United Steelworkers Of America, Afl-Cio-Clc And United Steelworkers Of America, Afl-Cio-Clc, Local Union No. 5503

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 17, 1985

275 N.L.R.B. 712 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
United Steelworkers ` of America, AFL-CIO=CLC
and United Steelworkers of America ,- AFL-
CIO-CLC, Local Union No . 5503 and Inger=
soll-Rand Company . Case 22-CB-5104 '
..17 June 1985-
DECISION AND ORDER ' - '
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
HUNTER AND DENNIS
On 25 January 1985 Administrative Law Judge
William A. Gershuny issued the attached decision.
The Respondents f led exceptions and a supporting
brief, and the _Charging Party filed a reply brief.'
The Board has - considered' the decision and - the
record in light of .the exceptions and briefs and has
decided- to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, 2 and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor' Relations Board adopts 'the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondents , United
Steelworkers of : America , AFL -CIO-CLC and
United Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO=CLC;
Local Union No. 5503, Bethlehem , Pennsylvania,
and Phillipsburg , New Jersey , respectively, their
officers , agents, , and• representatives, -shat take the
action set forth . in the Order.- '
' The General Counsel's unopposed motion to strike an unsigned docu-
ment entitled "Exceptions to the Decision" is granted.
2 The Respondents have excepted to some of the judge's credibility
findings The Board 's established policy is not to overrule an administra-
tive law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of
all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect . Standard
Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cit.
1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for re-
versing the findings.
.DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WILLIAM A. GERSHUNY, Administrative'Law Judge.
A hearing was conducted in Newark, New Jersey, on
November 26, 1984, pursuant to a complaint issued Sep-
tember 13, 1984, based on a May 14, 1984, charge, alleg-
ing a union refusal , in iviolation of Sections 8(b)(3) and
8(d) of the-Act, to execute a written contract embodying
agreed-upon terms: ,
On the entire record, including my observation of wit-
ness demeanor, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW'
I. JURISDICTION AND LABOR ORGANIZATION
The complaint alleges, the answer as amended admits,
and I find that Charging Party Ingersoll-Rand Company
is an employer subject to the Act and that Respondents
are labor organizations within the meaning of Section
2 5 f h ' •( ) o t e Act.
II. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
The facts are simple and largely undisputed
For many years, Local 5503 has represented a unit of
production and maintenance employees, presently` num-
bering 750, at Ingersoll-Rand's Phillipsburg, New Jersey
plant. The most recent contract expired October 15,
1983. '
Negotiations on a successor contract began-on Septem-
ber, 8, 1983, with the Employer proposing, inter alia, a
number of changes in the current contract's medical ben-
efits package,which, as in the past, covered both active
employees and -retirees. Union negotiators objected to
what they perceived as a reduction in health benefits for
retirees, no agreement was reached, -and the employees
struck on October 16.
-On November 1, the Employer put into effect its pro-
posals for, retiree -medical benefits changes and so notified
the Union, and all retirees. To date, the Union has filed
no unfair labor practice charge or court action challeng-
ing this benefit change.
Negotiations resumed during the strike on November
2, and on November 10 the negotiators reached tentative
agreement on all terms of a contract which would be
submitted to the'membership on November .12 for'ratifi-
cation. The Employer, at the Union's request, prepared a
summary of contract changes agreed-upon and submitted
it to the - union negotiators on November 11, 'the day
-before the ratification -vote. This 12-page document, enti-
tled "Highlights of the Settlement- Offer from Ingersoll-
Rand, " states on' the first page that the Employer's final
offer includes a "new medical.plan formula covering the
same services and supplies as today"; on the second
page, a detailed summary of that plan as it impacts on
"employees' who have already retired"; and, on the third
page, a similar summary relating to "employees retiring
under the new contract."
The union officials did not protest to the Employer the
inclusion of those provisions in the summary, they dis-
tributed the document to all persons at the ratification
meeting prior to the vote, and they did not inform the
membership that it had not agreed to changes in retiree
medical benefits. Present at this meeting were active em-
ployees and retirees, although retirees were not eligible
to vote. - - -
The union_ negotiators did not support the contract,
but made no recommendations to the membership. Both
active employees and retirees opposed changes in the
medical benefits plan, but the contract was ratified and
the strike-ended by a 35-vote margin.
Thereafter, Local 5503 refused to execute a memo of
agreement submitted by-the Employer unless retiree ben-
efit changes were deleted.
In this; proceeding, Local 5503 contends that it lawful-
ly refuses to execute the contract because retiree benefit
changes had not been a part of the November 10 tenta-
tive agreement which the membership ratified on No-
vember 12.
275 NLRB No. 106
STEEL-WORKERS (INGERSOLL-RAND)
The testimony of two of the Union's 10 negotiators
was presented.
Chief' Negotiator and Local Union President Yoder
testified that he -had not -read that portion of the "High-
lights'-' document referring to retiree -benefit changes
before having it distributed to the members; that he did
not use it as a reference in orally describing the contract
changes to the members at the November 12 meeting;
that changes in, retiree benefits were not discussed and,
hence, not agreed to at the November 1 negotiating ses-
sion ; that the parties agi eed on November 10• that any
proposal not agreed to was "dropped"; that, earlier,
when the Employer unilaterally implemented the retiree
changes effective November 1, retirees were told by
Yoder that the Union did not have to negotiate over re-
tiree benefits and that it would "take them to court";
that changes in retiree benefits were not discussed at the
November 12 ratification meeting because retirees
"thought" the court would settle that problem; and that
suit had been filed shortly-thereafter in the district court.
Chief Shop Steward Garcia (chairman of the negotiat-
ing committee's language subcommittee) testified that
benefit changes for active employees but not retirees
were discussed on November 10; that he had read the
"Highlights" document before the vote, but said nothing
about the reference to retiree benefit changes in the doc-
ument given to the membership; and that he thought 'the
Employer's proposal for retiree benefit changes had been
dropped on November 10, even though the Company
had begun to implement those very changes only 10 days
earlier.
I am unable to credit their testimony that the Novem-
ber 10 agreement did not include a proposal for changes
in retiree health benefits. Based on my observation of
their demeanor on the witness stand, I had the clear im-
pression that each was evasive and less than candid.
Yoder's testimony was disturbingly vague for a man of
his position and experience and it was 'contradicted by
the statement of his counsel (no litigation had yet been
commenced) and by his August 15, 1984 affidavit (he did
use "Highlights" as a reference in explaining contract
changes on November 12 to the membership; he was "re-
ceiving pressure inside the Union not to sign the agree-
ment no matter what"; and he tried to make other con-
tract changes after ratification). Equally important, how-
ever, is the fact that his conduct and that of Garcia on
November 12 at the ratification meeting belies their testi-
mony at the hearing that retiree benefit-changes had not
been agreed to on November 10-experienced union offi-
cials do not, without objection or comment, give to the
membership just before a ratification vote a 'document
entitled "Highlights of the Settlement Offer from Inger-
soll-Rand," whose first 3 pages pointedly refer to retiree
beneift changes, unless that document accurately reflects
the terms of the contract they had in fact agreed to
submit to the membership for ratification.
At the same time, I credit the testimony of Boylan, the
Employer's director of industrial relations , which was
713
clear and convincing, based on my observation of his de-
meanor on the stand, and consistent with the undisputed
facts concerning the 'Company's one-package proposal
covering benefit changes for both employees and retirees
and the Union's unrestricted use, for purposes of the rati-
fication vote, of -the "Highlights" document which de-
tails such contract changes.
'Accordingly, I find that the November ' 10 agreement
included retiree benefit changes and conclude that the
Union's refusal to execute a written contract embodying
those changes is violative of Sections 8(b)(3) and 8(d)' of
the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed'
ORDER
The Respondents , United Steelworkers of America,
AFL-CIO-CLC and United Steelworkers of America,
AFL-CIO-CLC, Local Union No. 5503, their officers,
agents , and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from refusing to bargain in good
faith with Ingersoll -Rand Company by•refusing to sign a
collective-bargaining agreement embodying the terms
and conditions of employment on which agreement was
reached with Ingersoll -Rand Company on November 10,
1983 , including revised retiree medical benefits.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Sign a written contract embodying the terms and
conditions of employment agreed upon with Ingersoll-
Rand Company on November 10, 1983, including revised
retiree medical benefits.
(b) Post at its business offices and meeting halls copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix."2 Copies of
the notice , on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 22, after being signed by the Respondents'
authorized representative , shall be posted by the Re-
spondents immediately upon receipt and maintained for
60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all
places where notices to members are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondents to
ensure that the notices are not altered , defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondents have taken to comply.
' If no. exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations , the findings, conclusions , and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses - - -
2 If 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board "
71.4 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency, of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain in good faith with In-
gersoll-Rand Company by refusing to sign a collective-
bargaining agreement embodying the terms and condi-
tions of employment on which agreement was reached
with Ingersoll-Rand Company on -November 10, 1983,
including revised retiree medical benefits.
WE WILL sign a written contract embodying the terms
and conditions of- employment agreed upon with Inger=
soll-Rand Company on November 10, 1983, including;re-
vised retiree medical benefits.
UNITED . STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA,
AFL-CIO-CLC AND UNITED STEEL-
WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO-CLC,
LOCAL•UNION No. 5503