Opinion ID: 752417
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Benefits Summaries

Text: 22 Greenwood argues that the NLRB erred in finding that Greenwood's distribution of benefits summaries during a union campaign constituted the granting of a benefit. Specifically, Greenwood contends that the NLRB's decision is contrary to existing precedent and is unsupported by the record. We agree. It is well-established that an employer violates the NLRA by promising to grant benefits in order to discourage unionization. See HarperCollins, 79 F.3d at 1329. The danger inherent in well-timed increases in benefits is the suggestion of a fist inside the velvet glove. NLRB v. Exchange Parts Co., 375 U.S. 405, 409, 84 S.Ct. 457, 460, 11 L.Ed.2d 435 (1964). However, the NLRB has held that an employer does not violate section 8(a)(1) by publicizing existing benefits during a union organizational campaign. See Ideal Macaroni Co. and Teamsters Local No. 407, Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 301 N.L.R.B. 507, 507 (1991) (enforcement denied on other grounds, 989 F.2d 880 (6th Cir.1993)); Huttig Sash and Door Co. and UAW Local 376, 300 N.L.R.B. 93, 96-97 (1990) (election eve announcement of existing pension benefits was not akin to announcing new or future benefits and therefore was not violative of section 8(a)(1)). We think that this is the correct view. 23 In Ideal Macaroni, after learning of the union organizing activity, the company president gave a speech in which he informed employees of existing benefits, including the availability of interest free loans. See 301 N.L.R.B. at 513. For some employees, this was the first time they had heard of the availability of these loans, which were not mentioned in the printed statement of the company's benefits. See id. An ALJ found that, although these loans had been made in the past, the timing of the speech was calculated to discourage employees' union activity, membership, and sympathy, and thus violated section 8(a)(1). Id. The NLRB rejected the ALJ's determination by holding: 24 The [NLRB] has recently reiterated that prohibiting an employer from publicizing existing benefits merely because employees had not previously been made aware of such benefits would deprive the employer of a legitimate campaign strategy.... Because the Respondent was referring to existing benefits, rather than granting or announcing new benefits, that reference does not in itself violate the Act. 25 Id. at 507 (quotation and citation omitted). 26 There is no dispute in this case that all the benefits at issue were benefits available to the employees well before any union activity. Consequently, the dissemination of information in the form of benefits summaries was a legitimate campaign strategy; it merely apprised Greenwood employees of the benefits available to them. See Raley's, Inc. v. NLRB, 703 F.2d 410, 415 (9th Cir.1983) (The present case ... clearly falls under the protection of section 8(c), because Raley's announced benefits that were in place at the time.). Regardless of the possible effect on employee sentiment toward union representation, the circulation of the benefits summaries is protected conduct under section 8(c). 27 The NLRB distinguishes this case from Ideal Macaroni, finding the issuance of the benefits summaries in this case was not a legitimate campaign strategy, because Greenwood intentionally concealed information on existing benefits to save on labor costs. The information concealed was said to relate to the following benefits: bereavement leave; employee discounts for relatives; a guardian disability plan; jury duty compensation; marriage leave; paternity leave; stock purchase plan; tuition reimbursement; the DCAP; and the 401(k) plan. All of these benefits were in existence prior to the Union organizational activity. However, the NLRB considered the distribution of the summaries of these benefits as an announcement of new benefits, because it effectively constituted the first general announcement of these benefits. See Exchange Parts, 375 U.S. at 409-10, 84 S.Ct. at 460 (first general announcement of new system for computing overtime and an improved vacation schedule constituted an unfair labor practice). This proposition is insupportable. First, unlike Exchange Parts, there is no new or improved benefit at issue here. Second, in light of the reasoning in Ideal Macaroni, even if this is considered the first announcement of an existing benefit, it does not constitute an unfair labor practice simply because the existing benefits were announced prior to a Union election. The Greenwood employees, who first learned of existing benefits after the Union organizing campaign had begun, were not in a position different from the Ideal Macaroni employees, who did not learn of an existing informal loan program benefit until the union campaign was in progress. 28 Another distinction the NLRB attempts to draw between this case and Ideal Macaroni is that in this case there purportedly was an active effort by Greenwood to deny its employees information on available benefits. Even if there were such an active effort, the Act would not be violated unless the benefits were concealed as part of a strategy to announce them during a union election campaign. Cf. Pedro's Inc. v. NLRB, 652 F.2d 1005, 1008 (D.C.Cir.1981) ([A] benefit granted in the normal course of the business of an employer, without any motive of inducing employees to vote against the union, does not violate the Act.). There is no evidence that the benefits here were strategically concealed with the purpose of revealing them during the Union organizational campaign. The evidence revealed, and the NLRB specifically found, that Greenwood concealed benefits from employees with the purpose of saving on labor costs.