Opinion ID: 2974386
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Events Surrounding the Wage Increase

Text: Sean McClure, the acting director of ProMedica’s clinical lab, noted the lab’s unusually-high turnover rate and recruitment problems, and identified as a culprit the low salaries ProMedica paid to the lab’s pre-analytical technicians (“PTs”). He reported his findings to ProMedica’s compensation council, and the council agreed that a raise was in order. But ProMedica’s executive council needed to sign off on the raise before it could be implemented. 6 The Board’s decision notes that “there are . . . no exceptions to the judge’s recommendation to overrule Objection 23, which alleges that [ProMedica], through . . . Kerry Loe, made coercive statements to . . . Marjorie Smith,” though it appears ProMedica did take exception to this finding in paragraph 77 of its “Exceptions to the ALJ’s Decision” document filed with the Board. 7 As with the surveillance charges, the Board ordered ProMedica to cease and desist from threatening employees. Accordingly, so long as there is one violation, any additional violations would only be cumulative and would not affect the remedy. - 17 - Nos. 05-1660, 05-1735 NLRB v. Promedica After meeting with the compensation council, but before the executive council acted, McClure asked for and received his supervisor’s permission to tell the PTs “that the wage increase was being approved.” He then instructed two ProMedica personnel, Gloria Florence and Wendy Purcell, “to tell the PTs that the wage increase had been approved.” After the Union filed its representation petitions, however, ProMedica worried that it could not lawfully implement the raise until after the election. McClure notified a PT Supervisor, Barbara Newman, that the raise was “on hold” until after the Union election and Newman relayed the message to the PTs. Similarly, McClure announced at a staff meeting that, on the advice of counsel, ProMedica was not granting the raise at this time, that the matter was with the lawyers, and that he was not sure what would happen. Francis Walsh, ProMedica’s medical director, spoke to about 50 employees and discussed the raise. He told the employees that the raise had been approved in principle, but could not be immediately implemented. He also informed them that, “upon completion of the organizing campaign, irrespective of whether the Union was accepted or rejected, the raise could be brought up again either to be implemented or to be part of the collective-bargaining process.” The ALJ found that ProMedica acted “in good faith and after careful consideration of the applicable law,” but nevertheless concluded that ProMedica violated the Act because the employees “could reasonably conclude they now were not getting their promised wages because of the Union’s - 18 - Nos. 05-1660, 05-1735 NLRB v. Promedica filing of the election petitions.” The ALJ continued: “Walsh’s statements could be interpreted by employees to mean that implementation of the increases would be vouchsafed by a union loss.” In affirming the ALJ by a two-to-one vote, the Board concluded that ProMedica violated the Act by implying that only a union defeat in the election could guarantee the implementation of the wage increase. Specifically, the Board relied on Walsh’s statement that, after the election, “the raise could be brought up again either to be implemented or to be part of the collective-bargaining process.”