The Ohio Edison Company, a subsidiary of FirstEnergy Corporation

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Jan 17, 2014

08-CA-099595 (N.L.R.B. Jan. 17, 2014)

JD–03– 14
Akron, OH and Shippingport, PA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
OHIO EDISON COMPANY, A WHOLLY
OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF FIRSTENERGY CORP.
and Case 08-CA-099595
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRIC WORKERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 1194,
AFL-CIO, CLC
FIRSTENERGY GENERATION CORP.
and Case 06-CA-092312
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRIC WORKERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 272,
AFL-CIO, CLC
Aaron Sukert, Esq.,
for the General Counsel.
Nick Nykulak, Esq.,
for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MARK CARISSIMI, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Cleveland, Ohio,
on September 17, 2013. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No.
272, AFL-CIO, CLC (Local 272) filed the charge in Case 06-CA-092312 on October 30, 2012,
and an amended charge on November 20, 2012 against FirstEnergy Corp.1 The International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 1194, AFL-CIO, CLC (Local 1194) filed
the charge in Case 08-CA-099595 on March 5, 2013, against FirstEnergy Corp. and an amended
charge on June 21, 2013, against Ohio Edison Co, a wholly owned subsidiary of FirstEnergy
Corp. On June 28, 2013, the Acting General Counsel2 issued an order consolidating cases,
consolidated complaint and notice of hearing in these cases. On August 30, 2013, the

1 All dates are in 2012 unless otherwise indicated.
2 I have taken administrative notice of the fact that on October 29, 2013, the United States Senate
confirmed President Obama's nomination of Richard F. Griffin Jr. to be the Board's General Counsel and
that he was sworn in on November 4, 2013.
JD–03–14
2
Acting General Counsel issued an amended consolidated complaint and notice of hearing (the
complaint). On September 3, 2013, the Acting General Counsel issued an amendment to the
complaint.
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and 5
after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent, I make the
following
FINDINGS OF FACT
10
I. JURISDICTION
The Ohio Edison Co., a wholly owned subsidiary of FirstEnergy Corp. (Respondent Ohio
Edison) is an Ohio corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of FirstEnergy Corp. with
headquarters located in Akron, Ohio, and is engaged as a public utility in the purchase, 15
production, transmission, and retail sale of electricity. Annually, in the course and conduct of its
business described above, Respondent Ohio Edison derives annual gross revenue in excess of
$250,000 and purchases and receives goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly
from points located outside the State of Ohio.
20
FirstEnergy Generation Corp., (Respondent FirstEnergy Generation) is an Ohio
corporation and a subsidiary of FirstEnergy Corp. with an office and place of business in
Shippingport, Pennsylvania, and is engaged as a public utility in the generation and distribution
of electricity. Annually, in the course and conduct of its business described above, Respondent
FirstEnergy Generation derives gross annual revenue in excess of $250,000 and purchases and 25
receives at its Shippingport, Pennsylvania facility goods and materials valued in excess of
$50,000 directly from points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Respondent Ohio Edison and Respondent FirstEnergy Generation admit, and I find, that
they are employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the 30
Act and that Local 1194 and Local 272 are labor organizations within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
35
The complaint alleges that since on or about January 1, 2013, the Respondents
unilaterally changed, from every 5 years to every 10 years, the length of service employees must
serve to be eligible to receive employee service awards in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act.
40
Background
FirstEnergy Corp., the parent company of both Respondent Ohio Edison and Respondent
FirstEnergy Generation (collectively the Respondents), was formed in 1997 as a result of the
merger between Cleveland Electric Illuminating, Toledo Edison, Ohio Edison, and Pennsylvania 45
Power. FirstEnergy currently employs approximately 16,000 employees and has a collective-
bargaining relationship with approximately 23 unions.
3
Respondent FirstEnergy Generation and Local 272 are parties to a collective-bargaining
agreement effective by its terms from December 5, 2009, until February 15, 2013, covering
certain employees at Respondent FirstEnergy Generation’s D. Bruce Mansfield facility in
Shippingport, Pennsylvania. On August 16, 2012, the parties entered into a “stipulation of 5
settlement” that extended that agreement with certain modifications through February 15, 2014.
The employees in the bargaining unit covered by this agreement have been represented by Local
272 since 1978. There are approximately 290 employees in the bargaining unit.
Respondent Ohio Edison and Local 1194 were parties to a collective-bargaining 10
agreement effective from September 3, 2008, until September 3, 2013. On September 6, 2013,
the parties entered into a tentative agreement effective from September 3, 2013, through
September 2, 2016, that at the time of the hearing was undergoing a ratification vote. The
bargaining unit is composed of transmission and distribution employees in several geographic
locations in Ohio. The bargaining unit employees have been represented by Local 1194 since 15
1946. There are approximately 275 employees in the bargaining unit.
The Employee Recognition Award Policy
Respondent Ohio Edison and Pennsylvania Power, the predecessor to Respondent First 20
Energy Generation, utilized an employee recognition award program applying to the FirstEnergy
Generation unit and the Ohio Edison unit since at least 1973. The purpose of the policy is “To
acknowledge employees for their service with the company.” (Jt Exh. 6.) Pursuant to this policy,
in the 1970s to the late 1980s, full-time employees received a tie tack or charm bracelet on their
1-year anniversary date of employment. During this same period, on an employee’s 5-year 25
anniversary, he or she would receive a tie tack or charm bracelet. The 5-year service recognition
awards would increase in value based on length of service. Employees were also invited to a 5-
year service recognition awards dinner after every 5 years of service.
In 1989, Ohio Edison and Pennsylvania Power changed their employee recognition 30
policy to include an award catalog. Employees were permitted to choose an item from an award
catalog on their 5-year anniversary. There were different levels of catalogs to celebrate different
anniversaries and the awards in the catalog increased in value based on the number of years an
eligible employee had been employed.
35
After it was formed pursuant to the merger in 1997, FirstEnergy continued the employee
service recognition policy of its predecessors. The FirstEnergy employee service recognition
award policy applies to all of the approximately 16,000 individuals employed by FirstEnergy,
including supervisors. The employee service recognition policy is typically not incorporated into
collective-bargaining agreements. The exception is that the contract between FirstEnergy 40
Nuclear Operating Co., a subsidiary of FirstEnergy and IBEW, Local 29, effective from 2008
through 2011, and an extension of that agreement effective from October 1, 2011, through
September 30, 2014, provides for the granting of service recognition awards to members of
Local 29 at 5-year intervals. The most recent contracts and extensions between the Respondents
and Local 272 and Local 1194 do not contain a reference to the employee service recognition 45
policy, nor did any of the preceding contacts between those two Unions and the Respondents and
the Respondents’ predecessors contain such language. In fact, the parties to this case have never
4
negotiated regarding the employee service recognition policy. In addition, the employee service
recognition policy is not listed in the employee compensation and benefits handbook utilized by
the Respondents.
The employee service recognition policy is set forth in documents entitled “Human 5
Resources Letter 307” posted on FirstEnergy’s human resources website. The human resources
letters constitute the formal policies of all FirstEnergy subsidiaries. It is undisputed that human
resources 307 letters applied to employees represented by both Local 1194 and Local 272. In a
human resources letter 307 dated January 1, 1999 (Jt. Exh. 7), eligibility was changed to include
part-time employees. This letter stated that employees would be recognized for their service at 5-10
year intervals, thus eliminating the recognition of an employee’s 1-year anniversary. The letter
also indicated that awards would be shipped directly to the human resources representative at
each location who would be responsible for presentation of the award to the employee. Finally,
this letter contained the following language which was maintained in all subsequent human
resources 307 letters:15
This personnel policy is not a binding contract, but a set of guidelines for
implementation. The Company expressly reserves the right to modify any of the
provisions of this policy at any time and without notice.
20
On February 1, 2002 a new human resources 307 letter (Jt. Exh. 8) issued superseding the
1999 policy. The 2002 policy indicated, for the first time, that employees had the option of
ordering their award from the website of the third-party vendor, Pat Geary and Associates, that
provided the catalogs from which employees could select an award. The Pat Geary and
Associates website was accessible via FirstEnergy’s internal website. Awards could be selected 25
from an individual’s current service level or from the next lower level.
In 2004, FirstEnergy changed vendors for the gift catalogs from Pat Geary and Associates
to C. A. Short. For the first time, employees were restricted to selecting awards from the catalog
that corresponded to their award level. Previously, employees were permitted to select an award 30
from the catalog at their anniversary level or a lower one. On January 1, 2004, the 2002
employee recognition reward policy was superseded by a new human resources letter 307 (Jt.
Exh 9). Under the 2004 policy, the awards were delivered to the employee’s home and not to the
employee’s supervisor for presentation. The 2004 policy also announced that employees would
receive a “service award package” that included a certificate of appreciation and a letter from 35
FirstEnergy’s CEO. The 2004 policy also indicated that employees who failed to order an award
from the catalog would not receive one. Previously, if an employee did not select an award one
would be selected for him or her.
On January 1, 2009, FirstEnergy issued a human resources letter 307 ( Jt. Exh. 10) that 40
superseded the 2004 policy. Under the 2009 policy, the anniversary of employees who had a
break in service and were rehired after January 1, 2005, would be measured by their rehire date,
and not in accordance with the pension plan’s break in service rules. Employees hired prior to
January 1, 2005, would continue to have their anniversaries determined by the pension plan’s
break in service rules. In a human resources policy letter dated February 28, 2011 (Jt. Exh. 11),45
FirstEnergy only changed the Internet website for employee access to the catalog.
5
The record establishes that since C. A. Short began serving as the third-party vendor the
value of the employee service award increased in a uniform manner with an employee’s length
of service. After 5 years the value of the award is $35, after 10 years it is $69.50, after 15 years it
is $75, and after 20 years it is $101. The value of the awards continues to increase in 5-year
increments up to a 50 year anniversary award, which is worth $314.50. (Jt. Exh. 25.)5
A sample 5 and 10-year anniversary award package, including the corresponding award
catalog, was admitted into evidence at the hearing (Jt. Exhs.17 and 18, respectively). Each
anniversary level of a gift catalog contains between 90 and 100 items, broken down into separate
categories such as jewelry, electronics, cookware, and watches. There are 9 or 10 items 10
contained in each category at every anniversary level. The catalogs are generated by C. A. Short
around the time of an employee’s anniversary date. The items contained in the catalogs are
constantly changing as out-of-stock inventory is replaced with new items and new models of
items replace older models. All the items contained in a catalog are limited to tangible items such
as clocks, jewelry, and cookware. Employees do not receive cash or gift cards under the service 15
recognition policy. The value of an award is not reported on an employee’s W-2 form.
The Respondents’ September 2012 Communications with Local 272 and Local 1194 and the
Implementation of a Change in the Employee Service Recognition Policy on January 1, 2013
20
On September 18, 2012, FirstEnergy representatives contacted various union
representatives including Herman Marshman, Local 272’s president, and David Childers, Local
1194’s business manager, to inform them of upcoming changes to certain FirstEnergy
employment policies, including the employee service recognition policy. The ultimate decision
to change these policies, including the employee recognition award policy, was made by Tony 25
Alexander, FirstEnergy’s CEO. In order to maintain uniformity in the communications with the
various unions, scripts were prepared for the labor representatives to use when speaking to the
union representatives.
On September 18, Eileen McNamara, FirstEnergy’s director of labor relations, called 30
Marshman and informed him that various changes in employment policies would be announced
to employees the next day. According to Marshman, McNamara told him that FirstEnergy would
be making changes to various employment policies including the employee service recognition
policy, educational reimbursement, death benefits, and long-term disability. Specifically with
respect to the employee service recognition program, Marshman testified that McNamara told 35
him that the change to the employee service recognition award program would be from the then
current 5-year service award to a 10-year service award and that the change would take place in
January 2013. Marshman further testified that he told McNamara that the changes in the policies
that she had informed him of were subject to negotiations and that he expressed concern about
FirstEnergy making these proposed changes without negotiations. According to Marshman, 40
McNamara replied that she understood his position but that FirstEnergy did not agree with him
on this point. Marshman testified that he stated that the changes were subject to negotiations and
that FirstEnergy was forcing him to file an unfair labor practice charge, which he did not want to
do.
45
McNamara testified that she utilized the script (R. Exh. 1) that had been prepared to
discuss the upcoming changes to some employment practices at FirstEnergy when she spoke to
6
Marshman on September 18. According to McNamara, she did not deviate from the script during
her phone conversation. With respect to employee service awards the script indicates: “Will be
given for each ten years of service rather than each 5 years.” As a closing statement the script
indicates: “As you can tell we are making changes that we believe will make a difference, but we
are facing long-term challenges. These changes will take place at the beginning of the year, 5
January 1, 2013. Should you have any concerns or questions please do not hesitate to call.”
McNamara testified that Marshman did not state that the changes she discussed with him were
subject to negotiations nor did he request to bargain over any of the changes that she had relayed
to him, including the changes to the employee service recognition policy. McNamara specifically
denied that she said that FirstEnergy had no obligation to negotiate over any of the proposed 10
changes. McNamara further testified that Marshman said in response to the changes in policies
that she had announced, “Oh no you don’t, you know I have to come to Akron on this.”
Marshman added that he would also have to go to the Board. (Tr. 131.) McNamara testified that
she understood Marshman’s reference to going to Akron to be that he wanted to complain to
FirstEnergy CEO Alexander. McNamara further testified that union representatives frequently 15
spoke to Alexander about employment issues that arose.
McNamara testified that her superior, Chuck Cookson, asked her to update him on the
conversations that she had with the various union representatives that she had spoken to.
Accordingly, on September 19, McNamara sent the following email to Cookson:20
Chuck-heard back from Herman and Local 50. Local 50 is fine. Herman is not
happy (although very polite and made nice jokes). He said “on (sic) no you don’t!
Again? Now you know I have to file a board charge honey” and now he “has to
come to Akron for this one.” He was very nice about it though. He was actually 25
quite funny-but I’m sure he’s serious about the charge and coming to Akron. I
told him to stop by my office if he makes it Akron-he says, “oh yes, he is coming
to Akron for sure.” [R. Exh. 4.]
To the extent that the testimony of Marshman and McNamara conflicts, I credit 30
McNamara. McNamara’s demeanor while testifying exhibited certainty. In addition, her
testimony was consistent with both the script that was prepared prior to her discussion with
Marshman and with the email she sent to Cookson following her conversation with him. I find
particularly persuasive the email she sent to Cookson as I doubt she would have included such
detail regarding her conversation with Marshman unless it was true. On the other hand, I do not 35
find Marshman’s testimony regarding their phone conversation to be sufficiently reliable to base
findings on it. His testimony was not particularly detailed and his demeanor while testifying was
not impressive.
According to the uncontroverted testimony of Childers, Local 1194’s business agent, on 40
September 18, 2012, John Rossero, a FirstEnergy labor relations representative, called him to
inform him of upcoming changes to employee benefits, including the employee service
recognition policy. Childers was informed by Rossero, that FirstEnergy was going to change the
employee service recognition policy and that employees would be rewarded at 10-year intervals
as opposed to 5-year intervals. Childers admitted that he did not request to bargain over the 45
change to the employee service recognition policy that Rossero had announced to him. When
Childers was asked at the hearing why he did not do so, he replied, “The changes were not going
7
to take place until January so I felt there was time, time to review what we were being told and
how to respond to that.” (Tr. 102-103.) The record establishes, however, that Local 1194 never
requested to bargain over the change to the employee recognition policy prior to its
implementation on January 1, 2013, or thereafter.
5
On September 19, the Respondents distributed to their employees and to Locals 272 and
1194, a copy of “ FirstEnergy Employee Update Special Issue” which included changes in
employee benefits that would be taking place effective January 1, 2013, including changes to the
employee service recognition policy. (Jt. Exh 12.) In this connection, this document stated
“Employee Service Awards will be given for every 10 years of service rather than every 5 years 10
of service.”
The employee update included a message from FirstEnergy’s CEO, Alexander, which
indicated that because FirstEnergy stock had lost 6.45 percent in value, certain staff reductions as
well as changes to employee benefits were being instituted. At the hearing, Stacy Silvis, a 15
FirstEnergy benefits manager, testified that FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries would save
approximately $200,000 per year corporatewide by changing the employee recognition service
policy from 5 to 10 years.
On September 27, 2012, McNamara sent to Marshman a letter which stated in relevant 20
part: “On September 19, 2012, the following additional benefit changes were announced,
effective January 1, 2013:[ . . . ] Employee Service Awards-Will be given for each 10 years of
service rather than each 5 years. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the foregoing,
please do not hesitate to contact me.” (Jt. Exh. 15) On the same date, an identical letter was sent
by Rossero to Childers (Jt. Exh. 14).25
On October 30, 2012, Local 272 filed an unfair labor practice charge in Case 06-CA-
092312 alleging, in part, that Respondent FirstEnergy Generation violated Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) by making a unilateral change in employee service awards on or about September 27, 2012.
On November 20, 2012, Local 272 filed an amended charge that contained the same allegation 30
regarding the employee service award program.
On January 1, 2013, the Respondents implemented a new human resources letter 307 (Jt.
Exh. 16) which changed the employee service recognition program to reflect that awards would
be received at 10-year anniversary intervals. The effect of this was obviously to change the 35
policy of granting an award at a 5-year anniversary date to a 10-year anniversary date. This
change applied to all employees and supervisors throughout FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries,
except for employees represented by IBEW Local 29. Pursuant to their collective-bargaining
agreement, those employees would continue to receive awards at the 5-year anniversary date. As
a result of the January 1, 2013 changes to the employee service recognition policy, 40
approximately 89 employees represented by Locals 272 and 1194 did not have their
anniversaries recognized, who otherwise would have received a recognition award at a 5-year
anniversary interval.
On March 4, 2013, Local 1194 filed the charge in Case 08-CA-099595 alleging, in part, 45
that Respondent Ohio Edison violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by unilaterally announcing
8
changes to the employee service award program on September 27, 2012, that became effective
on January 1, 2013.
Analysis
5
Whether the Employee Service Recognition Policy is a Mandatory Subject of Bargaining
The General Counsel contends that the Respondents’ employee service recognition policy
is a condition of employment and therefore is a mandatory subject over which the Respondents
had an obligation to bargain. The Respondents contend that the items provided to the employees 10
through the employee service recognition policy are gifts and therefore not a mandatory subject
of bargaining over which they are required to bargain.
Section 8(d) of the Act requires that an employer bargain with a union representing its
employees with respect to “wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.” It is 15
clear that an employer has a duty to bargain with the union over mandatory subjects of
bargaining and that its failure to do so violates Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. First National
Maintenance Corp. v. NLRB, 452 U.S. 666, 679-682 (1981); NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736, 743
(1962). In Postal Service, 302 NLRB 767, 776 (1991) the Board noted that it “has broadly
construed the term ‘wages’ in Section 8(d) of the Act to include “emoluments of value20
. . . which may accrue to employees out of the employment relationship.” Central Illinois Public
Service Co., 139 NLRB 1407 (1962). In other words the term “wages” does not refer to a sum of
money given for actual hours worked; rather it also encompasses numerous other forms of
compensation.”
25
The Board has found that employee award programs which are based upon length of
service are mandatory subjects of bargaining over which an employer has an obligation to
bargain. In Conval-Ohio, Inc., 202 NLRB 85 (1973), the employer had a service award program
which provided for the granting of a gold watch to employees who attain 25 years of service and
granting fixed amount cash awards for employees who attained 30, 35, 40, 45 and 50 years of 30
service. The complaint alleged only that the unilateral discontinuance of the cash awards violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) as the union did not raise a challenge to the discontinuance of the watch
award. Id. at 88.
The Board found that the cash service award program for longevity of service was a 35
mandatory subject of bargaining and therefore the employer violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by
unilaterally discontinuing the program. In so finding, the Board adopted the following rationale
of the administrative law judge:
The cash service awards here involved are obviously not in the same genre as a 40
Christmas bonus as they are not in any sense gratuities because they are
essentially awards or payments for staying with [the] Company for stated long
periods of time. It is significant that they are not even called bonuses. They are
designated and known as employees’ service awards. They are, in other words,
awards for longevity of service. They are the thus definitely and positively tied 45
into the working service of the employee and as such are part of an employee’s
compensation for continuous service for periods in excess of a quarter of a
9
century. The cash awards are fixed in amount, depending only upon length of
service and accordingly do not vary from time to time . . . . Id. at 92.
In Longhorn Machine Works, 205 NLRB 685, 690 (1973), the Board found that a service
reward program that involved the tangible item of a watch and not a cash award also constitutes 5
a mandatory subject of bargaining. In that case, the Board found that an employer’s unilateral
discontinuance of its established practice of awarding gold watches to employees on their 10-
year anniversary date of employment violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1).
The Board’s decisions in Conval-Ohio and Longhorn Machine Works, supra, are 10
consistent with the rationale utilized by the Board in later cases in determining whether a matter,
such as the employee recognition award policy involved here, is a mandatory subject of
bargaining or a gift, over which the employer has no obligation to bargain.
In Benchmark Industries, 270 NLRB 22 (1984), affd. Amalgamated Clothing v. NLRB, 15
760 F.267 (5th Cir. 1985) the Board found that the employer did not violate Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) by unilaterally discontinuing its practice of giving employees Christmas hams and dinners.
The Board found that those items were gifts because they “had been given to all employees
regardless of their work performance, earnings, seniority, production, or other employment
related factors.” 270 NLRB at 22.20
In North American Pipe Corp., 347 NLRB 836 (2006),the same employment related
factors were utilized by the Board in considering whether the employer violated Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) by granting stock in the employer’s initial public stock offering to unit employees
without notifying and giving the union an opportunity to bargain. The Board found that the stock 25
award was a gift and not a mandatory subject of bargaining. In so finding, the Board noted the
following:
The award was not tied to employee renumeration. The size of the award was
established without regard to any employment-related factors, including work 30
performance, wages, hours worked, seniority, or productivity. In fact, the value of
the award, when announced and when vested, was determined solely by market
demand for equity shares in Westlake. Further, all eligible employees at each of
Westlake’s facilities including the Respondent’s Van Buren plant, received the
same amount of stock whether they were the highest paid managers or the lowest 35
paid hourly employees. Finally, the award was related to a one-time event-the
parent corporation’s IPO-with no promise or prospect of repetition. [Id. at 838]
In North American Pipe Corp., 347 at 839, the Board further found that the stock award
at issue in that case was not tied to an employee’s seniority. In this regard, the Board noted that 40
in order to establish a link between an award and seniority, the seniority of employees must
either be (1) proportionally related to the amount received, see e.g., Freedom WLNE-TV, Inc.,
278 NLRB 1293, 1296-1297 (1986) (where the formula was based in part on years of service);
and Electric Steam Radiator Corp., 136 NLRB 923 (1962), enfd. 321 F.2d 733 (6th Cir. 1963)
(where the bonus amount was based on length of service) or (2) an award must be given in 45
recognition of an employee obtaining a specific level of seniority, see United Shoe Machinery
10
Corp., 96 NLRB 1309, 1326-1327 1951) (where a stock award was authorized to “recognize
long continued service by employees in a substantial way.”)
Finally, In North American Pipe Corp., 347 at 839, the Board noted that there was no
relationship between the employees’ relative seniority in the amounts they received as all eligible 5
employees received the same amount of stock. The Board also noted that the stock was not given
to employees in recognition of their attaining any particular level of seniority. Accordingly, the
Board concluded that the employer’s unilateral award of stock to unit employees did not violate
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
10
In Phelps Dodge Mining Co., 308 NLRB 985, 985 fn. 3, 999-1001 (1992), the Board
found that “appreciation payments” given to employees were more than token gifts. In this
regard the Board found that the payments constituted significant economic benefits to eligible
employees based on the employment related factors of wages and hours worked.
15
In the instant case, the employee service recognition policy is tied to the employment-
related factor of years of employee service. It is also a recurring program that awards employees
regularly when they attain certain anniversary dates of employment with the Respondents. The
awards have a fixed amount of value depending upon the length of service of an employee. Thus,
the value of the award selected by an employee is tied to his or her length of service. 20
Accordingly, I find that the Respondents’ employee service recognition policy constitutes a
mandatory subject of bargaining and that the Board’s decisions in Phelps Dodge Mining Co.,
Conval-Ohio, and Longhorn Machine Works, support this conclusion.
I find the Board’s decision in Benchmark Industries, supra, to be distinguishable since the 25
dinners and hams distributed in that case were given indiscriminately to employees without
regard to employment-related factors. I also find North American Pipe Corp., to be
distinguishable. There, the stock granted to employees was on a one-time basis without any
expectation of repetition. In addition, the award of stock was not sufficiently tied to any
employment related factor so as to make it a bargainable matter.30
I finally consider whether the change in the employee service recognition policy was
substantial and material. As a result of the January 1, 2013 change in the policy, employees were
given awards at a 10-year anniversary as opposed to a 5-year anniversary. Because of that
change approximately 89 employees from the Ohio Edison and FirstEnergy Generation units did 35
not receive awards in 2013. As noted previously, the value of the items awarded ranged from
approximately $35 to $315. I find the change instituted by the Respondents is substantial and
material under the standards utilized by the Board. Bell Atlantic Corp., 332 NLRB 1592, 1595
(2000); Millard Processing Services, 310 NLRB 421, 424-425 (1993). Because the Respondents
instituted a substantial and material change in a mandatory subject of bargaining, they were 40
required to give notice to their respective Unions of the change to the employee service
recognition policy and give them an opportunity to bargain over it.
45
11
Whether the Respondents Presented Locals 272 and 1194 with a Fait Accompli regarding
the Changes to the Employee Service Recognition Policy
The General Counsel contends that the Respondents’ communications to the Unions
reflected the predetermined nature of the change to the employee service recognition policy and 5
thus the Unions were presented with a fait accompli. The Respondents contend that the Unions
were not presented with a fait accompli but rather were given sufficient notice of the change to
the employee service recognition policy and an opportunity to bargain.
As noted above, both Marshman and Childers were called by McNamara and Rossero, 10
respectively, on September 18 and informed that the Respondents would be instituting a change
to the employee service recognition policy on January 1, 2013. Consistent with the scripts used
by the Respondents’ representatives for these calls, both union representatives were also told,
“Should you have any concerns or questions please do not hesitate to call.” On September 19
both Unions received the employee update, again informing them of the change to the employee 15
service recognition policy the Respondents intended to institute on January 1, 2013. Finally, on
September 27 both Unions also received letters again advising them of change to the employee
service recognition policy that would be instituted on January 1, 2013. The letters also included
the language “If you have any questions or concerns regarding the foregoing, please do not
hesitate to contact me.”20
The standards utilized by the Board in determining whether a union is presented with a
fait accompli are set forth in Ciba-Geigy Pharmaceutical Division, 264 NLRB 1013, 1017
(1982):
25
The Board has long recognized that, where a union received timely notice that the
employer intends to change a condition of employment, it must properly request that the
employer bargain over the matter. To be timely, the notice must be given sufficiently in
advance of the actual implementation of the change to allow a reasonable opportunity to
bargain. However, if the notice is too short a time before the implementation or because 30
the employer has no intention of changing its mind, then the notice is nothing more than
informing the union of a fait accompli. [Footnotes omitted.]
In the instant case, both Unions were advised by the Respondents that the employee
service recognition policy would be changed approximately 3½ months before the effective date 35
of the change. On two occasions both Unions were specifically advised that if they had any
questions or concerns they should not hesitate to call the Respondents’ representatives. Under
these circumstances, I find that the Respondents did not present the Unions with a fait accompli.
Rather, both Unions were given notice long in advance of the Respondents’ intended change to
the employee service recognition policy. The Respondents’ representatives invited the 40
representatives of both Local 272 and Local 1194 to contact them if they had any questions or
concerns regarding the new policy. Importantly, the Respondents took no action to implement
the new policy prior to January 1, 2013. Under these circumstances, I find that the Unions were
not presented with a fait accompli under the standards set forth above.
45
The Board’s decision in WPIX, Inc., 299 NLRB 525 (1990), relied on by the
Respondents, is supportive of this conclusion. In that case, on December 8, 1988, the employer
12
notified its employees that effective January 1, 1989 the mileage reimbursement rate would
increase from 22 ½ cents per mile to $.24 per mile. While the union was not specifically notified
by the employer of the change in the reimbursement rate, a union representative, by chance,
noticed a memorandum to employees notifying them of the January 1, 1989 change in the
reimbursement rate shortly before Christmas in 1988. The union never requested bargaining over 5
the change in the mileage reimbursement rate prior to its implementation. Under these
circumstances, the Board concluded that the union had failed to request bargaining over a change
in working conditions of which it had actual notice and there was insufficient evidence to
establish that a request to bargain would be futile. Accordingly, the Board concluded the
employer did not violate Section 8(a)(5) and (1) when it implemented the proposed change in the 10
mileage rate
In reaching the conclusion that the Unions in the instant case were not presented with a
fait accompli, I find the cases relied on by the General Counsel to be distinguishable. In Ciba-
Ceigy, supra, on April 21, 1978, the employer notified the union of changes it was going to 15
institute changes in the attendance policy effective on May 1, 1978. The union requested time to
study the new policy and also requested the statistical information relied on by the employer as
the basis for its proposed changes. At a meeting held on April 27, the union had not yet received
the information requested but indicated that it would file a grievance over certain provisions of
the policy. In neither meeting, however, did the union specifically request bargaining. However, 20
on April 25, 26, and 27, the employer mailed letters to employees whom it had targeted as
chronic absentees which contained warnings and set up counseling sections. Under these
circumstances, particularly since the new policy had already begun to be implemented before the
April 27 meeting, the Board found that the union had been presented with a fait accompli
regarding the implementation of the new attendance policy. Accordingly, the Board found that 25
the employer violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1).
In Pontiac Osteopathic Hospital, 336 NLRB 1021 (2001), the employer sent a letter to
the union advising it that it would be changing its paid time off benefits and procedures effective
on January 2, 2000, that would affect both unrepresented employees and those represented by the 30
union. In finding that the employer’s notice to the union amounted to a fait accompli the Board
found that the employer’s decision to have a uniform policy applicable to all employees had been
made prior to the December 8, 1999 notice to the union. The Board also found the language of
the memo indicating it was the intention of the employer to “unilaterally” implement the
revisions to be indicative of the fact that it was a final decision about which it had no intention to 35
bargain. In the instant case, however, it is undisputed that IBEW Local 29 and FirstEnergy
Nuclear Operating Company, another subsidiary of FirstEnergy, are parties to a collective-
bargaining agreement that provides for employee recognition awards on an employee’s 5-year
anniversary date. While the record does not contain evidence as to the circumstances under
which that provision was included in the collective-bargaining agreement, obviously, at some 40
point, a subsidiary of FirstEnergy had engaged in bargaining over the employee service
recognition program.
On the basis of the foregoing, I find there is insufficient evidence in the instant case to
establish that the Respondents had no intention to bargain, under any circumstances, over the 45
proposed change to the employee service recognition policy.
13
Whether Respondent FirstEnergy Generation Violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act
by Unilaterally Implementing a New Employee Service Recognition Policy Regarding the Unit
Represented by Local 272
As noted above, I found that Local 272 was not presented with a fait accompli regarding 5
the change in the employee service recognition policy that Respondent FirstEnergy Generation
implemented at its Shippingport, Pennsylvania facility on January 1, 2013. I turn now to the
issue of whether Local 272 made a valid request to bargain over those changes.
The credited testimony establishes that when McNamara called Marshman on September 10
18, and notified him that FirstEnergy was going to be implementing a change to the employee
service recognition policy on January 1, 2013, Marshman replied “[O] no you don’t” and that he
would have to “file a Board charge.” Marshman added that “he has to come to Akron for this
one.” When McNamara told him to stop by her office if he needed to come to Akron, Marshman
replied that he was “coming to Akron for sure.” McNamara testified that she understood 15
Marshman’s reference about coming to Akron to be that he wanted to complain to Tony
Alexander, First Energy’s CEO about this issue. McNamara’s email that she sent to her superior,
Cookson, the following day indicates that she was sure that Marshman was serious about filing a
charge and coming to Akron.
20
I find Marshman’s statements to McNamara objecting to the change in the employee
service recognition policy, that he was going to file a charge over the issue and that he was
“coming to Akron on this one” constituted a request to bargain over Respondent First Energy
Generation’s announced change to the policy. The Board has long held that a request for
bargaining “need take no special form, so long as there is a clear communication of meaning.” 25
Armour & Co., 280 NLRB. 824, 828 (1986). See also Sunoco Inc. 349 NLRB 240, 245 (2007);
MSK Corp., 341 NLRB 43, 45 (2004).
In Indian River Memorial Hospital, 340 NLRB 467, 468-469 (2003) when the union
discovered that the employer was going to institute a change in the hours of work for unit 30
employees, it faxed a letter to the employer indicating that the change was a mandatory subject
of bargaining. The letter further indicated that unless the employer rescinded the notice to
employees advising them of the change the union would file an unfair labor practice charge. The
union’s letter did not specifically request bargaining. The Board found, however, applying the
principles set forth above, found that there was no doubt that the union’s letter constituted a 35
bargaining request.
In the instant case, although Marshman did not specifically say to McNamara, “I want to
bargain with you about this change” the statements he made to her leave little doubt, in my view,
that he conveyed to her that he was interested in bargaining about the change to the employee 40
service recognition policy. I find that McNamara’s September 19 email reflects an understanding
that Marshman was requesting bargaining as it indicates that she felt he was serious about
coming to Akron to discuss the change to the policy.
On October 30, 2012, Local 272 filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging that 45
Respondent FirstEnergy Generation violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by making a unilateral
change to employee service awards on or about September 27, 2012. Obviously, this charge was
14
filed well before the implementation date of January 1, 2013. Generally, the filing of an unfair
labor practice charge does not relieve a union of its obligation to request that an employer
bargain over a proposed change. Associated Milk Producers, Inc., 300 NLRB 561, 563 (1990).
The Board has held, however, that if an employer has doubt about whether a request for
bargaining has been made, such doubt can be eliminated when a union files an unfair labor 5
practice charge claiming a refusal to bargain over the issue in dispute. Trucking Water Air Corp.,
276 NLRB 1401, 1407 (1985). In the instant case, I find that any doubt that the employer had
regarding Local 272’s desire to bargain over the announced change to the employee service
recognition policy should have been removed by the language contained in the charge filed by
Local 272.10
I find Medicenter, Mid-South Hospital, 221 NLRB 670 (1975), relied on by the
Respondents, to be distinguishable. In that case, the employer and the union met several times
during the 2 days between the employer’s announcement of the polygraph testing program for its
employees and the implementation of that program. Although during this period the employer 15
invited a discussion of alternative proposals from the union, the union never requested
bargaining over the testing program but rather merely objected to it and said it would never agree
to it. Under these circumstances, the Board found that the employer did not violate Section 8(a)
(5) and (1) by implementing the polygraph testing program. As noted above, I find that in the
instant case the statements of Marshman on September 18 indicated a desire to further discuss 20
the implementation of the changes to the employee service recognition policy. Certainly, at no
time, did Respondent FirstEnergy Generation expressly invite Local 272 to present an alternative
to the impending change.
Before reaching a conclusion as to whether Respondent FirstEnergy Generation violated 25
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) with respect to the employee service recognition policy as it applied to
the unit represented by Local 272, I must consider a defense applicable to the complaint
allegations involving both Respondent FirstEnergy Generation and Respondent Ohio Edison. In
this connection, the Respondents argue that the acquiescence of both Unions to previous
unilateral changes instituted in the employee service recognition policy constitutes a waiver of 30
the Unions’ right to bargain over the change in the length of service policy involved in this case.
The Respondents argue that FirstEnergy and its predecessors made many unilateral
modifications to the employee service recognition program in the units represented by the
Unions over the course of 20 years without objections being raised by the Unions. In this 35
connection, the Respondents asserted that FirstEnergy and its predecessors have previously made
the following changes to the policy: adding a gift catalog, eliminating the recognition dinners;
eliminating the 1-year service anniversary award; expanding the policy to include all full-time
and part-time employees; changing the method of measuring an employee’s anniversary for
rehired employees; changing the policy of shipping an award to the local human resources 40
manager to shipping the award to the recipient; ceasing the policy of automatically selecting an
award if the employee did not select one; adding the option of selecting a gift on the Internet;
changing vendors; adding certificates of appreciation and letters from the FirstEnergy CEO along
with the award catalogs; and restricting the level of the catalog from which an employee could
select an award. 45
15
The burden of proof to demonstrate that a waiver exists on the basis of a union’s past
practice of acquiescing in unilateral changes rests on the Respondent. Caterpillar Inc., 355
NLRB 521, 522 (2010).
The Respondents cannot meet that burden in this case.3 Most importantly, it is well5
established that a union’s acquiescence in past changes regarding a bargainable subject does not
constitute a waiver of the right to bargain over further changes, even when such changes are
similar to those made by the employer in the past without objection. FirstEnergy Generation
Corp., 358 NLRB No. 96, slip op. at 1 and 10 (2012); Caterpillar, supra, at 523. See also
Georgia Power Co., 325 NLRB 420, 421 (1998); Bath Iron Works Corp., 302 NLRB 898, 900-10
901 (1991); Johnson-Bateman Co., 298 NLRB 180, 187-188 (1989). Moreover, in the instant
case, the change of the length of time to obtain a service award from 5 to 10 years is different in
nature from prior changes to the plan. Most of the prior changes involved administrative matters
involving the operation of the policy. Because the change in eligibility for an employee service
award is significantly different from the relatively minor administrative changes to the policy15
made in the past, those prior changes do not serve as a basis to establish the Unions waived their
right to bargain over the change to the eligibility period for employee service awards.
FirstEnergy Generation Corp., supra. The most significant change, the inclusion of part-time
employees, occurred in 1999 and is therefore remote in time. Finally, the record does not
establish that the Respondents and their predecessors give specific notice to the Unions regarding 20
prior changes to the employee service recognition policy.
Based on the foregoing, I find that Respondent FirstEnergy Generation violated Section 8
(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing and refusing to bargain with Local 272 prior to implementing
the change in the employee service recognition policy.25
Whether Respondent Ohio Edison Violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by Unilaterally
Implementing a New Employee Service Recognition Policy Regarding the Unit Represented by
Local 1194
30
As discussed in detail above, I find that Local 1194 was not presented with a fait
accompli when Childers was notified in September 2012 that FirstEnergy would be instituting a
change in the employee service recognition policy effective on January 1, 2013.

3 I do not agree with the Respondents that the Board's decision in Mount Clemens General Hospital,
344 NLRB 450, 460 (2005) supports their position regarding waiver. In the first instance, in Mount
Clemens, the Board indicated that the only exceptions before it for the General Counsel's exceptions to
the administrative law judge's order and notice regarding an information request. Id. at p. 450 fn..2. It is
clear therefore that no exceptions were filed to the administrative law judge's finding that the employer
did not violate Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by making changes in its pension plan. Id. at 459-460. It is settled
Board policy that review of an administrative law judge's decision is limited to the issues raised by
exceptions and that in the absence of exceptions, the Board does not pass on an administrative law judge's
rationale, FES, 333 NLRB 66 (2001). Accordingly, I do not consider the portion of the Board's decision
in Mount Clemens relied on by the Respondents to be binding precedent. I note, moreover, that in Mount
Clemens that was specific contract language supporting the administrative law judge's conclusion that the
union waived its right to bargain over changes to the pension plan. Thus, the case is also distinguishable
on its facts.
16
After being given notice of this change, it is undisputed Local 1194 did not request
bargaining over the change to the employee service recognition policy prior to its
implementation on January 1, 2013, or thereafter. It was not until March 4, 2013, that Local 1194
filed an unfair labor practice charge, alleging in part that Respondent Ohio Edison unilaterally
implemented the change in the employee service recognition policy in violation of Section 5
8(a)(5) and (1).
Under the circumstances present in this case I find that Local 1194 waived its right to
bargain over the changes implemented to the employee service recognition policy on January 1,
2013. Respondent Ohio Edison met its obligation to give notice to the Local 1194 about the 10
plans change to the employee recognition policy and afforded a reasonable opportunity to
request bargaining. Since Local 1194 never requested bargaining, it waived its right to bargain
over the change in the employee service recognition policy. Associated Milk Producers, supra at
563, and cases cited therein.
15
As noted above, Local 1194 did not file an unfair labor practice charge over the
implementation of the change to the employee service recognition policy until March, 2013. The
filing of this charge did not relieve it of its obligation to request that the Respondent bargain over
the proposed change. Associated Milk Producers, supra at 563.
20
Based on the foregoing, I find that Respondent Ohio Edison did not violate Section 8(a)
(5) and (1) of the Act when it implemented the change to the employee recognition policy in the
Ohio Edison unit on January 1, 2013, and I shall dismiss that allegation in the complaint.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW25
1. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 272, AFL-CIO,
CLC (IBEW, Local 272) is, and, at all material times, was the exclusive bargaining
representative in the following appropriate unit:
30
All production and maintenance employees, including control room operators,
employees in the stores, electrical, maintenance, operations, I & T, and yard
departments at Respondent FirstEnergy Generation’s Bruce Mansfield plant,
Shippingport, Pennsylvania facility; excluding technicians, office clerical
employees and guards, other professional employees and supervisors as defined in 35
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
2. By failing to bargain in good faith with IBEW, Local 272 regarding a change from 5 to
10 years in the eligibility requirement of its employee service recognition policy, implemented
on January 1, 2013, Respondent FirstEnergy Generation violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the 40
Act.
3. The above unfair labor practice affects commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
45
4. Respondent Ohio Edison has not violated the Act.
17
REMEDY
Having found that Respondent FirstEnergy Generation has engaged in an unfair labor
practice by failing to bargain in good faith with IBEW, Local 272 regarding a change to its
employee service recognition policy which it implemented on January 1, 2013, I shall order it to 5
cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act. Specifically, I shall order Respondent FirstEnergy Generation to rescind the
change to the employee service recognition policy effective January 1, 2013, which changed the
length of time that an employee could receive a service recognition award from every 5 years to
every 10 years. I shall also order Respondent FirstEnergy Generation to bargain with Local 272 10
before implementing any further changes in the employee service recognition policy. I shall also
order Respondent FirstEnergy Generation to make whole each employee in the bargaining unit at
its Shippingport, Pennsylvania facility, who would have been eligible to receive an employee
service recognition award based upon 5 years of service, and who did not receive such an award
because of the change in the eligibility policy effective January 1, 2013, by granting such 15
employees an employee service recognition award.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended4
20
ORDER
The Respondent, FirstEnergy Generation Corp., Shippingport, Pennsylvania, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
25
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing or refusing to bargain in good faith with the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 272, AFL-CIO, CLC (IBEW, Local 272) as the exclusive
bargaining representative of the employees in the following appropriate unit regarding the 30
employee service recognition policy. The unit is:
All production and maintenance employees, including control room operators,
employees in the stores, electrical, maintenance, operations, I & T, and yard
departments at Respondent FirstEnergy Generation’s Bruce Mansfield plant, 35
Shippingport, Pennsylvania facility; excluding technicians, office clerical
employees and guards, other professional employees and supervisors as defined in
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
(b) Unilaterally changing the employee service recognition policy by changing the length 40
of time required for an employee in the bargaining unit described above to receive an employee
service recognition award from every 5 years to every 10 years.

4 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 purposes.
18
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
5
(a) On request of IBEW, Local 272, rescind the change to the employee service
recognition policy regarding the 10-year length of service requirement that was instituted on
January 1, 2013, and restore the 5-year length of service requirement that existed before the
change was instituted.
10
(b) On request, bargain with IBEW, Local 272 as the exclusive representative of the
employees in the appropriate unit concerning any change to the employee service recognition
policy.
(c) Make whole all employees in the bargaining unit who were not granted an employee 15
service recognition award because of the change in the length of service requirement instituted
on January 1, 2013, and who would have received such an award based upon 5 years length of
service, by granting such employees an employee service recognition award.
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in Shippingport, 20
Pennsylvania copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”5 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 6, after being signed by the Respondent’s
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive
days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, the notices shall be distributed 25
electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic
means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by such means.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that, during the pendency of these
proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these 30
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to
all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since
January 1, 2013.
(e) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn 35
certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that
the Respondent has taken to comply.
40

5 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 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.”
19
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed insofar as it alleges
violations of the Act not specifically found.
Dated, Washington, D.C., January 17, 2014.
5
____________________
Mark Carissimi
Administrative Law Judge
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to bargain in good faith with the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 272, AFL-CIO, CLC (IBEW, Local 272) as the exclusive
bargaining representative of the employees in the following appropriate unit regarding the
employee service recognition policy. The unit is:
All production and maintenance employees, including control room operators,
employees in the stores, electrical, maintenance, operations, I & T, and yard
departments at Respondent First Energy Generation’s Bruce Mansfield plant,
Shippingport, Pennsylvania facility; excluding technicians, office clerical
employees and guards, other professional employees and supervisors as defined in
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally change the employee service recognition policy by changing the
length of time required for an employee in the bargaining unit described above to receive a
service award from every 5 years to every 10 years
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, on request of IBEW, Local 272, rescind the change to the employee service
recognition policy regarding the 10-year length of service requirement that was instituted on
January 1, 2013, and restore the 5-year length of service requirement that existed before the
change was instituted.
WE WILL, on request, bargain with IBEW, Local 272 as the exclusive representative of the
employees in the bargaining unit concerning any change to the employee service recognition
policy.
WE WILL make whole all employees in the bargaining unit who were not granted an employee
service recognition award because of the change in the length of service requirement instituted
on January 1, 2013, and who would have received such an award based upon 5 years length of
service, by granting such employees an employee service recognition award.
FIRSTENERGY GENERATION CORP.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor
Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it
investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under
the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
1000 Liberty Avenue, Federal Building, Room 904, Pittsburgh, PA 15222-4111
(412) 395-4400, Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE
ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR
COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (412) 395-6899.