Florida Steel Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 6, 1975

221 N.L.R.B. 371 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

FLORIDA STEEL CORPORATION 371
Florida Steel Corporation and United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO . Case 12-CA-6770
November 6, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
PENELLO
Party and the Respondent filed briefs which have
been duly considered by the Board.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record herein
as stipulated by the parties, as well as the briefs, and
makes the following:
Upon charges filed by the United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO (herein called Charging Party or
the Union), the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for
Region 12 , issued a complaint on June 6, 1975,1
against Respondent Florida Steel Corporation
(herein called Respondent or the Employer). Copies
of the charge and the complaint and notice of
hearing before an Administrative Law Judge were
duly served on the Respondent and the Charging
Party. In substance , the complaint alleged that
Respondent Violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) by
refusing to institute its new quarterly wage review
policy and to grant wage increases thereunder to
employees petitioned for by the Union2 at its Orient
Road, Tampa, Florida, plant, because said employ-
ees joined or assisted the Union or engaged in other
union or concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or mutual aid or protection.
The Respondent's answer substantially admits the
jurisdictional and factual allegations of the com-
plaint, but denies the commission of any unfair labor
practices.
On July 2, the Charging Party, the General
Counsel, and Respondent entered into a stipulation
in which they requested that the Board consolidate
the instant case with Case 12-CA-6593 which charge
involves the same parties and is presently before the
Board ; 3 agreed that certain documents shall consti-
tute the entire record herein4 and no oral testimony
is necessary or desired by any of the parties; waived
a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, the
making of findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
issuance of an Administrative, Law Judge's decision;
and requested this case be transferred directly to the
Board for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
issuance of an appropriate order.
By Order dated July 16, the Board approved the
stipulation, transferred the proceedings to itself, and
set a date for filing of briefs. Thereafter, the Charging
i All dates refer to 1975 unless otherwise indicated.
2 The Union, on April 21, filed a petition for representation of
production and maintenance employees at Respondent's Orient Road
complex located in Tampa, Florida (Case 12-RC-4844). The Orient Road
facility is divided into the steel ' mill, rebar shop, and traffic division The
petition did not cover the structural and culvert divisions which are also
located in Tampa.
3 As consolidation with Case 12-CA-6593 will at this late stage of the
221 NLRB No. 65
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
The complaint alleged, the answer admitted, and
we therefore find that:
Florida Steel Corporation is, and has been at all
times material herein, a Florida corporation with a
plant located in Tampa, Florida, where it is engaged
in the business of manufacturing and fabricating
steel products. The Tampa, Florida, plant is the only
plant involved in this proceeding. During the past 12
months, which period is representative of all times
material herein, Respondent purchased and received
goods, supplies, and materials at its Florida facilities
valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points
located outside the State of Florida.
Accordingly, we find that Respondent is now and
has been at all times material herein an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. .
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization admitting to membership employ-
ees of Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts Based on the Stipulation Herein, the
Stipulation in Case 12-CA-6593, and the
Board's Records
Since 1966, it has been Respondent's practice to
have its wage salary administrator conduct an area
wage surveys at each of Respondent's facilities and,
based on the fmdings of that area wage survey so
conducted, Respondent has granted annual wage
increases to the employees at each of these facilities.
Because of the time involved in making these surveys
proceedings in that case serve no useful purpose, we deny the parties'
request
4 The stipulated record consists of the charge, complaint, answer, the
stipulation herein, and the stipulation in Case 12-CA-6593.
5 The wage survey consisted , inter aka, of a review of the annual rate of
inflation in each area where Respondent had a plant as well as a
comparison of the wages paid by other employers in those areas.
372 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and because of the varying economic conditions
existing in each location surveyed, the timing and
amount of the wage increases varied from plant to
plant. ,
Respondent announced, on or about August 15,
1974, a' new policy entitled "TEAM," to review the
rates of pay for employees every 3 months rather
than annually, as in the' past, using the same factors
previously used annually. Employees in the bargain-
ing unit at Respondent's Indiantown, Florida, plant
did not receive the TEAM review of their pay nor the
wage increases given thereunder because they had on
May 30, 1974, voted for the Union.6 At Tampa,
implementation of TEAM resulted on October 6,
1974, in a 15-cent-per-hour across-the-board wage
increase for hourly paid employees, and, on January
19, an increase of 10 cents an hour. However, after
the Union filed its petition at Tampa, Respondent
withheld from the unit employees pay raises granted
to other Tampa employees of 27 cents an hour on
April 27 and 10 cents an hour on May 25.
The General Counsel contends, as it did in the
previous Florida Steel cases (220 NLRB No. 57 and
220 NLRB No. 169), that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by withholding
certain wage and benefit increases from its Tampa
employees covered by the petition because the Union
had filed a representation petition and a Board
election was pending. Respondent contends, as it did
in the cases cited above, that the withholding of any
benefits from the Tampa employees was motivated
by an attempt to comply with the Board decisions
holding that unilateral changes in wages, hours, and
working conditions should not be made either while
a Board election is pending or after a union has been
certified and, therefore, the complaint should be
dismissed.
C. Discussion
In Florida Steel Corporation, 220 NLRB No. 57,
and 220 NLRB No. 169, as here, 'Respondent
withheld wage increases from petitioned-for employ-
ees solely because the Union had filed petitions. In
those cases we found Respondent's conduct violative
of the Act. Likewise, for the reasons set forth in those
decisions, we find that Respondent has violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) by refusing to institute its new
quarterly wage review policy and to grant general
wage increases thereunder to its Orient Road,
Tampa, Florida, employees covered by the Union's
petition.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section
III, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relationship to trade, traffic, and-commerce among
the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
on the entire record in this case, we make the
following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer as defined in
Section 2(2) of the Act, and is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By refusing to institute its new quarterly wage
review policy and to grant wage increases thereunder
to bargaining unit employees at its Orient Road,
Tampa, Florida, plant, Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices in violation
of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (3) by failing to institute the new
quarterly wage review policy at Orient Road, Tampa,
Florida, and to grant wage increases pursuant to it,
we shall order Respondent to make whole all those
employees in the appropriate unit at Orient Road so
deprived, retroactive to the date the wage increases
were given other Tampa employees. Backpay shall be
computed on a quarterly basis in the manner
provided in F W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB
289 (1950), with interest thereon at 6 percent per
annum according to the method set forth in Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1963).
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Florida Steel Corporation, Tampa, Florida, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to institute its new quarterly wage
review policy and to grant wage increases thereunder
6 Florida Steel Corporation, 220 NLRB No. 169 (1975)
FLORIDA STEEL CORPORATION
to employees in the bargaining unit requested at
Orient Road, Tampa, Florida.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make whole all those employees in the
petitioned-for unit at Tampa for any loss of pay they
may have suffered by reason of the discrimination
practices against them by refusing to implement the
new quarterly wage review policy and to grant wage
increases as provided in the section of this Decision
entitled , "The Remedy."
(b) 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.
(c) Post at each of its plants 7 copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." 8 Copies of said notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 12, after being duly signed by Respondent's
representative, shall be posted by Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicu-
ous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 12, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
373
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.
7 In view of the flagrant and repetitious nature of the unfair labor
practices committed here and at Respondent 's other plants (Florida Steel
Corporation, 220 NLRB No 57, and 220 NLRB No 169), we believe
corporatewide posting is necessary to assure that all Respondent's
employees are made fully aware of their rights and by what process violated
rights can be vindicated.
8 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 refuse to institute our new
quarterly wage review policy and to grant wage
increases thereunder to employees in the bargain-
ing unit requested at Orient Road, Tampa,
Florida.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the
exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL make whole all the employees in the
requested unit at Tampa for the general wage
increases under the new wage review policy which
we withheld because of the Union, with interest
therein at the rate of 6 percent per annum.
FLORIDA STEEL
CORPORATION