III. A. This Court, in Pepsi I, stated that because the parties had not submitted evidence that there was an established practice of awarding wage increases at the Fayetteville plant, “we cannot determine how established any practice of paying wage increases was, nor can we determine whether any discretion entered the calculus for disbursing the wage increase.” Pepsi I, 1996 U.S.App. LEXIS 23936 at *13, 1996 WL 511498 (4th Cir. Sept. 10, 1996). We noted that absent an anti-union motive, an employer may disburse or fail to disburse discretionary bonuses, but noted, however, that if a practice of paying bonuses is well-established, withholding such a bonus unilaterally may violate the Act. See id. at *13-14; Phelps Dodge Mining Co. v. NLRB, 22 F.3d 1493, 1496-1500 (10th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). This Court, in Southern Maryland Hosp. Ctr.
holding that although there was evidence of discrimination by the employer based on race there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the employer had constructively discharged the plaintiff holding that a county had no duty to bargain with a union of its employees holding that where there was no established practice of distributing bonuses employer was not required to bargain over their distribution holding that there is no duty to bargain if an employer can prove it has a stable one or noman bargaining unit holding defendant did not prove an enforceable agreement only that there was some discussion of a plea bargain