Airo Die Casting, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 31, 2006

347 N.L.R.B. 810 (N.L.R.B. 2006)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
347 NLRB No. 75
810
Airo Die Casting, Inc., a subsidiary of Leggett &
Platt, Incorporated and Factory Workers La-
borers’ Local Union #1357 a/w International
Laborers Union of North America.1 Case 6–CA–
34769
July 31, 2006
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS LIEBMAN, SCHAUMBER, AND KIRSANOW
On April 4, 2006, Administrative Law Judge Karl H.
Buschmann issued the attached decision. The Respon-
dent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The Gen-
eral Counsel filed an answering brief, and the Respon-
dent filed a reply brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,2 and conclusions3
and to adopt the recommended Order as modified.4
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified below and orders that the Respondent, Airo Die
Casting, Inc., Loyalhanna, Pennsylvania, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the Order as modified.
Substitute the following for paragraph 2(e).
“(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
each of its facilities in the Commonwealth of Pennsyl-
vania copies of the attached notice marked ‘Appendix.’3
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional

1 We have amended the caption to reflect the disaffiliation of the La-
borers’ International Union of North America from the AFL–CIO ef-
fective June 1, 2006.
2 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an adminis-
trative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponder-
ance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect.
Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362
(3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no
basis for reversing the findings.
3 Member Schaumber and Member Kirsanow agree with the judge’s
conclusion, which comports with Board precedent, that the Respon-
dent’s discharge of employee Lawson violated Sec. 8(a)(3). In their
view, however, there may well be circumstances, absent here, in which
a picketing employee’s use of the word “nigger” might cause the em-
ployee to lose the Act’s protection, even in the absence of violence or
explicit threats of violence. That is, under the right (or wrong) circum-
stances, the word itself may be so incendiary as to constitute an implied
threat or an incitement to violence. Member Liebman finds it unneces-
sary to pass on this hypothetical case here.
4 We shall modify the judge’s recommended Order to conform to the
Board’s standard remedial language in Excel Container, 325 NLRB 17
(1997).
Director for Region 6, after being signed by the Re-
spondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted
by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive
days in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material. In the event that, during the pend-
ency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone
out of business or closed the facility involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail,
at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current
employees and former employees employed by the
Respondent at any time since June 28, 2005.”
JoAnn Dempler, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Timothy G. Hewitt, Esq., of Latrobe, Pennsylvania, for the
Respondent.
George H. Love Jr., Esq. (The Love Law Firm, LLC), of
Youngstown, Pennsylvania, for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
KARL H. BUSCHMANN, Administrative Law Judge. This
case was tried in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on February 2,
2006. The charge was filed July 15, 2005,1 and the com-
plaint was issued on November 29, 2005, alleging that the
Respondent, Airo Die Casting, Inc., violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) by
discharging its employee Ronald W. Lawson III (Lawson)
because of his union activities, including participating in a
lawful strike.
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs
filed by the parties, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Airo Die Casting, Inc., a corporation, with an office and
place of business in Loyalhanna, Pennsylvania, is engaged in
the manufacture of aluminum die castings. With sales and
shipments of goods in excess of $50,000 from its facility to
points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Com-
pany admits and I find that it is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act and that the Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Respondent employs about 290 to 300 employees in
the manufacture of aluminum die castings for customers such
as Harley Davidson. The production and maintenance em-
ployees are represented by the Laborers Union, Local 1357,
and were operating pursuant to a collective-bargaining agree-
ment which expired on January 31, 2005. The employees

1 All dates are 2005 unless otherwise indicated.
AIRO DIE CASTING 811
commenced an economic strike on June 13, 2005, after the
parties failed to negotiate a successor agreement. On August
29, 2005, the employees returned to work. During that time,
the Respondent operated under the terms of the expired con-
tract.
Shortly after the strike had begun, the Respondent hired re-
placement workers, many of whom were obtained through
MADI Corporation, which specializes in providing replacement
workers. That company also provided security guards during
the strike, because of the hostility between replaced employees
and their replacements. The replacements had to cross the
picket lines which were formed at the Company’s entrances,
particularly the main gate. As the caravan of vehicles trans-
porting the replacements to the facility crossed the picket line at
the beginning of each shift, the pickets frequently shouted ob-
scenities and made obscene gestures at the replacements, in-
cluding hand gestures with the middle finger extended. The
replacements responded by calling pickets names and also mak-
ing obscene gestures, often behind closed car windows. The
record shows in greater detail the extent of the name calling and
the graphic depictions of obscene gesturing. None of this type
of misconduct resulted in any discipline.
That changed when on June 22, 2005, at about 6 p.m., at
shift-changing time. As usual, employees were picketing as
replacement workers were arriving for the night shift and re-
placements on the earlier shift were leaving the facility. Secu-
rity guards with video cameras monitored the shift change with
orders to tape any unusual events. After the replacement work-
ers had reported for their night shift and most of the replace-
ments had left, the last of the vehicles leaving the facility was a
car driven by Robert Galt, security-site commander. Sitting
next to him was a black security guard, by the name of Luis
Manzanares who held a video camera pointed at a car ahead.
Behind him in the car was another security guard, John Kochel.
At a point where the car was approaching the picket line,
Ronald Lawson, one of the picketing employees, came towards
the car. With both hands raised and extending his middle fin-
gers, Lawson yelled, “fuck you nigger” at Manzanares.
Manzanares did not testify, but he filed an incident report
with the Company on June 22, 2005, which states inter alia as
follows (R. Exh. 1): “I was in the passenger seat when a cauca-
sian male on the picket line directed his attention towards me,
he proceeded by flipping me with both of his middle fingers
and derogatorily calling out ‘fuck you nigger.’” An incident
report was submitted by Galt on about the same date, which
similarly described the incident, stating: “As we slowly ap-
proached the picket line, (1) picket/supporter approached Man-
zaranes’ window, giving the finger with both hands & shouted
at the window from approx. 2’ feet away, etc.” (R. Exh. 3).
Mary Lukas, human resource manager, filed a similar incident
report after observing the video tape, recorded by Manzanares
with his video camera (GC Exh. 5).
Lawson was notified of his discharge by letter of June 28,
2005 (GC Exh. 3). The letter signed by Daniel A. Krinock,
president, states:
As a result of your picket line misconduct on 6-22-05
when you screamed “fuck you nigger” to an African
American non-striking worker while gesturing with
each of your middle fingers, your employment with
Airo Die Casting is immediately terminated.
In his testimony, Krinock said that the decision to dis-
charge Lawson was made by him and other members of
management, following an investigation. He conceded that
obscene gestures and obscene language were common on the
picket line, and that no one was discharged for yelling ob-
scenities. He stated that Lawson “was discharged for harass-
ing an African-American which goes against the policies of
the Company.” According to his testimony, the issue
whether or not Lawson’s conduct amounted to a hate crime
was not considered.
This scenario presents the issue whether Lawson’s picket
line misconduct justified his discharge under well-
established Board precedents.
Analysis
The facts are undisputed that Lawson, by picketing the
Respondent, was engaged in protected activity, and that the
Respondent discharged Lawson because of his conduct on
the picket line. Employees have the right under Section 7 of
the Act to engage in concerted activities, including engaging
in a peaceful strike and picketing, for their mutual aid and
protection. Ordinarily, an employer is required to reinstate
striking employees at the end of an economic strike, unless
justified by legitimate business reasons. General Chemical
Corp., 290 NLRB 76 (1988). Unlike the issue involving an
employee’s conduct during his working environment, picket
line misconduct is governed by the standard established in
Clear Pine Moldings, 268 NLRB 1044, (1984), enfd. 765
F.2d 148 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied 474 U.S. 1105 (1968).
According to that test, an employer can lawfully deny rein-
statement to a striker if his misconduct is such that under the
circumstances, it may reasonably tend to coerce or intimidate
employees in the rights protected under the Act. In the case
cited by the General Counsel, Siemens Energy & Automa-
tion, Inc., 328 NLRB 1175 (1999), the Board reemphasized
that standard and clarified that picket line misconduct is not
governed by Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662
F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982),
but by a standard requiring a two-part analysis, i.e., whether
the strike misconduct tended to coerce or intimidate employ-
ees in their Section 7 rights, and whether the General Coun-
sel has shown that the striker was denied reinstatement for
conduct related to the strike.
Here, the record is clear and the parties are in agreement
that Lawson was discharged because of the picket line inci-
dent. Their only disagreement relates to the severity of Law-
son’s misconduct and whether it resulted in the loss of statu-
tory protection he would otherwise have. In this regard, the
record shows that Lawson, while stationed on the picket line
outside the Respondent’s facility, made an obscene gesture
accompanied by an obscene utterance and a racial epithet
directed at the security guard in the car who was tape re-
cording the pickets. The accuracy of this finding is reflected
in the letter notifying Lawson of his discharge, the incident
reports, including that filed by Mazanares, and the video-tape
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD812
recording. Indeed, my impression after viewing the incident on
the video recording is similar to that described by human re-
source manager, Lukas, in her incident report. She completed
the incident report after examining the video-tape recording and
concluded that Lawson raised both middle fingers to one of the
vans transporting replacement workers at the same time
screaming, “fuck you nigger,” and that the security guard Louis
(Manzanares) felt that the racial slur was directed at him (R.
Exh. 6). Lawson testified that he did not remember the inci-
dent, but he conceded that it could have been him on the tape.
Manzanares did not appear as a witness, and Kochel, the third
passenger in the car and a security guard, did not complete an
incident report, presumably because he had not seen the inci-
dent.
The Respondent’s assertion, describing the incident as
“Lawson’s aggressive assault on the vehicle,” is based on
Galt’s testimony. I observed his demeanor as a witness, and I
find that his narrative embellished the incident, and was clearly
designed to describe Lawson’s behavior as aggressive. His
dramatic description with an emphasis on his subjective im-
pressions is inconsistent with his own incident report and the
reports of other individuals, as well as the video recording of
the actual occurrence. I also find the testimony of Krinock and
Rick Tegue, vice president of human resources of the Respon-
dent’s parent company, somewhat exaggerated, as they testified
about the Manzanares’ reaction after the incident. They de-
scribed him as visibly shaken and offended. In any case, any-
one examining the actual recording of Lawson’s activity would
be hard pressed to see any threatening or aggressive conduct. It
did not differ from the general atmosphere on the picket line
with the usual tensions between strikers and replacement work-
ers and the use of obscene gestures and vulgar language. The
Respondent argues that the video-taped evidence does not show
the entire incident, because the camera was aimed forward. Yet
the recording belies from the outset the scenario described by
Galt. From his vantage point as a driver, Galt observed (Tr.
124–125), “about five feet out, just to the right of . . . my front
bumper . . . he [Lawson] turned and came quickly at our vehicle
at Louis window and he drew back his hands . . . into the finger
gesture . . . and then he got close to the window . . . within a
foot or two,” at which point Galt “goosed the gas and got out.”
Clearly, Galt did not observe Lawson making contact with the
vehicle or shouting any threats. Considering all the evidence, I
cannot find that the picket line misconduct under consideration
was accompanied by any threats or any coercion, or any intimi-
dating conduct.
To be sure, Lawson’s comment and gestures were clearly re-
pulsive and offensive, in particular the racial epithet, but it did
not occur during his working time or in his working place.
Picket-line misconduct is accordingly evaluated by a different
standard than similar conduct in a working environment. As
argued by the General Counsel, the Board has found that a
striker’s use of the most vile and vulgar language, including
racial epithets, does not deprive him of the protection of the
Act, so long as those actions do not constitute a threat. Detroit
Newspapers, 342 NLRB 223 (2004) (“you fuckin’ bitch, nigger
lovin’ whore”). Nickel Molding, 317 NLRB 826 (1995). Law-
son’s conduct on the picket line, the use of obscene language
and gestures and a racial slur, standing alone without any
threats or violence, did not rise to the level where he for-
feited the protection of the Act. Clear Pine Moldings, 268
NLRB 1044, 1046 (1984), enfd. 765 F.2d 148 (9th Cir.
1985).
The Respondent argues that Lawson violated Company
policy requiring his discharge. In support, the Respondent
points to a company poster, entitled “Operation Honesty,”
which generally encourages employees to report drug and
alcohol abuse, as well as harassment (R. Exhs. 7, 9). The
document, however, does not make any reference to racial
harassment or to a form of discipline contemplated by the
Employer. The Respondent also cites a company memoran-
dum, dealing with equal employment and affirmative action
issues (GC Exh. 4). The memorandum assures the employ-
ees of the Company’s commitment to diversity in the work-
place and deals with the usual issues relating to equal em-
ployment opportunity, including verbal or physical harass-
ment on such issues as race, age, and disability. Employees
who violate the policy may be disciplined or fired depending
on the severity of offense. Clearly, the Respondent has the
authority to enforce company policy in the workplace, but
these documents make no reference to conduct on the picket
line.
To illustrate its even-handed approach, the Respondent
cites the disciplinary actions taken against two employees for
similar misconduct, one incident involved sexual harassment
and the other an ethnic insult. Again, the conduct of these
employees occurred in the workplace, not on the picket line
outside of the plant. Moreover, the record shows that one of
Respondent’s higher-up supervisors, Steve Murray, had a
conversation on January 20, 2006, with Robert Hillman, an
employee. Murray, a facilitator at the facility in charge of
the operation on the second shift, used the same racial epithet
during a brief colloquy with Hillman, namely the “n”-word,
without being disciplined. In short, the Respondent had dif-
ficulty in enforcing its harassment policy evenly in the work-
place.
As reprehensible as Lawson’s use of the racial slur may
be, I find that his verbal and gesturing conduct, was unac-
companied by threats, coercion, or intimidation. It did not
rise to the level to justify the Employer’s refusal to reinstate
this employee. He was the only one on the picket line to be
discharged.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, Airo Die Casting, Inc. a subsidiary of
Leggett & Platt, Incorporated is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discharging its employee Ronald W. Lawson and
by refusing to reemploy said individual, because of his union
or his protected concerted activities, including his participa-
tion in a lawful strike, the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
AIRO DIE CASTING 813
REMEDY
The Respondent having unlawfully and discriminatorily dis-
charged Ronald W. Lawson, it must offer him reinstatement to
his former position, or if he was permanently replaced prior to
the Union’s offer to return to work on about August 29, 2005,
to afford him the rights of a permanently replaced economic
striker under Laidlaw Corp., 171 NLRB 1366 (1968), enfd. 414
F.2d 99 (7th Cir. 1969), cert. denied 397 U.S. 920 (1969), and
make him whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits,
computed on a quarterly basis from date of discharge to date of
proper offer of reinstatement, less any net interim earnings, as
prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus
interest as computed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283
NLRB 1173 (1987).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended2
ORDER
The Respondent, Airo Die Casting, Inc., a subsidiary of Leg-
gett & Platt, Incorporated, Loyalhanna, Pennsylvania, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discouraging its employees’ activity on behalf of a labor
organization by discharging and discriminating against a strik-
ing employee because of his participation on a picket line and
without an honest belief that he had engaged in serious miscon-
duct.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer Ronald
W. Lawson full reinstatement to a substantially equivalent posi-
tion, without prejudice to his seniority or any other rights or
privileges previously enjoyed, if he was not permanently re-
placed before the Union’s August 29, 2005 offer to return to
work, dismissing if necessary any replacement hired thereafter.
If no employment is available for the discriminate, he shall be
placed on a preferential hiring list based on seniority, or some
other nondiscriminatory test, for employment as jobs become
available.
(b) Make Ronald W. Lawson whole for any loss of earnings
and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination
against him in the manner set forth in the remedy section of this
decision.
(c) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from
its files any reference to the unlawful discharge and within 3
days thereafter notify the employee in writing that this has been
done and that the discharge will not be used against him in any
way.

2 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
(d) Preserve, and within 14 days of a request, or such addi-
tional time as the Regional Director may allow for good
cause shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the
Board or its agents, all payroll records, social security pay-
ment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and
all other records, including an electronic copy of such re-
cords if stored in electronic form, necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
each of its facilities in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”3 Copies
of the notice, on forms provided by the Respondent’s author-
ized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places
including all places where notices to employees are custom-
arily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respon-
dent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material. In the event that, during the
pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out
of business or closed the facility involved in these proceed-
ings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own
expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and
former employees employed by the Respondent at any time
since June 22, 1995.
(f) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with
the Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible
official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the
steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and
obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your
benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT discourage our employees’ activity on be-
half of labor organization by discharging and discriminating
against a striking employee because of their participation on

3 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court
of appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order
of the National Labor Relations Board.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD814
a picket line and without an honest belief that they had engaged
in serious misconduct.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer
Ronald W. Lawson full reinstatement to a substantially equiva-
lent position, without prejudice to his seniority or any other
rights or privileges previously enjoyed, if he was not perma-
nently replaced before the Union’s August 29, 2005 offer to
return to work, dismissing if necessary any replacement hired
thereafter. If no employment is available for the discriminate,
he shall be placed on a preferential hiring list based on senior-
ity, or some other nondiscriminatory test, for employment as
jobs become available.
WE WILL make Ronald W. Lawson whole for any loss of
earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the dis-
crimination against him, with interest.
WE WILL within 14 days from the date of this Order, re-
move from our files any reference to the unlawful discharge
and within 3 days thereafter notify the employee in writing
that this has been done and that the discharge will not be
used against them in any way.
AIRO DIE CASTING, INC., A SUBSIDIARY OF LEGGETT
& PLATT, INCORPORATED