Opinion ID: 772089
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The March 1995 Wage Increase

Text: 8 At the core of this proceeding -and a key justification for issuance of the four Gissel orders -is the nationwide wage increase granted by Overnite to its non-Union employees in March 1995. Beginning in 1991, Overnite had departed from its practice of granting across-the-board raises to its hourly employees each October; 9 Overnite instead deferred the raise anticipated in October 1991 until January 1992, granting additional small hourly increases in January 1993 and January 1994. Along with its 1994 hourly increases, Overnite introduced a performance incentive plan (PIP), which provided for employee bonuses if the company met its quarterly and annual earning targets. Due to its disappointing financial performance, however, Overnite awarded only one quarterly PIP bonus in 1994. 10 Attributable perhaps to employees' unfulfilled bonus expectations, the Union stepped up its organizing efforts in September 1994. Overnite's president at the time, Thomas Boswell, responded aggressively to the Union organizing effort in a November 22, 1994 letter to the employees, in which he warned: 11 I guarantee you, based on what they have done at other companies, the Teamsters will not help us to better make our targets or pay you bonuses or salary increases. . . . The long lasting record of the Teamsters is not just that they failed to deliver on their promises, but that when their demands have been met, trucking companies have often lost the battle to survive. 12 Overnite, 329 N.L.R.B. No. 91 at 17. Similar warnings were made in a December 7, 1994 letter that Overnite distributed to drivers and dock workers in Los Angeles who were attempting to organize. Id. Overnite invoked the Union experience at its Chicago facility, declaring that just like in Chicago, after the Union was unable to keep the wild promises it made before the vote, it called the employees out on strike. Id. The December 7 letter ominously concluded: Do you see any good reason to bring this outside Union in, pay your money to it, and at the same time run the risk of tearing apart everything you now have? Id. at 18. 13 These anti-Union statements were a harbinger of the first discriminatory wage increase, conceived in January 1995, when Jim Douglas replaced Boswell as Overnite's president. Just before he left, President Boswell had proclaimed that non-Union employees would receive a 3.5% increase, effective January 1, 1995. Boswell also revealed certain other workplace improvements, calculated to appease the employees. 5 14 When Jim Douglas took over, however, he immediately determined that employees should be given an additional raise. On February 10, 1995, President Douglas announced the highest annual hourly raise in Overnite's history, effective March 5, 1995. He advised the Union, however, that employees in the represented units 6 would not receive the raise, unless negotiated through collective bargaining. The March 5, 1995 wage hike, as the ALJ aptly noted,was not granted silently. Id. at 21. Overnite's management heralded the increase in the company newsletter, The Overniter, while emphasizing that employees in the four represented units would have to wait until wage issues were settled through Union negotiations. Id. Reviewing the company's conduct in this regard, the ALJ concluded:The clear implication was that a vote for the Teamsters forfeited any benefits given by [Overnite] to the nonunion employees. Id. 15 Overnite further resisted the Union's widespread organizational efforts by holding out the prospect of certain non-wage concessions. For example, employees were advised that President Douglas was committed to increasing the drivers' speed limits, in order to make the drivers happy. Id. Only Douglas could deliver. The Teamsters could not, Overnite repeatedly claimed, as shown by its dealings with the Union in Chicago, where Local 705 was certified in 1982 and bargaining had little favorable results for the Teamsters. Id. at 22. Analyzing Overnite's characterization of the Chicago experience, the ALJ further found that the company explained it in a way that made it implicit that [Overnite] had no intention of bargaining in good faith . . . [giving] the impression that bargaining would be futile. Id. Overnite drew attention to the Chicago standoff to communicate that the only way that the Teamsters could bring pressure on Overnite was by striking. Id. 16 President Douglas travelled extensively to certain of Overnite's service centers in early 1995, personally meeting with employees to convey his commitment to responsive management. Although Douglas insisted that his conversations with employees were intended simply to introduce them to his management style and his direction, the ALJ found that their real impact was to draw the difference between him and Boswell and to emphasize that he looked upon the employees more favorably and would take care of them. Id. at 19. His discussions with employees encompassed wages, overtime, and benefits, i.e., the fundamental terms and conditions of employment, and the ALJ found that Douglas's purpose was to explore and remove the employees' concerns. Id. 17 Consistent with Douglas's efforts, Overnite promoted a Give Jim a Chance campaign, distributing shirts and buttons emblazoned with that slogan. Id. at 20. This message was borne by a corps of troubleshooters dispatched by Overnite to identify the sources of employee unrest. Id. A group of roving, solid supporters of Overnite, these troubleshooters were assigned to travel from service center to service center, soliciting grievances and reporting them back to Overnite's headquarters. Id. The ALJ found that the troubleshooters' solicitations contained an implied promise to resolve the grievances. Id. In effect, the ALJ found that Overnite, under Douglas's direction, actively sought and acquired knowledge as to what the employees were so dissatisfied about and why they were seeking out the Teamsters. Id. at 20-21. Equipped with that knowledge, the company took measures -the discriminatory 1995 wage increase, most prominently -designed to convince the employees that only the company could solve their problems. Id. at 22. 18