Opinion ID: 800229
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Meter Readers’ Breaks

Text: The Board held that EPE violated § 8(a)(1) and (5) of the NLRA by unilaterally implementing changes to its break policy for meter readers. It is undisputed that EPE had a longstanding policy of affording meter readers two 15-minute breaks and one 30-minute lunch break during each shift. The Board found, and EPE agrees, that meter readers regularly chose to aggregate their breaks in order to take an hour break (two 15-minute breaks plus 30-minute lunch) at the conclusion of their shift. The Board further determined that around March 2005, El Paso Meter Reader and Collector Supervisor Greg Gonzales told the meter readers at a team meeting that the meter readers needed to begin taking their breaks at the intended times (a morning break, lunchtime, and an afternoon break) and that they could no longer aggregate their break times. The Board primarily relied on the testimony of nine-year meter reader veteran Cesar Camacho’s description of the team meeting to come to this conclusion. The Board then concluded that because the new limitation on break timing was a material change to EPE’s prior policy that was made without notice or bargaining with the Union, EPE’s actions were in violation of the NLRA. EPE argues that its policy regarding meter readers’ break and lunch periods did not change and that the Board’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, EPE emphasizes that because Camacho never testified that Gonzales used the word “required” when telling the meter readers not to aggregate their breaks and because employees, including Camacho, testified that they were not punished for aggregating their breaks after the meeting, there was no change in policy. Instead, in their statement of facts, EPE points to the testimony of Meter Reader Alberto Galindo, who testified that Gonzales was not suggesting a change in policy but a continuation of an earlier policy and that the policy against aggregation was not mandatory. 7 Case: 10-60771 Document: 00511860901 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/18/2012 No. 10-60771 The Board properly held that the change in break policy constituted a violation of § 8(a)(5) and (1) of the NLRA. In Garrison Valley Ctr., Inc., 246 N.L.R.B. 700 (1979), the Board held that, “[l]unch periods and break periods are ‘terms and conditions of employment.’” Id. at 709 (internal citations omitted); see also Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of Fayetteville, Inc., 330 N.L.R.B. 900, 903 (2000) (“[L]unch and break periods may constitute terms and conditions of employment.”), aff’d, 24 F. App’x 104, 116 (4th Cir. 2001) (unpublished). The policy change3 in Garrison Valley Ctr. concerning break periods was identical to the change identified by the Board in the instant case. By forcing housekeepers to take their 30-minute lunch and two 15-minute breaks separately rather than allowing them to forgo their 15-minute breaks and take an hour lunch, the Board held that Garrison Valley Center, Inc. “violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by . . . unilaterally changing the lunch period for unit housekeeping personnel . . . .” Garrison Valley Ctr., 246 N.L.R.B. at 709–10. Furthermore, EPE’s claim that substantial evidence does not support the Board’s finding that a material unilateral change in break policy occurred is without merit. The new policy was enforced against employees. Mario Navarro was fired, in part, because he aggregated his breaks.4 Though he was terminated in June 2006, long after the July 2005 settlement that rescinded the new break policy, Supervisor Gonzales admitted that he terminated Navarro 3 For brevity’s sake, the term “policy change” is used as shorthand for “discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization . . . .” 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3). The word “policy” does not appear in the text of 29 U.S.C. § 158. The briefs and Board decisions often adopt this shorthand, however. For example, the NLRA can be violated when an unenforced workplace policy suddenly becomes enforced. This is not a policy change but a change in the terms and conditions of employment. 4 Contrary to EPE’s allegation, the Board did not “entirely” rely on Navarro’s termination when determining that EPE unilaterally changed its rules regarding meter reader breaks. This was one of several factors, along with, for example, an explicit crediting of Camacho’s testimony, considered by the Board. 8 Case: 10-60771 Document: 00511860901 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/18/2012 No. 10-60771 because Navarro finished his route early, aggregated his breaks, and then left his route to conduct personal business. Additionally, though Camacho testified that Gonzales did not say that the break policy change was “required,” Camacho testified that the policy change was “[n]o, not required but kind of enforced, like.” He further stated that all the employees changed their behavior to conform with the new break policy for several months. Though employees stopped taking their breaks separately several months after Gonzales initiated the policy change, this reversion would have coincided with the rescission of the changed break policy under the July 2005 settlement agreement. Crucially, Camacho’s firsthand testimony was credited by the ALJ, and thereafter adopted and upheld by the Board. Contrastingly, the ALJ heard Galindo’s testimony and specifically discredited it, determining that Galindo’s memory was “not trustworthy,” and that his demeanor was “evasive.” The Board adopted this finding. There is neither determinative factual, nor legal, reason to overturn the Board’s decision. Again, we do not reweigh credibility and therefore must accept this crediting of Camacho’s testimony over Galindo’s. Based on this evidence, more than a mere scintilla, we affirm such a credibility assessment and subsequent Board ruling that EPE unlawfully changed its break policy.