Orchids Paper Products Company

The Board unanimously affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) by: (1) unilaterally implementing a policy requiring employees to wear flame-resistant clothing at all times; (2) suspending and disciplining an employee for failing to comply with the unilaterally implemented policy; (3) failing to adhere to the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement by not receiving the Union’s consent before converting productions lines six and seven to op-tech lines; (4) changing the employees’ health insurance; and (5) failing to apply certain terms of the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement to the “permanent temporary” employees.  A panel majority (Members Kaplan and Emanuel) reversed the judge’s conclusion that the Respondent unlawfully prevented union officials from conducting union business during work time in contravention of the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement.  A different panel majority (Members McFerran and Kaplan) affirmed the judge’s conclusions that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) by discharging five “permanent temporary” employees.  The Board unanimously adopted the judge’s decision that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by: (1) threatening an employee with discipline for not complying with the unilaterally implemented flame-resistant clothing policy; (2) instructing an employee not to contact the Occupational Safety and Health Administration unless management had been informed first; (3) prohibiting employees from discussing the Union during work time while permitting discussion of other non-work topics; (4) prohibiting an employee from conducting union business in a disrespectful manner; (5) informing an employee that the “permanent temporary” employees had been discharged because of the Union’s actions on their behalf; and (6) preventing union officials from conducting union business in contravention of the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement.  A panel majority (Members McFerran and Kaplan) affirmed the judge’s conclusions that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by: (1) accusing employees of harassment; (2) creating the impression of surveillance; and (3) prohibiting employees from asking questions during meetings.  Finally, the Board unanimously reversed the judge’s findings that the Respondent did not unlawfully: (1) threaten an employee with unspecified reprisals; (2) prevent a union official from conducting union business in contravention of the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement on January 25; (3) create the impression that an employee’s union activities would be under greater scrutiny; and (4) promulgate a rule prohibiting employees from talking to employees in other departments.

Charge filed by United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO.  Administrative Law Judge Andrew S. Gollin issued his decision on September 15, 2017.  Members McFerran, Kaplan, and Emanuel participated.

For more information, go to: 

http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/