change under the Act. Given § 8(d)’s specific mention of “wages” as a mandatory bargaining subject and the evidence indicating that Pepsi’s new policy reduced the wages of at least some employees, it is clear that the NLRB correctly found the new compensation system for salesmen and drivers to be an impermissible unilateral change in wages. 4. Sparemen’s Work Schedule In November 1992, Pepsi changed the work schedule for sparemen so that they no longer were responsible for filling in for drivers. The NLRB reasoned that § 8(d) requires employers to bargain regarding, specifically, “hours.” In the past, the NLRB has held that even a relatively small change in working hours is a mandatory subject of bargaining under the Act. Hedison Mfg. Co., 260 NLRB 590, 592-94, 1982 WL 24264 (1982) (<HOLDING>). In light of the well-established principle
holding that this time requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional holding that a fiveminute change in employee starting time is a mandatory subject of bargaining holding that absent a law or collective bargaining agreement a municipal employee is an employee atwill holding that the statute is mandatory holding that the number of rooms that housekeepers must clean is a mandatory subject of bargaining