Union Approach to Health and Safety: - United Steelworkers

E. I. DU PONT & CO.
913
the welding shop. After the Union’s efforts failed in getting
the problem solved, the welder took the problem to employee
committee members. The committee succeeding in getting
him a new welding shop. (Tr. 297–303, 702–705, 717, 728–
729; G.C. Exh. 7 at 47.)
The employee members’ representative role is further indicated
by one of the committee’s listed ‘‘Accomplishments’’
(G.C. Exhs. 7 at 1, 47): in 1988, ‘‘Area People Recognize
Committee,’’ and in 1989, ‘‘Recognition of Committee.’’
The evidence, discussed below, further shows that employee
members represent nonmember employees in discussing
and seeking solutions to their safety complaints and
in seeking larger and more appropriate safety awards.
(c) Central safety programs committee
This committee is responsible for the monthly safety programs
in the plant (Tr. 62). Evidently for better representation,
employee membership on the committee is ‘‘prorated’’
according to number of employees in the various business
units of the plant (Tr. 126–127).
When Unit Manager Joseph Jenny, the committee’s resource,
was asked ‘‘Who decides the topics that will be addressed
in those safety meetings,’’ he answered (Tr. 125):
‘‘That committee generally solicits a list of topics.’’
Employee members act for other bargaining unit employees
in seeking more appropriate safety prizes throughout the
plant, as discussed below.
(d) Control unit safety committee
Clerical employee Ralph Coggovia credibly testified that
he joined the committee when management member Nickolas
Psaltis personally called him and asked if he wanted to volunteer
to be on the committee for the clerical people (Tr.
1261). After he joined, employees approached him about
safety problems (Tr. 1216, 1244–1245, 1254–1259).
As a committee member he recognizes his representative
responsibility, but only for safety problems in his office.
During remodeling in the Specialty Intermediates building, a
clerical employee who worked in another part of the building
complained to him about a fire extinguisher being on the
floor instead of hanging on the wall. He asked, ‘‘Why are
you asking me?’’ and suggested that the employee go to the
proper person, the landlord of the building. The response
was: ‘‘You’re a member of the control department safety
committee, you handle it.’’ He did so, on behalf of the committee.
(Tr. 1217, 1245.) Coggovia explained: ‘‘I wouldn’t
want 500 different people coming directly to me’’ with safety
complaints. He added, however, that he ‘‘would be involved’’
if the employee ‘‘had a problem in his office.’’ (Tr.
1244, 1258.)
Employees also contact other employee committee members
with complaints, and the committee discusses the safety
items in its meetings. The committee used the electronic mail
to invite employees having ‘‘any safety situation to feel free
to contact any member of the committee’’ (Tr. 1312, 1335).
Employee members also act on behalf of other Control
Unit employees in seeking more appropriate safety awards,
as discussed below.
(e) Fitness committee
It is undisputed that management member Everett Sparks,
who initiated the Fitness Committee, informed employee
member Arthur Ebert that they were seeking a ‘‘representative’’
from each area—even though (Tr. 1112–1113, 1127)
many of the employee members on the committee had a special
interest in fitness. Sparks (who did not testify) told Ebert
that the original membership was developed ‘‘through a
cross-sectional view .... You try and incorporate . . . a
representative from each area, say a mechanic or whatever,
to be on the membership.’’ (Tr. 1414, 1423–1424.)
Ebert further credibly testified that he ‘‘specifically asked
[Sparks] why certain people were on this committee and
[Sparks] said that it would be more representative if it was
a cross-sectional view of the site. And it was regardless of
what their feelings were personally . . . as far as fitness is
concerned.’’ (Tr. 1425.)
The evidence, discussed below, shows that employee
members have made continuing efforts on behalf of the employees
plantwide to obtain additional fitness facilities. At
least one employee outside the committee took a suggestion
for an additional fitness facility to the committee through a
committee member (Tr. 1390, 1438).
(f) Jackson lab programs committee
Employee Joseph Karaskevicus credibly testified that he
went on the committee when Lab Supervisor Perry Poless
(who did not testify) asked if he would like to join the committee,
because Poless ‘‘needed a representative from his
group.’’ There were about 17 working groups in the Jackson
Lab and ‘‘There’s supposed to have been a representative
from each work group on the committee.’’ (Tr. 605–607.)
Karaskevicus explained that ‘‘The philosophy is to have each
work group send a representative to the committee’’ (Tr.
652).
Employee committee member Kim Nelson acted on behalf
of nonmember employees when she solicited ideas by electronic
mail from all 1100 Jackson Lab employees on what
they would like for a 25-year safety celebration (Tr. 627–
628, 682, 692–693; G.C. Exh. 3B at 4). The committee further
demonstrated that it was acting on the employees’ behalf
in December 1989 when it sent the committee’s 1990 safety
programs questionnaire to the 1100 Jackson Lab employees
(G.C. Exh. 24 at 30–33; Tr. 655–657).
Employee members have dealt with management members
in deciding to continue and later to discontinue one of the
safety programs, in discussing and deciding on appropriate
safety awards, and in determining whether to adopt a program
to give company stock as a safety award, as discussed
below.
(g) Physical distribution safety committee
Employee William Scurry credibly testified that when employees
in the truck control center were asked if anybody
wanted to join the committee, ‘‘I was the only one on day
work at the time, so I joined it as our representative’’ (Tr.
1273). He told employees in his area that ‘‘if they had a
safety problem’’ and ‘‘if they brought it to me, I would take
it to the committee and the committee would look at it.’’ His
supervisor was aware that he had permission ‘‘to take things
to the safety committee.’’ (Tr. 1301–1302.) Other employee