Opinion ID: 219504
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Creation of Portable Plant Driver and Alternate Driver Positions

Text: Substantial evidence supports the Board's conclusion that Spurlino violated NLRA §§ 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5) in creating the portable plant driver and alternate driver positions. Under § 8(a)(5), an employer may not refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees. This obligation on the part of the employer arises on the date the union is validly elected. See Livingston Pipe & Tube, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 987 F.2d 422, 428 (7th Cir. 1993). Mandatory subjects over which the employer must bargain are set forth in § 8(d), and include wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. However, [w]hen a legally cognizable impasse occurs the employer is free to implement changes in employment terms unilaterally.... Beverly Farm Found., Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 144 F.3d 1048, 1052 (7th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). Typically, a violation of § 8(a)(5) will also amount to a violation of § 8(a)(1), since a refusal to bargain will also interfere with the employees' collective bargaining rights. See, e.g., Naperville Ready Mix v. N.L.R.B., 242 F.3d 744, 755 (7th Cir.2001). The Board accepted the ALJ's finding that the portable plant positions were new positions because they involved different pay and benefits, and that their creation affected the wages, hours and other terms and conditions of bargaining unit employees. Therefore, the portable plant positions were the subject of mandatory bargaining under § 8(a)(5). [8] Spurlino again points to the PLA, arguing that it liberated the company from any obligation to follow seniority or to bargain with the Union when staffing the stadium project, including the temporary portable plant (which, again, was established to service the stadium project). This conclusion, according to Spurlino, follows because the PLA removed the affected employees from the Kentucky Avenue bargaining unit and placed them in a stadium project-specific bargaining unit, to which only the terms of the PLA applied. For this proposition, the company refers us to the entire 37-page PLA as well as the entire Construction Agreement, which is a bit shorter. First, contrary to Spurlino's argument, we see nothing in the PLA or Construction Agreement that expressly establishes an independent bargaining unit the rules of which prevail over existing collective bargaining agreements. [9] Indeed, the PLA leaves most aspects of employer-employee relations to the appropriate existing collective bargaining agreement. Second and more significant, we see nothing in the PLA that purports to eliminate a signatory employer's obligation to bargain with its unit employees over changed terms and conditions of employment. Indeed, § 18.4 of the PLA belies Spurlino's argument that the Union signed away its entitlement to bargaining: The parties agree that this Agreement... is intended to cover all matters about which the Parties have desired to negotiate ... and that ... neither the Employers ... nor Unions will be required to negotiate on any further matters affecting these or any other subjects not specifically set forth in this Agreement.... This section is not intended to relieve any Employer of any collective bargaining obligations imposed by federal or state law. (Emphasis added.) Finally, as the ALJ noted, Spurlino refused to arbitrate the Union's grievance under the procedures established in Article 14 of the PLA. The company thereby denied itself its best opportunity to urge its expansive interpretation of the PLA. In short, the Board was supported by substantial evidence in rejecting Spurlino's strained PLA-based argument, in concluding that the portable plant drivers remained within the Kentucky Avenue bargaining unit and in holding Spurlino to its obligation to bargain with the Union over the terms and conditions of employment. [10] We further agree with the Board that Spurlino violated §§ 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5) in unilaterally implementing employee evaluations to allocate the portable plant driver positions. Establishing a new system of employee evaluations is ordinarily [11] the subject of mandatory bargaining. See Safeway Stores v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union, 270 N.L.R.B. 193, 195 (1984). Despite Spurlino's argument to the contrary, the ALJ concluded, and the Board agreed, that the company did not bargain with the Union before implementing a new driving test. Spurlino does not cast doubt on this conclusion by simply reciting its contrary account of the facts.