Opinion ID: 772089
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Unit-Specific Violations

Text: 24 In addition to the national violations, the ALJ found that Overnite had committed scores of unfair labor practices at the four Gissel locations. 25
26 In late 1994, the Union began organizing at Overnite's Lawrenceville, Georgia service center. A representation election was conducted four months later, in April 1995. The Union lost the election, by a vote of forty-two to thirty-eight, and thereafter complained of Overnite's pre-election misconduct. 27 The ALJ found that Overnite engaged in a series of unfair labor practices at Lawrenceville during the election campaign. For example, Overnite was found to have restricted access to bulletin boards that had previously been available for employee postings. Overnite's purpose was to discourage the employees in their campaign[,] and the ALJ concluded that Overnite had thereby violated section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Id. at 34. Other unfair labor practices found by the ALJ to have been committed by Overnite included: 28 Lawrenceville manager Bill Carter gave the impression to [an employee] that he was monitoring union activities[.] Id. 29 Carter announced to a group of employees that he had attended a management conference, and that Overnite, under Douglas's management, was pursuing solutions to employee complaints regarding such issues as overtime policies and uniforms. The ALJ found that Carter's statements unlawfully promised benefits in order to discourage employees from supporting the [Union]. Id. 30 Carter threatened to get rid of employees if they voted to be represented by the Union. Id. at 35. Indeed, he admit ted telling two employees that he could have fired them for certain incidents; if they were to vote in the Union, he would not be as lenient. Id. 31 An Atlanta manager, Roger Schager, conducted several mandatory meetings for the Lawrenceville employees at which he made illegal threats of closure and employee job loss. He projected that if Overnite had to operate under a Union contract, it would be forced to go out of business. He also warned that other trucking companies had not been able to survive unionization. Id. 32 After screening an anti-union film at one such meeting, Schager reportedly told an employee: [I]f you want a Union job why don't you go and get a Union job with a company that is a Union company. Id. at 36. On another occasion, he unlawfully offered to help employees get jobs with union carriers if they were dissatisfied with Overnite's non-union status. Id. 33 Schager also recounted the Chicago experience to a group of employees; Schager told them that the Chicago unit still did not have a contract after protracted negotiations, but he neglected to mention Overnite's culpability. Id. As the ALJ observed, [b]y Schager's omission of any reference to the Board's finding that Overnite bargained in bad faith, [Overnite] implied that bargaining would be futile, lasting for years without any possibility of agreement. Id. 34 Similarly, in March 1995, Lawrenceville dispatcher Mike Rivers told a group of employees that employees at the Kansas City service center had not received the March 5 pay raise, despite having voted for Union representation. He added that, based on what the company's lawyers had told him, Overnite would never sign a Union contract. Rivers asked the employees to look at what had happened at the Chicago service center, reminding them that the Chicago employees had been represented by the Union for ten to thirteen years and still did not have a contract. Like Schager, he advised Lawrenceville employees that all Overnite had to do was bargain in good faith. Id. at 37. 35 In late March, Overnite's vice president of safety, Bobby Edwards, came to Lawrenceville and met with employees, speaking to them about Chicago in detail. Edwards told them that the Chicago employees had voted for Union representation and had been in negotiations with Overnite for about ten years but still did not have a contract. Additionally, he emphasized that employees at those service centers that had voted for Union representation in 1994 and 1995 would not receive the March 1995 pay raise because the raise was subject to collective bargaining. Id. 36 At another meeting, Edwards repeated the remarks about Chicago, adding that all Overnite had to do was negotiate in good faith. Edwards also announced that the employees at the service centers that had voted for Union representation before March 5 would not receive the pay raise because it would be left on the negotiating table. Id. 37 While visiting the Lawrenceville service center, President Jim Douglas suggested to employees that they serve on committees to come up with better ways to spend benefit funds. This, the ALJ found, amounted to soliciting grievances from employees with a promise to redress them. Id. at 38. Douglas further threatened that management would change its attitude in the way it enforced its work rules if the Union won. Id. Douglas advised one employee that if the Union's campaign were successful, everything, including the employees' jobs and benefits, would be jeopardized. Id. 38
39 A coordinated Union organizing effort began at the Louisville, Kentucky service center in early October 1994. By late November, managers were soliciting employee grievances, in violation of section 8(a)(1) of the Act. See id. at 39. A representation election was held on March 17, 1995, and the Union lost by two votes, eighty-five to eighty-three. Id. at 43. The ALJ found that Overnite management, during the period leading to the representation election, engaged in numerous unlawful measures to, alternately, appease and threaten its Louisville employees. Overnite's illegal conduct was found by the ALJ to include the following: 40 Louisville manager Dave Harmeier conducted a series of employee meetings, some impromptu and some mandatory, in which he promised to be responsive and encouraged employees to give the new vision of Douglas a chance. Id. 41 Following this positive introduction, Douglas made a personal appearance at the Louisville service center a week before the scheduled election (about March 9 and 10). Douglas assured employees that he was going to try and `straighten stuff out,' and he specifically mentioned the wage increase and improved benefits. The ALJ found that, in the context in which they were extended, Douglas's promises were intended to dissuade employees from supporting the Union. Id. 42 In tandem with these rosy promises, management warned of the harm to employees that would result if the Union were successful. Id. at 40. One supervisor warned employees that Overnite would play hardball if the Union won, and everyone would have to work harder. Id. Another projected that we'd all be out of work if the Union were voted in. In short, the ALJ found that Overnite threaten[ed] employees with the loss of their jobs and more onerous working conditions if they selected the [Union] as their bargaining representative. Id. 43 At one meeting, Vice President Edwards told the employees that the Chicago facility still did not have any kind of contract, and that it had been at least ten years since the employees voted the Union in. Id. 44 At other mandatory meetings, Edwards reported that the Union had won in Chicago in 1984 and that Overnite had been bargaining in good faith since then. Edwards added that all Overnite was obliged to do was offer five days' sick leave and that was bargaining in good faith[.] Id. If the Union were voted in, he projected, then that means that [the Union] would start from scratch. Id. Edwards also said that at service centers that had voted in the Union, the pay raise would have to be negotiated, and if the Louisville employees voted in the Union, bargaining would be handled basically like negotiations in Chicago. Id. 45 Edwards discussed Chicago at yet another meeting, recounting how company representatives would show up, charges would be filed for bargaining in bad faith, Overnite would go to court and pay a small fine, and then it would not have to show up again until the following year. Id. 46 On several occasions, Edwards and Harmeier made predictions about unionization to employees assembled for mandatory meetings. Once, Edwards pointed out that the Louisville employees would be receiving the March pay increase, but terminals that had voted a union in, such as Kansas City, would not because they would have to negotiate first. Id. Another time, Edwards opined that the only way employees would get a contract was to go on strike, and if they did, they could be replaced. Id. Harmeier also stated that the only leverage the Union had in bargaining was to call a strike, and warned that the Union could do so without a vote by the employees. Id. 47 Louisville supervisors also took measures to impede the employees' statutory right to distribute and read Union literature. The ALJ found that, on one occasion, a supervisor literally pulled [Union] papers out of the hands of one employee who was reading it and threw it in the trash. Id. at 41. 48 On the Friday night before the election, an Overnite supervisor told an employee that Harmeier had instructed him to get rid of all Union literature during the last week of the campaign. Id. At about the same time, a Teamsters Graveyard poster was put up in the break room, depicting the gravestones of unionized trucking companies; among them was an Overnite headstone with an open grave and a question mark. Id. at 21 n.10. 49
50 The Union organizing campaign began at the Norfolk, Virginia service center in January 1995. A representation election was held on March 3, 1995. The Union lost by a vote of fifty-eight to twenty-nine, and objected to Overnite's illegal pre-election conduct. As in Lawrenceville, Overnite was found by the ALJ to have violated the Act by impeding its Norfolk employees in their use of company bulletin boards for Union literature. More specifically, Overnite removed Union literature from bulletin boards that had been made available for the employees' general use. Id. at 48. Norfolk manager Michael Mendenhall threatened to fire employees for posting an NLRB form on one such bulletin board. Id. The ALJ found that Overnite engaged in a number of other unlawful practices leading up to the election at Norfolk, including: 51 Supervisors told employees that, among the adverse consequences of voting in the Union, they would lose the March 5, 1995 pay raise. Id. at 47-48. 52 Mendenhall told employees that the good things Overnite had planned would be postponed because the company would have to divert the funds to keep Overnite nonunion. Id. at 48. The ALJ further found that Mendenhall gave some instructions about the way the union campaign was to be run, informing employees thathe would not stand for any union literature on his bulletin board. Id. (emphasis in original). 53 In late February 1995, Mendenhall conducted a lengthy meeting attended by about twenty-five employees. He began the meeting by stating that the Union had filed a petition for an election and that any of the service centers that voted in the Union before March 5 would not receive the pay increase scheduled to take effect that day, because the increase could not be established in the absence of contract negotiations. He further remarked that the service center in Chicago had not settled on a contract after thirteen years of negotiations. Id. 54 Mendenhall told the employees that he would not tolerate conversations about the Union while employees were working or at the workplace, and that if they did not comply with that policy, they had better be careful. Prior to the Union campaign, company policy was that employees could talk to one another as long as their conversation did not interfere with their jobs. Id. at 48-49. 55 During the week following the February meeting, employee David Spaugh, an outspoken Union supporter, asked Mendenhall how long it would be before he would be fired if the Union lost the election. Mendenhall replied: Everyone will be held accountable. Id. at 49. On March 14, Mendenhall told Spaugh and fellow employee Rich Williams that Williams had become an agitator. Id. He warned that he did not want to see anything bad happen to either of them because of the Union campaign, and that they should be careful. Id. 56 At various other mandatory meetings, Mendenhall made additional predictions about the consequences of unionization. For example, he repeated that the Kansas City employees would not be getting the March pay increase because they had voted the Union in. Id. at 47. He also boasted that in the thirteen years the Union had represented employees at the Chicago service center, there had never been a contract. If the Union were to prevail at Norfolk, he projected, the same scenario would play out in Norfolk: Overnite would negotiate in good faith, but the employees would never get further than their vote. Id. at 50. 57 At one or more of the meetings, Mendenhall also told the employees that if the terminal voted for Union representation, business would be rerouted around them and their hours might be cut. Id. As an example, he cited the experience at Kansas City, where word was that this was happening. Id. 58 On several occasions, Mendenhall threatened employees with unspecified retaliation, letting them know that he was not going to stand for insubordination. Id. at 49. Moreover, he was found to have denied pro-union employees the same opportunities to speak at the mandatory meetings as anti-union employees, cut[ting] short employees who made pro-union comments or asked questions for clarification. Id. at 50. 59 Management threatened employees with the loss of the company's 401(k) pension plan. Id. 60 In the weeks before the election, Norfolk supervisors gave Vote No hats to those employees who were going to vote against the Union, which the ALJ found to constitute interrogation of employees about their union sympathies. Id. at 49-50. 61 In February, a supervisor told a group of eleven or twelve employees that if the Union were to win, they would lose their jobs. Moreover, if the Union were to strike, they would lose their jobs and Overnite probably would not call them back. That same day, another supervisor told an employee that the employees were going to get a fifty-cent-per hour raise, but if the Union were voted in, they would lose it. Id. at 50. 62 On March 14, a supervisor told a Norfolk employee that he was afraid for himself and Overnite if the Union got in. He expressed his concern that Overnite would not be able to pay the Union scale, and that the employees should look at the union companies that had gone out of business. Id. at 49. 63 An employee complained that supervisors`watched [him] like a hawk' and stayed within listening distance. Id. at 50. The ALJ determined that not only did supervisors create an impression of surveillance, but thatthere was actual surveillance and monitoring in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Id. 64 The former Norfolk manager was sent to assist with the anti-union campaign. The ALJ found that he unlawfully told employees that Douglas was working on improvements of the workplace and benefits, an implied promise of those improvements; impliedly promised the termination of the [terminal manager], if that would change employees' pro-union sympathies; and informed employees that strikes were inevitable[.] Id. at 51. 65
66 The Union began an organizing campaign when Overnite opened a new service center in Bridgeton, Missouri, in December 1994. A representation election was scheduled for and held on February 28, 1995. The Union lost by two votes, twenty-four to twenty-two, and filed objections to Overnite's pre-election conduct. 67 In January 1995, Bridgeton manager Walter Grimes began illegally monitoring one of the most steadfastly pro-Union drivers -even checking the bathroom -to ensure that he was not engaging in organizational activities. Id. at 53. Along with illegal monitoring, the ALJ found numerous other pre-election violations, including: 68 Grimes removed union literature posted on the company bulletin board, left on tables in the break room and in the employee bathroom. While removing the pro-Union literature, the manager allegedly remarked that he[didn't] like seeing that shit hanging on his board. Id. 69 In January and February, local supervisors ended conversations between Union supporters and other employees. On the other hand, conversations between anti-union employees and others were left undisturbed. Around the same time, Grimes asked a union supporter what the employees wanted. When that employee said overtime and better benefits, Grimes responded: They are in the works. Id. at 54. 70 Overnite's troubleshooters arrived in the Bridgeton-St. Louis area around February 5 and stayed until February 14, riding with all the drivers except the two most active union supporters. Id. at 53. 71 One such troubleshooter, Andy Hamilton, told a driver that Overnite wanted to make its employees happy, accommodating them by improving benefits and inviting more employee input. After the driver mentioned that overtime would make the company a better place to work, Hamilton assured him that it was in the works. Hamilton also told the employee that he would look into the idea of an employee committee that would participate in selecting the benefit package, but advised him that we don't need a third party at Overnite. Id. at 53-54. When another employee made similar suggestions about benefits and overtime pay, Hamilton told him those things were in the works. Id. 72 During the pre-election period, Overnite sent the former Bridgeton Manager Jeff Woods, Operations Director Morgan, and President Douglas to speak to the Bridgeton employees. In February, Woods told employees that Overnite was looking into overtime and, although he could not make any promises, he was pretty sure it was going to happen and that it was almost a sure thing, almost a done deal. Id. at 54. Woods warned that the Union would not work within the Overnite environment and that, as a result, the benefit improvements Overnite was trying to make would be lost. Finally, just a week before the election, he urged employees to give the new management a chance. Id. 73 About two weeks before the election, Operations Director Morgan spoke at a mandatory meeting of about fif teen employees. He responded to questions about overtime pay by telling them that Douglas had taken over as president and, although he could not promise them anything because of the Union campaign, Douglas was looking into these problems and devising solutions. Id. On the same day, Morgan informed a group of employees that it was not too late to come up with nonUnion solutions to employee grievances. When one employee remarked that other companies had better wages and benefits, but that Overnite's profits were higher, Morgan replied that these were the sorts of problems that they needed to present to Douglas, and that they ought to give Jim a chance. Id. at 55. 74 President Douglas made several visits to Bridgeton prior to the election, speaking with employees about benefits, including overtime pay. During one such conversation, Douglas queried, What if we gave you overtime at say, over 45, 48 hours, but we maybe lessen something here, adding that they were looking into medical benefits. Douglas proceeded to discuss the pros and cons of overtime pay. Id. at 54. 75 In another conversation, Douglas responded to an employee question about overtime pay after eight hours a day or forty-eight hours a week by asking how about after forty-five or forty-eight hours a week, because Overnite would not pay for the hours mentioned. Id. at 55. About a week before the election, Douglas told a Bridgeton employee that overtime after forty-seven or forty-eight hours would be beneficial, but that Overnite was not considering overtime after shorter periods. Id. 76 Two weeks before the election, Douglas held a meeting with about twenty to twenty-five employees. He announced that he wanted to know what was on their minds, and that he was trying to change things for the better. In response to employee questions about matters such as overtime, uniforms, sick days, and medical benefits, Douglas assured employees that he was looking into such matters. The company, Douglas asserted, could take care of its own and did not need third-party interference. Id.