Production Plated Plastics, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 14, 1981

254 N.L.R.B. 560 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

I)C 'ISI()NS O() NA II()NAI. I ABOR REI.ATI()NS B()ARD
Production Plated Plastics, Inc. and International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agri-
cultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW). Case 7-CA-16630
January 14, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PINEiI.O, AND
TRUESDAI.E
On September 22, 1980, Administrative Law Judge
Leonard M. Wagman issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and
a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this
proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the attached
Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has de-
cided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions of
the Administrative I.aw Judge, but not to adopt his rec-
ommended Order. 2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Production Plated Plastics, Inc., Richland, Michi-
gan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
I In the last sentencce of the final paragraph f Ihc s lon 1t' his I)e,
sion entitled "In forceCment of Break and L.unch Itilhcics," the Adnlinis-
trativc Law Judge inadcrtcltly referred to the "pre-Jul, 1977" emiploy
ee tardiness rule. instcad of the "pre-July 1979 rule." We herebh crrect
this error Further, we agree with the Administrative Law Judge's con-
clusion that Respondent ii llaled Sec 8(;la)5) and (I) of Act by chllging
its written plant ule regarding the dcegrc of plrishnclt t h iposed
for repeated tardiness without first riotilyiig aiud barginllilg iith Ihe
Ulnion. lowever, we dl tiilt ccur with his itepretitilo )t' flihalt
changed rule Ihe lnew utile reads as fililws:
Absent r late w itlo ult Supervisor's appro,al Ull ttLc lttll Iabs11cxC ill
anly calendar year which number tile shall subject ciiplosee o a
serhal swarning 'The foLirth such ahsecle shall subject crnpltyc to
writtenl reprimalld; the fifth such lhabsence shall subject etiployete to
one week layoff the ixth Iuch abhsclSce shill suhbject eliiploye lo
discharge For purposes ol this discipliary procedule I o (2) ilnex
cused dates sic] 'hall qual til ucu's¢d ilhbsete IhICese disciplitl
ary measures arc ili addition to os1s ll bnUls "
I'he proper reading i'f the rule is "l: o lHxcused l ;lres" ilstead f
"dates " Ihe Adnlinistratlive I a Judge appalcntly referred a ilinsprilit
of the rules in icorreclly stating tIhe lalguage. We hereby col-rrct this
error The rule also prov ides ftior fits sotid, ad third offelses
'he Adiiiristrati.e law Judge cred i l er lookirhg tliat scllon ol
Rule 17 which prolvides that "tco (2) airlecused laites shall equal One it-
excused absenllce I hi s fidillt s l i s ing lhit x ic arts of tardiness in
a calenldar year ws ould subject ain clllplilyec to dischalge is iclrrecl
There is iio doubt hwever, thai tie ntss rule is diiflereni front that
which preceded it, and the challges inetolcd could ot be made untlilater
ally without sviolating the Act Thus, the Adlnislratle I 1w. Judge', ul-
timate conrcltisioll is affirmed
2 Certain inadsertlil errors appeal il the Adllilistlati e l.as Judge's
recomminrlded Order Acelrdingl s we ill issue ;ii ()rdCr i lieu f that
of the Administrative l.aw Judge
254 NLRB No. 68
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Interna-
tional Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW), as the exclusive representative of the em-
ployees in the bargaining unit below by unilaterally
changing its written plant rules regarding employee
tardiness; imposing upon unit employees more
stringent break and lunch period policies; changing
its rules concerning the number of violations of its
break and lunch policies which will result in disci-
plinary action against its employees; and imposing
disciplinary action, including written verbal warn-
ings, written warnings, and discharge, upon unit
employees for violation of these unilaterally im-
posed policies. The appropriate unit is:
All full-time and regular part-time production
and maintenance employees, including ship-
ping and receiving employees, quality control
and truckdriver employees, employed by Re-
spondent at its facility located at 9899 "D"
Avenue East, Richland, Michigan; but exclud-
ing all office clerical employees, technical em-
ployees, professional employees, confidential
employees, guards and supervisors as defined
by the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex-
ercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Rescind its new written plant rules regarding
employee tardiness contained in Respondent's com-
pany rules.
(b) Rescind the more stringent break and lunch
period policies instituted in April and June 1979.
(c) Rescind its change of the rules concerning
the number of violations of its break and lunch
period policies which will result in disciplinary
action against its employees.
(d) Expunge from the personnel files of employ-
ees Cathy Czuk, Ann Lucas, Joan Browne, Mary
Harper, Donna Shannon, Mary Meskil, Laura
Marr, Deb Ritter, and Ruth Quinn, all references
to disciplinary actions which resulted from their
failure to comply with Respondent's more stringent
break and lunch period policies and its change in
rules concerning the disciplinary action to be im-
posed for violation of those policies.
(e) Offer Cathy Czuk and Ann Lucas immediate
and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if
those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equiv-
alent positions, without prejudice to their seniority
or any other rights or privileges previously en-
joyed.
560
PRODUCTION PLATED PLASTICS, INC
(f) Make Cathy Czuk and Ann Lucas whole for
any loss of earnings they may have suffered due to
the unlawful discharges by paying each of them a
sum equal to what she would have earned, less any
net interim earnings, plus interest, as set forth in
the section of this Decision entitled "The
Remedy."3
(g) Bargain with the Union as the exclusive rep-
resentative of the employees in the above appropri-
ate unit with respect to changes in Respondent's
written plant rules regarding employee tardiness,
more stringent break and lunch period policies,
changes in its rules concerning the number of vio-
lations of its break and lunch period policies which
will result in disciplinary action against its em-
ployess, and imposition of disciplinary action, in-
cluding written verbal warnings, written warnings,
and discharge, upon the unit employees for viola-
tion of the above-mentioned policies.
(h) Preserve and, upon request, make available to
the Board or its agents, for examination and copy-
ing, all payroll records, social security payment re-
cords, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Order.
(i) Post at its plant in Richland, Michigan, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix."4
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 7, after being duly
signed by Respondent's authorized representative,
shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con-
secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-
cluding 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.
(j) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps Respondent has taken to comply here-
with.
:' Member Jenkins would award inleresl on hackpay due has.ld ion the
formula set forth in his partial dissent in OlripI Medical (orporation, 2Sl
NLRB 14h (19I))
4 In the een tIhal this ()rder is enforced hb a Judg nmctll 1t . Ilnitcd
States Court of Appeals, he ws ords i the not ice reading "Postd hd
Order f he National -abor Relations ioard" hall read I lied iursal-
ant to a Judgment of Ihe lilted States ('Court of Appeals Intllorciig .Ii
Order of the National abhor Rellaton, BoaHrd "
APPENDIX
NorICt To EMPI_ OYEIS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THI.
NATIONAL. LABOR RELAIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively
with International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Work-
ers of America (UAW), as the exclusive repre-
sentative of the employees in the bargaining
unit below by unilaterally changing our writ-
ten plant rules regarding employee tardiness;
imposing upon unit employees more stringent
break and lunch period policies; changing our
rules concerning the number of violations of
our break and lunch period policies which will
result in disciplinary action against our em-
ployees; and imposing disciplinary action, in-
cluding written verbal warnings, written warn-
ings, and discharge, upon unit employees for
violation of these unilaterally imposed policies.
The appropriate unit is:
All full-time and regular part-time produc-
tion and maintenance employees, including
shipping and receiving employees, quality
control and truckdriver employees, em-
ployed by the Employer at its facility locat-
ed at 9899 "D" Avenue East, Richland,
Michigan, but excluding all office clerical
employees, technical employees, professional
employees, confidential employees, guards
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
Wli wit NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ-
ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them in Section 7 of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended.
Wi Wll.l. rescind our new written plant
rules regarding employee tardiness in our com-
pany rules.
WE Wll i rescind the more stringent break
and lunch period policies we instituted in
April anrid June 1979.
WE win.. rescind our change of the rules
concerning the number of violations of our
break and lunch period policies which will
result in disciplinary action against our em-
ployees.
WE wl expunge from the personnel files
of employees Cathy Czuk, Ann Lucas, Joan
Browne, Mary Harper, Donna Shannon, Mary
Meskil, Laura Marr, Deb Ritter, and Ruth
Quinn all references to disciplinary actions
561
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
which resulted from their failure to comply
with our more stringent break and lunch
period policies and our change in rules con-
cerning disciplinary action to be imposed for
violation of these policies.
WE WILL offer Cathy Czuk and Ann Lucas
immediate and full reinstatement to their
former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions, without prej-
udice to their seniority or any other rights or
privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make Cathy Czuk and Ann Lucas
whole for any loss of earnings they may have
suffered due to the discrimination practiced
against them by paying each of them a sum
equal to what she would have earned, less any
net interim earnings, plus interest.
WE WILL bargain with the Union as the ex-
clusive representative of our employees in the
above appropriate unit with respect to changes
in our written plant rules regarding employee
tardiness, more stringent break and lunch
period policies, changes in our rules concern-
ing the number of violations of our break and
lunch period policies which will result in disci-
plinary action against our employees, and im-
position of disciplinary action, including writ-
ten verbal warnings, written warnings, and dis-
charge, upon our employees for violation of
the above-mentioned policies.
PRODUCTION PLATED PLASTICS, INC.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
LEONARD M. WAGMAN, Administrative Law Judge:
Upon a charge and an amended charge filed by Interna-
tional Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agri-
cultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), re-
ferred to herein as the Union, the Regional Director for
Region 7 of the National Labor Relations Board issued
the complaint herein on September 5, 1979. The com-
plaint, as amended at the hearing held at Kalamazoo,
Michigan, on April 7 and 8, 1980, alleged that the Re-
spondent, Production Plated Plastics, Inc., violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, 29 U.S.C. §151, el seq., herein called the
Act, by making and implementing unilateral changes in
its employees' conditions of employment. Respondent, by
its timely answer denied committing the alleged unfair
labor practices.
Upon the entire record, from my observation of the
witnesses' demeanor, and after due consideration of the
briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respondent, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION AND LABOR ORGANIZATION
Respondent, a Michigan corporation engages in the
manufacture, sale, and distribution of molded and
chrome plated plastic products at its Richland, Michigan,
plant. During the calendar year ending December 31,
1978, a representative period, Respondent in the course
and conduct of its business operation manufactured, sold
and distributed from its Richland, Michigan, plant prod-
ucts valued in excess of $2,500,000, of which products
valued in excess of $50,000 were shipped from its Rich-
land plant directly to points located outside of Michigan.
In its answer, Respondent admitted the foregoing data
and conceded that at all times material it was an employ-
er engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and I so find.
The complaint alleged, Respondent in its answer con-
ceded, and I find that the Union, International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America (UAW), is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background and Issues
In Production Plated Plastics, Inc., 247 NLRB No. 76
(1980), petition for enforcement pending (6th Cir. No.
80-1290), the Board issued an order requiring Respon-
dent to bargain with the Union for the following unit:
All full-time and regular part-time production and
maintenance employees, including shipping and re-
ceiving employees quality control and truckdriver
employees employed by the Employer at our facili-
ty located at 9899 'D' Avenue East, Richland,
Michigan, but excluding all office clerical employ-
ees, confidential employees, guards and supervisors
as defined in the Act.'
In that same case, the Board found that Respondent in
the instant case had violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act by refusing to furnish the Union with relevant
bargaining information, by making unilateral changes in
its restroom use policy, and by witholding a Christmas
bonus without bargaining collectively with the Union.
The issues raised in the instant case are whether Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by:
1. Unilaterally changing its rules regarding employee
tardiness.
2. Unilaterally imposing a more stringent break period
and lunch period policy.
3. Unilaterally changing its rules concerning the
number of violations of its break period and lunch period
policy which will result in disciplinary action.
4. Imposing disciplinary action including written warn-
ings, verbal warnings and discharge on unit employees
for violation of these unilaterally imposed policies.
I he BoHard found tlt the Union achieed majorit status on Septem-
her 15. 1977. in a Board held representation election
562
PRODUCTION PLATED PLASTICS, INC.
B. The Change in Compa(ni Rules Regarding
Tardinevss
Prior to July 1979, Respondent's shop rules included
the following regarding tardiness and absence:
Code:
First offense WR*--"WR' written reprimand:
Second offense 3 day*LO()-"LO" disciplinary
layoff:
Third offense D*--"D" dismissal.
17. Repeated (6) times in three (3) month period
tardiness in reporting for work.
*These disciplinary measures are in addition to
loss of bonus.
18. Absent without Supervisor's approval. Unex-
cused absences in any calendar year which number
three shall subject employee to wvarning. The fourth
such absence shall subject employee to written rep-
rimand: the fifth such absence shall subject employ-
ee to one week layoff; the sixth such absence shall
subject employee to discharge.
In July 1979, Respondent issued ne\\ shop rules in
which former shop rules 17 and IX sucre combined into
Rule 17 as follows:
Code:
First offense WR*-"WR" written reprimand:
Second offense 3 day*LO--"LO" disciplinary laN
off;
Third offense D*--"D" dismissal.
17. Absent or late without Supervisor's approval.
Unexcused absences in any calendar year which
number three shall subject employee to a erbal
warning. The fourth such absence shall subject eni-
ployee to written reprimand; the fifth such absence
shall subject employee to one wreek layoff; the sixth
such absence shall subject employee to discharge.
For purposes of this disciplinary procedure tiso (2)
unexcused dates shall equal one unexcused absence.
These disciplinary measures are in addition to
loss of bonus.
The parties stipulated and I find that Respondent institut-
ed the new Rule 17 sithout gixing the Union notice or
any opportunity to bargain about it. I also find upon the
parties' stipulation that during the pendency of the in-
stant case, Respondent has abstained from applying the
new Rule 17 pending the outcome of the issue of wheth-
er its unilateral promulgation ran afoul of Sections 8(d)
and 8(a)(5) of the Act.
Sections 8(a)(5) and 8(d) of the Act require an emnploy-
er to bargain with the representative of his employees
over subjects encompassed within the broadly defined
categories of ".. wages, hours and other terms and
conditions of employment . . ." The) make clear that it
is an unfair labor practice for an employer to make a
change affecting any matter Which is a mandatory sub-
ject for bargaining without first advising the bargaining
representative and providing it wvithi an opportuni to
bargain concerning the change. A.L.R11. v. Katz. c a/l.
d/bh/a Wllihamvhlrg Stee/ Products Co., 3h9 U.S 736
(1962): ihrbrhoard Paper Product (Corp. . .\.iR.. 379
U.S. 203 (1964).
Applying the stated principle to the instant case, it is
clear that any unilateral alteration by Respondent of
mandatory conditions of employment concerning its pro-
duction and maintenance employees at its Richland plant
in July 1979, when the Union was the exclusive bargain-
ing representative of those employees, would constitute a
refusal to bargain in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the
Act, as well as a violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
Boland Marine and Manufacturing Company. Inc., 225
NLRB 824 (1976). It is settled law that rules regarding
employee conduct and the discipline to be imposed for
infractions of such rules are mandatory subjects of bar-
gaining.
Boland Marine and Manufacturing Company. Inc., supra
at 829.
Comparison of Rules 17 and 18 with the new Rule 17
reveals that the latter contained more stringent discipline
for tardiness. As I read old Rule 17, six instances of tar-
diness2 in a 3-month period would be punished with a
written reprimand, whereas the new combined rule
strongly implies that six instances of tardiness in a calen-
dar year would subject an employee to discharge. Also
implied is that any combination of absences or incidents
of tardiness totalling six in I year would subject the of-
fending employee to discharge. Under the former rule 17
six instances of tardiness spread out over a calendar year
would not subject defending employee to so much as a
written reprimand. I find, therefore, that the merger of
Rules 17 and 18 resulted in a substantial change in the
degree of punishment to be imposed for repeated tardi-
ness. By making this change in its plant rules without
first notifying the Union and giving it an opportunity to
bargain about it, Respondent violated Section S(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act.
C. Enforcement of Break and Lunch Policies
Since Respondent opened its Richland plant in June
1969, its management's stated policy has been to grant all
employees two 10 minute breaks and a 30-minute lunch
break. Since 1973, Respondent's plating department em-
ployees, according to stated policy, enjoyed 5 more min-
utes of breaktime known as "walk time."
The plating department supervised by LeRoy Bowser
since November 1977, plates automobile parts with plas-
tic, copper, nickel, or chrome. Since November 1977,
Bowser also supervised the day shift directly.
Both men and women work in the planning depart-
ment. Most of the women rack and unrack the parts to
be plated, on an assembly line. The men are divided into
machine operators, box handlers, and material handlers.
Occasionally, male employees rack and unrack parts.
However none of the male employees work primarily as
rackers/unrackers.
To permit the production line to continue unabated,
the 11 or so day shift plating department women, classi-
fied as "racker/unracker," take their morning and after-
noon breaks so that only 6 are away from the production
line at any given time.
"Tardy" and "late" are ynonmlous, as used hy Respondnts man-
agement in their tesilmlons and ill Rspdent's emploce Warning IlotCe
reCeCived ill C Itlcnce
563
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The record shows that prior to April 1979, the rack-
ers/unrackers on the first or day shift were less than
careful about breaks and lunch. Mary Harper, who was
employed in the plating department from February 1973
until March 1979, believed that her morning and after-
noon breaks were from 15 to 20 minutes in duration but
that she might take longer than 20 minutes, and perhaps
as long as a 25-minute break. She also believed that she
was entitled to a 35-minute lunch break. However, at
times she took a 40-minute lunch break, and from time to
time extended her lunch period to 42 or 44 minutes.
Harper's understanding of Respondent's policy to-
wards morning and afternoon breaks and lunch was not
unique. She observed that the other women on her shift
took breaks and lunch periods in similar fashion.3
Employee Ann Lucas, who began work in Respon-
dent's plating department on September 20, 1976, as a
racker/unracker, and who was terminated in June 1979,
believed that she was entitled to breaks of 20 minutes'
duration and a lunch break of 35 minutes prior to April
1979. Before April 1979, Lucas also observed that, as she
did, her fellow employees took breaks of 20 to 25 min-
utes, and lunch periods ranging from 35 to 45 minutes,
with the predominant period being 40 minutes.
I find from Lucas' testimony that on occasions when
Respondent employed the plating department on 10-hour
shifts, the day shift rackers/unrackers extended their
breaks. During these extended shifts, Lucas and her col-
leagues took breaks of 25 minutes' duration and lunch
breaks of 40 to 45 minutes.
I find from Harper's undenied testimony that prior to
April 1979 LeRoy Bowser, occasionally sat in the break-
room with Harper and other racker/unracker employees.
I also find from Harper's testimony that in late 1978 or
early 1979, Bowser told Harper, who at the time was a
production line leader, that he was not concerned with
how long the employees took on their breaks so long as
the production "got out and it wasn't held up," and that
Bowser instructed Harper that she and the other employ-
ees should "watch it," with regard to the length of
breaks. Lucas' credited testimony reflects a similar cau-
tion from Bowser in February 1979.
I find from Harper's testimony that for 2 weeks in
early 1978, Bowser required his employees to sign in and
out on breaks, when "(t)hey got out of hand."4 1 also
find from Harper's testimony that after Bowser cautioned
the day shift rackers/unrackers, they would curtail their
breaks for "maybe for a couple of days" and then "go
back to the same thing they were doing." However,
prior to April 1979, Bowser did not tell either Harper or
Lucas to adhere strictly to Respondent's stated policy re-
garding breaks and lunch.5
Plating Department Manager Bowser testified in sub-
stance that prior to April 1979 he repeatedly pressed his
a Harper's straightforward testimony regarding her practices and ob-
servations was uncontradicted
4 For reasons given later i this I)ecision, arper impressed mc as a
more reliable v.itness than Bowser Therefore. I have credited her rather
than Blov ser regarding his attemipts to conltro l breaks.
s This finding is based on Ilarper's and Lucas' testimntiny Bossscr testi-
fied that he told employees Czuk. Lucas, and Harper iof Respondeni's 10
plus 5-minute break policy and of the 30-minule lunch policy lowev,;cer.
his testimony does not resval when lie so advised hem.
employees to comply with Respondent's stated limits on
breaks and lunch periods. He also testified that he issued
a number of verbal warnings to the racker/unracker
women employed on the day shift in his department.
Bowser testified that he submitted such writeups to Re-
spondent's personnel office.
However, Personnel Manager Warenuk's testimony
and Respondent's file of warning notices cast doubt on
Bowser's testimony. Under examination, in response to
the General Counsel's subpoena duces tecum seeking pro-
duction of those warning notices, Warenuk testified that
she had explored all of Respondent's records and that
the General Counsel's Exhibit 4 included all of the warn-
ing notices having to do with lunch period breaks be-
tween April 1977 and June 29, 1979. Warenuk also testi-
fied that Respondent's policy is to retain all such notices
permanently. Review of the available warning notices re-
vealed that prior to April 1979, Bowser issued no warn-
ing notice to any of the women employees on the day
shift for either excessive breaks or over staying lunch.
Other factors cast doubt on Bowser's testimony that
he was conscientious about enforcing the 10 plus 5-
minute break rule and the 30-minute lunch rule prior to
April 1979. For as found above, undenied and uncontra-
dicted testimony of former employees Harper and Lucas
showed that as a matter of practice, the first shift rack-
ers/unrackers under Bowser's immediate supervision
took more than 15 minutes for their breaks and more
than 30 minutes for their lunch periods, apparently with-
out fear of disciplinary action from Bowser. While I
have found that Bowser cautioned his employees to con-
trol their lunch breaks, he also expressed a liberal atti-
tude toward the length of breaks, so long as production
went forward.
In evaluating Bowser's testimony, I have also consid-
ered his demeanor while testifying before me. My confi-
dence in Bowser's reliability was eroded by his emphatic,
but unsubstantiated assertion that "I keep records of all
of the times you are late." Unlike Harper, Lucas and
Warenuk who seemed to be relaxed, Bowser seemed anx-
ious, particularly on cross-examination, when questioned
about his efforts to enforce Respondent's stated break
and lunch policies prior to April 1979. He gratuitously
complained about his repeated but vain efforts to attain
compliance from employees who refused to heed his
warnings. He also seemed overly anxious to stress his
writing up of offending employees. My impression was
that Bowser was trying too hard to make his point.
In sum, I find Bowser's testimony regarding his efforts
to enforce Respondent's break and lunch policies prior to
April 1979 unpersuasive. I have rejected it to the extent
it runs counter to, or is inconsistent with, the testimony
of Harper, Lucas, and Warenuk.
Laura Marr, who replaced Mary Harper as line leader
of the rackers/unrackers on the plating department's first
shift, first heard Bowser remind the first shift about Re-
spondent's stated lunch and break time policies in April
1979. Thereafter, Laura Marr heard Bowser remind the
rackers/unrackers of Respondent's policies regarding
breaks and lunch periods at approximately 2-week inter-
vals.
564
PRODUCTION PIATED PLASTICS. INC.
At all times material to this case, Respondent provided
an incentive bonus for each hour employees were at
work during the workweek. However, Respondent also
has withheld the bonus if an employee took more than
30 minutes for lunch, any time during the week. On one
occasion, prior to April 1979, Mary Harper took more
than 30 minutes for lunch on a workday and lost her
weekly bonus.
On April 11, 1979, Respondent issued a "Verbal Em-
ployee Warning" to first shift racker/unracker Cathy
Czuk for an excessive lunch period. The warning stated:
You took a long lunch today-26 minutes is on
your timecard & an additional 18 minutes before re-
turning to your work area. This will not be tolerat-
ed. Your next long lunch will mean a written warn-
ing.
The nature of the violation designated on the notice was
"Lateness." LeRoy Bowser signed this notice, as did
Acting Plant Manager Tom Grady.
On June 11, 1979, Czuk received a written warning for
taking 43 minutes for lunch that day. The nature of the
violation, as designated on the warning was "Lateness."
This notice was signed by Tom Grady and Plant Man-
ager Evans.
On April 11 and on June I1, Respondent issued similar
warning notices to Czuk's fellow employee, Ann Lucas.
When Ann Lucas received her warnings, she complained
that her conduct was no different from that of her fellow
employees.
From Friday, June 22 through, and including, June 29,
1979, 6 workdays, Plating Manager LeRoy Bowser
timed the breaks of 96 of the 11 women rackers/un-
rackers on the first shift. He observed all nine and noted
when they took more than 15 minutes on their breaks.
His records showed that five employees exceeded Re-
spondent's stated 15-minute break rule on all six dates.
Laura Marr, Deb Ritter, Maryann Meskil, and Ruth
Quinn took excessive breaks on June 22, 25-28. Two
women employed on the day shift, in the plating depart-
ment, were not listed on Bowser's notes and did not re-
ceive written warnings because he forgot their names.
Bowser conceded that the timing of his employees'
breaks in late June 1979, and the issuance of written
warnings to nine of the rackers/unrackers in his depart-
ment was a "crackdown,"' and that he had never writ-
ten up "the entire department for taking too long on a
break."
The warnings issued to Czuk, Lucas, Browne, Harper,
and Shannon were designated as written warnings.
Those issued to Meskil, Quinn, Ritter, and Marr were
called "Verbal." On each of the warnings issued on June
29, the nature of the violation was designated as "late-
Cathy Czuk. Ruth Quinn. Ann Lucas. Marcann Meskil, Mlr
Harper, Laura Marr., Donna Shannon, )eb Rltter, and Joan Browne
? Bowser testified that hince November 1977. he kept records hossig
how much time each of the employcs in Ihe plating deparlltmenl took 0n1
breaks Howe'er, he also testified that he only kept such records for a
year running from January to Januar aid that in February 19X1, he d-
carded all of the notes on hreaks fior the year 1979 aHtel. cr, as foiund
above. Respondent's records did nott contaii ssriten rnitt e ul g to tie
rackers/unrackers employed on Bosser's dal shift prior iio April 1974
ness." The verbal and written warnings were issued for
violation of the pre-July 1979 Rule 17.
In addition to the written warnings issued to employ-
ees Czuk and Lucas respectively on June 11 and 29, Re-
spondent issued a warning notice on April 18 to each of
them. The stated offense in each instance was as follows:
Shop Rule 20-stopping work before break time
without approval of supervisor. You left the floor
after specifically being asked not to for production
reason. This behavior will not be tolerated. Your
next offense will mean a 3 day disciplinary lay off.
The nature of the violation in each case was designated
as "Attitude" and "Disobedience." On June 29, Respon-
dent terminated Lucas and Czuk on the ground that they
had received three written warnings in a 12-month
period. s
I find in agreement with the General Counsel, and
contrary to Respondent, that Bowser's crackdown re-
garding breaks, in late June 1979, and the Respondent's
earlier issuance of verbal and written warnings in April
and June 1979 to employees Czuk and Lucas for taking
"long" lunch periods represented a tightening up of its
enforcement policy with regard to tardiness. From these
incidents, I find that in April and June 1979 Respondent
imposed changes in the working conditions of the first
shift rackers/unrackers who were supervised by Bowser,
and were part of the Union's bargaining unit. However,
Respondent neglected to give notice to and bargain with
the Union regarding these changes in the terms and con-
ditions of employment which, under Section 8(d) of the
Act, were proper subjects for collective bargaining.
It is well settled that an employer's continuing obliga-
tion to bargain about "wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment" under Section 8(d) of the
Act, encompasses the duty to bargain about plant rules
pertaining to absence and tardiness, and accompanying
disciplinary regulations. N.L.R.B. v. Miller Brewing Com-
pany, 408 F. 2d 12, 14 (9th Cir. 1969) Murpv Diesel
Company, 184 NLRB 757, 762, 763 (1970), enfd. 454 F.2d
303 (7th Cir. 1971). Respondent's failure to bargain col-
lectively with the Union regarding such changes violated
Section 8 (a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Master Slack and/or
Master Trousers Corp., and Hardeman Garment Corp., and
Morehouse Garment Corp.. and Lauderdale Garment
Corp., and Lobelvelle Garment Corp., 230 NLRB 1054,
1055 (1977). 1 further find that the written and verbal
warnings issued to employees Cathy Czuk, Ann Lucas,
Joan Browne, Mary Harper, Donna Shannon, Mary
Meskil, Laura Marr, Ruth Quinn, and Deb Ritter, pursu-
ant to Respondent's unilateral changes in its tardiness
rules violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. The dis-
charge of employees Czuk and Lucas which were also in
furtherance of Respondent's unilateral changes in its tar-
Rule 30( of Responletnl's rules t:ltCS
Lniplo>ee(s) rcei ing three (3) ussarnilg noltices it a 12 month
period irt' slbec(t iio ImmIediat dismissal
A te hearing I gritllted tihe (iClnr.l Courtls iiotion to aitllend the
conrplailit to allege tla lit , ritiei erbhil sarnlligs Issued to Marr and
Ritter s ilattd t Acr
565
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
diness rule also violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act.
On June 11, 1979, Ann Lucas and Cathy Czuk re-
ceived written warnings for taking excessively long
lunch periods. However, for Lucas and Czuk, respective-
ly, this was only the second violation of the pre-July
1977 Rule 17 in a 3-month period. Thus, I find that on
June 11, Respondent unilaterally changed Rule 17 as it
applied to employees Lucas and Czuk. Here again, Re-
spondent neglected to bargain with the Union regarding
this change and, thus, again violated Section 8(a)(5) and
(I) of the Act. For under the pre-July 1977 rule, six in-
stances of tardiness in 3 months were required before a
written warning was to be issued.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Production Plated Plastics, Inc., is now,
and at all times material herein has been, an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW), is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All full-time and regular part-time production and
maintenance employees including shipping and receiving
employees, quality control, and truckdriver employees
employed by Respondent at its facility, located at 9899
'D' Avenue East, Richland, Michigan, but excluding all
office clerical employees, confidential employees, guards
and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit
appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(a) of the Act.
4. At all times material to this case, the Union has
been the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
the employees described in paragraph 3 above for pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9(a) of the Act.
5. Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act by, unilaterally, without prior notice to or con-
sultation with the Union, imposing on the employees in
the unit described in paragraph 3, above, a more strin-
gent break and lunch period policy, changing its rule
concerning the number of violations of its break period
and lunch period policy which will result in written
warnings and other disciplinary action against its em-
ployees, implementing its unilaterally adopted lunch
period and break period policies against unit employees
through the issuance of written verbal warnings and
written warnings, discharging unit employees Cathy
Czuk and Ann Lucas pursuant to the aforesaid unilateral-
ly adopted rules, and, by unilaterally and without prior
notice to or consultation with the Union, changing its
written plant rules regarding employee tardiness.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that Re-
spondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain af-
firmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
Having found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act by unilaterally promulgating and im-
plementing a more stringent break period and lunch
period policy, by changing its rules concerning the
number of violations of its break period and lunch period
policy which result in disciplinary action, and by issuing
verbal warnings, written warnings, and discharging em-
ployees in implementing the aforesaid policies, it will be
recommended that said rules and the procedures devised
to enforce them shall be rescinded and withdrawn.
It will also be recommended that Respondent restore
the status quo which existed at the time of its unlawful
actions by rescinding all disciplinary actions resulting
from implementation of Respondent's revised rules re-
garding lunch and breaks and the implementation of the
disciplinary policies unilaterally revised which are de-
scribed above. Inasmuch as Respondent discharged em-
ployees Cathy Czuk and Ann Lucas pursuant to its uni-
lateral changes in the lunch and break rules and in the
disciplinary procedures in violation of Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act, I will provide as a remedy in my rec-
ommended Order that Respondent offer these employees
reinstatement and make them whole by reimbursing them
for any loss of earnings they may have suffered, includ-
ing interest, in the manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corpo-
ration, 231 NLRB 117 (1977).'0
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
"' See, gencrallyI. is Plumbing &d Ieating Co., 138 NIRB 716 1961).
566