N.L.R.B. v. Nello Pistoresi & Son, Inc., 73-2253

Decision Date01 July 1974
Docket NumberNo. 73-2253,73-2253
Citation500 F.2d 399
Parties86 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2936, 74 Lab.Cas. P 10,184 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. NELLO PISTORESI & SON, INC. (S & D Trucking Co., Inc.), Respondent.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Elliott Moore, Acting Asst. Gen. Counsel, NLRB, Washington, D.C., Charles M. Henderson, Director, Region 19, NLRB, Seattle, Wash., for petitioner.

Wesley M. Wilson, Yakima, Wash., for respondent.

Before HUFSTEDLER and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges, and SKOPIL, 1 District Judge.

OPINION

ALFRED T. GOODWIN, Circuit Judge:

The National Labor Relations Board seeks enforcement of its order against Nello Pistoresi and Son, Inc., reported at 203 N.L.R.B. No. 108, 83 L.R.R.M. 1212 (1973).

Reversing the administrative-law judge, a divided panel of the Board held that, by unilaterally discontinuing its Christmas bonus in 1971, Pistoresi violated sections 8(a)(5) and 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(5) and (1). Because the Board's finding that the bonuses were wages, hours, or other terms and conditions of employment is not supported by substantial evidence, enforcement of its order is denied.

An employer violates sections 8(a)(5) and 8(a)(1) of the Act when he unilaterally alters 'wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment,' National Labor Relations Act 8(d), 29 U.S.C. 158(d), without first consulting and negotiating with the bargaining representative of his employees. NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736, 742-743, 82 S.Ct. 1107, 8 L.Ed.2d 230 (1962); American Smelting & Refining Co. v. NLRB, 406 F.2d 552 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 935, 89 S.Ct. 1998, 23 L.Ed.2d 450 (1969). Bonuses such as the one here at issue are considered wages if they are of such a fixed nature and have been paid over a sufficient length of time to have become a reasonable expectation of the employees and, therefore, part of their anticipated remuneration. Century Electric Motor Co. v. NLRB, 447 F.2d 10, 14 (8th Cir. 1971); NLRB v. Harrah's Club, 403 F.2d 865, 874 (9th Cir. 1968); Beacon-Journal Publishing Co. v. NLRB, 401 F.2d 366, 367 (6th Cir. 1968); NLRB v. Wonder State Mfg. Co., 344 F.2d 210, 213 (8th Cir. 1965); NLRB v. Niles-Bement-Pond Co., 199 F.2d 713, 714 (2nd Cir. 1952).

Pistoresi has been operating a live-stock-hauling business since 1958, employing approximately 25 employees on a fluctuating basis. Pistoresi has paid Christmas bonuses only twice: in 1969, and in 1970. The amounts of these bonuses were determined entirely by Pistoresi's operations manager and ranged from $25.00 to $150.00. The manager testified that he fixed the bonuses by considering each employee's customer relations and performance as a representative of the company, his diligence, and, to some extent, his seniority. There was no evidence that the amount of a bonus was in any way tied to the size of an employee's salary.

In 1971 Pistoresi failed to pay any bonus because it was negotiating with the union and had made an offer of a 5 1/2 percent wage increase. It reasonably believed that payment also of a bonus might have been a violation of the wage-price controls then in effect. Moreover, Pistoresi was somewhat dissatisfied with general employee performance during the year.

The administrative-law judge held that since Christmas bonuses had been paid for only two years and followed no formula they had not become part of the compensation structure so as to require bargaining over their discontinuance. Therefore, he recommended dismissing the complaint. However, a panel of the Board, over the dissent of Member Kennedy, held that payment over a two-year period was sufficient to make the matter bargainable. The Board ordered Pistoresi to cease and desist from refusing to bargain with the union by unilaterally changing terms and conditions of employment and to make the employees whole for monetary losses suffered by reason of the termination of the 1971 bonuses.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • U.S. v. Conforte
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • April 29, 1980
    ...67 S.Ct. 1463, 1469-71, 91 L.Ed. 1757 (1947); McCormick v. United States, 531 F.2d 554, 209 Ct.Cl. 331 (1976); N.L.R.B. v. Nello Pistoresi & Son, 500 F.2d 399, 400 (9th Cir. 1974); Humble Pipe Line Co. v. United States, 442 F.2d 1353, 1356, 194 Ct.Cl. 944 (1971); McGuire v. United States, 3......
  • Hyatt Corp. v. N.L.R.B.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • July 22, 1991
    ...wage increase had been given and that increase had also been found to constitute an unfair labor practice); NLRB v. Nello Pistoresi & Son, Inc., 500 F.2d 399 (9th Cir.1974) (court found the combination of short history and indefinite nature to be fatal).5 It cannot be said with certainty th......
  • N.L.R.B. v. Henry Vogt Mach. Co., 81-1055
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • October 10, 1983
    ...for an employer's formal notice to a union of a vital change in working conditions." Furthermore in NLRB v. Nello Pistoresi & Son, Inc., 500 F.2d 399, 400 (9th Cir.1974), the Court held that "An employer violates Sections 8(a)(5) and 8(a)(1) of the Act when he unilaterally alters 'wages, ho......
  • Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1564, AFL-CIO v. Southeastern Michigan Transp. Authority
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • July 15, 1991
    ...bonuses to employees, and then rescinds those bonuses without bargaining may commit an unfair labor practice. NLRB v. Nello Pistoresi & Son, Inc., 500 F.2d 399 (CA 9, 1974). In the second configuration, the contract may explicitly allow or prohibit a particular practice. Even so, courts hav......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT