Union Approach to Health and Safety: - United Steelworkers

E. I. DU PONT & CO.
893
E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company and Chemical
Workers Association, Inc., International
Brotherhood of Dupont Workers and Chambers
Works Central Safety and Occupational
Health Committee; Antiknocks Area Safety
Committee; Jackson Lab Programs and Publicity
Committee; Freon Central Safety Committee;
Chambers Works Fitness Committee
a/k/a Chambers Works Recreation/Activities
Committee; Control Unit Safety Committee;
and Physical Distribution Safety Committee
a/k/a Environmental Resources Safety Committee,
Parties-in-Interest. Cases 4–CA–18737–
1, 4–CA–18737–2, 4–CA–18737–3, 4–CA–
18737–4, 4–CA–18737–5, 4–CA–18737–6, 4–
CA–18737–7, 4–CA–18792, 4–CA–18835, 4–CA–
18840–2, and 4–CA–19078
1 On May 13, 1992, Administrative Law Judge Marion C. Ladwig
issued the attached decision. The Respondent and the General Counsel
filed exceptions and supporting briefs. The Respondent and the
General Counsel also filed answering briefs. The Charging Party
filed a brief in opposition to the Respondent’s exceptions. Amicus
curiae briefs were filed by International Union, United Mine Workers
of America, Labor Policy Association, and by the National Association
of Manufacturers, the Chamber of Commerce of the United
States of America, the American Iron and Steel Institute, and the
Coalition of Management for Positive Employment, Training and
Education.
Chairman Stephens is recused from participating in this case.
2 The judge found that the Respondent dominated the formation of
the Freon Committee. He then found it unnecessary to reach the allegation
that the Respondent dominated the formation of the Fitness
Committee because such a finding would not affect the remedy. The
General Counsel excepts to the judge’s failure to pass on the Fitness
Committee allegation and urges that the remedy is affected by this
failure because there is no remedial provision regarding domination
of the formation of committees. We agree with the General Counsel’s
contention that the remedy does not address domination of formation.
In this regard, the judge inadvertently failed to include a remedial
provision for the violation he found concerning the formation
of the Freon Committee. We correct this oversight and accordingly
find it unnecessary to rule on the allegation that the Respondent
dominated the formation of the Fitness Committee, as it would not
affect the corrected remedy.
311 NLRB No. 88
May 28, 1993
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS DEVANEY, OVIATT, AND
RAUDABAUGH
The central issues in this case are whether six safety
committees and one fitness committee are employerdominated
labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) and Section 8(a)(2) of the Act and whether
the Respondent bypassed the Union in dealing with
the committees and in dealing with unit employees
during safety conferences, in violation of Section
8(a)(5). 1 The judge found that the seven committees at
issue are labor organizations and that the Employer
dominated the formation of one of the committees 2
and the administration of all the committees, in violation
of Section 8(a)(2). He found that the Respondent
bypassed the Union by dealing with these committees,
in violation of Section 8(a)(5). 3 The judge, however,
dismissed the allegations that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(5) by holding safety conferences.
We agree with all the judge’s rulings. 4 We add rationale
to his decision because we wish to provide
guidance for those seeking to implement lawful cooperative
programs between employees and management.
Our recent decision in Electromation 5 addressed certain
issues raised by employee participation committees
in a nonunion setting. The instant case provides
the opportunity to address issues raised by employee
participation committees which exist in circumstances
where employees have selected an exclusive collectivebargaining
representative. The Respondent here ran
afoul of the Act. We clarify the basis for these violations
and suggest what the Respondent could have
done to avoid unlawful conduct. The Respondent also
engaged in some lawful cooperative efforts. We emphasize
those efforts because they show that there is
some room for lawful cooperation under the Act. 6
3 Although the judge found that the Respondent unlawfully bypassed
the Union by dealing with the safety committees and the fitness
committee concerning numerous proposals for safety awards
and recreational facilities, the judge inadvertently failed to address
the allegations that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(5) by implementing
these proposals without affording the Union the opportunity
to bargain. We correct this oversight and find that the Respondent
unlawfully implemented proposals concerning safety incentives and
prizes and fitness facilities. (See G.C. Exh. 36 which contains the
parties’ stipulation to the items provided by the Respondent.) We
shall order the Respondent to cease and desist from unilaterally providing
such items. We shall also order the Respondent, on request
by the Union, to rescind these unilateral changes. However, our
Order should not be construed as requiring the Respondent to cancel
any benefit without a request from the Union. See, e.g., Columbia
Portland Cement Co., 303 NLRB 880, 885 (1991).
4 The Respondent argues, and the General Counsel agrees, that the
judge provided an overbroad remedy for the Respondent’s unlawful
prohibition of the use of the electronic mail system for the distribution
of union literature and notices. We find merit in the Respondent’s
exception and shall limit the remedy to discriminatory prohibition
of the use of the electronic mail system for distributing union
literature and notices. See Storer Communications, 294 NLRB 1056,
1099 (1989).
5 309 NLRB 990 (1992).
6 As is clear from the decision and his concurring opinion in
Electromation, Inc., supra, Member Oviatt agrees in many respects
with the comments of his concurring colleague, particularly those regarding
the efficacy and usefulness of employee-management cooperative
programs and the rationale used to determine whether Sec.
8(a)(2) has been violated. Electromation, Inc., also highlights areas
in which Member Oviatt’s approach differs from that of his concurring
colleague, in particular the issue whether employee-members of
a committee must act in a representational capacity before the committee
can be found to be a Sec. 2(5) labor organization.
Member Raudabaugh shares his concurring colleague’s interest in
encouraging and allowing employees, employers, and unions lawfully
to pursue employee participation and cooperation between management
and employees in the workplace. He stresses here, however,
as he did in his concurring opinion in Electromation, that the Board
Continued