
positions, or otherwise discriminating against them
with respect to the terms and conditions of their em-
ployment.
(b) Unilaterally deducting money from employees'
salaries for payment of a life insurance program no-
tice to or consultation with the National Maritime
Union of America, AFL-CIO, ITPE Division, the ex-
clusive bargaining representative of the employees in
the following appropriate bargaining unit:
All full-time and regular part-time civilian em-
ployees employed at Respondent's Groton, Con-
necticut, facility, exclusive of guards, supervisors
as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, and all
other employees.
(c) Unilaterally changing the work hours of the
employees in the above-described bargaining unit
without notice to or consultation with the National
Maritime Union of America, AFL-CIO, ITPE Divi-
sion.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
their rights under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary
to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Jacqueline Williams, Carolyn Ramseur,
and Esperanza Rodriguez reinstatement to the jobs
which they held prior to their being placed on call
and assigned more onerous work or, if those jobs no
longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights
591
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
or privileges previously enjoyed, and make them
whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered
by reason of Respondent's discrimination against
them in accordance with the formula set forth in
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950),
with interest thereon to be computed in the manner
prescribed in Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB
651 (1977). See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating
Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
(b) Make whole all employees in the above-de-
scribed bargaining unit for any loss of pay they may
have suffered as a result of the deduction of money
from their salaries for the life insurance program
commencing on or about January 1978, with interest
to be computed as set forth above.
(c) Restore all employees in the above-described
bargaining unit to the hours they worked prior to Re-
spondent's unilateral change in their work schedules
which commenced on or about January 1978, and
make them whole for any loss of pay they may have
suffered as a result of the change in work hours, with
interest to be computed as set forth above.
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to
the Board or its agents, for examination and copying,
all payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all
other records necessary to analyze the amount of
backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(e) Post at its office and place of business located in
Groton, Connecticut, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." 6 Copies of said notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region , after
being duly signed by Respondent's authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by Respon-
dent for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicu-
ous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said no-
tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
I In the event that this 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."
APPENDIX
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 or
support of activities on behalf of National Mari-
time Union of America, AFL-CIO, ITPE Divi-
sion, by placing employees on call, assigning
them more onerous work positions, or otherwise
discriminate against them with respect to the
terms and conditions of their employment.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally deduct money from
employees' salaries for payment of a life insur-
ance program without notice to or consultation
with the National Maritime Union of America,
AFL-CIO, ITPE Division.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally change employees'
work hours without notice to or consultation
with National Maritime Union of America,
AFL-CIO, ITPE Division.
WE WILL 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 offer Jacqueline Williams, Carolyn
Ramseur, and Esperanza Rodriguez reinstate-
ment to the jobs which they held prior to their
being placed on call and assigned more onerous
work or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substan-
tially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority or any other rights or privileges
previously enjoyed, and make them whole for
any loss of earnings they may have suffered by
reason of our discrimination against them, with
interest.
WE WILL make whole all employees in the bar-
gaining unit described below for any loss of pay
they may have suffered as a result of our deduc-
tion of money from their salaries for the life in-
surance program which commenced on or about
January 1978, with interest.
WE WItl. restore all employees in the bargain-
ing unit described below to the hours which they
worked prior to our change in work schedules on
or about January 1978, and make them whole
for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a
result of the change in work hours, with interest.
The appropriate bargaining unit is:
All full-time and regular part-time civilian em-
ployees employed at Respondent's Groton,
Connecticut, facility, exclusive of guards, su-
pervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the
Act, and all other employees.
URBAN LABORATORIES, INC.
DECISION
SrTAIEMENT OF FIHE CASI
ELBERr D. GADSDEN, Administrative Law Judge: Upon
charges of unfair labor practices filed in Case I CA-14,531
on May 25, 1978, by Carolyn Ramseur, an individual; in
592
URBAN LABORATORIES IN.
Case I-CA 14,554 on June 2. 1978, by National Maritime
Union of America. AFL CIO, IPE Division. and an
amended charge filed on June 30. 1978, by National Mari-
time Union of America. AFI (10. ITPE IDivision: in Case
I -CA 14,587 on June 8, 1978, by Jacqueline C. Williams:
and in Case I CA 14,588 on June 8 1978. bh -speranza
Rodriguez, an individual, each of whom are sometimes
herein referred to as Charging Party, an order consolidating
cases, complaint and notice of hearing was issued on Juls
21. 1978 ((iC. Exh. I(k) and I(e)), by the Regional Director
for Region I. on behalf of counsel for the General Counsel.
and served upon Respondent's lacoma. Washington. loca-
tion on July 25. 1978 (G.(C. xh. 1(e)). A hearing in the
above matter was scheduled for December I I. 1978.
Respondent filed an answer (G.C. Exh. (m)) on August
11, 1978. admitting by stipulation some of the allegations in
the complaint but specifically denying that in the operation
of its business it annually receives goods and services val-
ued in excess of $50,000 in the State of (Connecticut from
points outside the State of' Connecticut. Respondent also
denies that in the conduct of its business operations it annu-
ally receives from sellers or suppliers located in the State of
Connecticut goods valued in excess of $50,000 which were
shipped from points outside the State of (Connecticut.
However. Respondent admtns by stipulation that in the
course and conduct of its business operations it annually
derives revenues in excess of $50,000 from the sale of goods
and services to the United States Naval Submarine Base in
Groton. (onnecticut, and that the United States Naval
Submarine Base in the course and conduct of its business
annually receives in the State of Connecticut goods and
services valued in excess of $50,000 from points located out-
side the State of Connecticut.
In its answer Respondent denies that the following
named persons occupied the positions following their re-
spective names, and that they have been and are now
agents of Respondent acting on its behalf and are supervi-
sors within the meaning of Section 2(1 1) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended: Gerald C. Burke, pres-
ident; Lamont Combs, vice president: Jimmy Burney. man-
ager: and Robert Hlalliburton. vice president.
Respondent stipulated that all full-time and regular part-
time civilian employees employed at Respondent's Groton.
Connecticut, facility, exclusive of guards and supervisors as
defined in Section 2(1 ) of the Act. and all other employees
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(h) of the Act.
Respondent neither admits nor denies that at all times
since February 11, 1977. the Union has been the represent-
ative for the purposes of collective bargaining or the major-
ity of the employees in the said unit and by virtue of Sec-
tion 9(a) of the Act has been and is now the exclusive
representative of all the employees in the said unit for the
purpose of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of em-
ployment.
Respondent further denies that on or about December
31. 1977, and continuing to date the Union requested Re-
spondent to bargain collectively with respect to rates of
pay. wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of
employment with the Union as the exclusive representative
of all the emplo ees of Respondent in the unit described
above in paragraph 15.
Respondent also denied that it has violated the Act as
alleged in the consolidated complaint and notice of hearing.
The hearing in the above matter was held before me at
Mystic. Connecticut. on December 11. 1978. Respondent
did not enter an appearance in person nor through a repre-
sentative. A brief has been received from counsel for the
C(harging Party with respect to a remedy herein which has
been carefully considered.
Lipon the entire record in this case and from my observa-
tion of the witnesses. I herebs make the following:
I:NI)Nis F()I FA I
I. J RSI) I()N
The documnentars evidence of record (G.C. Exh. 8)
cleanrl shows that Respondent (Urban I.aboratories Inc.)
completed the Board's commerce questionnaire in which it
admitted that it is a corporation organized under and exist-
ing by irtue of the laws of the State of Washington. that it
has a principal place of business in the State of Washing-
ton, and that it is a management services firm which pro-
vides services having an annual value of $50.000 plus in
States other than that in which the principal place of busi-
ness (Tacoma, Washington) is located.
The record further shows that in its answer Respondent
admits by stipulation that in the course and conduct of its
business operations it annually derives revenues in excess of
$50,000 from the sale of goods and services to the U;nited
States Naval Submarine Base in Groton. Connecticut, and
that the United States Naval Submarine Base in the course
and conduct of its business annuall receives in the State of
Connecticut goods and sers ices valued in excess of $50,000
from points located outside the State of Connecticut.
Based upon the foregoing evidence, I conclude and find
that Respondent is and has been at all times material herein
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. as well as an employer
engaged in operations "affecting commerce" as defined in
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
.11. i l ABOR OR(;ANAI()N IN ()OLVtI
Since the complaint alleges, the answer does not admit or
deny, and the undisputed testimony of record established
that National Maritime Union of America. AFL-CIO,
ITPE I)ivision, is now and has been at all times material
herein the representative of Respondent's employees prior
and subsequent to January . 1978, with respect to the
wages, hours of work, and working conditions of said em-
ployees I conclude and find that National Maritime Union
of America, AFI-CIO, ITPE Division, is now and has
been at all times material herein a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
111. ADEQOA(CY OF NOItI('l It) RFSPOND)[Nt OF IIS
PROCELDINtl
The General Counsel represented that a copy of the con-
solidated compliant was also served on Respondent's busi-
593
Dl)( ISIONS OF NATIONAL. I.ABOR RELATIONS BOAR[)
ness location in Groton, Connecticut, but was returned un-
claimed.
Counsel for the General Counsel further represented to
the Administrative Law Judge that a letter proposing settle-
ment was sent by the Regional Director to Respondent on
October 19, 1978; that no response was received from Re-
spondent, but the letter was not returned: and that on or
about November 30 or December 1, 1978. the General
Counsel wrote a letter to Respondent, and a subpena was
served upon Respondent's president on November 29. 1978,
requesting him to call the General Counsel to try to work
out certain stipulations and discuss the recourses.
On December 6 General Counsel Wolper. further repre-
sented that he wrote to Burke of Respondent and sent him
additional copies of the charge. On Wednesday, December
6, 1978, Wolper said that he received a call from Burke
acknowledging receipt of the subpena and requesting post-
ponement of the hearing scheduled for December I 1, 1978,
until April 1979 because of family medical circumstances
and time needed to comply with the subpena. Wolper said
that he was then advised by Burke that a letter had been
sent that morning confirming receipt of the subpena. A tele-
gram requesting postponement of the hearing on the
grounds of amily medical problems was received by the
Regional Office at 11 a.m. on December 7.
The Regional Director sent a return telegram to Burke in
Tacoma, Washington, at 2:10 p.m. on December 7 denying
the request for postponement.
On July 8. 1978, at 3:45 p.m. a telegram was received by
the Regional Director from Respondent advising that
Burke was on medical leave after conversing with the Re-
gional Director by telephone on December 6.
Although the record shows that Respondent filed an an-
swer (G.C. Exh. I(m)) on August I, 1978, which was signed
by Gerald G. Burke. Ph. D.. Burke is nevertheless not rep-
resented by an attorney.
The order scheduling the hearing (G.C. Exh. I(o)) was
signed by the Regional Director, Robert S. Fuchs, on No-
vember 3(0, 1978. Affidavit showing service of notice and
return receipt card showing receipt of service by Respon-
dent is not in the General Counsel's file.
However, the notice of intent to amend the consolidated
complaint (dated December 1, 1978), shows a receipt card
acknowledging receipt signed by Respondent on December
4, 1978.
The General Counsel represented that he served a sub-
poena duces tecum on Respondent on November 29, 1978,
to appear on December 11, 1978, and the return receipt
card shows that it was delivered and signed by Pat White of
Respondent on December I, 1978, at Tacoma. Washington,
the main headquarters of Respondent. However, I do not
find any documentary evidence in the record to support the
General Counsel's statement in this regard.
The General Counsel also represented that Respondent
has a project manager located in Groton, Connecticut, who
did not appear on behalf of Respondent to request post-
ponement.
General Counsel Wolper said that he asked Respondent
on December 6 what was the nature of that medical prob-
lem, and Burke said that his wife suffers with "sacridosis."
When he asked him to be more specific Burke declined to
do so. However, the General Counsel contends that Burke's
wife was not involved in this proceeding, and he thereupon
moved for default judgment in favor of' the Charging Par-
ties.
IV. 1I1 A .ll(;I) UNFAIR IL.AOR PRA( ItS
Maul Brown testified that she was employed by Respon-
dent from January 1, 1978, to September 1, 1978, and that
about May 1978 she knew Burney as project manager for
Urban Laboratories, which conducts a catering service and
provides food for enlisted men at the submarine base at
New London, Connecticut. She said that at this particular
time in May they were having a conversation about health
and welfare insurance which the employees were supposed
to receive but were in fact receiving and paying for a life
policy under the direction of Respondent. She said that she
stated to another employee that she thought it was unfair or
something to that effect, and that Burney in response
thereto said. "That's why I didn't sign the contract, the
Union contract." Money was deducted from her salary for
insurance, General ('ounsel's Exhibit I. which is the life
insurance for which she signed during the second or third
week in May.
Brown further testified that when she received the policy
she was called to the office and talked to people in the
office. Money was thereafter deducted from her salary since
March 1, 1978, and she received the policy in May.
Carmen Soler, patrolman for the National Maritime
Union of America, testified that his duties involved inter-
preting the contract and processing grievances. He stated
that Respondent took over the duties at the United States
Naval Submarine Base in Groton, Connecticut, on or about
January I. 1978. succeeding Artistic Caterers as food ser-
vice contractors. He further stated that his Union repre-
sented the employees at Artistic Caterers, and that after
Urban Laboratories (Respondent), took over in January
1978, he talked with Robert Halliburton, vice president of
Respondent on January 5, 1978. as follows:
A. They did.
Q. At any time after January 1,. 1978 ---you say Ur-
ban Laboratories took over on January I of '78?
A. Approximately.
Q. At any time after that date did you have a con-
versation with anyone from Urban Laboratories?
A. I did.
Q. Who did you have that conversation with? . . .
A. I brought it to Mr. Halliburton's attention that I
was empowered to represent the membership up there
for the purposes of wage benefits, wage increases,
benefits--fringe benefits; and the existing contract the
enforcement of the existing contract.
Soler identified General Counsel's Exhibit 3, which is a
memorandum of understanding signed by Robert Hallibur-
ton, vice president of Respondent. He further testified that
he serviced the employees at the submarine base for about 4
or 5 months. During that period he said that he did not
receive any notice from Respondent about charges in the
employees' hours of work or their insurance program.
Jacqueline Williams, formerly employed by Artistic Ca-
terers, was thereafter employed by Respondent Urban
Laboratories on January 1, 1978, as a food handler making
594
URBAN ABORATORI[ES. IN(C
salads. On December 28. 1978. while still in the emplo of
Artistic Caterers Williams said that she attended a meeting
of employees held bh Vice President Halliburton. At that
meeting Halliburton gave them applications for employ-
ment and cards for Aetna Insurance to complete. She said
that she questioned Halliburton about the cards for insur-
ance because she said she informed him the employees be-
longed to the Union's insurance plan and were already in-
sured. She said that he told them he did not have anything
to do with the Union. and that the insurance would be free
from Respondent whether or not the employees signed it.
Williams continued to testilf as follows:
lie told us what to fill out on the policy. lie said.
"Check off B. check off C." or whatever. lie said,
"Don't check off B., because that's for loss of limbs."
And so we did this.
Williams also stated that Vice President Halliburton told
them that the insurance was a health and welfare plan. She
said that all 52 of Artistic Caterers employees were em-
ployed by Respondent Urban l.aboratories. HIer starting
pay at Respondent was $3.88 per hour. and she noticed that
money was being deducted from her salars in Januar\
1978. However, she did not learn for what purpose the
money was being deducted until Ma 8 1978. when she
was called to the office and asked by Burney if she would
sign again for extension of the insurance. She said that she
told him "no." lie gave her her paycheck and told her that
the money would be deducted anyway.
On May 22, 1978, Lamont Combs, president of Respon-
dent from Tacoma, Washington. the headquarters of Re-
spondent met with all the employees and told them that
their insurance policies were in, and that he would like for
everyone to sign for it. He specificallN asked her if she un-
derstood what he was saying, she said. "es." he asked her
why she would not sign, and their conversation continued
as follows:
A. So that I told him I would not sign it again. So
he asked me what should he do. I said, "Well, you do
what you have to do." So, he says. "Okay. As of today
you are on-call." And he asked Mr. Burney. "Did you
hear that?" And so Mr. Burney said yes.
So, as of the 22nd of May I was put on-call.
Q. What doe-on-call mean?
A. He called me in when he wanted me to come in.
Q. How long were you on call?
A. Well, the 23rd-I called Mr. Lasky, and told
him. He told me to go to work on the 23rd.
Q. Who is Mr. Lasky?
A. A Labor Board representative. I went to work on
the 23rd-my husband and 1, and Esperanze. And I
asked Mr. Burney, "Am I still on call?" He says yes, I
am; and I left the premises....
TimE WITNESS: Mr. Burney called me at 5 p.m. and
asked me to come to work on the 25th at my regular
time. I went in to work on the 25th, at my regular time
and went to my regular job. And on the 25th. at our
break time, at I o'clock. Mr. Burney called me to the
office, and told me when I went back to work at II
o'clock that I would be working at a new job. And that
was the scullery. And this is where I went to work at.
in the scullery.
Q. (By Mr. Wolper) What's the scullers?
A. It's where ou clean the dishes, and get all the
garbage and everything from the dining hall....
A. He called me on the Mr. Burney called me on
the 25th. at 12 p.m.. to tell me not to come to work on
the 26th. I did not work the 26th. I did not work the
27th or the 28th, because the' were a Saturdav and a
Sunday.
Q. Okay'?
A. I did not work on the 29th. hat was a Monday.
Then I was called on the 29th. at 5 p.m.. at night, to
come into work on the 30th. I worked on the 30th in
the scullery, from 6:30 until 9:30.
As a result of being on call Williams said that she missed
5 days. and that she was put back on her regular job and
schedule on June 1. 1978. After June I she said that she was
floating and worked different jobs as follows:
Q. For how long?
A. Two days. I worked different jobs. I was floating
then. .ike, in the morning from 6:30 until 10 I worked
in egetable preparation room. From II to 12 I
worked in the North line. And then from 12 o'clock to
2 o'clock I went back to the egetable preparation
room.
Williams further testified that she had never had a
change in jobs or work hours between January I and June I
except when she was put on call. After she was recalled she
said that she was asked to punch out at 1:30 instead of 2
p.m. by her supervisor. :utse). Also. after she was recalled
in June she said that she had a conversation with Burne
about her hours which she described as follows:
Q. What did you say and what did he say?
A. Well, the conversation was about me put on pun-
ishment. lie said he was sorry that it had to be done.
but he didn't have an'thing to do with it. I told him
that he's there to do his job. and I'm there to do my
job. And that was the end of the conversation.
Carolyn Rantur, appearing pursuant to subpena, testi-
fied that she was employed by Respondent January' 1. 1978,
that prior thereto she worked for Artistic Caterers where
she was shop steward, and that all 58 employees of Artistic
Caterers were hired by Urban Laboratories (Respondent).
and paid the same wages. She said that she attended the
meeting of employees called by President Halliburton on
December 28, 1977, and she in fact corroborated the testi-
mony of Jacqueline Williams' version of Halliburton's re-
quest for insurance as follows:
A. And my statement was to him that we had
health and welfare with the union, that we didn't want
any insurance. And he said, "You'll get the insurance
regardless of the union. It's free.
Q. What else did he say when you had that meeting,
other than about the insurance?
A. He thought that everybody should sign those pa-
pers ...
Q. Now, do you recall Mr. Halliburton saying any-
thing at that meeting about your not being represented
by a union?
B. Yes. I do.
595
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Q. What exactly did he say? Do you recall'?
A. As I stated before, we were talking about the
health and welfare that we had with the union. And he
said that he wasn't he said to me personally, you
know, that "We don't have a union; I don't want to
talk about that." He said, "I'm talking about the insur-
ance that we have with the company; that you get it
free, regardless of any other health and welfare.
Shortly after she commenced working for Urban l.abora-
tories, Ramseur said that she noticed money was being de-
ducted from her paycheck, which she later (on or about
May 8, (1978), learned was not for health and welfare with
the Union but rather was for life insurance by the (Com-
pany. At that time she said that she had the following con-
versation with Burney:
May 8th was payday: and I went in to get my check.
And Mr. Burney says "Step in the office and close the
door." And I says, "No. I want my check."
And he said, "Ms. Ramseur, I have some insurance
forms for you to sign." I said. "No, Mr. Burney. I'm
not signing any insurance forms."
And he told me, "Just a minute." And he called to
Washington, to Mr. Burke, and told Mr. Burke that
"Ms. Ramseiir don't want to sign any insurance forms.
What should I do'?"
And I don't know what the conversation was. But
then he gave me the phone, and Mr. Burke told me-
he said, "Ms. Ramseur, I understand you don't want to
sign the insurance forms." I said, "Yes, that's right I do
not want to sign."
And he went on to tell me that someone in the in-
stallation didn't sign the insurance. and their son died
and they couldn't bury the person. And I said. "I'm
sorry. I'm hoping that Mr. Ramseur will be able to
bury me. I'm not signing any insurance."
So, I gave it back to Mr. Burney; and they talked a
while, and he hung up. And he gave me my check, and
he said. "Ms. Ramseur, my boss, Dr. Burke, said if you
didn't sign the insurance form by 4 or 4:30. I don't
know." And I said. "I don't know either:" and I left.
Ramseur further stated that she attended an employees'
meeting conducted by Vice President Combs on May 22,
1978, during which he told them to sign the insurance forms
for renewal or continuation of the life insurance. Ramseur
continued to testify as follows:
And after he finished talking, later on in the day. I
went down to get my check. And when I went to get
my check, Mr. Burney said "Are you going to sign?"
And I said, "No, I'm not going to sign." And I left and
I come on home.
And about ten minutes to eight, on the 22nd. Mr.
Burney called me. And I said, "Yes, Mr. Burney?"
And he said, "Ms. Ramseur, as of now you're on-call."
And I said. "Says who?" He said, "Mr. Combs." I said
"Could I speak to him?"
And I said, "Mr. Combs, why am I put on-call?" He
said, "You didn't sign the insurance forms." I says,
"All right."
Between December 1977 and May 8 and 22, 1978. Ram-
seur said that Respondent had not asked her to sign an
insurance form. After the meeting on May 22, 1978, she
said that she was put on call, and her hours of work were
changed, requiring her to punch out 30 minutes later. She
said that when she was recalled to work on May 23 she was
assigned to work in the scullery. Thereafter she was allowed
to work every day after June I, hut she missed 5 days from
work as a result of being on call. Between May 23 and
October I she said that she was only working 6 hours per
day instead of 7. Ramseur acknowledged that she filed a
decertification petition (G.C. Exh. 4) with the Board in
January 1978 and withdrew it (G.C. Exh. 5 letter with-
drawing petition).
Ramseur further testified that in earls January 1978 she
started receiving complaints from fellow employees about
being required to punch out for 30 minutes in the morning
for breaktime.
Sadie 14illiamson testified that she had been employed by
Respondent since January 8. 1978. and was formerly em-
ployed by Artistic Caterers as a mess attendant at the sub-
marine base since January 1974. She said that she attended
the company meeting on December 28. 1977, and she cor-
roborated the prior testimony describing that meeting.
When she filed a claim for hospitalization for her daugh-
ter in March Williamson said that she first learned that
such service was not covered by her insurance by consulting
with Burney. The Union looked into the problem and
learned that the employees were not covered by a health
and welfare insurance policy. When Williamson went to get
her paycheck in May 1978 Burney asked her to sign for the
insurance, and a discussion ensued about the kind of insur-
ance (life vs. health and welfare). Since the insurance the
employees had was for life, Williamson said that she re-
fused to sign it. She said that the claim for her daughter's
medical hospitalization was never paid by the Company's
insurance. During a December meeting Halliburton said he
did not know anything about a union. During the last of
January or the first of February Williamson said that her
hours of work were cut by one-half off. She and other em-
ployees were ordered to punch out at 9:30 p.m. instead of
10:30 a.m. except about six employees who worked in the
vegetable preparation room.
Esperanza Rodriguez (Tice) testified pursuant to subpena
that she was formerly employed by Artistic Caterers and
was hired by Respondent January 1, 1978. until May 31,
1978. She attended the December 28 meeting and corrobo-
rated the testimonial accounts of that meeting given by
Carolyn Ramseur, Jacqueline Williams, and Sadie William-
son.
On May 8. 1978, Rodriguez (whose name by recent mar-
riage is Tice), further testified that she was called to the
office by Burney to sign for insurance. She said that she told
him she did not want that kind of (life) insurance and re-
fused to sign the form. Burney said, "Okay, Esperanza. And
you're going to be on call if you don't sign it," and she said,
"Sir, you know what you're suppose to do. And I under-
stand what you want, but I no sign something I not want to
sign."
Rodriguez said that she also attended the May 22 meet-
ing where Vice President Combs tried to get her to sign for
the insurance. When she refused to do so he, like Burney,
told her that she was on call. Burney also told her not to
596
URBAN I.ABORATORIES, INC(
come in the next day. May 22, but she reported to work on
May 24: however, Burney said that he did not want her to
work. When she came to work on May 8 she was put on a
man's job in the spud locker, putting 50 pounds of potatoes
into the machine. On May 25 she was assigned to wash pots
and pans. Rodriguez said that these changes in work assign-
ments commenced on May 8, and she was placed on call
after May 25. On June 1 she said that she notified Burney
that she would not report for work because she had ob-
tained a new job at New London Memorial Hospital.
Doris Tolley testified pursuant to subpena that she was
employed by Artistic Caterers since April 1976, and that
she was employed by Respondent on January 1. 1978. She
stated that she attended the Halliburton meeting on De-
cember 28, 1977, and she corroborated the testimony of the
prior witnesses with respect to the discussion and comments
by President Halliburton at that meeting.
Specifically, Tolley said that Burney told her, "you either
sign or you'll be put on call," so she signed for the life
insurance on or about May 8, 1978. She said that she at-
tended the meeting of employees called by Respondent on
May 22, 1978, when Vice President Combs spoke to them
as follows:
He wanted to talk to us about insurance. And he
said he was going to try and find some kind of health
and welfare for us. "If you don't want the insurance
policy," he said, "we'll have to get the majority."
So, I said, "Well, we can settle that right now. Ev-
erybody that doesn't want it, raise their hands." So,
everybody did.
And he said, "Well, then, we'll stop taking it out of
your pay.
In January 1978 she said that her work hours were re-
duced by 30 minutes, ending at 9:30 a.m. instead of 10 a.m.
Sidney H. Kalban, attorney for the National Maritime
Union, Industrial, Technical and Professional Employees
(ITPE), testified and identified General Counsel's Exhibit 9,
which is the charge he prepared for signature of the vice
president of the Union, John C. Hughes, and mailed to the
National Labor Relations Board's Regional Office on or
about May 4, 1978. He said that due to time problems with
investigation he withdrew the charge without prejudice and
filed a new charge which is the foundation of the complaint
herein.
He identified General Counsel's Exhibit 10, a letter
which he sent to Burke on March 28, 1978, after the Union
had been informed that Respondent was deducting 16 cent
per hour from the paychecks of its employees. In his letter
he said that he requested that the monies being deducted
from employees' checks be held in escrow pending comple-
tion of negotiation on a collective-bargaining agreement
with Respondent. He said that he first advised President
Halliburton that he was the attorney for the Union in mid-
January 1978. Kalban also identified General Counsel's Ex-
hibit II. a letter dated February 1, 1978, which he sent to
Halliburton but which was returned to him marked "Un-
claimed" by the postal service. He said that the reason he
sent this letter was because he knew that the Federal Ser-
vice Contracts Act and the wage determinations issued by
the United States Department of Labor require that 16
cents be paid towards health and welfare or paid directly to
employees. Since he knew that the 16 cents was not being
paid to the Union's health and welfare plan, he therefore
requested Respondent to hold such deductions in escrow
until they reached a collective-bargaining agreement and
determined where such deductions should go.
Kalban further testified that he also held telephone con-
versations with Burke, and at no time had Burke ever told
him about the change of employee hours of work. nor did
he advise Kalban prior to August 1978 as to the nature of
the insurance policy for which 16 cent per hour was being
deducted from the employees' salaries. Attorney Kalban
continued to testify as follows:
Q. Did he advise you, prior to August. 1978, as to
the nature of the insurance that employees were
being-as to the nature of this insurance policy that he
had?
A. No, he did not. In fact, he led me to believe that
there was no insurance policy in effect.
Q. How did you come to that conclusion?
A. In reply to a follow up letter to that letter of
March 28, he wrote in return that he could not reach
any special arrangement- I think that was his term--
with the union during the pendency of the NLRB
charges.
On or about August 21, 1978, when in negotiating ses-
sion, Kalban said that Burke told him the deducted monies
had already been used to purchase an insurance plan, the
nature of which kind of insurance he was unaware. Burke
then gave him a name of an insurance broker whom Kal-
ban called about four or six times, without reply. It was
about this time Kalban said that he learned from one of the
employees that the insurance for which monies were being
deducted by Respondent was a life insurance plan.
('onclusions
With respect to the adequacy of notice to Respondent of
the date, time, and place of the hearing, I find that the
record establishes the following:
A consolidated complaint and notice to hearing schedul-
ing a hearing on December 11, 1978, with the place of the
hearing to be designated at a later time, was issued by the
General Counsel on July 21, 1978, and served on Respon-
dent in Tacoma, Washington. on July 25, 1978. The con-
solidated complaint scheduled the hearing on December II.
1978, with the place of the hearing to be designated at a
later time.
Respondent filed an answer to the aforedescribed com-
plaint on August 1, 1978, in which it denied any violations
of the Act.
The Regional Director for Region I issued an order
scheduling the place of hearing and an affidavit of service
verifying service upon Respondent by certified mail on No-
vember 30. 1978. A receipt of said certified order and affi-
davit or a returned receipt thereof are not a part of the
record herein.
However. pursuant to Sections 102.111 and 102.112 of
the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions. Series 8, as amended, I conclude and find that Re-
spondent was properly served with the order scheduling the
place of hearing on or about December 1 4, 1978.
597
[)ECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Proof of proper service of said order is further supported
by Section 102.113 of the Board's Rules and Regulations in
that Respondent has raised no question with respect to
proper service subsequent to the issuance or its receipt of
the order.
It is further established by the record that the General
Counsel filed an affidavit and notice to intent to amend the
consolidated complaint on December 1, 1978, which was
properly served on and received by Respondent on Decem-
ber 4, 1978.
The record contains a series of conversations represented
by the General Counsel to have taken place between Re-
spondent and the Regional Office with respect to Respon-
dent's request for postponement of this proceeding and the
Regional Director's denial of said request. However, since
Respondent herein was properly notified of the date, time,
and place of this hearing and elected not to appear or to
initiate a request to me for a postponement, I am without
jurisdiction to pass upon Respondent's request to the Re-
gional Director or the Regional Director's denial of said
request. The record indicates that Respondent has a local
representative in Groton, Connecticut, who did not appear
on Respondent's behalf.
Consequently, since Respondent ignored the valid and
properly served processes of the Board to appear and avail
itself of the opportunity to present evidence in defense of
the allegation in the amended consolidated complaint, the
allegations therein are deemed admitted by Respondent,
and the motions of the General Counsel and counsel for the
Charging Parties for default judgment are hereby enter-
tained.
Since the General Counsel established a primafacie case
with respect to the issues raised in the pleadings by undis-
puted evidence which I credit, both (the General Counsel
and counsel for Charging Party) motions made pursuant to
Section 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures for
judgment by default are hereby granted.
V. THE EFFECT OF HE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of Re-
spondent described in section I, above, have a close, inti-
mate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow thereof.
VI. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair la-
bor practices warranting a remedial order, I shall recom-
mend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It having been found that by changing the work hours of
its employees and deducting 16 cents per hour from their
salaries for life insurance for which they were forced to sign
without notice to or consultation with the Union, the exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative of the employees,
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act; by unilater-
ally changing the work hours of its employees because they
refused to renounce their union rights for a health and wel-
fare plan and sign a life insurance policy Respondent did
discriminate against its employees in regard to the hire and
tenure or terms or conditions of employment of its employ-
ees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act; that by chang-
ing the work hours and assigning an employee to more
onerous work because she engaged in concerted or other
activities on behalf of the Union and filed charges with the
Board, Respondent discriminated against its employees for
filing such charges in violation of Section 8(a)(4) of the Act;
and that by discriminating against its employees as herein
before described with respect to their hire or tenure or
terms or conditions of employment Respondent violated
Section 8(a)( ) of the Act, the recommended Order will pro-
vide that Respondent offer employees Carolyn Ramseur,
Jacqueline C. Williams, Esperanze Rodriguez, and Sadie
Williamson immediate recall to their jobs as of the days
their hours of work were reduced and/or the days they were
put on call and make them whole for any loss of earnings
occasioned by the discrimination against them within the
meaning and in accord with the Board's decision in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida
Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977),l except as specif-
ically modified by the wording of such recommended Or-
der.
Because of the character of the unfair labor practices
herein found the recommended Order will provide that Re-
spondent cease and desist from or in any other manner
interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the
exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F.2d 532, 536 (4th Cir.
1941).
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the en-
tire record in this case I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. Urban Laboratories, Inc., is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
2. National Maritime Union of America, AFL-CIO,
ITPE Division, is and has been at all times material herein
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the tenure of employ-
ment of Carolyn Ramseur, Sadie Williamson, Jacqueline C.
Williams, and Esperanza Rodriguez in an effort to discour-
age their support for concerted activity and assistance to
the Union, a labor organization, Respondent has engaged
in unfair labor practices condemned by Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act.
4. By discriminating in regard to the tenure of employ-
ment of Carolyn Ramseur in an effort to discourage or to
take reprisal against her for filing charges with the Board,
Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices con-
demned by Section 8(a)(4) of the Act.
5. By unilaterally reducing the working hours of employ-
ees Carolyn Ramseur, Sadie Williamson, Jacqueline C. Wil-
liams, and Esperanza Rodriguez and deducting monies, 16
cents per hour, from their salaries for payment of a life
I See. generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
598
URBAN L.ABORATORIES. INC.
insurance which they were forced to sign without notice to
or consultation with the Union. the exclusive collective-bar-
gaining representative of the employees. Respondent has
refused to bargain collectively in violation of Section 8(a)(5)
of the Act.
6. By engaging in the aforedescribed conduct, unilater-
ally changing employees' work hours, reducing their hours
of work, and discriminatorily assigning them to onerous
work positions because they supported and/or assisted the
Union or filed charges with the Board, Respondent did in-
terfere with, restrain, and coerce its employees in the exer-
cise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act in violation
of Section 8(a)( I) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
{Recommended Order omitted from publication.
599