Alliance Steel Products

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 2003

340 N.L.R.B. 495 (N.L.R.B. 2003)

ALLIANCE STEEL PRODUCTS 495
Alliance Steel Products, Inc. and United Steel Work-
ers of America. Case 8–CA–32650
September 30, 2003
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS LIEBMAN, SCHAUMBER,
AND WALSH
On November 14, 2002, Administrative Law Judge
Arthur J. Amchan issued the attached decision. The
General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief.1
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 brief and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings, findings, and conclusions only
to the extent consistent with this Decision and Order.2
The General Counsel has excepted to the judge’s find-
ing that “there is no evidence that Respondent was aware
of any union activity among its work force until July 23,
[2003]” and, thus, his dismissal of the complaint allega-
tion that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
by threatening employees with discharge “on or about
July 2, 2001.” The General Counsel contends that this
finding fails to take into account evidence regarding a
meeting in late June or early July 2001 between Plant
Manager Bob Balint and employee Scott Stiffler. We
find merit in this exception.
Stiffler’s uncontested testimony shows that in late June
or early July 2001, Plant Manager Bob Balint called Stif-
fler into his office.3 Balint began the meeting by ad-
dressing a problem Stiffler was experiencing with tow
motor drivers. Then Balint told Stiffler that he had “been
hearing rumors about [Stiffler] talking about getting the
union in the shop.” Stiffler admitted that he had been

1 No exceptions were filed to the judge’s findings that the Respon-
dent: violated Sec. 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging employees
Donald Braham, Gary Combs, Nelson Lanham, Scott Stiffler, and
Marcus Grinter and by issuing written warnings to and discharging
employee Debra Watson; and violated Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act by re-
moving a union flyer from a bulletin board on which nonwork-related
materials were allowed to be posted.
2 The General Counsel has excepted to the judge’s failure to order
the Respondent to remove from its files the unlawful disciplinary warn-
ings issued to Watson, and any references to the warnings. We find
merit in this exception and, therefore, we shall modify the order to
include this standard remedy. We will also amend the remedy by ex-
pressly requiring the Respondent to cease and desist from issuing disci-
plinary warnings to employees on account of their union activities.
3 Although the judge did not address the evidence regarding this
meeting in his decision, the judge generally relied on Stiffler’s version
of the facts regarding the unfair labor practice allegations. Balint is no
longer employed by the Respondent and did not testify. Thus, Stiffler’s
testimony is unrebutted, and in the absence of a negative credibility
resolution by the judge, we have no basis for concluding that the ex-
change between Stiffler and Balint did not occur.
discussing the Union and stated the employees “need[ed]
a union in the shop.” Balint responded: “The union’s
not coming in here. If I ever hear of you speaking of
union shit in my shop again, I’ll fire you on the spot.”
Balint ended the conversation by asking Stiffler if they
had reached an understanding.
Although the Respondent clearly had knowledge of
Stiffler’s union activities when Balint uttered his threat
on July 2, it is well established that evidence of employer
knowledge is not a necessary element of an 8(a)(1) viola-
tion. Rather, the test is whether the Respondent’s con-
duct would reasonably tend to interfere with, threaten, or
coerce employees in the exercise of their Section 7
rights.4 We find that Balint’s threat to fire Stiffler “on
the spot” if he continued to talk about the union reasona-
bly had that effect.
Accordingly, we find that the Respondent has violated
Section 8(a)(1), as alleged.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that Re-
spondent, Alliance Steel Products, Inc., Alliance, Ohio,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging, warning, or otherwise discriminating
against any employee for supporting the United Steel
Workers of America or any other union.
(b) Threatening employees with loss of their jobs to
discourage union activity.
(c) Removing or prohibiting the posting of materials
relating to union organizing or other protected activities
on bulletin boards on which other nonwork-related mate-
rials are allowed to be posted.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, 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
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer
Donald Braham, Gary Combs, Nelson Lanham, Scott
Stiffler, Marcus Grinter, and Debra Watson full rein-
statement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer
exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or privi-
leges previously enjoyed.
(b) Make Donald Braham, Gary Combs, Nelson
Lanham, Scott Stiffler, Marcus Grinter, and Debra Wat-
son whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits
suffered as a result of the discrimination against them, in
4 Waste Stream Management, Inc., 315 NLRB 1099, 1099–1100
(1994); Fixtures Mfg. Corp., 332 NLRB 565, 565 (2000).
340 NLRB No. 65
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 496
the manner set forth in the remedy section of this deci-
sion.
(c) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove
from any of its files any reference to the unlawful dis-
charges and unlawful warnings, and within 3 days there-
after notify the employees in writing that this has been
done and that the discharges and warnings will not be
used against them in any way.
(d) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such
additional time as the Regional Director may allow for
good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place desig-
nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, so-
cial security payment records, timecards, personnel re-
cords and reports, and all other records, including an
electronic copy of such records 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
its Alliance, Ohio facility copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix.”5 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 8, after
being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representa-
tive, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in
conspicuous places including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the no-
tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material. In the event that, during the pendancy of these
proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or
closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the Re-
spondent 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 July 2, 2001.
(f) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing 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

5 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey
this notice.

FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO

Form, join, or assist any union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.

WE WILL NOT discharge, warn, or otherwise disci-
pline you for supporting the United Steelworkers of
America or any other union.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with loss of your job in
order to discourage your support of the United Steel-
workers of America or any other union.
WE WILL NOT prohibit or remove materials relating
to a union organizing drive or other protected activities
from bulletin board on which other nonwork-related ma-
terials are allowed to be posted.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, offer Donald Braham, Gary Combs, Nelson
Lanham, Scott Stiffler, Marcus Grinter, and Debra Wat-
son full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those
jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or
privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make Donald Braham, Gary Combs, Nelson
Lanham, Scott Stiffler, Marcus Grinter, and Debra Wat-
son whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits
resulting from their discharge, less any interim earnings,
plus interest.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, remove from our files any reference to the unlaw-
ful discharges of the employees mentioned above, and
the unlawful warnings issued to Debra Watson, and WE
WILL, within 3 days thereafter, notify each of them in
writing that this has been done and that the discharges
will not be used against them in any way.

ALLIANCE STEEL PRODUCTS, INC.

Susan Fernandez, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Mario Gaitanos, Esq., of Canton, Ohio, for the Respondent.
ALLIANCE STEEL PRODUCTS 497
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ARTHUR J. AMCHAN Administrative Law Judge. This
case was tried in Canton, Ohio, on September 9–12, 2002. The
initial charge was filed on August 6, 2001, and the complaint
was issued on February 27, 2002. After a third amended charge
was filed on May 14, 2002, an amended complaint was issued
on June 20, 2002. The General Counsel alleges that Respon-
dent, Alliance Steel Products, Inc., violated Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act by terminating Donald Braham, Gary Combs,
and Nelson Lanham on July 31, 2001; by terminating Scott
Stiffler and Marcus Grinter on August 1, 2001; and by issuing
written warnings and then terminating Debra Watson on Sep-
tember 26, 2001. The General Counsel also alleges that Re-
spondent violated the Act in threatening employees and remov-
ing union literature from a bulletin board.
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed
by the General Counsel and Respondent, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
During 2001, Respondent, a corporation, produced heavy
gauge metal stamping products at its facility in Alliance, Ohio,
where it annually sold goods in excess of $50,000 directly to
companies in the rubber industry, which were directly engaged
in interstate commerce. Alliance also sold goods directly or
indirectly to the United States Armed Forces. Respondent ad-
mits and I find that it was an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act dur-
ing 2001 and that the Union, the United Steelworkers of Amer-
ica, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.1
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Respondent conducted two meetings for its employees on or
about July 1, 2001, regarding their productivity in operating
metal stamping presses at its facility. One meeting was held for
the first-shift employees and die setters and another for second-
and third-shift employees. The plant manager, Bob Balint,
conducted both meetings and conveyed essentially the same
message at both gatherings.2
Balint told the employees that the productivity of employees
at the plant had declined over the last several years and that
Respondent was instituting a quota and incentive program to
restore worker productivity to its former level. Balint stated
that employees who failed to meet the quotas would at some
point be terminated, but he did not provide a timeframe after
which such terminations would occur. Balint indicated that he
would counsel employees and make suggestions as to how they
might improve prior to terminating any of them for failure to
meet the quotas. He made some reference to a 60-day time
period, which was somewhat ambiguous. It apparently referred

1 Since mid-2002, Respondent’s facility has been apparently oper-
ated by Pro-Tech, Ltd.
2 Balint no longer works for Alliance or at this facility. Neither
party called him as a witness.
to the period after which bonus checks would be issued to em-
ployees who exceeded the quota.
After the meeting, Respondent placed a quota number on a
cream-colored card which remained at each press. At the end
of each shift, the press operator turned in a white card on which
he or she recorded his or her name, the job number of the part
and the number of pieces of the part they had produced. During
July, First-Shift Foreman Mike Doak spoke to a number of
employees who were not meeting their production quotas.
Doak asked Scott Stiffler why he was not meeting the quo-
tas. Stiffler told Doak that the quotas were fictitious and that
Respondent had instituted and abandoned an incentive system
previously.3 Doak also told Gary Combs that he needed to
increase his productivity. Doak told Donald Braham that he
could be terminated if he did not increase production, but he
gave Braham no indication as to when this might occur.
On Saturday morning, July 21, 2001, four employees; Scott
Stiffler, Debra Watson, Howard Hanschin, and Robert Nuzum
met Union Organizer Craig Hensley at a McDonalds restaurant
in Alliance. The four signed union authorization cards and took
blank cards and union literature with them.
On the following Monday, July 23, Stiffler and Braham dis-
tributed union literature in a parking lot right outside the office
windows of Respondent’s president, Lane Witte, and other
management officials. Witte and Balint came to these windows
and looked out while the literature distribution was taking
place. On that date Stiffler, Braham, and Robert Nuzum began
wearing union buttons to work. Witte and Balint, thus, became
aware of the union activities and sympathies of all three on or
about July 23.4
Respondent terminated the employment of Braham, Gary
Combs, and Nelson Lanham on July 31. The next day, Alli-
ance terminated Scott Stiffler and Marcus Grinter. Combs
never signed a union authorization card nor supported the Un-
ion in any other manner. Lanham and Grinter signed authoriza-
tion cards but the General Counsel has not established that
Respondent was aware of union activity on the part of either
employee. Michael Doak, the five employees’ foreman, did not
know who was going to be terminated until he was directed by
Balint to bring each of the terminated employees to Balint’s
office. Indeed, prior to July 31, Doak did not know that the
termination of any employee was imminent.
A. The Termination of Scott Stiffler
An appropriate place to begin the analysis of the issues in
this case is with the termination of Scott Stiffler. This is so
because he was the most notorious union supporter and because
the explanation for his discharge offered by Respondent’s
3 Stiffler may well have used the word fuck or fucking in this con-
versation but I decline to credit the testimony of Michael Doak and
James Tedrow that Doak threatened Stiffler with termination and that
Stiffler responded by indicating that he had no intention of meeting the
quotas and that he told Doak that Respondent couldn’t do anything to
him if he didn’t. It is very unlikely that an employee threatened with
termination would respond in this manner.
4 It has not been established that Howard Handschin indicated or
disclosed his union sympathies to Respondent or whether Respondent
was aware of Handschin’s support for the Union.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 498
president, Lane Witte, is so obviously pretextual that it under-
mines his credibility in all respects.
Witte testified that he decided to terminate five employees
and determined that the five with the lowest productivity fig-
ures for the month of July 2001 would be the ones who would
be discharged. However, he testified he considered other fac-
tors that led him to retain employees with lower July produc-
tion figures than those terminated. The employees with the
worst July productivity figures through the 27th day of the
month were (in ascending order): Braham (60 percent of
quota); Combs (62 percent of quota); Paul Temple (66 percent);
Lanham (67 percent); Grinter (73 percent); Ed Dozier (74 per-
cent); and Randy Collins, Howard Hanschin, and Stiffler (77
percent).
Witte did not offer a credible explanation for terminating
Stiffler rather than Dozier.5 He testified that he didn’t termi-
nate Dozier because Dozier was “showing great improvement”
and because he lived in a halfway house. While taking into
account Dozier’s undocumented improvement, Witte excluded
Stiffler’s July 31 production figures from his calculation even
though he didn’t sign Stiffler’s termination notice until August
1. The July 31 production figures brought Stiffler’s productiv-
ity for July up to 79.8 percent.
Wittie offered an equally incredible explanation for terminat-
ing Stiffler rather than Paul Temple. He testified he decided to
terminate five employees, but did not terminate Temple be-
cause he was a probationary employee. I find it incredible that
Respondent would retain a probationary employee, particularly
one who was not showing any particular aptitude or interest in
his job, over Stiffler, who had worked for the Company for
almost 4 years and who was historically an excellent press op-
erator.
Moreover, Temple failed to show up for work or call in for 3
days prior to August 1; thus, I infer that Witte knew he had
abandoned his job by the time he discharged Stiffler. I find he
terminated Stiffler anyway to rid the Company of the most
active union adherent. According to Foreman Michael Doak,
Temple was hardly the kind of employee one would go out of
his way to exempt from a layoff even prior to July 31. Accord-
ing to Doak, “Paul Temple was only there for a month or so
and he missed a lot of work and he just quit coming to work.”
However, Witte’s testimony regarding employee Randy
Collins most clearly establishes the pretextual nature of Re-
spondent’s explanation for Stiffler’s termination. Witte insisted
that he retained Collins instead of Stiffler because Collins was
indispensable. Witte testified that Collins was not only a press
operator but also one of two people in the plant who could set a
progressive die. Witte’s credibility was destroyed by the fol-
lowing testimony of Michael Doak with regard to Collins:

He helped out a couple of times but that was about it. I mean
he wasn’t . . . known as a die setter. About the only thing he
ever did on setting dies was clamped them up. [Tr. 620.]

5 At p. 7 of its brief, Respondent asserts that Dozier was prounion.
There is no evidence for this assertion. The cited transcript reference
(Tr. 477) refers only to employee Howard Hanschin as being prounion,
rather than to Handschin and Dozier.
In order to prove a violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1), the
General Counsel must show that union activity or other pro-
tected activity has been a substantial factor in the employer’s
adverse personnel decision. To establish discriminatory motiva-
tion, the General Counsel must show union or protected con-
certed activity, employer knowledge of that activity, animus or
hostility towards that activity, and an adverse personnel action
caused by such animus or hostility. Inferences of knowledge,
animus, and discriminatory motivation may be drawn from
circumstantial evidence as well from direct evidence.6 Once
the General Counsel has made an initial showing of discrimina-
tion, the burden of persuasion shifts to the employer to prove its
affirmative defense that it would have taken the same action
even if the employee had not engaged in protected activity.
Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (lst
Cir. 1981).
Scott Stiffler engaged in union activity of which Respondent
was aware. I infer animus towards that activity and discrimina-
tory motive from the pretextual explanation for his selection for
termination, as well as the timing of his discharge, a week after
the beginning of the Union’s organizational campaign. On this
basis I conclude that the General Counsel established a prima
facie case of discrimination regarding Stiffler’s termination,
which was not rebutted by Respondent.
Findings of antiunion animus and discriminatory motive may
be predicated on the pretextual reasons advanced for a person-
nel action. It is well settled that when a respondent’s stated
motives for its actions are found to be false, the circumstances
may warrant an inference that the true motive is an unlawful
one that the respondent desires to conceal, Fluor Daniel, Inc.,
304 NLRB 970, 971 (1991); Fast Food Merchandisers, 291
NLRB 897, 898 (1988), Shattuck Denn Mining Corp., 362 F.2d
466, 470 (9th Cir. 1966).
In a case arising under the Age Discrimination in Employ-
ment Act, the Supreme Court reiterated the probative value of
an employer’s pretextual reasons for a personnel action in prov-
ing discrimination.

Proof that the defendant’s explanation is unworthy of cre-
dence is simply one form of circumstantial evidence that is
probative of intentional discrimination, and it may be quite
persuasive. . . . In appropriate circumstances, the trier of fact
can reasonably infer from the falsity of the explanation that
the employer is dissembling to cover up a discriminatory pur-
pose. Such an inference is consistent with the general princi-
ple of evidence law that the factfinder is entitled to consider a
party’s dishonesty about a material fact as “affirmative evi-
dence of guilt.” . . . . Moreover, once the employer’s justifi-
cation has been eliminated, discrimination may well be the
most likely alternative explanation, especially since the em-
ployer is in the best position to put forth the actual reason for
its decision. [Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.,
530 U.S. 133 (2000).]

6 Flowers Baking Co., 240 NLRB 870, 871 (1979); Washington
Nursing Home, Inc., 321 NLRB 366, 375 (1966); W. F. Bolin Co. v.
NLRB, 70 F.3d 863 (6th Cir. 1995).
ALLIANCE STEEL PRODUCTS 499
I therefore conclude that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) in terminating Scott Stiffler’s employment on August 1,
2001.
B. The Terminations of Braham, Combs, Lanham,
and Grinter
The General Counsel contends that when Respondent
learned of the organizational campaign, it accelerated the dis-
charge of employees whose productivity was low. If a nondis-
criminatory layoff of five employees were planned for July 31
on the basis of the July production figures alone, Braham,
Combs, Lanham, and Grinter would have been among the five
employees discharged. However, I conclude that the timing of
the layoff of employees at the end of July was motivated by
animus towards the union organizational drive. It was made
very hastily and almost immediately after Respondent learned
of the drive.
The fact that, the timing of the discharges and the number of
discharges was a complete surprise to Foreman Doak, indicates
that this decision was made in haste and was discriminatorily
motivated. Similarly, the fact that Respondent did not counsel
employees as promised by Balint on July 1, indicates a change
of heart brought on by the organizing drive.
Given the absence of any alternative explanation for the sud-
den decision to implement the discharges at the end of July, the
close proximity to Respondent’s discovery of the organizational
drive and the great lengths to which Alliance went to discharge
Scott Stiffler, I conclude that the General Counsel has estab-
lished that the timing of the discharges was discriminatorily
motivated.7 I, thus, conclude that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) in discharging all five employees.
When an employer discharges a group of employees to dis-
courage employees generally from engaging in union activities,
it is the discharge, not the selection of individual employees
that is unlawful. Thus, the General Counsel was not required to
show a correlation between each employee’s union activity and
his or her discharge. Instead, the General Counsel’s burden is
to establish that the discharge was ordered to discourage union
activity or in retaliation for the protected activities of some of
the employees, ACTIV Industries, 277 NLRB 356 fn. 3 (1985).
I find the General Counsel has met his burden of proving
unlawful the discharges of July 31 and August 1, 2001. This is
so despite the fact that Gary Combs did not engage in protected
activity and despite the fact that there is no evidence that Re-
spondent was aware of protected activity on the part of Grinter
and Lanham. As the Second Circuit noted almost 40 years ago,
“[a] power display in the form of a mass lay-off, where it is
demonstrated that a significant motive and a desired effect were
to ‘discourage membership in any labor organization,’ satisfies
the requirements of Section 8(a)(3) to the letter even if some
white sheep suffer along with the black,” Majestic Molded
Products, Inc. v. NLRB, 330 F.2d 603 (2d Cir. 1964).

7 Essentially, Respondent viewed the July productivity figures, if cut
off on July 27, as a heaven-sent opportunity to discharge Stiffler.
C. The 10(b) Issue with Regard to Combs, Lanham,
and Grinter
The Union filed a third amended charge on May 14, 2002,
which for the first time alleged a violation of the Act with re-
gard to the discharges of Combs, Lanham, and Grinter. Obvi-
ously, these allegations were made more than 6 months after
their terminations. On June 20, 2002, these allegations were
added to an amended complaint.
Whether Section 10(b) bars litigation of these allegations de-
pends on whether they are “closely related” to a timely filed
charge, Redd-I, Inc., 290 NLRB 1115, 1118 (1988); Precision
Concrete, 337 NLRB No. 33 (2001). The Board applies a
three-factor test for determining whether there is a sufficient
relationship between an otherwise untimely allegation and a
timely filed charge. Litigation of such allegations is not barred
if (1) the untimely allegation involves the same legal theory as
a timely charge; (2) the allegations arise from the same factual
situation; and (3) the Respondent would raise similar defenses
to the timely and untimely charge. I find that Section 10(b)
does not bar litigation of the untimely allegations herein.
An identical legal theory is involved with regard to the
timely allegation of Braham’s discharge and the untimely alle-
gations; to wit that the discharges for poor productivity were
accelerated due to Alliance Steel’s recent discovery of union
activity on the part of some of its employees. Moreover, the
untimely allegations arise from the same factual situation as the
Braham discharge. Finally, Respondent raises similar, if not
identical, defenses to the untimely allegations as it does to the
Braham discharge, i.e., that all four employees were discharged
for poor productivity after giving them a month to meet the
newly instituted quotas.
D. The Warnings Issued to Debra Watson and
Her Termination
Debra Watson worked at Alliance Steel’s plant for 3 months
as a temporary employee and then was hired directly by Alli-
ance in January 2001. Watson worked as a press operator,
sometimes on the first shift, sometimes on the second.
Watson was one of the employees who met with Union Or-
ganizer Craig Hemsley and signed an authorization card on July
21, 2001. Soon afterwards, she distributed union flyers and
authorization cards to fellow employees. On July 26, Respon-
dent posted a list of employees whose productivity for the first
3 weeks of that month, if sustained, would result in the receipt
of bonus checks. Watson’s name was not on this list. She went
to the office of Respondent’s president, Lane Witte, and ac-
cused him of falsifying her production figures on account of her
union activity.
Watson sustained an injury to her left shoulder and neck, and
was off of work from August 23 to September 14, 2001. When
Watson returned to the plant she was on light duty and was
assigned the task on inspecting parts coming off the presses for
defects.8 Due to continuing problems with her left shoulder,
8 In its brief, at p. 8, Respondent suggests that Watson returned to
work because her workers compensation claim had been denied. In
fact, Watson’s claim was initially allowed. It was disallowed pursuant
to Alliance’s appeal, over a month after it discharged her. The claim
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 500
Watson performed this task by grasping the parts in her right
hand, moving her arm across her body and dropping the parts in
a bin.
On September 19, Respondent issued an employee warning
report to Watson alleging that she failed to detect six defective
parts on the previous day. It has not been established that Wat-
son in fact committed this offense. More specifically, Respon-
dent has not shown that the six defective parts [#686-02] were
parts inspected by Watson on September 18. It was on or about
September 19, that Watson began wearing a union pin to work.
She also wore a union T-shirt once or twice in September.
On September 20, Respondent posted a list near the time-
clock of employees whose productivity during the first 3 weeks
of September qualified them for an incentive payment. When
Watson saw the list, she complained loudly to other employees
regarding the fairness of Respondent’s administration of its
incentive program and told them that this was a reason employ-
ees needed a union at the facility. Other employees at the time-
clock also expressed dissatisfaction with the administration of
the incentive program. In discussing the program, Watson used
profanity, which is not uncommon at the facility.
Mark Gordon, Respondent’s quality control coordinator,
wrote up an employee warning report alleging that Watson was
trying to upset and disrupt other employees. He gave the report
to either Bob Balint or Lane Witte. Witte and Balint sum-
moned Watson to a meeting on September 25, during which
they also presented her with an employee warning report alleg-
ing that she has damaged 14 parts by throwing them into a parts
bin on September 24. Employee Robert Riordan inspected a
box of parts that contained 14 damaged parts. However, I find
that the evidence does not establish that Watson damaged these
parts. It has not been established who had custody of the box
or had access to the box before Riordan inspected the parts, or
whether the box he inspected contained parts inspected by Wat-
son.
I do not credit Witte’s testimony with regard to the circum-
stances surrounding Watson’s termination. While I am greatly
influenced by the lack of his credibility regarding the termina-
tion of Scott Stiffler, his testimony with regard to Watson is
also contradictory and not credible.
On the first day of hearing, Witte testified that he “saw her
[Watson] personally, when I was walking through the plant,
damaging parts on purpose. . . . This was prior to that [warn-
ing]” (Tr. 71). Later in the hearing, his testimony was some-
what different.

Q. Can you please identify Exhibit R-19?9
A. Yes, The warning after we re-inspected the parts on
or about 9/24, I guess.
Q. Now, did you witness Ms. Watson using excessive
force in throwing the parts into the . . . is that crates?
A. Not with this part number, no. I witnessed her—
Q. You did witness her—
A. —but not in this instance.

was ultimately disallowed on the grounds that Watson had not estab-
lished that she sustained an injury that was causally related to her em-
ployment.
9 Exh. R-19 is identical to Exh. GC-6.
Q. What instance are you referring? Is it a different
part you’re referring to?
A. Yes, the day I saw her doing it it was on a smaller
press, this part can’t run in there that’s the only reason I
remember that.
Q. What did you witness her doing?
A. When I witnesses [sic] her doing it she basically
was staring me down and it wasn’t—she was throwing it
with force but not that I thought was going to damage the
part but she was staring at me as she was overhanding the
parts into the box.
Q. Is that the proper way of placing the parts, while in-
specting?
A. No, it’s not the proper way. I took more offense to
that she was challenging me than—the part was sturdy
enough that it could withstand it, that didn’t bother me. . . .
[Tr. 488–489.]

When Respondent’s foreman, Michael Doak, testified about
the Watson’s conduct on September 24, he had a slightly dif-
ferent story to tell.

A. Ah, this is concerning the same job, the 686-02. I
assigned Debra Watson that job to check on them parts
again and during the day, Lane [Witte] and Bob Balint . . .
walked down there observing the operator running the
die. . . .
JUDGE AMCHAN: . . . were you present when they
were at the die?
A. Yeah, Lane was standing on the other side of the
press.
JUDGE AMCHAN: And where were you?
A. I was standing right there at my desk about 30 foot
from them. They was, they was wanting to change the die
to where they didn’t have to flip the part over in it to make
the operation faster and while they was standing there,
Lane Witte observed Debra throwing parts overhand, like
pitching them, into the box and that day earlier I also ob-
served her doing this.
And at the end of the day, Lane wanted the box pulled
out and the parts checked and I also had the damaged parts
from that one too. [Tr. 587–588.]

Respondent also called press operator, James Tedrow, to tes-
tify about Debra Watson’s “throwing of parts.” His testimony
is also internally inconsistent and leads me to find that Respon-
dent never observed Watson doing anything likely to damage
part 686-02 and that the parts inspected by Robert Riordan,
more likely than not, were not parts inspected by Watson.
Tedrow testified that, “she was throwing them in a way, you
know, that I wouldn’t do it, is what I’m saying. I’m not saying
she was abusing them and throwing them in the box—you
know, like hard or anything, I didn’t—no, I’m not saying that
. . . But like I say, the fashion that it was going in, it could, it
could damage them, yes.” (Tr. 656.)
Watson refused to sign the disciplinary warnings presented
to her on September 25 and got into a shouting match with
Witte. Witte told Watson to go home. After Watson left the
office, she encountered Witte’s secretary, Stephanie Fuson,
who was taking a smoking break in the hallway adjacent to the
ALLIANCE STEEL PRODUCTS 501
office. Fuson and Watson looked each other in the eye and
Watson said, “Fuck you,” to Fuson. Fuson stayed in the hall-
way until she finished her smoking break (Tr. 501). When she
went back to work, she told Witte about her encounter with
Watson.
The next day, September 26, Respondent fired Debra Watson.
Analysis
Applying the Wright Line test, I conclude that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) in issuing three written warn-
ings to, and then terminating Debra Watson. Watson engaged
in protected activity of which Respondent was aware. I infer
animus and discriminatory motive from the pretextual reasons
given for her discharge and the great lengths Respondent went
to in order to terminate union supporter Scott Stiffler less than 2
months previously.
I conclude that Respondent went to the same great lengths to
terminate Debra Watson. It is more likely than not she did not
pass defective parts as alleged by Respondent or damage 14
parts on September 24. Moreover, her complaints to other
employees about the fairness of Respondent’s incentive pro-
gram constituted protected concerted activity, Main Street Ter-
race Care Center, 327 NLRB 522, 524 (1999), enfd. 218 F.3d
531, 540 (6th Cir. 2000). Like the employee in Main Street
Terrace Care Center, Watson’s complaints were not the prod-
uct solely of a personal dispute and were made in close prox-
imity to other protected activities.
Finally, I conclude that Lane Witte’s explanation for Wat-
son’s termination is pretextual. I do not credit his testimony
that he fired Watson when he learned that Watson had said,
“Fuck you,” to Stephanie Fuson as she was leaving his office.
Witte was looking for an opportunity to discharge Watson and
seized upon this incident to justify his actions. The record indi-
cates that Fuson was not terribly upset by the incident in that
she finished her cigarette break before coming back into the
office. Fuson knew that Watson was leaving the office after a
heated exchange with Witte and is unlikely to have taken Wat-
son’s remark personally—particularly since there had been no
prior animosity between them. I infer that Fuson realized that
Watson was not angry with her and mentioned the remark to
Witte in a matter of fact manner.
Respondent Violated the Act in Removing Union
Literature from its Bulletin Board as Alleged in
Complaint Paragraph 6(b), but not as Alleged
in Paragraphs 6(a) and (c)
The General Counsel has established that in late July 2001,
Bob Balint removed a union flyer from a bulletin board on
which nonwork-related materials were allowed to be posted.
Thus, Respondent, by Balint violated Section 8(a)(1) as alleged
in complaint paragraph 6(b), Honeywell, Inc., 262 NLRB 1402
(1982). Balint also removed a document (GC Exh. 25) from
Respondent’s bulletin board that had been placed there by
Debra Watson on or about September 19, 2001. Watson had
printed this document from her computer. It contained certain
financial information about Alliance and did not mention the
Union. The record does not establish that Balint knew that
Watson had posted the document or that he knew or had reason
to suspect that it was related to the union’s organizing drive or
other protected activities. I therefore dismiss complaint para-
graph 6(c).
Paragraph 6(a) alleges that Bob Balint threatened employees
with termination in order to discourage union activity on or
about July 2, 2001. There is no evidence that Respondent was
aware of any union activity amongst its work force until July
23. Therefore, this complaint item is dismissed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by: terminat-
ing Donald Braham, Gary Combs, and Nelson Lanham on July
31, 2001; by terminating Scott Stiffler and Marcus Grinter on
August 1, 2001; and by issuing written warnings to Debra Wat-
son and terminating her on September 26, 2001.
2. Respondent, by Bob Balint, violated Section 8(a)(1) in late
July 2001, by removing a union flyer from a bulletin board on
which nonwork-related materials were allowed to be posted.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
The Respondent having discriminatorily discharged employ-
ees, it must offer them reinstatement and make them whole for
any loss of earnings and other benefits, computed on a quarterly
basis from date of discharge to date of proper offer of rein-
statement, less any net interim earnings, as prescribed in F. W.
Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest as com-
puted in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173
(1987).
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]