Production Plated Plastics, Inc.

I)C 'ISI()NS O() NA II()NAI. I ABOR REI.ATI()NS B()ARD Production Plated Plastics, Inc. and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agri- cultural Implement Workers of America (UAW). Case 7-CA-16630 January 14, 1981 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PINEiI.O, AND TRUESDAI.E On September 22, 1980, Administrative Law Judge Leonard M. Wagman issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has de- cided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative I.aw Judge, but not to adopt his rec- ommended Order. 2 ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Production Plated Plastics, Inc., Richland, Michi- gan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: I In the last sentencce of the final paragraph f Ihc s lon 1t' his I)e, sion entitled "In forceCment of Break and L.unch Itilhcics," the Adnlinis- trativc Law Judge inadcrtcltly referred to the "pre-Jul, 1977" emiploy ee tardiness rule. instcad of the "pre-July 1979 rule." We herebh crrect this error Further, we agree with the Administrative Law Judge's con- clusion that Respondent ii llaled Sec 8(;la)5) and (I) of Act by chllging its written plant ule regarding the dcegrc of plrishnclt t h iposed for repeated tardiness without first riotilyiig aiud barginllilg iith Ihe Ulnion. lowever, we dl tiilt ccur with his itepretitilo )t' flihalt changed rule Ihe lnew utile reads as fililws: Absent r late w itlo ult Supervisor's appro,al Ull ttLc lttll Iabs11cxC ill anly calendar year which number tile shall subject ciiplosee o a serhal swarning 'The foLirth such ahsecle shall subject crnpltyc to writtenl reprimalld; the fifth such lhabsence shall subject etiployete to one week layoff the ixth Iuch abhsclSce shill suhbject eliiploye lo discharge For purposes ol this discipliary procedule I o (2) ilnex cused dates sic] 'hall qual til ucu's¢d ilhbsete IhICese disciplitl ary measures arc ili addition to os1s ll bnUls " I'he proper reading i'f the rule is "l: o lHxcused l ;lres" ilstead f "dates " Ihe Adnlinistratlive I a Judge appalcntly referred a ilinsprilit of the rules in icorreclly stating tIhe lalguage. We hereby col-rrct this error The rule also prov ides ftior fits sotid, ad third offelses 'he Adiiiristrati.e law Judge cred i l er lookirhg tliat scllon ol Rule 17 which prolvides that "tco (2) airlecused laites shall equal One it- excused absenllce I hi s fidillt s l i s ing lhit x iciarts of tardiness in a calenldar year ws ould subject ain clllplilyec to dischalge is iclrrecl There is iio doubt hwever, thai tie ntss rule is diiflereni front that which preceded it, and the challges inetolcd could ot be made untlilater ally without sviolating the Act Thus, the Adlnislratle I 1w. Judge', ul- timate conrcltisioll is affirmed 2 Certain inadsertlil errors appeal il the Adllilistlati e l.as Judge's recomminrlded Order Acelrdingl s we ill issue ;ii ()rdCr i lieu f that of the Administrative l.aw Judge 254 NLRB No. 68 (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Interna- tional Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), as the exclusive representative of the em- ployees in the bargaining unit below by unilaterally changing its written plant rules regarding employee tardiness; imposing upon unit employees more stringent break and lunch period policies; changing its rules concerning the number of violations of its break and lunch policies which will result in disci- plinary action against its employees; and imposing disciplinary action, including written verbal warn- ings, written warnings, and discharge, upon unit employees for violation of these unilaterally im- posed policies. The appropriate unit is: All full-time and regular part-time production and maintenance employees, including ship- ping and receiving employees, quality control and truckdriver employees, employed by Re- spondent at its facility located at 9899 "D" Avenue East, Richland, Michigan; but exclud- ing all office clerical employees, technical em- ployees, professional employees, confidential employees, guards and supervisors as defined by the Act. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex- ercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action to effec- tuate the policies of the Act: (a) Rescind its new written plant rules regarding employee tardiness contained in Respondent's com- pany rules. (b) Rescind the more stringent break and lunch period policies instituted in April and June 1979. (c) Rescind its change of the rules concerning the number of violations of its break and lunch period policies which will result in disciplinary action against its employees. (d) Expunge from the personnel files of employ- ees Cathy Czuk, Ann Lucas, Joan Browne, Mary Harper, Donna Shannon, Mary Meskil, Laura Marr, Deb Ritter, and Ruth Quinn, all references to disciplinary actions which resulted from their failure to comply with Respondent's more stringent break and lunch period policies and its change in rules concerning the disciplinary action to be im- posed for violation of those policies. (e) Offer Cathy Czuk and Ann Lucas immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equiv- alent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or privileges previously en- joyed. 560 PRODUCTION PLATED PLASTICS, INC (f) Make Cathy Czuk and Ann Lucas whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered due to the unlawful discharges by paying each of them a sum equal to what she would have earned, less any net interim earnings, plus interest, as set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."3 (g) Bargain with the Union as the exclusive rep- resentative of the employees in the above appropri- ate unit with respect to changes in Respondent's written plant rules regarding employee tardiness, more stringent break and lunch period policies, changes in its rules concerning the number of vio- lations of its break and lunch period policies which will result in disciplinary action against its em- ployess, and imposition of disciplinary action, in- cluding written verbal warnings, written warnings, and discharge, upon the unit employees for viola- tion of the above-mentioned policies. (h) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copy- ing, all payroll records, social security payment re- cords, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (i) Post at its plant in Richland, Michigan, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."4 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con- secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in- cluding all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (j) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply here- with. :' Member Jenkins would award inleresl on hackpay due has.ld ion the formula set forth in his partial dissent in OlripI Medical (orporation, 2Sl NLRB 14h (19I)) 4 In the een tIhal this ()rder is enforced hb a Judg nmctll 1t . Ilnitcd States Court of Appeals, he ws ords i the not ice reading "Postd hd Order f he National -abor Relations ioard" hall read I lied iursal- ant to a Judgment of Ihe lilted States ('Court of Appeals Intllorciig .Ii Order of the National abhor Rellaton, BoaHrd " APPENDIX NorICt To EMPI_ OYEIS POSTED BY ORDER OF THI. NATIONAL. LABOR RELAIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Work- ers of America (UAW), as the exclusive repre- sentative of the employees in the bargaining unit below by unilaterally changing our writ- ten plant rules regarding employee tardiness; imposing upon unit employees more stringent break and lunch period policies; changing our rules concerning the number of violations of our break and lunch period policies which will result in disciplinary action against our em- ployees; and imposing disciplinary action, in- cluding written verbal warnings, written warn- ings, and discharge, upon unit employees for violation of these unilaterally imposed policies. The appropriate unit is: All full-time and regular part-time produc- tion and maintenance employees, including shipping and receiving employees, quality control and truckdriver employees, em- ployed by the Employer at its facility locat- ed at 9899 "D" Avenue East, Richland, Michigan, but excluding all office clerical employees, technical employees, professional employees, confidential employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. Wli wit NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ- ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended. Wi Wll.l. rescind our new written plant rules regarding employee tardiness in our com- pany rules. WE Wll i rescind the more stringent break and lunch period policies we instituted in April anrid June 1979. WE win.. rescind our change of the rules concerning the number of violations of our break and lunch period policies which will result in disciplinary action against our em- ployees. WE wl expunge from the personnel files of employees Cathy Czuk, Ann Lucas, Joan Browne, Mary Harper, Donna Shannon, Mary Meskil, Laura Marr, Deb Ritter, and Ruth Quinn all references to disciplinary actions 561 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD which resulted from their failure to comply with our more stringent break and lunch period policies and our change in rules con- cerning disciplinary action to be imposed for violation of these policies. WE WILL offer Cathy Czuk and Ann Lucas immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prej- udice to their seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed. WE WILL make Cathy Czuk and Ann Lucas whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered due to the discrimination practiced against them by paying each of them a sum equal to what she would have earned, less any net interim earnings, plus interest. WE WILL bargain with the Union as the ex- clusive representative of our employees in the above appropriate unit with respect to changes in our written plant rules regarding employee tardiness, more stringent break and lunch period policies, changes in our rules concern- ing the number of violations of our break and lunch period policies which will result in disci- plinary action against our employees, and im- position of disciplinary action, including writ- ten verbal warnings, written warnings, and dis- charge, upon our employees for violation of the above-mentioned policies. PRODUCTION PLATED PLASTICS, INC. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE LEONARD M. WAGMAN, Administrative Law Judge: Upon a charge and an amended charge filed by Interna- tional Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agri- cultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), re- ferred to herein as the Union, the Regional Director for Region 7 of the National Labor Relations Board issued the complaint herein on September 5, 1979. The com- plaint, as amended at the hearing held at Kalamazoo, Michigan, on April 7 and 8, 1980, alleged that the Re- spondent, Production Plated Plastics, Inc., violated Sec- tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §151, el seq., herein called the Act, by making and implementing unilateral changes in its employees' conditions of employment. Respondent, by its timely answer denied committing the alleged unfair labor practices. Upon the entire record, from my observation of the witnesses' demeanor, and after due consideration of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respondent, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION AND LABOR ORGANIZATION Respondent, a Michigan corporation engages in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of molded and chrome plated plastic products at its Richland, Michigan, plant. During the calendar year ending December 31, 1978, a representative period, Respondent in the course and conduct of its business operation manufactured, sold and distributed from its Richland, Michigan, plant prod- ucts valued in excess of $2,500,000, of which products valued in excess of $50,000 were shipped from its Rich- land plant directly to points located outside of Michigan. In its answer, Respondent admitted the foregoing data and conceded that at all times material it was an employ- er engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and I so find. The complaint alleged, Respondent in its answer con- ceded, and I find that the Union, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Imple- ment Workers of America (UAW), is a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background and Issues In Production Plated Plastics, Inc., 247 NLRB No. 76 (1980), petition for enforcement pending (6th Cir. No. 80-1290), the Board issued an order requiring Respon- dent to bargain with the Union for the following unit: All full-time and regular part-time production and maintenance employees, including shipping and re- ceiving employees quality control and truckdriver employees employed by the Employer at our facili- ty located at 9899 'D' Avenue East, Richland, Michigan, but excluding all office clerical employ- ees, confidential employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.' In that same case, the Board found that Respondent in the instant case had violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to furnish the Union with relevant bargaining information, by making unilateral changes in its restroom use policy, and by witholding a Christmas bonus without bargaining collectively with the Union. The issues raised in the instant case are whether Re- spondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by: 1. Unilaterally changing its rules regarding employee tardiness. 2. Unilaterally imposing a more stringent break period and lunch period policy. 3. Unilaterally changing its rules concerning the number of violations of its break period and lunch period policy which will result in disciplinary action. 4. Imposing disciplinary action including written warn- ings, verbal warnings and discharge on unit employees for violation of these unilaterally imposed policies. I he BoHard found tlt the Union achieed majorit status on Septem- her 15. 1977. in a Board held representation election 562 PRODUCTION PLATED PLASTICS, INC. B. The Change in Compa(ni Rules Regarding Tardinevss Prior to July 1979, Respondent's shop rules included the following regarding tardiness and absence: Code: First offense WR*--"WR' written reprimand: Second offense 3 day*LO()-"LO" disciplinary layoff: Third offense D*--"D" dismissal. 17. Repeated (6) times in three (3) month period tardiness in reporting for work. *These disciplinary measures are in addition to loss of bonus. 18. Absent without Supervisor's approval. Unex- cused absences in any calendar year which number three shall subject employee to wvarning. The fourth such absence shall subject employee to written rep- rimand: the fifth such absence shall subject employ- ee to one week layoff; the sixth such absence shall subject employee to discharge. In July 1979, Respondent issued ne\\ shop rules in which former shop rules 17 and IX sucre combined into Rule 17 as follows: Code: First offense WR*-"WR" written reprimand: Second offense 3 day*LO--"LO" disciplinary laN off; Third offense D*--"D" dismissal. 17. Absent or late without Supervisor's approval. Unexcused absences in any calendar year which number three shall subject employee to a erbal warning. The fourth such absence shall subject eni- ployee to written reprimand; the fifth such absence shall subject employee to one wreek layoff; the sixth such absence shall subject employee to discharge. For purposes of this disciplinary procedure tiso (2) unexcused dates shall equal one unexcused absence. These disciplinary measures are in addition to loss of bonus. The parties stipulated and I find that Respondent institut- ed the new Rule 17 sithout gixing the Union notice or any opportunity to bargain about it. I also find upon the parties' stipulation that during the pendency of the in- stant case, Respondent has abstained from applying the new Rule 17 pending the outcome of the issue of wheth- er its unilateral promulgation ran afoul of Sections 8(d) and 8(a)(5) of the Act. Sections 8(a)(5) and 8(d) of the Act require an emnploy- er to bargain with the representative of his employees over subjects encompassed within the broadly defined categories of ".. wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment . . ." The) make clear that it is an unfair labor practice for an employer to make a change affecting any matter Which is a mandatory sub- ject for bargaining without first advising the bargaining representative and providing it wvithi an opportuni to bargain concerning the change. A.L.R11. v. Katz. c a/l. d/bh/a Wllihamvhlrg Stee/ Products Co., 3h9 U.S 736 (1962): ihrbrhoard Paper Product (Corp. . .\.iR.. 379 U.S. 203 (1964). Applying the stated principle to the instant case, it is clear that any unilateral alteration by Respondent of mandatory conditions of employment concerning its pro- duction and maintenance employees at its Richland plant in July 1979, when the Union was the exclusive bargain- ing representative of those employees, would constitute a refusal to bargain in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, as well as a violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. Boland Marine and Manufacturing Company. Inc., 225 NLRB 824 (1976). It is settled law that rules regarding employee conduct and the discipline to be imposed for infractions of such rules are mandatory subjects of bar- gaining. Boland Marine and Manufacturing Company. Inc., supra at 829. Comparison of Rules 17 and 18 with the new Rule 17 reveals that the latter contained more stringent discipline for tardiness. As I read old Rule 17, six instances of tar- diness2 in a 3-month period would be punished with a written reprimand, whereas the new combined rule strongly implies that six instances of tardiness in a calen- dar year would subject an employee to discharge. Also implied is that any combination of absences or incidents of tardiness totalling six in I year would subject the of- fending employee to discharge. Under the former rule 17 six instances of tardiness spread out over a calendar year would not subject defending employee to so much as a written reprimand. I find, therefore, that the merger of Rules 17 and 18 resulted in a substantial change in the degree of punishment to be imposed for repeated tardi- ness. By making this change in its plant rules without first notifying the Union and giving it an opportunity to bargain about it, Respondent violated Section S(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. C. Enforcement of Break and Lunch Policies Since Respondent opened its Richland plant in June 1969, its management's stated policy has been to grant all employees two 10 minute breaks and a 30-minute lunch break. Since 1973, Respondent's plating department em- ployees, according to stated policy, enjoyed 5 more min- utes of breaktime known as "walk time." The plating department supervised by LeRoy Bowser since November 1977, plates automobile parts with plas- tic, copper, nickel, or chrome. Since November 1977, Bowser also supervised the day shift directly. Both men and women work in the planning depart- ment. Most of the women rack and unrack the parts to be plated, on an assembly line. The men are divided into machine operators, box handlers, and material handlers. Occasionally, male employees rack and unrack parts. However none of the male employees work primarily as rackers/unrackers. To permit the production line to continue unabated, the 11 or so day shift plating department women, classi- fied as "racker/unracker," take their morning and after- noon breaks so that only 6 are away from the production line at any given time. "Tardy" and "late" are ynonmlous, as used hy Respondnts man- agement in their tesilmlons and ill Rspdent's emploce Warning IlotCe reCeCived ill C Itlcnce 563 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The record shows that prior to April 1979, the rack- ers/unrackers on the first or day shift were less than careful about breaks and lunch. Mary Harper, who was employed in the plating department from February 1973 until March 1979, believed that her morning and after- noon breaks were from 15 to 20 minutes in duration but that she might take longer than 20 minutes, and perhaps as long as a 25-minute break. She also believed that she was entitled to a 35-minute lunch break. However, at times she took a 40-minute lunch break, and from time to time extended her lunch period to 42 or 44 minutes. Harper's understanding of Respondent's policy to- wards morning and afternoon breaks and lunch was not unique. She observed that the other women on her shift took breaks and lunch periods in similar fashion.3 Employee Ann Lucas, who began work in Respon- dent's plating department on September 20, 1976, as a racker/unracker, and who was terminated in June 1979, believed that she was entitled to breaks of 20 minutes' duration and a lunch break of 35 minutes prior to April 1979. Before April 1979, Lucas also observed that, as she did, her fellow employees took breaks of 20 to 25 min- utes, and lunch periods ranging from 35 to 45 minutes, with the predominant period being 40 minutes. I find from Lucas' testimony that on occasions when Respondent employed the plating department on 10-hour shifts, the day shift rackers/unrackers extended their breaks. During these extended shifts, Lucas and her col- leagues took breaks of 25 minutes' duration and lunch breaks of 40 to 45 minutes. I find from Harper's undenied testimony that prior to April 1979 LeRoy Bowser, occasionally sat in the break- room with Harper and other racker/unracker employees. I also find from Harper's testimony that in late 1978 or early 1979, Bowser told Harper, who at the time was a production line leader, that he was not concerned with how long the employees took on their breaks so long as the production "got out and it wasn't held up," and that Bowser instructed Harper that she and the other employ- ees should "watch it," with regard to the length of breaks. Lucas' credited testimony reflects a similar cau- tion from Bowser in February 1979. I find from Harper's testimony that for 2 weeks in early 1978, Bowser required his employees to sign in and out on breaks, when "(t)hey got out of hand."4 1 also find from Harper's testimony that after Bowser cautioned the day shift rackers/unrackers, they would curtail their breaks for "maybe for a couple of days" and then "go back to the same thing they were doing." However, prior to April 1979, Bowser did not tell either Harper or Lucas to adhere strictly to Respondent's stated policy re- garding breaks and lunch.5 Plating Department Manager Bowser testified in sub- stance that prior to April 1979 he repeatedly pressed his a Harper's straightforward testimony regarding her practices and ob- servations was uncontradicted 4 For reasons given later i this I)ecision, arper impressed mc as a more reliable v.itness than Bowser Therefore. I have credited her rather than Blov ser regarding his attemipts to conltro l breaks. s This finding is based on Ilarper's and Lucas' testimntiny Bossscr testi- fied that he told employees Czuk. Lucas, and Harper iof Respondeni's 10 plus 5-minute break policy and of the 30-minule lunch policy lowev,;cer. his testimony does not resval when lie so advised hem. employees to comply with Respondent's stated limits on breaks and lunch periods. He also testified that he issued a number of verbal warnings to the racker/unracker women employed on the day shift in his department. Bowser testified that he submitted such writeups to Re- spondent's personnel office. However, Personnel Manager Warenuk's testimony and Respondent's file of warning notices cast doubt on Bowser's testimony. Under examination, in response to the General Counsel's subpoena duces tecum seeking pro- duction of those warning notices, Warenuk testified that she had explored all of Respondent's records and that the General Counsel's Exhibit 4 included all of the warn- ing notices having to do with lunch period breaks be- tween April 1977 and June 29, 1979. Warenuk also testi- fied that Respondent's policy is to retain all such notices permanently. Review of the available warning notices re- vealed that prior to April 1979, Bowser issued no warn- ing notice to any of the women employees on the day shift for either excessive breaks or over staying lunch. Other factors cast doubt on Bowser's testimony that he was conscientious about enforcing the 10 plus 5- minute break rule and the 30-minute lunch rule prior to April 1979. For as found above, undenied and uncontra- dicted testimony of former employees Harper and Lucas showed that as a matter of practice, the first shift rack- ers/unrackers under Bowser's immediate supervision took more than 15 minutes for their breaks and more than 30 minutes for their lunch periods, apparently with- out fear of disciplinary action from Bowser. While I have found that Bowser cautioned his employees to con- trol their lunch breaks, he also expressed a liberal atti- tude toward the length of breaks, so long as production went forward. In evaluating Bowser's testimony, I have also consid- ered his demeanor while testifying before me. My confi- dence in Bowser's reliability was eroded by his emphatic, but unsubstantiated assertion that "I keep records of all of the times you are late." Unlike Harper, Lucas and Warenuk who seemed to be relaxed, Bowser seemed anx- ious, particularly on cross-examination, when questioned about his efforts to enforce Respondent's stated break and lunch policies prior to April 1979. He gratuitously complained about his repeated but vain efforts to attain compliance from employees who refused to heed his warnings. He also seemed overly anxious to stress his writing up of offending employees. My impression was that Bowser was trying too hard to make his point. In sum, I find Bowser's testimony regarding his efforts to enforce Respondent's break and lunch policies prior to April 1979 unpersuasive. I have rejected it to the extent it runs counter to, or is inconsistent with, the testimony of Harper, Lucas, and Warenuk. Laura Marr, who replaced Mary Harper as line leader of the rackers/unrackers on the plating department's first shift, first heard Bowser remind the first shift about Re- spondent's stated lunch and break time policies in April 1979. Thereafter, Laura Marr heard Bowser remind the rackers/unrackers of Respondent's policies regarding breaks and lunch periods at approximately 2-week inter- vals. 564 PRODUCTION PIATED PLASTICS. INC. At all times material to this case, Respondent provided an incentive bonus for each hour employees were at work during the workweek. However, Respondent also has withheld the bonus if an employee took more than 30 minutes for lunch, any time during the week. On one occasion, prior to April 1979, Mary Harper took more than 30 minutes for lunch on a workday and lost her weekly bonus. On April 11, 1979, Respondent issued a "Verbal Em- ployee Warning" to first shift racker/unracker Cathy Czuk for an excessive lunch period. The warning stated: You took a long lunch today-26 minutes is on your timecard & an additional 18 minutes before re- turning to your work area. This will not be tolerat- ed. Your next long lunch will mean a written warn- ing. The nature of the violation designated on the notice was "Lateness." LeRoy Bowser signed this notice, as did Acting Plant Manager Tom Grady. On June 11, 1979, Czuk received a written warning for taking 43 minutes for lunch that day. The nature of the violation, as designated on the warning was "Lateness." This notice was signed by Tom Grady and Plant Man- ager Evans. On April 11 and on June I1, Respondent issued similar warning notices to Czuk's fellow employee, Ann Lucas. When Ann Lucas received her warnings, she complained that her conduct was no different from that of her fellow employees. From Friday, June 22 through, and including, June 29, 1979, 6 workdays, Plating Manager LeRoy Bowser timed the breaks of 96 of the 11 women rackers/un- rackers on the first shift. He observed all nine and noted when they took more than 15 minutes on their breaks. His records showed that five employees exceeded Re- spondent's stated 15-minute break rule on all six dates. Laura Marr, Deb Ritter, Maryann Meskil, and Ruth Quinn took excessive breaks on June 22, 25-28. Two women employed on the day shift, in the plating depart- ment, were not listed on Bowser's notes and did not re- ceive written warnings because he forgot their names. Bowser conceded that the timing of his employees' breaks in late June 1979, and the issuance of written warnings to nine of the rackers/unrackers in his depart- ment was a "crackdown,"' and that he had never writ- ten up "the entire department for taking too long on a break." The warnings issued to Czuk, Lucas, Browne, Harper, and Shannon were designated as written warnings. Those issued to Meskil, Quinn, Ritter, and Marr were called "Verbal." On each of the warnings issued on June 29, the nature of the violation was designated as "late- Cathy Czuk. Ruth Quinn. Ann Lucas. Marcann Meskil, Mlr Harper, Laura Marr., Donna Shannon, )eb Rltter, and Joan Browne ? Bowser testified that hince November 1977. he kept records hossig how much time each of the employcs in Ihe plating deparlltmenl took 0n1 breaks Howe'er, he also testified that he only kept such records for a year running from January to Januar aid that in February 19X1, he d- carded all of the notes on hreaks fior the year 1979 aHtel. cr, as foiund above. Respondent's records did nott contaii ssriten rnitt e ul g to tie rackers/unrackers employed on Bosser's dal shift prior iio April 1974 ness." The verbal and written warnings were issued for violation of the pre-July 1979 Rule 17. In addition to the written warnings issued to employ- ees Czuk and Lucas respectively on June 11 and 29, Re- spondent issued a warning notice on April 18 to each of them. The stated offense in each instance was as follows: Shop Rule 20-stopping work before break time without approval of supervisor. You left the floor after specifically being asked not to for production reason. This behavior will not be tolerated. Your next offense will mean a 3 day disciplinary lay off. The nature of the violation in each case was designated as "Attitude" and "Disobedience." On June 29, Respon- dent terminated Lucas and Czuk on the ground that they had received three written warnings in a 12-month period. s I find in agreement with the General Counsel, and contrary to Respondent, that Bowser's crackdown re- garding breaks, in late June 1979, and the Respondent's earlier issuance of verbal and written warnings in April and June 1979 to employees Czuk and Lucas for taking "long" lunch periods represented a tightening up of its enforcement policy with regard to tardiness. From these incidents, I find that in April and June 1979 Respondent imposed changes in the working conditions of the first shift rackers/unrackers who were supervised by Bowser, and were part of the Union's bargaining unit. However, Respondent neglected to give notice to and bargain with the Union regarding these changes in the terms and con- ditions of employment which, under Section 8(d) of the Act, were proper subjects for collective bargaining. It is well settled that an employer's continuing obliga- tion to bargain about "wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment" under Section 8(d) of the Act, encompasses the duty to bargain about plant rules pertaining to absence and tardiness, and accompanying disciplinary regulations. N.L.R.B. v. Miller Brewing Com- pany, 408 F. 2d 12, 14 (9th Cir. 1969) Murpv Diesel Company, 184 NLRB 757, 762, 763 (1970), enfd. 454 F.2d 303 (7th Cir. 1971). Respondent's failure to bargain col- lectively with the Union regarding such changes violated Section 8 (a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Master Slack and/or Master Trousers Corp., and Hardeman Garment Corp., and Morehouse Garment Corp.. and Lauderdale Garment Corp., and Lobelvelle Garment Corp., 230 NLRB 1054, 1055 (1977). 1 further find that the written and verbal warnings issued to employees Cathy Czuk, Ann Lucas, Joan Browne, Mary Harper, Donna Shannon, Mary Meskil, Laura Marr, Ruth Quinn, and Deb Ritter, pursu- ant to Respondent's unilateral changes in its tardiness rules violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. The dis- charge of employees Czuk and Lucas which were also in furtherance of Respondent's unilateral changes in its tar- Rule 30( of Responletnl's rules t:ltCS Lniplo>ee(s) rcei ing three (3) ussarnilg noltices it a 12 month period irt' slbec(t iio ImmIediat dismissal A te hearing I gritllted tihe (iClnr.l Courtls iiotion to aitllend the conrplailit to allege tla lit , ritiei erbhil sarnlligs Issued to Marr and Ritter s ilattd t Acr 565 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD diness rule also violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. On June 11, 1979, Ann Lucas and Cathy Czuk re- ceived written warnings for taking excessively long lunch periods. However, for Lucas and Czuk, respective- ly, this was only the second violation of the pre-July 1977 Rule 17 in a 3-month period. Thus, I find that on June 11, Respondent unilaterally changed Rule 17 as it applied to employees Lucas and Czuk. Here again, Re- spondent neglected to bargain with the Union regarding this change and, thus, again violated Section 8(a)(5) and (I) of the Act. For under the pre-July 1977 rule, six in- stances of tardiness in 3 months were required before a written warning was to be issued. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent Production Plated Plastics, Inc., is now, and at all times material herein has been, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. All full-time and regular part-time production and maintenance employees including shipping and receiving employees, quality control, and truckdriver employees employed by Respondent at its facility, located at 9899 'D' Avenue East, Richland, Michigan, but excluding all office clerical employees, confidential employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 4. At all times material to this case, the Union has been the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees described in paragraph 3 above for pur- poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec- tion 9(a) of the Act. 5. Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by, unilaterally, without prior notice to or con- sultation with the Union, imposing on the employees in the unit described in paragraph 3, above, a more strin- gent break and lunch period policy, changing its rule concerning the number of violations of its break period and lunch period policy which will result in written warnings and other disciplinary action against its em- ployees, implementing its unilaterally adopted lunch period and break period policies against unit employees through the issuance of written verbal warnings and written warnings, discharging unit employees Cathy Czuk and Ann Lucas pursuant to the aforesaid unilateral- ly adopted rules, and, by unilaterally and without prior notice to or consultation with the Union, changing its written plant rules regarding employee tardiness. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that Re- spondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain af- firmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by unilaterally promulgating and im- plementing a more stringent break period and lunch period policy, by changing its rules concerning the number of violations of its break period and lunch period policy which result in disciplinary action, and by issuing verbal warnings, written warnings, and discharging em- ployees in implementing the aforesaid policies, it will be recommended that said rules and the procedures devised to enforce them shall be rescinded and withdrawn. It will also be recommended that Respondent restore the status quo which existed at the time of its unlawful actions by rescinding all disciplinary actions resulting from implementation of Respondent's revised rules re- garding lunch and breaks and the implementation of the disciplinary policies unilaterally revised which are de- scribed above. Inasmuch as Respondent discharged em- ployees Cathy Czuk and Ann Lucas pursuant to its uni- lateral changes in the lunch and break rules and in the disciplinary procedures in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, I will provide as a remedy in my rec- ommended Order that Respondent offer these employees reinstatement and make them whole by reimbursing them for any loss of earnings they may have suffered, includ- ing interest, in the manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corpo- ration, 231 NLRB 117 (1977).'0 [Recommended Order omitted from publication.] "' See, gencrallyI. is Plumbing &d Ieating Co., 138 NIRB 716 1961). 566