Union Approach to Health and Safety: - United Steelworkers

904 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sets of circumstances is that with respect to the safety
and fitness committees, the Respondent tried to have
it both ways: it tried simultaneously to maintain control,
discretion, and flexibility in its use of the committees
and also to create the illusion of an employee representative
that undercut and weakened the chosen representative.
Although I believe that Section 8(a)(2)
provides employers with somewhat greater scope for
utilizing employee committees than do my colleagues
in the majority, the Respondent’s conduct here is
plainly unlawful under my practical and historically
derived standard.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered
us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT dominate the formation or administration
of the Freon Central Safety Committee a/k/a
Fluorochemicals Central Safety Committee and
Fluorochemicals Safety and Health Excellence Committee
or any other labor organizations.
WE WILL NOT dominate the operation and administration
of the following committees or any other labor
organizations:
Antiknocks Area Safety Committee
Chambers Works Fitness Committee a/k/a
Chambers Works Recreation/
Activities Committee
Control Unit Safety Committee
Jackson Lab Programs and Publicity Committee
Physical Distribution Safety Committee
a/k/a Environmental Resources
Safety Committee
Programs and Publicity Committee of the
Chambers Works Central Safety and
Occupational Health Committee
Freon Central Safety Committee
WE WILL NOT deal with these committees or their
successors.
WE WILL NOT bypass the Chemical Workers Association
as your bargaining agent.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally implement these committees’
proposals concerning safety awards and fitness
facilities without affording the Union an opportunity to
bargain.
WE WILL NOT discriminatorily forbid you to use the
electronic mail system to distribute union literature or
notices.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL completely disestablish the seven committees.
WE WILL bargain on request with the Union concerning
plant safety and fitness facilities.
WE WILL, on request, rescind the safety awards and
fitness facilities implemented unilaterally without affording
the Union an opportunity to bargain.
E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & COM-
PANY
Scott C. Thompson and Richard Wainstein, Esqs., for the
General Counsel.
Hastings S. Trigg Jr., Esq., of Wilmington, Delaware, for the
Respondent.
Theodore M. Lieverman, Esq., of Haddonfield, New Jersey,
for the Union.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MARION C. LADWIG, Administrative Law Judge. These
consolidated cases were tried in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
on June 10–14 and 17–20, 1991. The charges were filed
March 19, April 2 and 18, and July 20, 1990, and consolidated
complaints were issued March 20 and April 22 and 25,
1991 and amended at the trial (Tr. 5–8, 1933).
The Company created (or reorganized) at its Deepwater,
New Jersey plant, six safety committees and one fitness committee
in the pattern of its quality of work life committees,
which are not involved in this proceeding. The basic question
is the legality of these seven employer-employee committees.
The General Counsel and the Union contend that the committees
are company-dominated labor organizations and that
the Company is unlawfully bypassing the Union in dealing
with them. The Company denies that the committees deal
with it as representatives of the employees, contending that
they function ‘‘only as a management vehicle to enhance the
safety of employees through labor-management communication
or to carry out similar management functions.’’
The primary issues are (a) whether the Company’s affirmative
defenses have merit, (b) whether the safety and fitness
committees are labor organizations, and (c) whether the
Company, the Respondent:
(1) Dominated the formation of one of the safety committees.
(2) Dominates the administration of all seven committees.
(3) Bypasses the Union by dealing with the committees
concerning working conditions.
(4) Discriminatorily denies employees’ use of the plant’s
electronic mail for union literature and notices.
(5) Bypassed the Union and dealt directly with employees
during safety conferences and a ‘‘Safety Pause.’’
(6) Adjusted employee grievances without affording the
Union an opportunity to be present, violating Section 8(a)(1),
(2), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act.
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor
of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs