United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Honorable

Paul Simon, U.S. Senate

October 1995 WORKER

PROTECTION

Federal Contractors

and Violations of Labor

Law

GAO/HEHS-96-8

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Health, Education, and

Human Services Division

B-257208 

October 24, 1995

The Honorable Paul Simon

United States Senate

Dear Senator Simon:

Private sector firms receive billions of dollars annually in federal

government contracts for goods and services. While these firms generally

profit from their business with the federal government, some also violate

federal laws that protect the rights of employees to bargain collectively.

You have proposed legislation that would debar firms exhibiting a “clear

pattern and practice” of violating the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)

from receiving federal contracts.1

Given your interest in this issue, you requested that we identify the extent

to which violators of NLRA include employers who have contracts with the

government (referred to as federal contractors). More specifically, you

asked us to identify characteristics associated with these federal

contractors and their NLRA violations. You also asked us to identify ways to

improve compliance of federal contractors with NLRA.

To address your request, we matched fiscal years 1993 and 1994 case data

from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with a database of federal

contractors maintained by the General Services Administration (GSA). We

verified by telephone that the matched firms had federal contracts. We

then reviewed Board decisions to identify characteristics of the violations.2

Finally, we analyzed the GSA database for characteristics of contracts held

by these violators in fiscal year 1993. We did our work from August 1994 to

September 1995 in accordance with generally accepted government

auditing standards. (See app. I for a detailed discussion of our scope and

methodology.)

Results in Brief Federal contracts have been awarded to employers who have violated

NLRA. We found that 80 firms had violated the act and received over

$23 billion, about 13 percent of the $182 billion in federal contracts

1

The proposed Federal Contractor Labor Relations Enforcement Act of 1995 (S. 780) was introduced

on May 9, 1995.

2

In this report, the NLRB refers to the entire agency implementing NLRA. The Board refers to a

five-member Board which, serving in a judicial capacity, hears unfair labor practice (ULP) cases.

Page 1 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
B-257208 

awarded in fiscal year 1993.3 However, these contracts were concentrated

among only a few violators; six violators received almost 90 percent of the

more than $23 billion in contracts.

The Board cases that we examined indicate a range of violations. The

cases also show that the Board had ordered various remedies relating to

the unlawful activities by firms that discouraged workers from exercising

their right to bargain collectively. For example, as a remedy, the Board

ordered firms to reinstate or restore workers in 35 of 88 cases (some of the

80 firms were involved in more than one case) in which workers were

unlawfully fired, transferred, or not hired in the first place because of

activities for or association with a union. Other remedies, such as

restoring lost wages and benefits or demanding that the firm stop

threatening workers with job loss, were also ordered by the Board in many

of these 88 cases. Altogether, these remedies affected nearly 1,000

individual workers as well as thousands of additional workers represented

in 12 bargaining units.

Fifteen of the violators (almost 20 percent of the 80 firms) might be

considered more serious violators. These firms, for example, had been

ordered to reinstate or restore more than 20 individual workers each or

had been issued a broad cease and desist order by the Board.4

 Of these 15

violators, we also found some that have a history of violating the act.

NLRB’s enforcement of the act could be enhanced by collecting judgments

against violators from federal contract awards. Coordination with GSA to

identify violators with federal contracts, however, would be necessary to

collect judgments in this fashion.

Background Federal contracts involve considerable dollars, resulting in employment

for many workers. GSA’s data show that federal contracts in fiscal year

1993 totaled about $182 billion. Approximately 22 percent of the labor

force, 26 million workers, is employed by federal contractors and

3

These totals are likely an underestimate of the number of violators and contracts they received

because of the difficulties involved in a manual matching procedure. The $23 billion in federal

contracts were awarded to the parent firms of the 80 violators.

4

The Board issues a broad cease and desist order when a firm has demonstrated a proclivity to violate

NLRA or when there has been widespread or egregious misconduct. Unlike narrow cease and desist

orders, a broad order prohibits a range of unlawful conduct and serves as the basis for initiating

contempt proceedings if the firm commits additional violations.

Page 2 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
B-257208 

subcontractors, according to fiscal year 1993 estimates of the Department

of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP).5

Federal law and an executive order place greater responsibilities on

federal contractors compared with other employers in some areas of

workplace activity. For example, federal contractors must comply with

Executive Order 11246, which requires a contractor to develop an

affirmative action program detailing the steps that the contractor will take

and has already taken to ensure equal employment opportunity for all

workers, regardless of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. In

addition, the Service Contract Act and the Davis-Bacon Act require the

payment of area-prevailing wages and benefits on federal contracts in the

service and construction industries, respectively. NLRA, as amended,

provides the basic framework governing private sector labor-management

relations. The act, passed in 1935, created an independent agency, NLRB, to

administer and enforce the act.6

 Among other duties, NLRB is responsible

for preventing and remedying violations of the act—unfair labor practices

(ULPs) committed by employers or unions.7 NLRB’s functions are divided

between its Office of the General Counsel and a five-member board. The

Office of the General Counsel, organized into 52 field offices in 33 regions,

investigates and prosecutes ULP charges. The Board, appointed by the

President with Senate approval, reviews all cases decided by

administrative law judges (ALJ) in the regions.8

5

OFCCP is responsible for ensuring compliance of federal contractors and subcontractors with their

affirmative action and equal opportunity responsibilities. For more information on OFCCP, see Equal

Employment Opportunity: DOL Contract Compliance Reviews Could Better Target Federal

Contractors (GAO/HEHS-95-177, Sept. 28, 1995).

6

The Board’s jurisdiction extends to all firms—profit and nonprofit—engaged in interstate or foreign

commerce. Major exemptions include agricultural laborers, domestics, workers covered by the

Railway Labor Act, management employees, confidential employees, and supervisors.

7

NLRB is also responsible for conducting elections to determine whether employees wish to be

represented by a union. In this report, however, we focus on NLRB’s duty to prevent and remedy ULPs.

8

If a decision by an ALJ is not contested by either party, the Board simply affirms the ALJ decision so

that it can be enforced. In some instances, the Board might issue a decision without an ALJ hearing,

referred to as a summary judgment. While all five Board members may participate in the review of an

ALJ’s decision, and frequently do in cases which establish or change policy, decision-making authority

in most cases is delegated to three-member panels.

Page 3 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
B-257208 

Under Section 8 of the act,9 it is illegal for employers to interfere with

workers’ right to organize or bargain collectively or for employers to

discriminate in hiring, tenure, or condition of employment in order to

discourage membership in any labor organization; and such behavior is

defined as a ULP.

10 After concluding that a violation has been committed,

the Board typically requires firms to cease and desist the specific conduct

for which a ULP is found. The Board may order a variety of remedies,

including requiring the firm to reinstate unlawfully fired workers or

restore wages and benefits to the bargaining unit. In some cases, the Board

will also issue a broad cease and desist order prohibiting the firm from

engaging in a range of unlawful conduct.

If an employer to whom the federal government owes money (such as a

federal contractor) has failed to comply with an order by the Board to

restore wages or benefits, the government has the option of withholding

from any amount owed to that employer (including payments under a

federal contract) any equal or lesser amount that the contractor owes

under the Board order. A withholding in this manner is referred to as a

collection by administrative offset.11

In addition to the remedies mentioned above, the Congress has considered

debarring from federal contracts firms that have violated NLRA in the past.

In 1977, legislation that would have debarred firms from federal contracts

for a 3-year period for willfully violating NLRA was introduced but was

never enacted.12

NLRB has several databases that track cases at different stages of

processing. One of NLRB’s databases, the Executive Secretary’s database,

tracks all cases that go before the Board. Many of these cases were first

heard by an ALJ after an investigation by the Office of the General

Counsel’s regional staff determined the case had merit. Cases that go

before the Board represent only a small percentage of all ULP cases

because most cases are withdrawn, dismissed, or informally settled

9

Section 8(a) provides that it is a violation or a ULP for an employer to (1) interfere with, restrain, or

coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organize; (2) dominate or interfere with the

formation or administration of any labor organization; (3) discriminate in hiring, or any term or

condition of employment, to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization;

(4) discharge or otherwise discriminate against an employee for filing charges or giving testimony

under this act; and (5) refuse to bargain collectively with the majority representative of employees.

10Section 8(b) violations refer to ULPs committed by unions. Because unions are typically not federal

contractors, we did not include 8(b) violations in this report.

11Collections by administrative offset are required to follow procedures set forth in 4 C.F.R. 102.3.

12The proposed Labor Reform Act of 1977 (H.R. 8410) was introduced on July 19, 1977.

Page 4 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
B-257208 

without being reviewed by the Board.13 None of NLRB’s databases,

including the Executive Secretary’s database, contains information as to

whether or not violators have federal contracts.

GSA maintains the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) that tracks

firms receiving over $25,000 in federal funding in exchange for goods and

services provided. For fiscal year 1993, FPDS tracked information on almost

200,000 contracts totaling about $182 billion, which were awarded to over

57,000 parent firms. FPDS contains a variety of information, including the

contractor’s name and location, agency the contract is with, type of

industry the contractor is engaged in, and contract dollar amounts

awarded. However, FPDS does not contain information on contractors’

labor relations records.

A Few Labor Law

Violators Received

Billions in Federal

Contracts

Federal contracts are awarded to employers who violate NLRA. A total of 80

firms, receiving over $23 billion from over 4,400 contracts, had both labor

violations and contracts.14 Altogether, about 13 percent of total fiscal year

1993 contracts of $182 billion went to these 80 violators (see fig. 1).

However, these contracts were concentrated among only a few violators;

six violators received about $21 billion of the more than $23 billion in

contracts.15

These totals are likely an underestimate of the number of violators and

contracts they received because of the difficulties involved in the manual

matching procedure we used in this analysis. This manual procedure was

necessitated by the lack of a corporate identification number for firms in

the NLRB case data. Because firms may split up, merge, subcontract,

operate subsidiaries, or change names, the same firm might have appeared

under different names in NLRB case data and the FPDS and thereby escaped

13We examined the timeliness of Board case processing in National Labor Relations Board: Action

Needed to Improve Case-Processing Time at Headquarters (GAO/HRD-91-29, Jan. 7, 1991). We

reported that more than a year may elapse before a case that goes before the Board is decided. (See

app. I for more details on case processing.)

14In reporting on characteristics of federal contractors, including contract dollars received, we are

referring here to parent firms. In some cases, the violator might be a division, subsidiary, or have some

other legal relationship with the parent firm. We did not determine the extent to which violators of

NLRA were federal subcontractors (firms who receive a portion of the contract award through a

primary federal contractor) because we could not identify these subcontractors. Because any violation

may have been committed more than a year before the Board’s decision, firms we identified as

violators per Board decisions issued in fiscal years 1993 and 1994 may not have been receiving federal

contracts at the same time that they committed violations.

15Of about 1,500 NLRB cases decided by the Board during fiscal years 1993 and 1994, 6 percent of the

cases (88) involved 80 firms (some with more than one case) with both violations and federal

contracts.

Page 5 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
B-257208 

our detection. Also, we were unable to verify those firms that went out of

business or relocated or for which location data in NLRB case data or FPDS

were incomplete or inaccurate.

Figure 1: Percent of Contract Dollars

That Went to Firms Violating NLRA

(Fiscal Year 1993)

87% • Other Federal Contractors ($159

billion)

•13%

Violators ($23 billion)

Note: Violators refer to the parent firm. In some cases, the violations may have occurred within a

subsidiary or division of the parent firm.

Source: FPDS, fiscal year 1993.

Each of these six violators, listed below, who together received almost 90

percent of the more than $23 billion in contracts awarded to all violators,

received more than $500 million in fiscal year 1993 contracts. (See app. II,

fig. II.4.) They are also among the largest federal contractors, ranking in

the top 20 firms receiving federal contract dollars.16

16All but the Fluor Corporation were among the top 20 federal contractors by contract dollar in fiscal

year 1994 as reported in Government Executive’s most recent annual report on federal purchasing.

This annual report is also based on FPDS.

Page 6 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
B-257208 

• McDonnell Douglas ($7.7 billion),17

• Westinghouse Electric ($4.9 billion),

• Raytheon ($3.5 billion),

• United Technologies ($3 billion),

• American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T) ($1.4 billion),

• Fluor Corporation ($508 million).18

In contrast, contract dollars were not as concentrated among all federal

contractors. Firms receiving more than $500 million in contracts got about

one-half (47 percent) of all federal contract dollars.

Firms Interfered With

Workers’ Right to Bargain

Collectively in About

One-Half of the Cases

Of the 88 cases decided by the Board during fiscal years 1993 and 1994

involving federal contractors, the Board found that the firm had interfered

with workers’ right to organize, a Section 8(a)(1) violation, in 44 cases. In

45 of the 88 cases, the Board found that a firm had refused to bargain

collectively with employee representatives, a Section 8(a)(5) violation.

Thirty-three of the 88 cases involved discrimination by a firm in hiring or

condition of employment, which is a violation of Section 8(a)(3). Far fewer

cases involved other types of violations.19 (See app. II, fig. II.1.)

Firms Ordered to Reinstate

or Restore Workers in

About 40 Percent of Cases

In 35 of the 88 cases, the Board required firms to reinstate or restore

workers as the remedy for violations.20 In 32 of these 35 cases, firms were

ordered to reinstate unlawfully fired workers. In 6 of them, firms were

ordered to restore workers who had been subjected to another kind of

17Very recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit, September 13, 1995) remanded the NLRB cases

against McDonnell Douglas Corporation to the Board. The U.S. Court of Appeals asked the Board to

reconsider its decision. The Board’s additional review could affect McDonnell Douglas Corporation’s

classification as a labor law violator.

18Raytheon committed labor law violations at a Pensacola, Florida, facility of its subsidiary, Beech

Aerospace Services, Inc. Similarly, United Technologies Corporation had violations at a Middletown,

Connecticut, facility of its division, Pratt & Whitney Aircraft. The Fluor Corporation had violations at

several facilities in Kentucky of its subsidiary, Fluor Daniel, Inc.

19A case may involve more than one type of violation. Only 4 cases involved a firm dominating or

interfering with the formation or administration of a labor organization, a Section 8(a)(2) violation. In

only 3 cases was the firm found to have discharged or discriminated against an employee because he

or she had filed charges or given testimony under NLRA, a Section 8(a)(4) violation.

20More cases involved an order to reinstate or restore workers than contained a Section

8(a)(3) violation, which refers to discrimination in hiring or condition of employment. This is because

the Board might order that a firm reinstate a worker when another type of violation was committed.

For example, in the case involving Shell Company (Puerto Rico) Limited, the Board found that the firm

committed a Section 8(a)(5) violation by refusing to bargain with the union when it “unilaterally”

changed the collective bargaining agreement, laying off or terminating seven employees in the unit.

The Board ordered the firm to reinstate these employees.

Page 7 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
B-257208 

unfavorable change in job status. An unfavorable change in job status

could mean the worker, for example, was suspended, demoted,

transferred, or not hired in the first place because of activities for or

association with a union. Some cases involved both an order to reinstate

fired workers and an order to restore workers who were subjected to

another kind of unfavorable change in job status. (See app. II, fig. II.2.)

In 44 of the 88 cases, the Board ordered the firm to pay back wages to

affected workers. The Board ordered the firm to restore benefits in 28

cases. In most cases, back wages or benefits were owed to individual

workers who had been illegally fired or subjected to another kind of

unfavorable change in job status. However, in 12 cases, wages or benefits

were ordered restored to all workers in the bargaining unit because the

firm illegally failed to pay wages or benefits as required under its contract

with the union. Some cases involved both a remedy for individual workers

owed back wages or benefits as well as the same type of remedy for the

entire bargaining unit. (See app. II, fig. II.2.)

The Board also ordered other types of remedies in many of these 88 cases.

For example, in 33 cases, the Board ordered the firm to bargain with the

union.21 In 24 cases, firms were ordered to stop threatening employees

with the loss of the job or the shutdown of the firm. Firms were ordered in

33 cases to stop other kinds of threats, such as interrogating employees

and circulating lists of employees associated with the union. To facilitate

the bargaining of a contract, the Board ordered firms to provide

information to the union in 16 cases. (See app. II, fig. II.3.)

Nearly 1,000 Individual

Workers Directly Affected

by Violations and

Remedies

Nearly 1,000 individual workers and thousands of additional workers

represented in 12 bargaining units were directly affected by violations of

the act in these 88 cases. During fiscal years 1993 and 1994, the Board

ordered firms to reinstate or restore 761 individual workers to their

appropriate job position. These workers had either been fired or

experienced another kind of unfavorable change in job status; for

example, they were transferred or not hired. These workers are included

among those who were paid back wages or had benefits restored.

Altogether, 801 individual workers were paid back wages and 462 workers

had benefits restored because of Board-ordered remedies. In addition, the

21The Board’s decision might also declare that the firm must recognize the union or honor the

bargaining agreement.

Page 8 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
B-257208 

Board ordered firms to restore wages and benefits to contract levels for

thousands of workers represented in 12 bargaining units.22

Characteristics of

Federal Contractors

That Violated NLRA

Most of the contracts awarded to violators in fiscal year 1993 came from

the Department of Defense and went to firms primarily engaged in

manufacturing. The violations occurred in facilities owned or associated

with parent firms that typically had more than 10,000 employees or over

$1 billion in annual sales.

About $17 billion in contracts that went to violators came from the

Department of Defense, accounting for 73 percent of such contracts. In

addition to Defense, significant contract dollars were awarded to violators

by the Department of Energy ($3.7 billion), National Aeronautics and

Space Administration ($1.2 billion), and GSA ($702 million). Similarly, these

four agencies were the source of most contract dollars (88 percent) to all

federal contractors. However, a higher percentage of contract dollars

awarded to violators came from the Departments of Defense and Energy

as compared with that awarded to all federal contractors from these two

agencies. (See app. II, fig. II.5.)

Most contract dollars—$15.6 billion or 67 percent—went to violators who

were primarily engaged in manufacturing.23 An examination of more

detailed violators’ industry codes shows that the highest percentage of

contract dollars in manufacturing went toward the production of aircraft

parts, guided missiles, and space vehicles. Although manufacturing is the

industry in which most violators are engaged, a significant percentage of

contract dollars—25 percent, about $6 billion—went to companies

primarily engaged in providing services.24 As is the case for violators, most

contract dollars to all federal contractors went to firms in the

22For many of the cases, we were unable to determine the total number of workers affected by

Board-ordered remedies involving an entire bargaining unit. This is because NLRB officials told us that

they did not have reliable data on the number of employees in bargaining units for which remedies

were ordered. However, some of these bargaining units affected by Board-ordered remedies are quite

large. For example, the Board ordered Pratt & Whitney Aircraft, a division of United Technologies

Corporation, to pay raises owed as a result of revised job evaluations to all workers in the bargaining

unit of the firm’s Middletown, Connecticut, plant. The bargaining unit included about 2,000 workers at

that time.

23FPDS uses the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes—a federal classification system—in

order to describe the type of industry in which the firms receiving federal contracts are engaged. Firms

can be classified by 11 major groups—including mining, construction, manufacturing, and services.

24We followed the SIC classification system in defining services. Services include hotel and motels,

personal services such as drycleaning, business services such as advertising agencies, auto and other

repair services, motion pictures, amusement and recreation services, health services, legal services,

educational services, and social services.

Page 9 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
B-257208 

manufacturing and services industries. However, a lower percentage of

contract dollars to all federal contractors went to manufacturing

(47 percent) as compared with violators (67 percent). (See app. II, fig. II.6.)

Many violations occurred in facilities owned by firms that had over 10,000

employees or $1 billion in annual sales as of fiscal year 1994.25 Of the 77

violators for which data on workforce size were available, 35 had more

than 10,000 employees. By contrast, only 22 violators had 500 or fewer

employees and still fewer (5) were so small as to have 25 or fewer

employees. For those 64 violators for which annual sales information was

available, 32 had more than $1 billion in sales annually. Ten firms had

annual sales greater than $10 billion. (See app. II, figs. II.7 and II.8.)

Fifteen Firms

Classified as More

Serious Labor Law

Violators

Violations of NLRA vary in their severity. Given this variation, we identified

15 firms that might be considered more serious violators using criteria we

developed based on our review of Board decisions. These firms meet one

or more of the criteria listed below:

• Received a comprehensive Board-ordered remedy. We considered a

remedy to be comprehensive if the firm received a broad cease and desist

order or a Gissel bargaining order,26 or was ordered to cease and desist 10

or more types of unlawful actions against workers.27

• Took actions affecting the job status of more than 20 workers.

• Had a history of labor law violations.

We identified a total of 12 of the 15 firms as serious violators because the

Board-ordered remedy was comprehensive relative to remedies in other

cases. This included four firms that received a broad cease and desist

order. Cease and desist orders are typically narrow in that they prohibit

continuation of the specific conduct found to be unlawful. However, in

some cases, the Board issues a broad cease and desist order prohibiting

the firm from engaging in a range of unlawful conduct. This may occur

when a firm has demonstrated a proclivity to violate the act or when there

has been widespread or egregious misconduct. The Board may also issue a

25Unlike other data on federal contractors reported here, which are fiscal year 1993 data, data on

workforce size and annual sales are either fiscal year 1994 or 1995 data.

26A bargaining order is referred to as a Gissel bargaining order because it is based on principles

established by the Supreme Court in its 1969 Gissel decision. NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575

(1969). Although the Board may order a firm to bargain, as we found in 33 of the 88 cases we reviewed,

a Gissel bargaining order is a more serious remedy.

27We identified some firms as having received a comprehensive Board-ordered remedy for more than

one of these reasons.

Page 10 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
B-257208 

broad cease and desist order to cover all of an employer’s facilities or

those facilities where a union has jurisdiction if there has been a pattern or

practice of unlawful conduct.28

Also among the 12 firms whose Board-ordered remedy was more

comprehensive are two firms that received a Gissel bargaining order. The

Board imposes a Gissel bargaining order as an extraordinary remedy when

the firm has committed ULPs that have made the holding of a fair election

unlikely or that have undermined the union’s majority and caused an

election to be set aside. Also among the firms whose Board-ordered

remedy was more comprehensive, we included 10 firms ordered to cease

and desist 10 or more types of unlawful actions against workers. Although

these cease and desist orders were narrow, the relatively high number of

unlawful actions listed in the Board decision suggest that the firm may be

a more serious violator.29

Examples of violators whose Board-ordered remedies were

comprehensive relative to remedies in other cases include Monfort of

Colorado, Inc., a meat processing firm, which received a broad cease and

desist order because of ULPs committed at its facility in Greeley, Colorado.

Monfort of Colorado, Inc., was found by the Board to have discriminated

against 258 former union employees by applying more rigorous hiring

criteria and taking numerous actions against employees to discourage

union activity. Waste Management, Inc. (Salt Lake Division), a firm

engaged in waste pickup and disposal, received a bargaining order in

addition to a broad cease and desist order. The firm had taken numerous

actions against employees in a West Jordan, Utah, facility to discourage

union activity and created employer-dominated committees during a union

organizing drive that it then dissolved after the union lost the election. The

Board ordered a Tyson Foods, Inc., facility in Dardanelle, Arkansas, that

engaged in poultry processing, to cease and desist 10 or more types of

unlawful actions against workers, including “directing, controlling,

circulating, and assisting in the circulation of a petition” to decertify a

union.

Firms were also considered to be serious violators if their violations

affected the job status of more than 20 individual workers, which was true

28A broad cease and desist order also serves as the basis for initiating contempt proceedings if the firm

commits additional violations. By contrast, if a narrow order has been issued and the challenged

conduct is not covered, an entirely new ULP proceeding may be necessary.

29While an order to cease and desist 10 or more types of unlawful actions appeared to us to indicate a

more serious violator, this does not trigger any special Board remedy.

Page 11 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
B-257208 

for four firms.30 These workers had either been unlawfully fired or

subjected to some other unfavorable change in their job status; for

example, not hired in the first place because of activities for or association

with a union.

For example, Caterair International, a firm that caters food for commercial

airlines, was ordered to reinstate 289 workers who were permanently

replaced when they lawfully went on strike at three facilities in Los

Angeles to protest ULPs committed by the firm. Fluor Daniel, Inc., a general

contractor in the construction business, was ordered to hire 53 applicants

who the firm discriminatorily refused to hire at several facilities in

Kentucky because of their union affiliation. In addition, the Board ordered

Fluor Daniel, Inc., to reinstate another employee who was fired because

he refused to cross a picket line.

Another criterion that could identify a serious violator is whether or not

the firm has a history of labor law violations. Although we were unable to

systematically determine the labor relations record for each of the 80

violators, we were able to determine which of the 15 firms that we had

already identified as serious violators also had a history of violations.31

Five of the 15 serious violators had a history of labor law violations, and 3

firms (Beverly Enterprises; Monfort of Colorado, Inc.; and Overnite

Transportation Co.) had several prior Board decisions against them.32

Monfort of Colorado, Inc., for example, received another broad cease and

desist order in 1987 for firing two workers because of their union activities

at a facility in Grand Island, Nebraska. At this facility, Monfort of

Colorado, Inc., was also found to have refused to grant contract-specified

wage increases to the bargaining unit, assisted an employer-dominated

committee, and promised a bonus to discourage workers’ support for a

union.

Beverly Enterprises, which operates nursing homes, violated the NLRA in

additional facilities before its fiscal year 1993 and 1994 violations. For

example, in 1986, the Board ordered Beverly Enterprises to bargain with

the union and restore wages and benefits that had been unilaterally

30We did not include all cases in which the entire bargaining unit was affected, in which there are often

more than 20 workers. This is because NLRB officials told us that they did not have reliable data on

the number of employees in bargaining units for which remedies were ordered.

31Limitations in the NLRB’s databases made a comprehensive search and analysis for recidivist

violators too time-consuming to complete during this assignment.

32History of violations here refers to a firm found to have violated the NLRA in at least one other case

since 1980.

Page 12 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
B-257208 

changed at a nursing home in Waterloo, Iowa. In 1990, the Board found

Overnite Transportation Co., a firm engaged in the interstate

transportation of freight, to have unlawfully fired one employee at a

facility in Lexington, Kentucky, because he gave testimony at a hearing

before an ALJ. In 1982, the Board ordered Overnite Transportation Co. to

reinstate a worker who was not recalled because of his union activities at

a St. Louis facility. (See app. IV.)

Table 1: Firms Indicated by Criteria as

More Serious NLRA Violators (Fiscal

Years 1993 and 1994) 

Firm

Received a

comprehensive

remedya

Affected

job status

of more

than 20

workersb

Had a

history of

violationsc

Bartlett Nuclear, Inc. X

Beaird Industries, Inc. X

Beverly Enterprises X X

Caterair International X

Durbin Poultry Company (Marshall) X

Flexsteel Industries, Inc. X

Fluor Daniel, Inc. X X

Lane Construction Company (The) X

Monfort of Colorado, Inc. X X X

Overnite Transportation Co. X X

Tyson Foods, Inc. X

Ursery Companies, Inc. X

Victorian Heights Health Care Center X

Waste Management, Inc. (Salt Lake Division) X X

Windsor Castle Health Care Facilities, Inc. X

aReceived a broad cease and desist order, a Gissel bargaining order, or was ordered to cease

and desist 10 or more types of unlawful actions against workers.

bOrdered to reinstate or restore more than 20 workers who had been unlawfully fired or not hired.

cViolated NLRA in at least one other case since 1980.

Page 13 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
B-257208 

Information on

Federal Contractors

Could Enhance NLRB

Enforcement

Contract payments may be withheld from federal contractors who have

failed to comply with a Board order to restore wages or benefits. This

means of collection is referred to as an administrative offset.33 NLRB

officials told us that using administrative offset could help NLRB settle with

violators more quickly and avoid a lengthy contempt proceeding.

Administrative offset could also result in cost savings to NLRB and the

government through reduced litigation as well as more timely restitution

to workers. However, NLRB has not been able to use administrative offset

as widely as it would like because the agency lacks information to identify

which violators receive federal contracts.

Coordination between NLRB and GSA would be necessary if NLRB is to use

administrative offset to enhance NLRB enforcement. Through

administrative offset, NLRB could notify a contracting agency to withhold

contract dollars to a violator of NLRA if the violator refuses to comply with

NLRB’s order in paying back wages or restoring benefits. NLRB officials told

us that administrative offset could be particularly helpful to NLRB in its

efforts to recover funds owed by smaller companies and companies that

are being liquidated or shutting down their operations.

NLRB has not been able to use administrative offset as widely as it would

like because the agency lacks the information to identify which violators

had federal contracts. Currently, NLRB does not use a corporate

identification number in any of its databases that could be recognized by

GSA to identify violators with federal contracts. NLRB officials, however,

told us that they see the importance of some form of identification number

and are exploring this matter in their current efforts to develop a new

database. The new database is intended to combine data across several

databases that NLRB now maintains. It will track a case from the filing of a

charge to the issuance of a decision or, when relevant, an appeal.

Conclusions and

Recommendations

Federal contracts have been awarded to employers who have violated

NLRA. We found that 80 firms violated the act and received over $23 billion,

about 13 percent of the $182 billion in federal contracts awarded in fiscal

33Administrative offset was successfully used recently in an NLRB case, although the offset did not

involve a government contractor. The Treasury Department withheld from the payment of an award

that Alaska Pulp Corporation had won against the U.S. Forest Service the same amount that NLRB

determined the firm owed its employees as a result of various ULPs. The government may use

administrative offset to withhold money it owes when the party to whom the money is owed has a debt

to the government. It was reasoned that money owed to employees as a result of a ULP could be

treated as the equivalent of a debt owed to the United States because NLRB was the only party that

could legally pursue collection and NLRB was acting not as a collection agent but as the enforcer of

federal labor laws.

Page 14 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
B-257208 

year 1993. The Board cases that we examined indicate a range of

violations committed and remedies ordered that affect nearly 1,000

individual workers and thousands of additional workers represented in 12

bargaining units. The cases involved 15 firms that might be considered

more serious violators based on several criteria, including that the firm

received what we considered to be a comprehensive Board-ordered

remedy.

NLRB’s enforcement of the act could be enhanced by collecting judgments

against violators from federal contract awards. Coordination with GSA to

identify violators with federal contracts, however, would be necessary if

such actions are to be taken. While NLRB officials recognize the importance

of being able to identify labor violators who receive federal contracts, they

have yet to approach GSA because they did not know the extent to which

federal contracts dollars went to violators.

We recommend that the NLRB Chairman and General Counsel and the

Administrator of GSA develop an information arrangement approach to

facilitate the identification of violators who receive federal contracts.

NLRB Comments We discussed the results of our work with key officials from NLRB and have

incorporated their comments where appropriate. These officials generally

agreed with our methodology for identifying NLRA violators with federal

contracts. They also agreed with our approach to characterizing Board

cases, although they did not comment on our criteria to identify serious

violators because we developed these criteria from our case review. NLRB

officials also agreed with our recommendation for improving compliance

of federal contractors with NLRA and told us that they have already begun

to act on it. NLRB officials told us they will soon issue written guidance

concerning the expanded use of administrative offset, providing NLRB

regional offices specific directions for obtaining assistance from GSA in

identifying federal contractors.

GSA Comments We also discussed the results of our work with GSA officials and have

incorporated their comments where appropriate. GSA officials said that

they see no major difficulty in coordinating with NLRB to identify which

violators receive federal contracts so that contract payments may be

withheld through administrative offset. These officials, however, raised

concerns that the discussion of debarment as a remedy was inadequate,

failing to consider its appropriateness or implementation. We told GSA

Page 15 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
B-257208 

officials that this report does not explore issues related to how debarment

of federal contractors might be implemented. If the Congress determines

debarment to be an appropriate response, implementation concerns such

as those raised by GSA could be addressed at that time. Additionally, GSA

officials suggested that the feasibility of checking firms’ compliance with

labor laws as part of the pre-award contract clearance process be

explored.

We are sending copies of this report to the NLRB Chairman and General

Counsel, the Administrator of GSA, the Secretary of Labor, the Director of

the Office of Management and Budget, relevant congressional committees,

and interested parties. We also will make copies available to others on

request.

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please call

Charlie Jeszeck, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-7036 or Jackie Baker

Werth, Project Manager, at (202) 512-7070. Other major contributors

include Cheryl Gordon, Wayne Turowski, Ronni Schwartz, and Danah

Kozma.

Sincerely yours,

Linda G. Morra

Director, Education and

 Employment Issues

Page 16 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Page 17 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

26

Matching Case Data From NLRB With FPDS 26

Verifying by Telephone to Ensure Matched Firms Had Contracts 31

Reviewing Board Decisions and Appeals Cases 31

Analyzing FPDS 32

Exploring Ways to Improve Compliance 34

Appendix II 

Data on Violations,

Remedies, and

Federal Contractors

With Labor Violations

35

Appendix III 

Key Federal Contract

and Violation

Information for All 80

Firms With Labor

Violations

43

Aero Metal Forms, Inc.

(17CA15539)

43

The Aerospace Corporation

(31CA19441)

43

American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T)

(07CA32168)

43

Bartlett Nuclear, Inc.

(31CA18203)

44

Baxter Healthcare Corp.

(Baxter International, Inc.)

(11CA12772)

44

Beaird Industries, Inc.

(Trinity Industries, Inc.)

(15CA11334)

44

Beech Aerospace Services, Inc.

(Raytheon Corporation)

(15CA12067)

45

Beverly Enterprises

(06CA19444)

45

Cascade General, Inc.

(036CA06774)

45

Page 18 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Contents

Castle Nursing Homes, Inc.

(08CA25070)

45

Caterair International

(Caterair Holdings Corporation)

(31CA18702)

46

Centerville Nursing Home Corp.

(01CA30105)

46

Chevron USA Products Co.

(Chevron Corporation)

(32CA13548)

46

Chrysler Corporation

(25CA22090)

46

City Chemical Corporation

(22CA18532)

47

Cla-Val Company

(Griswold Industries Co.)

(21CA27747)

47

Comarco, Inc.

(21CA29487)

47

Community Alternatives, Inc.

(12CA14619)

47

Consolidation Coal Company

(Consol Energy Inc.)

(10CA25715)

(06CA23857)

48

Detroit Edison Co.

(07CA32263)

48

Duke University

(11CA15030)

48

Du Pont de Nemours & Co.

(03CA17273)

(04CA18737)

48

Durbin Poultry Company, Marshall

(Durbin Marshall Food Corp.)

(15CA11268)

(15CA11528)

49

Erie Engineered

Products, Inc.

(03CA17405)

49

Exide Corporation

(04CA20979)

49

Page 19 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Contents

Fiber Products

(FPC Holdings, Inc.)

(05CA23097)

50

Flexsteel Industries, Inc.

(25CA21795)

(25CA22446)

50

Fluor Daniel, Inc.

(Fluor Corporation)

(26CA13842)

50

Harper Packing Company, Inc.

(04CA19573)

50

Harvard Industries, Inc.

(FEL Corporation)

(10CA25329)

51

Health Care and Retirement Corp.

(01CA28519)

51

Hospitality Care Center

(New Associates)

(22CA18606)

51

International Paper Company

(11CA14781)

51

Kaydon Corporation

(07CA33792)

52

Keydata Systems, Inc.

(09CA30895)

52

Laidlaw Waste Systems

(Laidlaw, Inc.)

(27CA11621)

52

Lane Construction Company

(Lane Industries, Inc.)

(05CA22885)

52

Laro Maintenance Corp.

(29CA15196)

53

Leach Corporation

(Leach International, Inc.)

(21CA28385)

53

Leon’s Maid & Janitorial Service, Rosie M.B.

(27CA11740)

53

Long Distance USA/Sprint

(Sprint Communications Co.)

(18CA11922)

54

Page 20 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Contents

Loyola University Medical Center

(13CA31714)

54

Marriott Corporation

(02CA24526)

(31CA19652)

54

McDonnell Douglas Corporation 

(21CA27479)

54

Midwest Canvas Corporation

(13CA31860)

55

Millard Processing Services, Inc.

(17CA15133)

55

Monarch Sidney

(Monarch Machine Tool Co.)

(09CA30350)

55

Monfort of Colorado, Inc.

(ConAgra, Inc.)

(27CA07742)

55

NCR Corporation 

(09CA30321)

(09CA30467)

56

New England Telephone & Telegraph Company

(NYNEX Corporation)

(31CA28028)

56

Northern States Beef

(ConAgra, Inc.)

(30CA12183)

56

Ore-Ida Foods, Inc.

(Heinz, H.J. Company)

(30CA12558)

57

Overnite Transportation Company

(Union Pacific Corporation)

(09CA27618)

57

Pratt & Whitney Aircraft

(United Technologies Corp.)

(34CA05044)

57

Public Service Co. of Colorado

(27CA11650)

57

Public Service Co. of Oklahoma

(17CA16439)

58

Reynolds Metals Co.

(09CA29899)

58

Page 21 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Contents

Rheem Mfg. Co.

(Paloma Inc.)

(10CA26383)

58

Safeway Stores, Inc.

(27CA12819)

58

Shell Co., Puerto Rico Limited

(Shell Oil Company)

(24CA06335)

59

Sherwin-Williams Co.

(32CA12396)

59

Simplex Wire & Cable Co.

(Tyco International Ltd.)

(01CA29899)

59

Simpson Paper Co.

(Simpson Investment Company)

(20CA24426)

59

Slocomb Co., J.T.

(34CA05825)

60

Somerset Welding & Steel, Inc.

(Riggs Industries, Inc.)

(06CA19922)

60

Sony Corp. of America

(22CA16874)

60

TNT Skypak, Inc.

(29CA16046)

60

Tri-Way Security & Escort Service

(22CA18210)

61

Triple P Services, Inc.

(11CA15613)

61

Turner Co., Inc., Richard A.

(01CA31297)

61

Tyson Foods, Inc.

(26CA14731)

61

Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.

(32CA13189)

62

United Parcel Service

(09CA27597)

62

Ursery Companies, Inc.

(34CA05756)

62

Page 22 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Contents

Victorian Heights Health Care Center

(Health Care Retirement Corp. Amer.)

(34CA06079)

62

Waste Management, Inc.—Salt Lake Division

(WMX Technologies)

(27CA10940)

63

Westinghouse Electric Corp.

(05CA22392)

63

Whayne Supply Co.

(25CA22608)

63

Windsor Castle Health Care Facilities, Inc.

(34CA06259)

(34CA04597)

64

Woolworth, F.W. Co.

(19CA21256)

64

Wylie Construction Co., C.E.

(21CA25857)

64

Appendix IV 

Case Summaries of 15

Firms With More

Serious Labor

Violations

65

Bartlett Nuclear, Inc.

(31CA18203)

65

Beaird Industries, Inc.

(15CA11334)

66

Beverly Enterprises

(06CA19444)

67

Caterair International

(31CA18702)

69

Durbin Poultry Company (Marshall)

(15CA11268 and 15CA11528)

70

Flexsteel Industries, Inc.

(25CA21795)

73

Fluor Daniel, Inc.

(26CA13842)

74

The Lane Construction Company

(05CA22885)

75

Monfort of Colorado, Inc.

(27CA07742)

76

Overnite Transportation Company

(09CA27618)

79

Tyson Foods, Inc.

(26CA14731)

80

Page 23 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Contents

Ursery Companies, Inc.

(34CA05756)

82

Victorian Heights Health Care Center

(34CA06079)

83

Waste Management, Inc. (Salt Lake Division)

(27CA10940)

85

Windsor Castle Health Care Facilities, Inc.

(34CA4597)

87

Table Table 1: Firms Indicated by Criteria As More Serious NLRA

Violators

13

Figures Figure 1: Percent of Contract Dollars That Went to Firms

Violating NLRA

6

Figure I.1: Very Few ULP Cases Are Reviewed by Board 28

Figure I.2: Reasons for Eliminating Board Cases From Review 30

Figure II.1: Types of NLRA Violations Committed by Federal

Contractors

35

Figure II.2: Types of Board-Ordered Remedies Involving Federal

Contractors

36

Figure II.3: Additional Types of Board-Ordered Remedies

Involving Federal Contractors

37

Figure II.4: Concentration of Contract Dollars Received by NLRA

Violators Compared With All Federal Contractors

38

Figure II.5: Percent of Contract Dollars to Federal Contractors

That Violated NLRA Compared With All Federal Contractors, by

Agency

39

Figure II.6: Percent of Contract Dollars to Federal Contractors

That Violated NLRA Compared With All Federal Contractors, by

Primary Industry

40

Figure II.7: Workforce Size of Federal Contractors That Violated

NLRA

41

Figure II.8: Annual Sales of Federal Contractors That Violated

NLRA

42

Page 24 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Contents

Abbreviations

AIDS acquired immunodeficiency syndrome

ALJ administrative law judge

AT&T American Telephone and Telegraph Company

CHIPS case handling information processing system

CEC contractor establishment code

FPDS Federal Procurement Data System

GSA General Services Administration

NLRA National Labor Relations Act

NLRB National Labor Relations Board

OFCCP Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs

SIC standard industrial classification code

ULTICEC ultimate contractor establishment code

ULP unfair labor practice

Page 25 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

We were asked to identify the extent to which violators of NLRA include

federal contractors. More specifically, we were asked to identify

characteristics associated with (1) these federal contractors and (2) their

NLRA violations. In addition, we were asked to identify ways to improve

compliance of federal contractors with NLRA. We

• matched NLRB case data (fiscal years 1993 and 1994) with the database of

federal contractors maintained by GSA, referred to as the FPDS (fiscal year

1993);

• verified by telephone that matched firms had federal contracts;

• reviewed Board decisions and U.S. Court of Appeals decisions if a Board

decision was appealed to identify characteristics of the violations;

• analyzed the FPDS for characteristics of the contractors; and

• met with NLRB officials to explore ways to improve compliance of federal

contractors with NLRA.

Matching Case Data

From NLRB With

FPDS

Background on Databases To determine which violators of the act were federal contractors, we

matched case data from NLRB with FPDS, a database of federal contractors

maintained by GSA. No single database at NLRB tracks all cases from the

initial charge until their final resolution. Instead, NLRB has several

databases that track cases at different stages of processing. We used the

Executive Secretary’s database, because it tracks all cases that go before

the five-member Board. Many of these cases were first heard by an ALJ

after an investigation by the Office of the General Counsel’s regional staff

Page 26 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

had determined the case had merit.34 We also used this database because it

is small enough to manually match against the much larger FPDS.

35

With fiscal year 1994 data, figure I.1 shows the relatively low percentage

(about 4 percent) of over 30,000 closed ULP cases that were reviewed by

the Board; virtually all cases are withdrawn, dismissed, or informally

settled without being reviewed by the Board.36

34If an ALJ decision is not contested by either party, the Board’s decision only affirms the ALJ decision

so that it can be enforced. In some instances, the Board might issue a decision without an ALJ hearing,

referred to as a summary judgment. For example, the Board might issue a summary judgment because

the firm failed to answer the Office of the General Counsel’s complaint or refused to bargain in order

to challenge the Board’s certification of the bargaining unit (referred to as a certification test). Motions

for summary judgment can only be filed in situations where there are no factual issues warranting a

hearing. We included Board decisions that were summary judgments in our review if the Board found

that the firm had committed ULPs.

35NLRB has two other databases: (1) the Case Handling Information Processing System (CHIPS)

database. This database captures data on all charges filed in the regions; however, these data are not

necessarily updated once a case goes to the Board for review. (2) A database that tracks all cases that

were reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals, either because they were appealed by the firm or NLRB

requested a review in order to enforce the Board’s decision.

36Many cases are informally settled because NLRB stresses voluntary resolution in order to improve

labor-management relations and to reduce litigation and related case handling. An informal settlement

consists simply of a commitment on the part of the charged party to remedy the alleged ULP in

exchange for withdrawal or dismissal of the charge.

A charge may be withdrawn for several reasons. When the investigation reveals no violation of the

statute or a lack of jurisdiction by the Board, the charging party will be asked to withdraw the charge.

The NLRB may notify the charging party that, absent withdrawal, the charge will be dismissed. In other

cases, the parties may have reached an agreement that includes the withdrawal of all charges, with the

consent of the regional director.

A charge may be dismissed for numerous reasons, including insufficient evidence to support the

allegations or lack of cooperation by the charging party. Any dismissed charge can be appealed to the

NLRB General Counsel.

Page 27 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Figure I.1: Very Few ULP Cases Are

Reviewed by Board

35% • Dismissed

• 4%

Reviewed by Board

31%•

Settled Informally

•30%

Withdrawn

Note: These include ULP cases against both employers and unions.

Source: Fifty-Ninth Annual Report by the National Labor Relations Board for the Fiscal Year Ended

September 30, 1994.

We looked at the Executive Secretary’s database for decisions on ULP

cases against firms that were issued by the Board over a 2-year period

(fiscal years 1993-94). This came to a total of 1,493 cases. However, the

violation itself may have been committed more than a year before the

Board decision because of the length of time it takes for cases to be

processed by NLRB.

37

To obtain data on federal contractors, we used FPDS, which tracks business

entities receiving over $25,000 in federal funding in exchange for goods

37In National Labor Relations Board: Action Needed to Improve Case-Processing Time at Headquarters

(GAO/HRD-91-29, Jan. 7, 1991), we found that decisions for most cases were made within one year

from the date the case was assigned to a Board member. However, about 10 percent of the cases took

from over 3 to more than 7 years to decide. Further, these data do not capture time elapsed before a

case is sent to the Board for review. Our analysis included both ULP and representation cases.

Page 28 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

and services provided.38 After determining that it would have been too

cumbersome to use more than one year of FPDS data, we selected fiscal

year 1993 because this was the most current data available at the time we

initiated this review. The FPDS for 1993 alone contained almost 200,000

contracts and 500,000 contract actions,39 tracking about $182 billion in

federal contracts received by over 57,000 parent firms.40 Because any

violation may have been committed more than a year before the Board

decision, firms we identified as violators per Board decisions issued in

fiscal years 1993 and 1994 may not have been receiving federal contracts at

the same time they committed the violation.

The Manual Matching

Procedure

Because the NLRB databases did not use corporate identification numbers,

this precluded an automated matching procedure, and we had to manually

match these data. We manually compared each firm name in the smaller

Executive Secretary’s database with the larger FPDS, identifying those firm

names that were identical or nearly identical. Because firms may split up,

merge, subcontract, operate subsidiaries, or change names, the same firm

might have appeared under different names in the Executive Secretary’s

database and the FPDS and thereby escaped our detection.

Through manually matching the databases, we identified 162 firm names

that were identical or nearly identical, involving 176 cases because some

firms had more than one case. We eliminated all but one-half of these

cases (88 cases) involving 80 as firms with both violations and federal

contracts. This represents 6 percent of the 1,493 cases decided by the

Board during fiscal year 1993 and 1994. How cases were eliminated is

described below. (See fig. I.2.)

38This database compiles information from the Individual Contract Action Reports (SF 279) completed

by staff in the contracting agency. GSA also tracks contract awards under $25,000 in a separate

database capturing only summary information, which is referred to as the Summary Contract Action

Report (SF 281). We did not include this database of smaller contract awards in our analysis.

39Contract actions refer to any activity (for example, purchase order, delivery order) involving

appropriated funds.

40Seven percent of contract dollars recorded in the FPDS are not linked to a parent firm.

Page 29 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Figure I.2: Reasons for Eliminating

Board Cases From Review

50% • Violators receiving federal

contracts (88 cases)

11%•

Not a federal contractor per

telephone verification

12%•

Out of business/relocated per

telephone verification

•27%

Not a violator per Board decision

review

Note: Twenty-seven percent of cases were eliminated because the Board decision or U.S. Court

of Appeals decision was in favor of the firm. This category also includes 3 cases in which there

was a formal settlement and 6 cases in which the Board’s decision was only a ruling on a motion,

such as a firm’s motion for the case to be dismissed.

Twelve percent of cases were eliminated because the firm went out of business or relocated. This

category includes firms for which location information in the Executive Secretary’s database or

FPDS was incomplete or inaccurate.

Eleven percent of cases were eliminated because the telephone verification revealed the firm

listed in the Executive Secretary’s database was not the same firm as listed in FPDS.

Factors Limiting the

Detection of NLRA

Violations

In addition to the likely underestimation caused by the manual matching

procedure, other factors limit the number of NLRA violations detected

regardless of whether or not they involve federal contractors. The cases

we examined represent violations only over a 2-year period. Further, NLRA

is different from most federal statutes in that, rather than imposing

regulatory requirements on firms or defining benefits for workers, it

establishes rights and obligations of firms, workers, and unions with

Page 30 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

respect to collective bargaining. Neither the Board nor the General

Counsel of NLRB has the authority to investigate alleged ULPs on its own

initiative. The filing of a ULP charge by employees or their representatives

is necessary before an investigation can be initiated, yet some workers

may be unaware of their rights or choose not to exercise them. As already

mentioned, many firms are involved in cases that are withdrawn or settled

and our analyses do not include such cases in assessing violations

committed, remedies ordered, and number of workers affected.

Verifying by

Telephone to Ensure

Matched Firms Had

Contracts

To ensure that the firm listed in the Executive Secretary’s database was

the same firm listed in FPDS, we telephoned the firm at the location where

the labor violation occurred. We verified that the firm name and location

identified in both databases referred to the same firm.

We eliminated from our matched firms those for which the telephone call

revealed that the firm listed in the Executive Secretary’s database was not

the same firm as listed in FPDS (11 percent of the 176 cases). We also

eliminated those firms we were unable to verify because they went out of

business or relocated or location information in the Executive Secretary’s

database or FPDS was either incomplete or inaccurate. That 12 percent of

cases were eliminated for the latter reason contributes to our suggestion

that we may be underestimating the number of firms that are violators.

(See fig. I.2.)

All 80 firms included among our final group of violators were verified by

telephone, except for one firm that refused to verify that it had federal

contracts. However, we included it among our matched firms because

both company name and location in the Executive Secretary’s database

matched exactly with FPDS.

Reviewing Board

Decisions and

Appeals Cases

We next reviewed the Board decisions on these matched firms to

determine whether the firm was a violator as well as to analyze

characteristics associated with the violations. We also reviewed all U.S.

Court of Appeals decisions for all of our matched firms when appropriate

so that modifications to the Board’s decision were reflected in our

analysis. We eliminated from this analysis those matched firms that

Page 31 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

(1) reached a formal settlement with NLRB,

41 (2) prevailed either in the

Board decision or subsequently in the U.S. Court of Appeals, or (3) had a

Board decision that was only a ruling on a motion by the firm or NLRB. For

example, a firm might have filed a motion for dismissal of the case. All

together, 27 percent of the 176 cases were eliminated after reviewing the

Board decisions and appeals cases. (See fig. I.2.)

Our review of Board cases revealed the range of violations and remedies.

We categorized each case by type of violation and remedy, as well as

number of workers affected if this information was contained in the Board

decision.42 This review also helped us develop criteria to identify firms that

might be considered more serious violators.

In order to identify firms with a history of labor violations, we requested

NLRB staff to search for Board decisions issued before fiscal years 1993 and

1994 involving the 15 firms we had identified as serious violators.

Limitations of NLRB’s databases made a comprehensive search for

recidivists among all 80 firms too time-consuming to complete during this

assignment. These data limitations also precluded NLRB from providing a

complete history even for those violators we identified as serious. We

reviewed the Board decisions provided by NLRB staff and checked to

determine if these cases had been modified by the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Analyzing FPDS We analyzed FPDS for characteristics of federal contractors that we found

to have violations. For those matched firms that we had verified, we used

variations of the firm name as they appeared in FPDS and corresponding

corporate identification codes to retrieve all contracts for fiscal year

1993.43 We found that it was necessary to report contract data for violators

41Neither informal or formal settlements were included in our analysis because any form of settlement

is viewed as the most effective means to improve the parties’ relationship and focus Board resources

on other cases. A formal settlement is a written agreement containing a Board order specifying that

certain remedial action will be undertaken. It is typically used when the firm has a history of prior

ULPs or there is a likelihood of recurrence of the ULP charged.

42NLRB staff told us that the Board decision was most reliable for capturing information on violations,

remedies, and number of workers affected. While databases maintained by NLRB may have more

detailed information about a case than the Board decision, these data are not necessarily updated once

a cases goes to the Board for review.

43GSA uses corporate identification codes that are a derivative of the Dun & Bradstreet codes for

identifying companies. GSA relies on two sets of numbers: (1) CEC, referring to a contractor

establishment code, and (2) ULTICEC, referring to the “ultimate” parent firm of the contractor. We

first retrieved all contract data by the CEC codes corresponding to variations of the firm name. We

subsequently retrieved all contract data by the ULTICEC codes associated with each CEC code that

had already been retrieved. In this way, we ensured that federal contract data for each violator were

comprehensive by its parent firm.

Page 32 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

at the parent firm level because (1) the location where the violation

occurred did not necessarily appear in FPDS and (2) there was no way to

determine which contractor establishment code (CEC) was associated with

that location. However, to ensure that all contract information retrieved

using GSA’s corporate identification codes went to that parent firm, we

checked that the names of divisions, plants, and subsidiaries that were

retrieved were, in fact, affiliated with the parent firm.44

Using FPDS, we identified characteristics of the federal contracts. We

examined, for example, total contract dollars that went to each violator,

federal agencies that they contracted with, the industry in which the firms

are engaged, and the products and services these firms provided. Total

contract dollars would not include dollars that may have been awarded by

primary contractors to subcontractors with violations because we could

not identify these subcontractors.

FPDS classifies the type of industry the firm is engaged in using standard

industrial classification (SIC) codes, a federal classification system. To

capture what products and services a federal contractor provides, FPDS

includes product and services codes. In addition to major categories, more

detailed codes are available under both the SIC and product and services

coding systems. These detailed codes were useful to our efforts in

developing key contract information by individual firm, as reported in

appendix III. We also compared contract data for violators on many of

these characteristics with all federal contractors.

Although workforce size and annual sales data were not included on the

version of FPDS we used in this review, GSA provided these data at our

request. These data are current as of fiscal year 1994.45 Because GSA did

not have data for all 80 firms, we filled in missing data on workforce size

with information gathered during our telephone calls to verify matched

firms. The firms provided the most current data available, typically fiscal

year 1995 data. Of the 80 firms, we had data on workforce size for 77 firms

and annual sales for 64 firms.

44For this purpose, we referred to the 1993 Directory of Corporate Affiliations. (New Providence, New

Jersey: National Register Publishing, 1993).

45Data on workforce size and annual sales are provided to GSA by Dun & Bradstreet and are updated

on a schedule that takes into account a firm’s fiscal year as well as major changes in the corporate

environment.

Page 33 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Exploring Ways to

Improve Compliance

To explore ways to improve compliance of federal contractors with NLRA,

we met with NLRB officials in its Division of Enforcement Litigation. We

also met with computer and technical staff in NLRB headquarters and in its

Philadelphia and San Francisco regional offices.

We conducted our work between August 1994 and September 1995 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Page 34 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix II 

Data on Violations, Remedies, and Federal

Contractors With Labor Violations

The following figures illustrate the types of violations committed,

remedies ordered, and characteristics of federal contractors that violated

NLRA as reflected in Board decisions issued during fiscal years 1993 and

1994. Eighty-eight NLRB cases involved 80 firms (some with more than one

case) with both NLRA violations and federal contracts.

In reporting on characteristics of federal contractors, including contract

dollars received, we are referring to the parent firm. The violations may

have occurred at only one site or facility, possibly within a division or

subsidiary of the parent firm. Only fiscal year 1993 contract data from FPDS

are reported.

Figures II.1 through II.3 present data on types of violations committed and

remedies ordered.

Figure II.1: Types of NLRA Violations

Committed by Federal Contractors

(Fiscal Years 1993 and 1994)

Number of Cases

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

8(a)(1) 8(a)(3) 8(a)(5)

Type of Violation

44

33

45

Note: Each case may involve more than one type of violation. Five percent or less of cases

involved 8(a)(2) or 8(a)(4) violations.

Section 8(a) provides that it is a violation or a ULP for an employer to

(1)interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organize;

(3)discriminate in hiring or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage

membership in any labor organization; or

(5)refuse to bargain collectively with the majority representative of employees.

Page 35 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix II 

Data on Violations, Remedies, and Federal

Contractors With Labor Violations

Figure II.2: Types of Board-Ordered

Remedies Involving Federal

Contractors (Fiscal Years 1993 and

1994)

Number of Cases

0

10

20

30

40

50

Reinstate/Restore

Pay Back Wages

Restore Benefits

Type of Remedy

35

44

28

Note: Each case may involve multiple remedies. Reinstated workers are workers who were

unlawfully fired. Restored workers are workers who were subjected to another unfavorable

change in job status; for example, they were transferred or not hired in the first place because of

activities for or association with a union.

Page 36 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix II 

Data on Violations, Remedies, and Federal

Contractors With Labor Violations

Figure II.3: Additional Types of

Board-Ordered Remedies Involving

Federal Contractors (Fiscal Years 1993

and 1994)

Number of Cases

0

10

20

30

40

Must Bargain With Union

Give Bargaining Information to Union

Stop Job Loss Threat

Stop Other Threats

Type of Remedy

33

16

24

33

Note: Each case may involve multiple remedies.

Page 37 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix II 

Data on Violations, Remedies, and Federal

Contractors With Labor Violations

Figures II.4 through II.8 present data on the federal contractors that

violated NLRA. Some of these figures compare the characteristics of the

violators with all firms that contract with the federal government.

Figure II.4: Concentration of Contract

Dollars Received by NLRA Violators

Compared With All Federal

Contractors (Fiscal Year 1993)

Percent of All Dollars Received

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Less than $50

million

$50-$500 million Over $500

million

Federal Contract Dollars

1.8

30.4

8.6

23.0

89.5

46.6

Violators of the NLRA

All Federal Contractors

Note: Eighty firms have both NLRA violations and federal contracts compared with more than

57,000 federal contractors in total (both figures are by parent firm). Seven percent of contract

dollars recorded in FPDS are not linked to a parent firm, possibly affecting the concentration of

contract dollars to all federal contractors. Because of rounding, the percentage of contract dollars

by NLRA violators does not total to 100 percent.

Page 38 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix II 

Data on Violations, Remedies, and Federal

Contractors With Labor Violations

Figure II.5: Percent of Contract Dollars to Federal Contractors That Violated NLRA Compared With All Federal Contractors,

by Agency (Fiscal Year 1993)

16%

5%

3%

73%

Department of Energy

Other

Department 


of Defense

NASA

7%

12%

GSA

NASA

Other

Department


of Defense

3%

Department


of Energy

NLRA Violators All Federal Contractors

3%

GSA

10%

68%

Page 39 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix II 

Data on Violations, Remedies, and Federal

Contractors With Labor Violations

Figure II.6: Percent of Contract Dollars to Federal Contractors That Violated NLRA Compared With All Federal Contractors,

by Primary Industry (Fiscal Year 1993)

25%

6%

2%

67%

Services

Other

Manufacturing

Transportation, Communication

34%

5%

7%

47%

Construction

Transportation, Communication

Other

Manufacturing

7%

Services

NLRA Violators All Federal Contractors

Page 40 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix II 

Data on Violations, Remedies, and Federal

Contractors With Labor Violations

Figure II.7: Workforce Size of Federal

Contractors That Violated NLRA (Fiscal

Years 1994 or 1995)

Number of Violators

0

10

20

30

40

25 or fewer

26-500

501-10,000

Over 10,000

Number of Employees

5

17

20

35

Note: Based on 77 of the 80 firms with NLRA violations and federal contracts. Although workforce

size data were not included on the version of FPDS we used for this review, GSA provided these

data at our request. These data are current as of fiscal year 1994. Because GSA did not have

data for all 80 firms, we filled in missing data on workforce size with information gathered during

our telephone calls to verify matched firms. The firms provided the most current data available,

typically fiscal year 1995 data.

Page 41 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix II 

Data on Violations, Remedies, and Federal

Contractors With Labor Violations

Figure II.8: Annual Sales of Federal

Contractors That Violated NLRA (Fiscal

Year 1994)

Number of Violators

0

5

10

15

20

25

$50 million or less

Over $50 million-$500 million

Over $500 million-$1 billion

Over $1 billion-$10 billion

Over $10 billion

Annual Sales

17

11

4

22

10

Note: Based on 64 of the 80 firms with NLRA violations and federal contracts. Although annual

sales data were not included on the version of FPDS we were provided, GSA provided these data

at our request. These data are current as of fiscal year 1994.

Page 42 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix III 

Key Federal Contract and Violation

Information for All 80 Firms With Labor

Violations

This appendix provides information on the 80 firms that have both NLRA

violations and federal contracts.46 In reporting fiscal year 1993 contract

dollars as well as primary contract agency and products and services, we

are referring to the parent firm, which is identified if it is different than the

name of the violator. A violation may have occurred at only one site or

facility, possibly within a division or subsidiary of the parent firm. These

violations apply to cases decided by the Board during fiscal years 1993 and

1994. We did not verify information on primary contract agency and

products and services that is entered into FPDS by the contracting agency.

Aero Metal Forms, Inc.

(17CA15539)

Contracts with the Air Force to provide airframe structural components

($354,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Laid off worker during an organizing campaign based upon its suspicion of

worker’s union activities.

• Discharged a second worker because she refused to fabricate evidence in

order to establish a “sham” defense for the unlawful layoff of the first

worker.

• Incidents occurred in Wichita, Kansas, where firm is based.

The Aerospace

Corporation

(31CA19441)

Contracts with the Air Force to provide research and development for

space science ($303,185,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Refused to furnish information to union in connection with grievance filed

by an employee.

• Incidents occurred in El Segundo, California, where the firm is based.

American Telephone

and Telegraph

Company (AT&T)

(07CA32168)

Contracts with Defense Information Systems, GSA, and the Navy to provide

telephone and/or communication services ($1,430,462,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

46Eight-one violators actually appear in this listing because two violators are part of the same parent

firm; Monfort of Colorado, Inc., and Northern States Beef are both part of ConAgra, Inc. Therefore,

contract dollars of about $117.4 million to ConAgra, Inc., are referred to twice in this appendix

Page 43 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix III 

Key Federal Contract and Violation

Information for All 80 Firms With Labor

Violations

• Refused to provide information to union about subcontracting some of its

work.

• Incident occurred at a facility in Oak Park, Michigan, at one of its

divisions.

Bartlett Nuclear, Inc.

(31CA18203)

Contracts with the Tennessee Valley Authority to provide maintenance

services ($120,000).

Highlights from the Board decision include:

• Abolished the jobs of 23 workers who would not abandon their economic

strike, then put these workers on probation.

• Incidents occurred at a facility in Diablo Canyon, California.

Baxter Healthcare

Corp.

(Baxter International,

Inc.)

(11CA12772)

Contracts with the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide medical and

surgical instruments, equipment, and supplies ($14,846,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Discharged two workers because of union activity.

• Incident occurred at a facility in Marion, North Carolina.

Beaird Industries, Inc.

(Trinity Industries,

Inc.)

(15CA11334)

Contracts with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to provide ship repair

($5,621,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Discharged four workers and took numerous unlawful actions to

discourage union activity during a lawful ULP strike.

• Prohibited workers from distributing prounion materials in nonworking

areas, solicited workers to sign a petition to oust the union, and

threatened retaliation against union workers.

• Refused to bargain with union.

• Incidents occurred at a facility in Shreveport, Louisiana.

Page 44 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix III 

Key Federal Contract and Violation

Information for All 80 Firms With Labor

Violations

Beech Aerospace

Services, Inc.

(Raytheon

Corporation)

(15CA12067)

Contracts with the Army to provide guided missile equipment

($3,509,586,000).

Highlights of Board decision include:

• Refused to bargain with union following union certification.

• Incident occurred at a facility in Pensacola, Florida.

Beverly Enterprises

(06CA19444)

Contracts with the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide nursing

home care ($10,268,000).

Highlights of Board decision include:

• Discharged 16 workers during union organizing campaigns at 23 facilities

throughout the nation.

• Took numerous unlawful actions to thwart union activity, including

threatening discipline against workers for union activity.

• History of violations.

Cascade General, Inc.

(036CA06774)

Contracts with the Navy for maintenance and repair of ships, small craft,

or docks and Maritime Administration for ship repair ($2,458,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Refused to recognize union.

• Did not honor collective bargaining agreement.

• Incidents occurred in Portland, Oregon, where the firm is based.

Castle Nursing

Homes, Inc.

(08CA25070)

Contracts with the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide nursing

home care ($3,008,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Prohibited organizational activities for any group on the company

premises without permission.

• Incident occurred in Millersburg, Ohio, where the firm is based.

Page 45 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix III 

Key Federal Contract and Violation

Information for All 80 Firms With Labor

Violations

Caterair International

(Caterair Holdings

Corporation)

(31CA18702)

Contracts with the Army to provide food services ($133,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Discharged 289 workers by permanently replacing them during a lawful

ULP strike.

• Circulated union decertification petitions, promising workers economic

benefits if the union is decertified and threatening them with economic

harm if the union is not decertified.

• Incidents occurred at three facilities in Los Angeles, California.

Centerville Nursing

Home Corp.

(01CA30105)

Contracts with the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide nursing

home care ($4,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Refused to bargain in good faith with union by refusing to implement

mandated wage increases.

• Incident occurred in Centerville, Massachusetts.

Chevron USA

Products Co.

(Chevron Corporation)

(32CA13548)

Contracts with the Defense Logistics Agency to provide petroleum-based

liquid propellants ($321,028,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Refused to bargain with union.

• Incident occurred at a facility in Richmond, California.

Chrysler Corporation

(25CA22090)

Contracts with the Air Force for modification of aircraft components, GSA

to provide trucks and Army to provide electronic equipment

($369,083,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Refused to bargain with the union.

• Incident occurred in a facility in Kokomo, Indiana.

Page 46 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix III 

Key Federal Contract and Violation

Information for All 80 Firms With Labor

Violations

City Chemical

Corporation

(22CA18532)

Contracts with the Navy to provide chemicals ($67,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Failed to pay wages due to 10 workers.

• Failed to bargain collectively in good faith with union.

• Did not remit union dues or remit welfare and pension payments to the

union’s funds.

• Incidents occurred in Jersey City, New Jersey, where the firm is based.

Cla-Val Company

(Griswold Industries

Co.)

(21CA27747)

Contracts with the Navy to provide powered valves ($1,503,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Discriminated against a worker by giving him a negative evaluation,

recommending discipline, placing him on probation, denying him a merit

pay increase, and suspending him for a week without pay based on the

worker’s union activity.

• Incident occurred at a facility in Perris, California.

Comarco, Inc.

(21CA29487)

Contracts with the Navy to provide management support services

($23,356,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Refused to bargain and provide requested information to union necessary

to bargain.

• Firm is based in Yorba Linda, California.

Community

Alternatives, Inc.

(12CA14619)

Contracts with the Defense Communication Agency to provide

maintenance services ($3,874,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Failed and refused to recognize union.

• Told workers that it would be futile for them to support a union and polled

its workers concerning their union membership and support.

• Firm is based in Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Page 47 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix III 

Key Federal Contract and Violation

Information for All 80 Firms With Labor

Violations

Consolidation Coal

Company

(Consol Energy Inc.)

(10CA25715)

(06CA23857)

Contracts with the Tennessee Valley Authority to provide solid fuels

($25,059,000).

Highlights from Board decisions include:

• Refused to furnish information to the union necessary to bargain with the

firm at a facility at Tackett Creek, Tennessee.

• In a case involving a mine in Pennsylvania, Board stated that the employer

has a history of violations and “in at least three cases the Board has

recommended broad cease and desist language.”

Detroit Edison Co.

(07CA32263)

Contracts with the Internal Revenue Service and Army to provide

electricity ($8,294,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Bypassed the union bargaining committee and dealt directly with

individual workers.

• Withdrew recognition and refused to bargain with union at one site.

• Incidents occurred in several Michigan facilities.

Duke University

(11CA15030)

Contracts with the National Institutes of Health for acquired

immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) research and Navy for basic defense

research ($14,954,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Did not recognize and engage in collective bargaining with the union.

• University based in Durham, North Carolina.

Du Pont de Nemours

& Co.

(03CA17273)

(04CA18737)

Contracts with the Defense Logistics Agency to provide petroleum-based

liquid propellants ($36,207,000).

Highlights from Board decisions include:

• Denied to a worker his right to be represented by union when he was

subject to an investigation at a facility in Tonawanda, New York.

• At a facility in Deepwater, New Jersey, dominated the formation and

administration of committees and unilaterally implemented the proposals

Page 48 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix III 

Key Federal Contract and Violation

Information for All 80 Firms With Labor

Violations

of these committees without affording the union an opportunity to

bargain.

• Discriminatorily prohibited workers from using the e-mail system for

distributing union literature and notices.

Durbin Poultry

Company, Marshall

(Durbin Marshall

Food Corp.)

(15CA11268)

(15CA11528)

Contracts with the Department of Agriculture to provide meat, poultry, or

fish ($3,499,000).

Highlights from Board decisions include:

• Discharged four workers including a supervisor who refused to commit

ULPs and a worker for testifying at an NLRB hearing.

• Took numerous unlawful actions to discourage union activity including

threatening workers with closing the plant if the union was selected.

• Board implemented a broad cease and desist order as “a result of the

widespread and egregious unlawful acts committed by the employer.”

• Incidents occurred at a facility in Hattiesburg, Mississippi.

Erie Engineered

Products, Inc.

(03CA17405)

Contracts with the Navy to provide special shipping and storage

containers ($1,208,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Unlawfully delayed issuance of paychecks, payment of health insurance

premiums, and payment of fees to 401(k) administrator.

• Incident occurred in North Tonawanda, New York, where the firm is

based.

Exide Corporation

(04CA20979)

Contracts with the Defense Logistics Agency to provide rechargeable

batteries ($1,139,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Threatened a worker with unspecified reprisals because of her union

activity.

• Discriminatorily refused to give above mentioned worker’s daughter

part-time work.

• The firm is based in Reading, Pennsylvania.

Page 49 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix III 

Key Federal Contract and Violation

Information for All 80 Firms With Labor

Violations

Fiber Products

(FPC Holdings, Inc.)

(05CA23097)

Contracts with the Bureau of Engraving and Printing to provide fabricated

materials ($498,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Terminated two workers because of union activities.

• The firm is based in Baltimore, Maryland.

Flexsteel Industries,

Inc.

(25CA21795)

(25CA22446)

Contracts with the Air Force to provide household furniture ($306,000).

Highlights from Board decisions include:

• During an organizing campaign, the employer took numerous unlawful

actions to discourage union activity, including threatening its workers

with more onerous work rates, loss of benefits, discharge, and plant

closure if they selected union.

• Withheld $50 of workers’ pay as simulated union dues, requiring workers

to sign a receipt for this money acknowledging their agreement with

employer’s antiunion position.

• Incidents occurred at a facility in New Paris, Indiana.

Fluor Daniel, Inc.

(Fluor Corporation)

(26CA13842)

Contracts with the Department of Energy to repair government property

($508,474,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Discriminatorially refused to hire 53 applicants because of their union

affiliation.

• Discharged one worker for refusing to cross a picket line.

• Board decision stated that “there is strong evidence of union animus in

this case.”

• Incidents occurred at three facilities in Kentucky.

Harper Packing

Company, Inc.

(04CA19573)

Contracts with the Defense Logistics Agency to provide packing and

gasket materials ($110,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Threatened workers with plant closure.

Page 50 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix III 

Key Federal Contract and Violation

Information for All 80 Firms With Labor

Violations

• Subjected worker’s work to increased scrutiny because worker filed an

ULP charge.

• The firm is based in Bridgeport, New Jersey.

Harvard Industries,

Inc.

(FEL Corporation)

(10CA25329)

Contracts with the Navy to provide electronic equipment ($18,693,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Discharged a worker during an organizing campaign because of union

activities.

• Threatened workers with loss of jobs if the union successfully organized

the workers.

• Incidents occurred at a facility in Sevierville, Tennessee.

Health Care and

Retirement Corp.

(01CA28519)

Contracts with the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide nursing

home care ($4,674,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Discharged five workers because of union activity.

• Interrogated a worker about her union activity and that of other workers.

• Incidents occurred in the Valley View Nursing Home in Lenox,

Massachusetts.

Hospitality Care

Center

(New Associates)

(22CA18606)

Contracts with the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide nursing

home care ($220,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Ceased to make contractually required payments to the union’s welfare

and legal funds, and remit dues and initiation fees to union.

• Incident occurred in Newark, New Jersey, where the firm is based.

International Paper

Company

(11CA14781)

Contracts with GSA to provide stationery and record forms ($32,183,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

Page 51 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix III 

Key Federal Contract and Violation

Information for All 80 Firms With Labor

Violations

• Interrogated and harassed workers regarding union activities during an

organizing campaign.

• Incident occurred at a facility in Raleigh, North Carolina.

Kaydon Corporation

(07CA33792)

Contracts with the Army to supply bearings ($8,341,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Refused to supply the union with requested information necessary to

bargain.

• Incident occurred at a facility in Muskegon, Michigan.

Keydata Systems, Inc.

(09CA30895)

Contracts with the Internal Revenue Service to provide data entry services

($5,311,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Refused to bargain with the union.

• Incident occurred at a facility in Beckley, West Virginia.

Laidlaw Waste

Systems

(Laidlaw, Inc.)

(27CA11621)

Contracts with the Defense Logistics Agency to remove hazardous waste

and the Department of the Army to maintain or repair structures

($55,711,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Refused to reinstate five workers to their prestrike positions when they

offered to return to work.

• Incident occurred at facilities in Sandy and Pleasant Grove, Utah.

Lane Construction

Company

(Lane Industries, Inc.)

(05CA22885)

Contracts with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to construct dams and

other facilities ($15,967,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Discharged three workers for their union activities.

Page 52 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix III 

Key Federal Contract and Violation

Information for All 80 Firms With Labor

Violations

• Opposed the union’s attempt to organize and represent workers by

threatening workers with a reduction in wages if they selected the union

and intimidating workers in other ways.

• The Board issued a bargaining order because the “coercive and

discriminatory conduct has interfered with the holding of a fair and free

election.”

• The firm is based in Meriden, Connecticut.

Laro Maintenance

Corp.

(29CA15196)

Contracts with GSA to provide maintenance or repairs of mechanical

equipment ($7,986,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Refused to hire 13 incumbent workers for a new work location because

these workers were represented by a union.

• Incident occurred at several facilities in New York.

Leach Corporation

(Leach International,

Inc.)

(21CA28385)

Contracts with the Air Force to provide electrical and electronic

equipment ($2,981,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Refused to provide the union with requested information necessary to

bargain and to recognize the union.

• Incident occurred at facilities in Los Angeles and Buena Park, California.

Leon’s Maid &

Janitorial Service,

Rosie M.B.

(27CA11740)

Contracts with the Federal Aviation Administration to provide custodial

and janitorial services ($161,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Failed to bargain in good faith with the union.

• Incident occurred at a facility in Aurora, Colorado.

Page 53 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix III 

Key Federal Contract and Violation

Information for All 80 Firms With Labor

Violations

Long Distance

USA/Sprint

(Sprint

Communications Co.)

(18CA11922)

Contracts with GSA for telephone and/or communication services

($229,952,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Refused to approve posting of union-related material on a bulletin board.

• Incident occurred at a facility in Winona, Minnesota.

Loyola University

Medical Center

(13CA31714)

Contracts with the National Institutes of Health to provide biomedical

research ($448,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Threatened workers with unspecified reprisals if they engaged in

protected concerted activity.

• The medical center is located in Maywood, Illinois.

Marriott Corporation

(02CA24526)

(31CA19652)

Contracts with the Air Force to provide building maintenance services

($7,066,000).

Highlights from Board decisions include:

• Suspended and then discharged three workers in a facility in Palisades,

New York, during an organizing campaign because of union involvement.

• Promised improved wages, benefits, and remedies to grievances to

discourage worker support for union.

• Prohibited workers from wearing union insignia at a facility in Los

Angeles, California.

McDonnell Douglas

Corporation47

(21CA27479)

 Contracts with the Navy and Air Force to provide aircraft

($7,654,628,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Transferred 32 workers out of the bargaining unit at a facility in

Huntington Beach, California, without obtaining the union’s agreement.

47 Very recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit, September 13, 1995) remanded the NLRB cases

against McDonnell Douglas Corporation to the Board. The U.S. Court of Appeals asked the Board to

reconsider its decision. The Board’s additional review could affect McDonnell Douglas Corporation’s

classification as a labor law violator.

Page 54 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix III 

Key Federal Contract and Violation

Information for All 80 Firms With Labor

Violations

Midwest Canvas

Corporation

(13CA31860)

Contracts with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to provide plastics and

other fabricated materials ($148,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Refused to execute the agreement made with union.

• Incident occurred in Chicago, Illinois, where the firm is based.

Millard Processing

Services, Inc.

(17CA15133)

Contracts with the Defense Logistics Agency to provide meat, poultry, or

fish ($48,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Unilaterally changed the wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of

employment during an organizing campaign.

• Threatened workers with plant closure if union succeeded in organizing

workers.

• Incidents occurred in Omaha, Nebraska, where the firm is based.

Monarch Sidney

(Monarch Machine

Tool Co.)

(09CA30350)

Contracts with the Air Force to provide automated data processing input,

output, and storage devices ($3,938,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Refused to bargain with the union.

• Unilaterally implemented a new attendance policy without negotiating

with union.

• Incidents occurred in Sidney, Ohio, where the firm is based.

Monfort of Colorado,

Inc.

(ConAgra, Inc.)

(27CA07742)

Contracts with the Department of Agriculture to provide meat, poultry, or

fish ($117,414,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Discriminated against 258 former union workers by applying more

rigorous hiring criteria when plant reopened in Greeley, Colorado.

• Took numerous unlawful actions against workers to discourage union

activity, including threatening to close plant.

Page 55 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix III 

Key Federal Contract and Violation

Information for All 80 Firms With Labor

Violations

• Board issued a broad cease and desist order because of the nature and

extent of violations.

• Election set-aside because of firm’s conduct.

NCR Corporation48

(09CA30321)

(09CA30467)

 Contracts with the Department of the Army to provide ADP software

($3,828,000).

Highlights from Board decisions include:

• Prohibited workers from either distributing or posting union literature

during an organizing campaign.

• Created, dominated, assisted, and interfered with worker satisfaction

councils.

• Incidents occurred in Dayton, Ohio, where the firm is based.

New England

Telephone &

Telegraph Company

(NYNEX Corporation)

(31CA28028)

Contracts with the Department of the Army to provide telephone and

communication services ($3,391,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Failed and refused to supply the union with requested information

necessary to bargain.

• The firm is based in Boston, Massachusetts.

Northern States Beef

(ConAgra, Inc.)

(30CA12183)

Contracts with the Department of Agriculture to provide meat, poultry, or

fish ($117,414,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Refused to bargain with the union.

• Incident occurred at a facility in Edgar, Wisconsin.

48Although NCR Corporation is a subsidiary of AT&T, we listed it separately both because violations were

committed within each firm and contract dollars to NCR could be identified separately from those

going to AT&T.

Page 56 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix III 

Key Federal Contract and Violation

Information for All 80 Firms With Labor

Violations

Ore-Ida Foods, Inc.

(Heinz, H.J. Company)

(30CA12558)

Contracts with the Department of Agriculture to provide meat, poultry, or

fish ($19,721,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Refused to bargain with union and to furnish information necessary to

bargain.

• Incident occurred at a facility in Plover, Wisconsin.

Overnite

Transportation

Company

(Union Pacific

Corporation)

(09CA27618)

Contracts with the Department of Agriculture to provide candy and nuts

($14,579,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Discharged three workers during an organizing campaign because of union

activity.

• Took numerous unlawful actions to discourage workers from union

activity during an organizing campaign including “coercively” interrogating

workers.

• Incidents occurred at a facility in Lexington, Kentucky.

Pratt & Whitney

Aircraft

(United Technologies

Corp.)

(34CA05044)

Contracts with the Air Force to provide gas turbines and jet engines and

with the Navy to provide aircraft rotary wings ($3,008,796,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Failed to honor the commitments it gave the union toward resolving

numerous job design grievances.

• Incident occurred at a facility in Middletown, Connecticut.

Public Service Co. of

Colorado

(27CA11650)

Contracts with the Air Force to provide electricity ($12,424,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Failed to process valid dues-checkoff authorization for three unit workers.

• Unilaterally subcontracted out work without first notifying union and

giving union opportunity to bargain.

• Failed to give union timely notice of workers’ status from temporary to

regular worker for 6 months.

Page 57 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix III 

Key Federal Contract and Violation

Information for All 80 Firms With Labor

Violations

• The utility is based in Denver, Colorado.

Public Service Co. of

Oklahoma

(17CA16439)

Contracts with GSA to provide electricity ($79,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Issued a disciplinary warning to one worker because he was the union

shop steward.

• The utility is based in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Reynolds Metals Co.

(09CA29899)

Contracts with the Defense Logistics Agency to provide packaging and

packing bulk materials and with GSA for office building lease ($5,611,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Discriminated against the terms and conditions of employment by

permitting a former full-time worker (who took time off to be a full-time

union president) to retroactively bid and obtain a job position thereby

displacing two other workers who had departmental seniority.

• Incident occurred at facility in Louisville, Kentucky.

Rheem Mfg. Co.

(Paloma Inc.)

(10CA26383)

Contracts with GSA to provide space heating equipment and water heaters

($106,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Refused to bargain with union following its certification.

• Incident occurred at a facility in Milledgeville, Georgia.

Safeway Stores, Inc.

(27CA12819)

Contracts with the Department of Agriculture to provide dairy foods and

eggs ($1,290,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Told workers that the union steward was filing frivolous grievances.

• Interrogated a worker about whether the worker had filed a grievance.

• Told a worker that there was a “militant union segment” in the store.

• Incidents occurred in Lakewood, Colorado.

Page 58 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix III 

Key Federal Contract and Violation

Information for All 80 Firms With Labor

Violations

Shell Co., Puerto Rico

Limited

(Shell Oil Company)

(24CA06335)

Contracts with the Defense Logistics Agency to provide petroleum-based

liquid propellants ($315,957,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Declared an impasse with the union, then unilaterally implemented

changes in the wages, hours, and other terms of conditions including

laying off or terminating seven workers.

• Refused to supply the union with information necessary to bargain.

• Unilaterally subcontracted out bargaining unit work.

• Incidents occurred in Puerto, Rico.

Sherwin-Williams Co.

(32CA12396)

Contracts with the Defense Logistics Agency to provide chemicals

($1,426,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Discharged a worker because of his union activity.

• Incident occurred at a facility in Emeryville, California.

Simplex Wire & Cable

Co.

(Tyco International

Ltd.)

(01CA29899)

Contracts with the Navy to provide fiber optic cables and other cable

wires ($17,023,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Discharged a worker because of union activity.

• Prohibited workers from engaging in union activities.

• Incidents occurred at a facility in Newington, New Hampshire.

Simpson Paper Co.

(Simpson Investment

Company)

(20CA24426)

Contracts with GSA to provide paper and paperboard ($266,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Prohibited workers from wearing anti-employer signs or articles of

clothing.

• Incident occurred at a facility in Anderson, California.

Page 59 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix III 

Key Federal Contract and Violation

Information for All 80 Firms With Labor

Violations

Slocomb Co., J.T.

(34CA05825)

Contracts with the Navy to provide gas turbines and jet engines

($4,627,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Laid off 11 workers due to union organizing activity.

• Threatened workers with layoff and discharge.

• Incidents occurred in South Glastonbury, Connecticut, where the firm is

based.

Somerset Welding &

Steel, Inc.

(Riggs Industries, Inc.)

(06CA19922)

Contracts with the Army to provide vehicle brake components ($102,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Threatened workers with plant closure in the event of unionization.

• Board ordered the firm to hold a second union representation election.

• Incidents occurred at a facility in Somerset, Pennsylvania.

Sony Corp. of America

(22CA16874)

Contracts with the Army to provide radio and television equipment

($17,341,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Photographed workers and used these photographs for an antiunion

videotape without the workers’ consent.

• Refused to furnish the union with requested information necessary to

bargain.

• Board ordered the firm to hold a new election when the circumstances

permit.

• Incidents occurred in several facilities in New Jersey and New York.

TNT Skypak, Inc.

(29CA16046)

Contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation to provide administrative,

mailing, and distribution services ($32,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Solicited worker grievances and promised them that the employer would

resolve grievances if they did not select union.

• Interrogated workers regarding their union activities.

Page 60 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix III 

Key Federal Contract and Violation

Information for All 80 Firms With Labor

Violations

• The firm is based in Garden City, New York.

Tri-Way Security &

Escort Service

(22CA18210)

Contracts with GSA to provide guard services ($793,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Suspended and then discharged three workers because of union activity.

• Incident occurred at a facility in Newark, New Jersey.

Triple P Services, Inc.

(11CA15613)

Contracts with the Army to provide custodial services and with the Navy

to provide food services ($6,349,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Discharged a worker and thereafter refused to reinstate her because of her

union activities.

• Incident occurred in Mount Olive, North Carolina, where firm is based.

Turner Co., Inc.,

Richard A.

(01CA31297)

Contracts with the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide construction

and other utilities ($1,755,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Refused to make payments owed to various funds on behalf of employees,

including the health and welfare fund and the pension fund.

• Incident occurred at a facility in Springfield, Massachusetts.

Tyson Foods, Inc.

(26CA14731)

Contracts with the Department of Agriculture to provide meat, poultry, or

fish ($10,791,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Took numerous unlawful actions to oust the union including circulating a

decertification petition.

• Unilaterally implemented changes in wages and working conditions.

• Stopped bargaining with the union.

• Incidents occurred at a facility in Dardanelle, Arizona.

Page 61 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix III 

Key Federal Contract and Violation

Information for All 80 Firms With Labor

Violations

Underwriters

Laboratories, Inc.

(32CA13189)

Contracts with the Federal Emergency Management Agency to conduct

studies ($263,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Refused to bargain with union.

• Incident occurred at a facility in Santa Clara, California.

United Parcel Service

(09CA27597)

Contracts with the Air Force to provide air charter services for packages

($88,504,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Refused to furnish the union with requested information necessary to

bargain.

• Incident occurred at a facility in Obetz, Ohio.

Ursery Companies,

Inc.

(34CA05756)

Contracts with the Department of Defense to provide custodial and other

housekeeping services ($512,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Discharged three workers during an organizing campaign because of their

support for the union and to discourage membership in the union.

• Took numerous unlawful actions against workers during an organizing

campaign including warning them that its records could be changed to

facilitate their discharge if they continued to support the union.

• Incidents occurred at a facility in Windsor-Locks, Connecticut.

Victorian Heights

Health Care Center

(Health Care

Retirement Corp.

Amer.)

(34CA06079)

Contracts with the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide nursing

home care ($14,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• The firm took numerous unlawful actions to discourage union activity,

including refusing to hire one employee and denying another employee a

wage increase because of their union activities.

• Threatened employees with changes in the terms and conditions of

employment because of their union membership.

Page 62 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix III 

Key Federal Contract and Violation

Information for All 80 Firms With Labor

Violations

• Refused to bargain with the union.

• The current parent firm is Health Care Facilities, based in Manchester,

Connecticut.

Waste Management,

Inc.—Salt Lake

Division

(WMX Technologies)

(27CA10940)

Contracts with the Department of Energy for the operation of research

and development facilities ($224,762,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Discharged a worker and took other numerous unlawful actions to

discourage union activity, including threatening workers with loss of

current wages and benefits if union were voted in.

• Created employer-dominated committees during an organizing drive; then

dissolved these committees after the union lost and filed objections to the

election.

• Board issued a broad cease and desist order as well as an order to bargain

because of the “pervasive and serious nature of misconduct.”

• Incidents occurred in West Jordan, Utah.

Westinghouse Electric

Corp.

(05CA22392)

Contracts with the Department of Energy for the operation of government

industrial buildings ($4,918,087,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Laid off four workers.

• Failed to bargain with the union.

• Incidents occurred at a facility in Baltimore, Maryland.

Whayne Supply Co.

(25CA22608)

Contracts with the Tennessee Valley Authority to provide diesel engines

and components ($36,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Discharged a worker because he refused to cross a picket line.

• Threatened its workers with discipline up to and including discharge if

they refused to cross picket line.

• Incidents occurred at a facility in Evansville, Indiana.

Page 63 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix III 

Key Federal Contract and Violation

Information for All 80 Firms With Labor

Violations

Windsor Castle Health

Care Facilities, Inc.

(34CA06259)

(34CA04597)

Contracts with the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide nursing

home care ($1,139,000).

Highlights from Board decisions include:

• Recognized a union as the exclusive representative of workers when this

union had not been selected by an “uncoerced” majority of workers.

• Threatened to discharge workers who did not want to be members of this

union and discharged one worker because she refused to pay union dues

when she was under no obligation to do so.

• Board issued a broad cease and desist order because of the “pervasive

nature” of the violations.

• After the workers voted in another union, the employer refused to bargain

or furnish requested information to this union necessary to bargain.

• Incidents occurred at a facility in New Haven, Connecticut.

Woolworth, F.W. Co.

(19CA21256)

Contracts with the Army to provide architects and general engineering

services ($113,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Discriminatorily reduced worker hours and denied holiday, vacation, and

sick leave requests during a period of a union’s boycott.

• Threatened workers during collective bargaining negotiation, and

photographed and videotaped workers engaged in union activities.

• Incidents occurred at a facility in Butte, Montana.

Wylie Construction

Co., C.E.

(21CA25857)

Contracts with the Navy to provide office and residential construction

services ($44,210,000).

Highlights from Board decision include:

• Interfered with the rights of union representatives to enter job site for the

purpose of engaging in lawful union activity.

• Incident occurred in Tustin, California.

Page 64 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix IV 

Case Summaries of 15 Firms With More

Serious Labor Violations

Summaries of the cases involving the 15 firms that might be considered

more serious violators of NLRA based on our review of Board decisions

appear below. These summaries capture information from FPDS on the

federal contracts that were awarded to these violators in fiscal year 1993

as well as information from Board decisions issued during fiscal years

1993 and 1994. The violations and remedies are reported as they appear in

the Board decisions.49 Modifications to the violations and remedies if the

case was appealed are reflected in these summaries.

Bartlett Nuclear, Inc.

(31CA18203)

The firm’s headquarters is in Plymouth, Massachusetts. The violations

occurred at the firm’s Diablo Canyon, California, facility.

Contract Characteristics The firm provides radiation protection services to nuclear power plants

throughout the United States. During outages, Bartlett Nuclear, Inc.,

provides temporary workers to utility companies. All of its fiscal year 1993

federal contract dollars ($120,000) are with the Tennessee Valley

Authority.

Violations This firm violated section 8(a)(3) and (1) of NLRA. The firm abolished the

jobs of 23 workers who would not abandon their economic strike and then

put these workers on probation for a year.

The firm

• threatened to abolish the jobs of workers if they did not abandon their

strike and return to work;

• took this action against 23 workers;

• put these 23 workers on probation for a year, which prevented them from

obtaining employment assignments for a year; and

• realizing the legal problems that might ensue, the firm subsequently told 18

of the 23 workers that the probation was rescinded. By that time, however,

many of these workers missed out on job opportunities.

49In many cases in which a statement in these summaries is attributed to the Board decision, it was

actually contained in the ALJ decision that was affirmed by the Board.

Page 65 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix IV 

Case Summaries of 15 Firms With More

Serious Labor Violations

Remedies The firm was ordered to

• offer each of the affected workers immediate reinstatement to their former

positions without loss of seniority and other privileges; and

• make these workers whole for lost earnings from the date of discharge to

the date of a bona fide offer of reinstatement, less net interim earnings,

plus interest.

Beaird Industries, Inc.

(15CA11334)

The firm’s headquarters is in Shreveport, Louisiana, also where the

violations occurred.

Contract Characteristics Sixty-seven percent of its $5.6 million in fiscal year 1993 federal contract

dollars ($3.8 million) are with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for ship

repair. These contract dollars went to its parent firm, Trinity Industries,

Inc.

Violations The firm violated Section 8(a)(1)(3) and (5) of NLRA. The firm discharged 4

employees and took numerous unlawful actions to discourage union

activity. The Board decision states that these violations occurred during

the firm’s attempt to “oust” the union during a lawful ULP strike.

The firm

• prohibited its workers from distributing prounion materials;

• solicited its workers to sign a petition to oust the union as the exclusive

collective-bargaining agent;

• promised its workers a pay raise if they would oust the union;

• promised its workers an increase in work hours if they would oust the

union;

• promised an employee a test to qualify for a higher grade at higher pay if

the employee signed a petition to oust the union;

• threatened to reduce hours if workers did not oust the union;

• interrogated workers about union activities;

• promised more work if its employees ousted the union as the bargaining

representative;

• solicited its employees to encourage other employees to sign the petition

to oust the union;

• implied to its employees that they would receive unspecified benefits if

they ousted the union as their bargaining representative;

Page 66 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix IV 

Case Summaries of 15 Firms With More

Serious Labor Violations

• promised increased benefits to nonunion employees;

• threatened retaliation to union employees and more onerous work for

prounion employees if the employees ousted the union as the bargaining

representative;

• discharged 4 workers due to their union activities;

• transferred one employee from the night shift to the day shift due to union

activity;

• withdrew recognition from and refused to bargain with union by

unilaterally removing workers from bargaining unit and reducing work

hours without notifying and bargaining with the union; and

• created vacancies in a substantial percentage of jobs in a particular job

classification in the bargaining unit without notifying and bargaining with

the union.

Remedies The firm was ordered to

• offer the 4 discharged workers immediate and full reinstatement to their

former jobs or equivalent positions;

• make them whole for any loss of earnings and any other benefits, plus

interest;

• recognize, meet, and bargain with the union;

• restore conditions to the status quo as they existed before illegally

withdrawing recognition and make workers whole for any loss of earnings

and benefits, plus interest; and

• accord all striking workers the rights and privileges of ULP strikers,

offering strikers not heretofore reinstated immediate and full

reinstatement and making them whole for any loss of earnings.

Beverly Enterprises

(06CA19444)

This firm is also referred to as Beverly California Corporation. Its

headquarters is in Fort Smith, Arkansas, although at the time of the

violations the firm was based in Pasadena, California.

Contract Characteristics Beverly Enterprises operates nearly 1,000 nursing home facilities

throughout the nation. All of its fiscal year 1993 federal contract dollars

($10.3 million) are with the Department of Veteran Affairs for providing

nursing home services.

Page 67 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix IV 

Case Summaries of 15 Firms With More

Serious Labor Violations

Violations50 This firm violated section 8(a)(1)(3) and (5) of NLRA. The firm discharged

16 workers and took numerous unlawful actions to “thwart” union activity

during organizing campaigns at 23 facilities. The Board decision states that

this firm has a history of violations.

The firm

• threatened workers with disciplinary action or more onerous working

conditions because of their union activity or other concerted protected

activity;

• threatened workers with loss of benefits if they selected a union to

represent them;

• threatened workers with discharge because of their union activity or other

protected concerted activity;

• threatened workers with reprisal for testifying at a Board hearing;

• threatened to close or sell a facility if the workers selected the union as

their collective bargaining representative;

• threatened to withhold a wage increase because workers selected the

union as their collective bargaining representative;

• threatened workers that if they engaged in a strike, they would not be

permitted to visit close relatives who are residents at the facility;

• threatened workers with the futility of selecting a union;

• forbade or attempted to forbade workers from engaging in lawful

solicitation or distribution on behalf of a union on or off its property and

during nonworking time or in nonwork and/or nonpatient care areas;

• transferred workers to less desirable positions because of their activities

on behalf of the union;

• promised increased wages or benefits to induce workers to defeat or

decertify the union;

• forbade or restricted the activities of employee union representatives in

nonwork or nonpatient care areas;

• interrogated workers with regard to their union activity or the union

activity of others;

• engaged in surveillance of employee’s union activities or created the

impression of such surveillance among workers;

• discharged workers or imposed disciplinary measures on workers

including suspensions, written warnings, oral warnings, or transfers

because of their activities on behalf of or support for a union or their

participating in other concerted protected activity;

50The U.S. Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit, Feb. 28, 1994) modified the Board’s decision. This summary

reflects the case after incorporating the Court of Appeals decision.

Page 68 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix IV 

Case Summaries of 15 Firms With More

Serious Labor Violations

• issued less favorable performance evaluations because of their support for

or activities on behalf of a union;

• failed and refused to bargain in good faith with a union selected by a

majority of its workers as their collective-bargaining representative;

• unilaterally implemented changes in terms of conditions of employment of

workers without prior notice or affording an opportunity to bargain to the

union selected as their collective bargaining representative;

• failed and refused to meet and bargain with a union representing its

employee, on request, with information necessary and relevant to its

collective-bargaining functions;

• failed and refused to meet and bargain with a union representing its

workers concerning workers complaints and grievances; and

• assaulted union representatives or delegates.

Remedies The firm was ordered to

• offer full reinstatement to 16 workers (across several different centers) to

their former positions or, if those positions no longer exist, to substantially

equivalent positions;

• make whole the 16 workers listed above, the 17 workers unlawfully

discharged on September 15, 1986 but later rehired at Fayette Health Care

Center, and 4 other workers (of different centers) for any loss of pay and

other benefits, with interest;

• make whole, with interest, those workers at Parkview Gardens Care

Center adversely affected by the unlawful implementation of the vacation

buy-out program;

• on request, furnish to the applicable union information that is relevant and

necessary to its role as exclusive bargaining representative of the unit

workers;

• on request, bargain in good faith concerning wages, hours, and other terms

and conditions of employment with any union selected by its workers as

their collective-bargaining representative; and

• set aside the representation elections at Four Chaplains Convalescent

Center and Parkview Manor Nursing Home and have new elections

ordered and conducted by the Regional Director for Region 7 and Region

30, respectively, whenever the latter desires it to be appropriate.

Caterair International

(31CA18702)

The firm’s headquarters is in Bethesda, Maryland. The violations occurred

at three facilities in Los Angeles, California.

Page 69 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix IV 

Case Summaries of 15 Firms With More

Serious Labor Violations

Contract Characteristics The firm caters food for commercial airlines. All of its fiscal year 1993

federal contract dollars ($133,000) are with the Army for the provision of

food services. These contract dollars went to its parent firm, Caterair

Holdings Corporation.

Violations51 The firm violated section 8(a)(1)(3) and (5) of NLRA. The violations

occurred during the firm’s attempt to decertify the union. During a lawful

ULP strike, 289 workers were unlawfully discharged by Caterair. The firm

then brought in permanent replacements.

The firm

• circulated a petition among workers to decertify the union;

• promised economic benefits and threatened economic harm;

• told workers that they were discharged or automatically replaced if they

went on strike;

• failed and refused to reinstate ULP strikers to their former or equivalent

positions of employment;

• withdrew recognition from union and refused to bargain with the union;

and

• unilaterally granted a wage increase without bargaining with the union.

Remedies The firm was ordered to

• reinstate ULP strikers and pay them back pay, with interest.

Durbin Poultry

Company (Marshall)

(15CA11268 and

15CA11528)

The violations occurred at its facility in Hattiesburg, Mississippi.

Contract Characteristics The firm is engaged in the processing and nonretail sale of poultry

products. Ninety-five percent of its $3.5 million in fiscal year 1993 federal

contract dollars ($3.3 million) are with the Department of Agriculture to

provide poultry. These contract dollars went to its parent firm, Durbin

Marshall Food Corporation.

51The U.S. Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit, April 29, 1994) modified the Board’s decision. This summary

reflects the case after incorporating the Court of Appeals decision.

Page 70 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix IV 

Case Summaries of 15 Firms With More

Serious Labor Violations

Violations52 Four employees were discharged and numerous unlawful actions taken to

discourage union activity. For both cases, the firm received a broad cease

and desist order, which, as stated in one of the decisions, was for

“widespread and egregious unlawful acts committed by the employer.”

In case 15CA11268, this firm violated section 8(a)(1)(3) and (4) of NLRA.

The firm

• interrogated workers regarding union membership, activities, and

sympathies and that of their fellow workers;

• informed an employee that it would be futile for the employee to select the

union as his bargaining representative;

• threatened two workers with discharge because of union activities;

• threatened one employee with plant closure if he selected the union as his

bargaining representative;

• threatened workers with reduced wages and benefits if the union was

selected;

• told two workers that the plant manager had ordered the supervisor to

check their work to find fault with it in order to discharge them;

• solicited workers to withdraw their union support and promised them job

security if they would do so;

• told workers that if they withdrew union support, they would save their

jobs;

• informed workers that the employer had instructed the supervisor to

harass them because of their union involvement;

• informed two workers that the personnel manager had instructed the

supervisor to plant employer property on their person in order to accuse

them of stealing in order to discharge them;

• informed workers that the employer was making a list of workers who

wore union insignia;

• informed workers that their raises were withheld because of union

activities;

• threatened to discharge an employee in order to restrain her from

testifying in this hearing;

• told an employee that the workers were on such short hours because of

the union;

• prohibited employee solicitation activity on its premises by permitting

antiunion activities;

• reduced the workweek of its workers;

52The U.S. Court of Appeals (5th Circuit, Dec. 16, 1994) modified the Board’s decision. This summary

reflects the case after incorporating the Court of Appeals decision.

Page 71 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix IV 

Case Summaries of 15 Firms With More

Serious Labor Violations

• refused to allow one employee to stay in the breakroom or on parking lot

premises beyond his working hours, and issued him a written reprimand

for remaining on the premises;

• decreased the hours of two workers;

• issued written warnings to six workers;

• assigned more onerous work to and decreased the hours of one employee

and harassed her;

• terminated two workers; and

• discharged a supervisor because of his refusal to commit ULPs in order to

discourage workers from joining, supporting, and assisting the union or

engaging in other concerted activities.

In case 15CA11528, the firm violated section 8(a)(1) and (4) of NLRA. The

firm

• threatened workers with discharge because they testified in an NLRB

hearing;

• threatened its workers that it was futile for them to select the union;

• threatened its workers with plant closure if they selected the union;

• interrogated an employee about his union activities; and

• discharged and refused to rehire an employee because she gave testimony

in an NLRB hearing.

Remedies In case 15CA11268, the firm was ordered to

• rescind the unlawful warnings issued to seven workers,

• rescind its unlawful discharges of two workers and the unlawful transfer

and reduction of hours of one other employee and offer them full

reinstatement to their former positions and make them whole for all loss

of wages and benefits, with interest;

• make whole the discharged supervisor for his lost earnings and benefits

from the date of his discharge until the date on which the employer first

learned of his prior misconduct constituting a lawful basis for discharge,

with interest; and

• make whole all workers for all losses of wages and benefits sustained by

them, with interest, as a result of the unlawful reduction in work hours.

In case 15CA11528, the firm was ordered to

Page 72 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix IV 

Case Summaries of 15 Firms With More

Serious Labor Violations

• offer an employee discharged for testifying at an NLRB hearing immediate

and full reinstatement to her former job and make this employee whole for

any loss of earnings plus interest.

Flexsteel Industries,

Inc.

(25CA21795)

The firm’s headquarters is in Dubuque, Iowa. The violations occurred at

the firm’s New Paris, Indiana, facility.

Contract Characteristics The firm manufactures, sells, and distributes recreational vehicle

equipment and related products. Eighty-nine percent of its $306,000 in

fiscal year 1993 federal contract dollars ($272,000) are with the Air Force

for household furniture.

Violations The firm violated Section 8(a)1 of NLRA. During an organizing campaign,

the firm took numerous unlawful actions to discourage union activities,

including threatening its workers with more onerous work rates, loss of

benefits, discharge, and plant closure if they selected the union. The firm

also withheld $50 of workers’ pay as simulated union dues.

The firm

• promised its employees improved terms and conditions if they would

abandon union support;

• interrogated its employees regarding their union membership, activities,

and sympathies;

• discriminatorily enforced a no-solicitation, no-distribution rule regarding

union information;

• threatened its employees through its supervisors with the elimination of

their benefits and requiring the union to bargain from scratch if its

employees selected the union as their collective-bargaining representative;

• gave its employees the impression that their union activities were under

surveillance;

• withheld $50 of employees’ pay as simulated union dues, fines, and

assessments without their authorization, requiring employees to sign a

receipt acknowledging their agreement with employer’s position that they

would be required to pay at least the amount withheld for union dues, and

delaying by a day paying the amount withheld to any employee who

refused to sign the receipt;

Page 73 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix IV 

Case Summaries of 15 Firms With More

Serious Labor Violations

• threatened its employees with more onerous work rates and loss of pay if

they selected the union;

• threatened its employees with loss of their jobs or discharge if they

selected the union;

• threatened its employees with plant closure if they selected the union; and

• issued to its employees written material wherein the firm threatened its

employees with loss of work and jobs if they selected the union.

Remedies The firm was ordered to

• hold a rerun election for the union at such time deemed that a free choice

on the issue of representation can be held.

Fluor Daniel, Inc.

(26CA13842)

The firm’s headquarters is in Irvine, California. The violations occurred in

several facilities in Kentucky.

Contract Characteristics Fluor Daniel, Inc., is engaged in the engineering, construction, and

maintenance business throughout the United States. Seventy-two percent

of its $508 million in fiscal year 1993 federal contract dollars ($367 million)

are with the Department of Energy. These contract dollars went to its

parent firm, the Fluor Corporation. In this case, Fluor Daniel entered into

a 3-year contract with Big Rivers Electric Company to do service and

maintenance work on various power generating facilities operated by Big

Rivers.

Violations The firm violated section 8(a)(1) and (3) of NLRA. The firm discriminatorily

refused to hire 53 applicants because of their union affiliation and

discharged one employee for refusing to cross a picket line. The Board

decision found there was “strong evidence of union animus” in this case

because not one applicant whose application bore the words “voluntary

union organizer” was hired, even when their qualifications and job

experience were at least equal of those hired.

Page 74 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix IV 

Case Summaries of 15 Firms With More

Serious Labor Violations

The firm

• threatened workers with discipline and discharge if they refused to cross a

picket line;

• discharged an employee because the employee refused to cross a picket

line; and

• failed and refused to offer positions to 53 discriminatees because they

engaged in the protected concerted activity of letting the employer know

they were voluntary union organizers.

Remedies The firm was ordered to

• offer the employee who was discharged for refusing to cross a picket line

full reinstatement to his former position and offer to the 53 individuals

(refused hire because engaged in activities on behalf of a labor

organization) employment in positions for which they applied or, if those

positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions; and

• make the above individuals whole for any loss of pay and other benefits

suffered by them.

The Lane

Construction

Company

(05CA22885)

The firm’s headquarters is in Meriden, Connecticut.

Contract Characteristics The firm is engaged in construction. Ninety percent of its $16 million in

fiscal year 1993 federal contract dollars ($14.4 million) are with the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers to construct dams and other facilities. These

contract dollars went to its parent firm, Lane Industries, Inc.

Violations The firm violated sections 8(a)(1) and (3) of NLRA. The firm discharged

three employees for their union activities and interfered with the union’s

attempt to organize in a variety of ways. The Board issued a bargaining

order because the “coercive and discriminatory conduct has interfered

with the holding of a fair and free election.”

Page 75 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix IV 

Case Summaries of 15 Firms With More

Serious Labor Violations

The firm

• threatened workers with a reduction in wages if they selected the union as

their bargaining representative;

• coercively interrogated workers regarding their union sympathies;

• admonished workers that they were “putting the wood” to the employer

and “biting the hand that feeds them” in seeking union representation;

• discriminatorily laid off three workers; and

• coercively and discriminatorily interfered with the holding of a fair and

free election among the unit workers.

Remedies The firm was ordered to

• offer the three discharged workers immediate and full reinstatement to

their former jobs or, in the event their former jobs no longer exist, to

substantially equivalent jobs;

• make the above workers whole, with interest, for any loss of earnings they

may have suffered by reason of their discriminatory layoffs; and

• upon request, bargain in good faith with the union as the exclusive

bargaining agent of its workers and if an understanding is reached,

embody that understanding in a signed agreement.

Monfort of Colorado,

Inc.

(27CA07742)

The firm’s headquarters is in Greeley, Colorado, also where the violations

occurred.

Contract Characteristics This case involves the firm’s Greeley, Colorado, meat processing facility,

which reopened in March 1982 after a 2-year closure. Forty-seven percent

of its $117 million in fiscal year 1993 federal contract dollars

($55.7 million) are with the Department of Agriculture. These contract

dollars went to its parent firm, ConAgra, Inc.

Violation53 The firm violated section 8(a)(3) and (1) of NLRA. The firm discriminated

against 258 former union employees by applying more rigorous hiring

criteria when the plant reopened. The firm also took numerous unlawful

actions against employees to discourage union activity. The Board issued a

broad cease and desist order because of ULPs that were “numerous,

53The U.S. Court of Appeals (10th Circuit, May 19, 1992) modified the Board’s decision. This summary

reflects the case after incorporating the Court of Appeals decision.

Page 76 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix IV 

Case Summaries of 15 Firms With More

Serious Labor Violations

pervasive, and outrageous.” The Board also ordered that the election be

set aside because of the firm’s conduct.

The firm

• threatened workers that if the union won the election, the employer would

settle the outstanding ULP case against the employer, fire the present

workers, and rehire the former workers;

• told workers that, if the union lost the election, the employer would fight

vigorously the outstanding ULP case against the employer, even if it took

years to do so, before the employer would fire even one present employee

in order to rehire a former employee;

• threatened workers that the plant would be closed if the workers selected

the union to represent them;

• threatened an employee that the workers’ selection of the union as their

collective-bargaining representative would cause the Greeley plant to be

closed again, and suggested in that context that the workers form their

own organization to bargain with the employer instead of selecting the

union to represent them;

• told an employee that workers who voted for the union were a bunch of

troublemakers and ought to be fired;

• threatened an employee that workers would lose their profit-sharing

benefits if the workers selected the union as their collective-bargaining

representative;

• threatened an employee with retaliation for revealing statements made by

a supervisor of the employer, which had resulted in the union’s filing

charges against the employer;

• told an employee that any employee who would testify against the

employer in an NLRB hearing ought to be “shot or abandoned on some

island”;

• promised an employee free workgloves if the employee voted against the

union;

• told an employee to solicit other company workers to sign a petition

against the union, in the context of telling the same employee that he

would be sure to get a promotion to a leadman’s job;

• disparately applied its work rules to permit workers to engage in antiunion

activities in the plant while not permitting workers to engage in prounion

activities;

• failed to rehire or delayed in rehiring former workers because of their past

union membership and activities after they had filed Monfort applications

for employment;

Page 77 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix IV 

Case Summaries of 15 Firms With More

Serious Labor Violations

• refused to (re)hire an employee because the union had filed a ULP charge

with the NLRB against the employer with regard to the employer’s prior

termination of the employee; and

• applied discriminatory application of facially neutral hiring criteria to

disqualify former unionized workers who sought reemployment at the

employer’s reopened plant.

Remedies The firm was ordered to

• offer an employee immediate and full reinstatement to his former job, or if

that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, and make

him whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result

of the discrimination against him;

• offer an employee and those former workers whom it had unlawfully

refused to rehire immediate and full reemployment in the positions for

which they would have been hired but for the respondent’s unlawful

discrimination, or, if these positions no longer exist, to substantially

equivalent positions at the respondent’s Greeley, Colorado, plant;

• make each of them, as well as those former workers whom it has

unlawfully delayed in rehiring, whole for any loss of earnings and other

benefits resulting from the discrimination against them, and place on a

preferential hiring list all remaining discriminatees who would have been

hired but for the lack of available jobs;

• on request of the union made within 1 year of the issuance of the order

here, make available to the union without delay a list of names and

addresses of all workers employed at the Greeley, Colorado, plant at the

time of the request;

• immediately on request of the union, for a period of 2 years from the date

on which the notice is posted or until the regional director has issued an

appropriate certification following a fair and free election, whichever

comes first, grant the union and its representatives reasonable access to

the Greeley, Colorado, plant bulletin boards and all places where notices

to workers are customarily posted;

• immediately on request of the union, for a period of 2 years from the date

on which the notice is posted or until the regional director has issued an

appropriate certification following a fair and free election, whichever

comes first, permit a reasonable number of union representatives access

for reasonable periods of time to nonwork areas within its Greeley,

Colorado, plant so that the union may present its views on unionization to

the workers, orally and in writing, in such areas during changes of shift,

breaks, mealtimes, or other nonwork periods;

Page 78 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix IV 

Case Summaries of 15 Firms With More

Serious Labor Violations

• in the event that during a period of 2 years following the date on which the

notice is posted, or until the regional director has issued an appropriate

certification following a fair and free election, whichever comes first, any

supervisor or agent of the employer convenes any group of workers at the

employer’s Greeley, Colorado, plant and addresses them on the question

of union representation, give the union reasonable notice thereof and

afford two union representatives a reasonable opportunity to be present at

such speech and, on request, give one of them equal time and facilities to

address the workers on the question of union representation;

• in any election which the Board may schedule at the employer’s Greeley,

Colorado, plant within a period of 2 years following the date on which the

notice is posted and in which the union is a participant, permit, on request

by the union, at least two union representatives reasonable access to the

plant and appropriate facilities to deliver a 30-minute speech to workers

on working time, the date thereof not to be more than 10 working days but

not less than 48 hours before any such election; and

• it is further ordered that the election conducted on June 24, 1983, be set

aside.

Overnite

Transportation

Company

(09CA27618)

The firm’s headquarters is in Richmond, Virginia. The violations occurred

at a facility in Lexington, Kentucky.

Contract Characteristics The employer is engaged in the interstate transportation of freight.

Sixty-four percent of its $14.6 million in fiscal year 1993 federal contract

dollars ($9.3 million) are with the Department of Agriculture. These

contract dollars went to its parent firm, Union Pacific Corporation.

Violations The firm violated section 8(a) (1) and (3) of NLRA. The firm discharged

three workers for their union organizing activities and took numerous

unlawful actions to discourage employees from union activity, including

“coercively” interrogating employees.

The firm

• told workers it thought the union had a “plant” in the terminal and that the

employer thought it was a certain named employee, creating the

Page 79 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix IV 

Case Summaries of 15 Firms With More

Serious Labor Violations

impression among workers that their concerted organizing activities were

under surveillance;

• asked workers who the “plant” was and which workers were supporting

the union;

• told workers it wanted to know who the “plant” was so it could get rid of

him;

• asked workers to keep their eyes and ears open and report any workers

engaged in distributing leaflets to management immediately;

• told workers if union organizers came in the gate, to close the gate, so

employer could have them arrested, the employer manifested animus

toward the union by restraining and coercing workers in the exercise of

their protected rights;

• told workers it was okay for them to “beat the hell” out of the union

organizers;

• told workers the employer had an open door policy, that they did not need

a union;

• told workers that its unionized plants did not have a contract, tending to

make its workers believe unionization was futile;

• told workers top management said that if the workers selected the union,

employer would close its doors; and

• discriminatorily discharged three workers for leading union organizing

activities.

Remedies The firm was ordered to

• offer to recall the three workers for immediate and full reinstatement to

their former jobs and make them whole, with interest, for any loss of

earnings or benefits they may have suffered as a result of their discharge.

Tyson Foods, Inc.

(26CA14731)

The firm’s headquarters is in Springdale, Arkansas. The violations

occurred at its facility within the same state in the city of Dardanelle.

Contract Characteristics The firm is engaged in the processing of poultry products. Eighty-one

percent of its $10.8 million in fiscal year 1993 federal contract dollars

($8.8 million) are for the Department of Agriculture.

Violations This firm violated section 8(a)(1) and (5) of NLRA. The firm took numerous

unlawful actions to discourage employees from union activity, including

Page 80 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix IV 

Case Summaries of 15 Firms With More

Serious Labor Violations

assisting a decertification drive in which the firm withdrew recognition of

the union and unilaterally implemented changes in wages and working

conditions. At this time, workers were threatened, interrogated, and

solicited for their signatures on a decertification petition.

The firm

• directed, controlled, circulated, and assisted in the circulation of a

decertification petition;

• promised workers wage increases, bonuses, and other benefits if the

workers would decertify the union;

• threatened workers with the loss of wage increases, bonuses, and other

benefits if the workers did not decertify the union;

• while engaged in the training of new workers, told these workers that the

union could do no more for them than the employer and thus discouraged

support for the union and encouraged bypassing the union and dealing

directly with the company;

• surveyed and interrogated workers concerning their union sympathies and

preferences by observing them as they were solicited by employer’s agent

for their signatures on a decertification petition;

• failed and refused to bargain with the union as the exclusive

collective-bargaining representative of its workers in the above-noted unit;

• withdrew recognition of the union as the exclusive collective-bargaining

representative of its workers;

• unilaterally implemented the following changes in wages and working

conditions: instituting a performance bonus of between 2 and

3-1/2 percent; implementing a wage increase; and increasing shift

premiums;

• unilaterally implemented a new attendance policy and a new service

award and attendance award program;

• refused to furnish the union with information which it requested; and

• interfered with workers discussing union business on nonwork time in

nonwork areas.

Remedies The firm was ordered to

• recognize and, on request, bargain with the union as the exclusive

representative of the workers concerning terms and conditions of

employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody the

understanding in a signed agreement;

Page 81 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix IV 

Case Summaries of 15 Firms With More

Serious Labor Violations

• on request of the union, rescind any or all of the changes it has unilaterally

implemented on or after the date it unlawfully withdrew recognition from

the union, including, but not limited to, a performance bonus of between 2

and 3-1/2 percent, a wage increase, an increased shift premium, a new

attendance policy, and a new service award and attendance award

program; and

• furnish the union information it requested in its letter of July 9, 1991, and,

on request, furnish the union any other necessary and relevant information

which it may request in furtherance of its role as bargaining representative

of the workers.

Ursery Companies,

Inc.

(34CA05756)

The firm’s headquarters is in Cheshire, Connecticut. The violations

occurred in the same state in the city of Windsor-Locks.

Contract Characteristics The firm was under contract to perform janitorial services for United

Technologies Corporation at its Hamilton-Standard Division plant.

Eighty-two percent of its $512,000 in fiscal year 1993 federal contract

dollars ($421,000) are with the Department of Defense to provide janitorial

services.

Violations The firm violated section 8(a)(1) and (3) of NLRA. The firm discharged

three employees because of their support for the union. Also, the firm took

numerous unlawful actions against employees during an organizing

campaign. At the time of these discharges, only one challenged ballot was

blocking the union’s certification as bargaining representative.

The firm

• coercively interrogated workers as to their support for the union;

• threatened to discharge workers to discourage them from supporting the

union;

• threatened to freeze their wages to induce them to vote against the union;

• warned them that its records could be changed to facilitate their discharge

if they continued to support the union;

• created the impression among them that their union activities were being

kept under surveillance;

• informed them in effect that it was futile for them to support the union;

Page 82 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix IV 

Case Summaries of 15 Firms With More

Serious Labor Violations

• warned them that they were gambling with their jobs if they voted for the

union;

• discharged three workers because they supported the union; and

• refused to grant permission to an employee to leave the

Hamilton-Standard plant because the employee supported the union.

Remedies The firm was ordered to

• offer the above three workers immediate and full reinstatement to their

former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent

positions, and make them whole for any loss of earnings and other

benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against them.

Victorian Heights

Health Care Center

(34CA06079)

The firm’s headquarters is in Manchester, Connecticut, also where the

violations occurred.

Contract Characteristics This firm operates three nursing homes which provide inpatient medical

and professional care services for the elderly and infirm. All of its $14,000

in fiscal year 1993 federal contract dollars are to the Department of

Veterans Affairs to provide nursing home care. These contract dollars

went to its parent firm, Health Care Retirement Corp. Amer. Its current

parent firm is Health Care Facilities.

Violations The firm violated section 8(a)(1)(3) and (5) of NLRA. The firm took

numerous unlawful actions to discourage union activity, including refusing

to hire one employee and denying another employee a wage increase

because of their union activities. The firm also threatened employees with

changes in the terms and conditions of employment because of their union

membership.

The firm

• changed its practice of granting wage increases to its licensed practical

nurses without prior notice to the union and without affording the union

an opportunity to bargain with employer with respect to this conduct and

the effects of this conduct;

Page 83 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix IV 

Case Summaries of 15 Firms With More

Serious Labor Violations

• removed work from its therapeutic recreational directors without prior

notice to the union and without affording the union an opportunity to

bargain with employer with respect to this conduct and the effects of this

conduct;

• bypassed the union and dealt directly with its therapeutic recreational

directors regarding hours and other terms and conditions of employment;

• interrogated workers regarding their membership in the union;

• threatened its workers with unspecified reprisals because of their

membership in or activities on behalf of the union;

• threatened workers with changes in their terms and conditions of

employment because of their membership in or activities on behalf of the

union;

• created the impression among its workers that their activities on behalf of

the union were under surveillance;

• solicited employee complaints and grievances in order to discourage its

workers’ membership in, or activities on behalf of the union;

• promised its workers increased benefits and improvements in the terms

and conditions of employment in order to discourage their membership in,

or activities on behalf of the union;

• informed an employee that she could not be hired because of her

membership in, or activities on behalf of the union;

• conditioned this employee’s employment upon refraining from

membership in, or activities on behalf of the union;

• threatened this employee with surveillance if she became a member of or

engaged in activities on behalf of the union; and

• constructively discharged this employee because of her membership in or

activities on behalf of the union.

Remedies The firm was ordered to

• on request, bargain in good faith with the union concerning removing unit

work from its therapeutic recreational directors, wages, hours and other

conditions of employment of its therapeutic recreational directors, and the

granting of wage increases to its licensed practical nurses;

• make the employee whole for any difference between her initial 5-percent

wage increase promised to her and based upon her annual appraisal, and

the bonus granted to her in lieu of such 5-percent wage increase, for the

period beginning the date she received her first bonus payment, until she

quit her job in July 1993;

• offer to the employee the firm had refused to hire full and immediate

reinstatement to the position of a licensed practical nurse or a

Page 84 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix IV 

Case Summaries of 15 Firms With More

Serious Labor Violations

substantially equivalent position, if such position no longer exists without

prejudice to her seniority and other privileges previously enjoyed; and

• make this employee whole for any loss of earnings suffered by her as a

result of the discrimination against her.

Waste Management,

Inc. (Salt Lake

Division)

(27CA10940)

The firm’s headquarters is in Oak Brook, Illinois. The violations occurred

in the West Jordan, Utah, area.

Contract Characteristics The firm is engaged in the pickup and disposal of waste. Forty percent of

its $224.8 million in fiscal year 1993 federal contract dollars ($90.2 million)

are with the Department of Energy. These contract dollars went to its

parent firm, WMX Technologies, Inc.

Violations The firm violated section 8(a)(1)(2)(3) and (5) of NLRA. The firm

discharged an employee and took numerous other unlawful actions to

discourage union activity, including threatening employees with loss of

current wages and benefits if the union were voted in. Also created

employer-dominated committees during an organizing drive; then

dissolved these committees after the union lost and filed objections to the

election. The Board issued both a broad cease and desist order and a

bargaining order because of “manifold violations of the Act, in

combination with the union’s card majority.” The decision also refers to

the “pervasive and serious nature of the employer’s misconduct.”

The firm

• failed and refused to recognize and bargain with the union;

• established and dealt with the routing and productivity, safety, and

benefits committees concerning terms and conditions of employment;

• promulgated and announced the likely adoption in August of new

programs initiated by the benefits and safety committees;

• announced that several new programs initiated by the benefits and safety

committees were in effect;

• instituted several new programs initiated by the benefits and safety

committees and adjusted the drivers’ routes after conferring with the

routing and productivity committee;

Page 85 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix IV 

Case Summaries of 15 Firms With More

Serious Labor Violations

• retracted the new instituted programs initiated by the benefits and safety

committees because the union filed objections to the election;

• issued a written warning to an employee and concomitantly deemed his

hydrant accident chargeable, because of his union sympathies and

activities;

• discharged the above employee and concomitantly deemed his wall-poke54

as chargeable and accorded prejudicial weight to his landfill and

windshield incidents, because of his union sympathies and activities;

• issued a written reprimand to an employee supposedly for

insubordination, because of his union sympathies and activities;

• decided an employee’s ice-related accident was chargeable because of his

union sympathies and activities;

• promised workers that the employer would remedy their complaints if

they rejected the union;

• told one employee he would lose existing wages and benefits, with

restoration dependent upon negotiation, should the union be voted in and

implied to this employee that the employer would close its doors, costing

the workers their jobs, if the union got in;

• told one employee that the workers would lose existing wages and

benefits “until they’re negotiated for” should the union get in;

• said that employer “would risk ULPs to keep the union out,” thereby

indicating that the organizational effort was a futility;

• questioned an employee as to why he thought the workers needed a union;

• implicitly threatened the job security of workers not wishing to participate

on the committees then being formed;

• promised through the three committees to remedy employee complaints to

discourage their support of the union;

• promised to remedy the complaints of workers’ wives—and by implication

their husbands’—to discourage support for the union;

• questioned an employee as to whether the employer had his support in the

election;

• promised an employee unspecified benefits if he voted against the union;

• questioned an employee why he had raised his hand at a picnic to indicate

his support of the union;

• told workers, in substance, that union representation would be a futility;

• promised that their complaints would be remedied if they rejected the

union; and raised the prospect of closure and job loss if they brought the

union in;

• promised to remedy a complaint raised by an employee to discourage his

support for the union; and

54A fork on his truck poked a hole in a cinder-block wall.

Page 86 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix IV 

Case Summaries of 15 Firms With More

Serious Labor Violations

• announced that the newly instituted programs emanating from the benefits

and safety committees “couldn’t be put into effect” because the union had

filed objections to the election; asked those with knowledge of the

objections to show themselves; and urged those with “pull” to try to get

the objections dropped so that employer could put these benefits in.

Remedies The firm was ordered to

• recognize and, on request, bargain collectively in good faith with the union

as the exclusive bargaining representative of the workers in the

above-described unit and embody any resulting agreement in a signed

document;

• offer an employee immediate and full reinstatement to his former job, or if

that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent job;

• make the employee whole for any loss of earnings and benefits suffered as

a result of his unlawful discharge;

• disband the benefits and safety committees created in July 1989;

• if requested by the union, reinstate any or all of the programs growing out

of the benefits and safety committees which if instituted in August 1989,

then retracted because of the objections; and, as concerns those programs

reinstated, make the workers whole as prescribed above in the remedy

section for any loss occasioned by the retractions;

• if requested by the union, restore the routes as they existed before it

adjusted them in August 1989;

• rescind its written warning to an employee, as well as its determinations

that his hydrant accident and wall-poke were chargeable, and its treatment

of his landfill and windshield incidents, respectively, as added justification

for his discharge; and

• rescind its written reprimand to an employee and its determination that

his ice-related accident was chargeable;

Windsor Castle Health

Care Facilities, Inc.

(34CA4597)

The firm’s headquarters is in Boston, Massachusetts. The violations

occurred in New Haven, Connecticut.

Contract Characteristics This firm operates a nursing home providing inpatient medical and

professional care services for the elderly and infirm. All of the fiscal year

1993 federal contract dollars ($1.1 million) are with the Department of

Veterans Affairs to provide nursing home care.

Page 87 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix IV 

Case Summaries of 15 Firms With More

Serious Labor Violations

Violations55 This firm violated section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of NLRA. The firm gave

exclusive collective bargaining rights to one union to discourage

membership in another. In addition, the firm threatened workers with

unspecified reprisals and discharge if they refused to become members of

the union endorsed by the employer. One employee was unlawfully

discharged because of refusal to join the employer-supported union. The

firm was issued a broad cease and desist order because of the “pervasive

nature” of the violations.

The firm

• encouraged and supported agents of Local 1115 in that union’s efforts to

solicit membership in Local 1115;

• permitted Local 1115 to utilize the New Haven facility and employer’s

equipment to solicit membership in Local 1115;

• recognized and granted exclusive collective-bargaining rights to Local

1115;

• entered, maintained, and enforced a collective-bargaining agreement

covering rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and

conditions of employment, including a union-security provision, of its

workers in the unit hereinafter described when said union did not

represent an uncoerced majority of the workers in the agreed-to unit of

workers;

• discriminated, and is discriminating, in regard to the hire or tenure or

terms or conditions of employment of its workers;

• discharged an employee because Local 1115 requested an employee’s

discharge for refusing to pay union dues pursuant to the union-security

provision described in the first paragraph when the employee was under

no obligation to do so, and because said employee refused to execute a

dues-checkoff authorization on behalf of Local 1115 and refused to

become and remain a member of Local 1115;

• interrogated its workers concerning their union membership, activities,

and sympathies;

• interrogated its workers concerning the union membership, activities, and

sympathies of their fellow workers;

• interrogated its workers as to the nature and substance of testimony to be

given to the NLRB;

• threatened its workers with unspecified reprisals or discharge if they

appeared and gave testimony at the NLRB or engaged in activities on behalf

of District 1199; and

55The U.S. Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit, Jan. 11, 1994) modified the Board’s decision. This summary

reflects the case after incorporating the Court of Appeals decision.

Page 88 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Appendix IV 

Case Summaries of 15 Firms With More

Serious Labor Violations

• threatened its workers with discharge if they refused to become a member

and execute a dues-checkoff card on behalf of Local 1115.

Remedies The firm was ordered to

• withdraw and withhold all recognition from Local 1115 as the

collective-bargaining representative of its workers at its New Haven,

Connecticut, facility unless said labor organization has been duly certified

by the NLRB as the exclusive representative of such workers;

• jointly and severally, with Local 1115 reimburse its past and present

workers, for all dues and other money’s withheld from their pay pursuant

to the collective-bargaining agreement executed on October 16, 1989, or by

any successor agreement thereto, plus interest;

• offer the worker immediate and full reinstatement to the worker’s former

position or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent

position; and

• jointly and severally, with Local 1115, make the worker whole for any loss

of earnings the worker may have suffered as a result of the discharge.

(205276) Page 89 GAO/HEHS-96-8 Federal Contractor Labor Violations
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a

single address are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (301) 258-4097 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100