AM General Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 15, 1976

224 N.L.R.B. 845 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

AM GENERAL COOPORATION 845
AM General Corporation and International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Im-
plement Workers of America (UAW) Case 16-
CA-6009
June 15, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND WALTHER
tion of employment for engaging in union activity on
behalf of International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW), or for engaging in concerted activi-
ty for their mutual aid or protection, or in any other
manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act "
2 Substitute the attached notice for the Adminis-
trative Law Judge's notice
On February 24, 1976, Administrative Law Judge
Richard L Denison issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding Thereafter, the General Counsel
filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Re-
spondent filed cross-exceptions and a brief in sup-
port of cross-exceptions and answering brief
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order as herein modified 2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge as modified
below and hereby orders that the Respondent, AM
General Corporation, Marshall, Texas, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order, as so modi-
fied
1 Substitute the following for paragraph 1(a)
"(a) Discharging employees or otherwise discrimi-
nating against them with regard to the hire and ten-
ure of their employment or any other term or condi-
i The General Counsel has excepted to certain credibility findings made
by the Administrative Law Judge It is the Board s established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge s resolutions with respect to credibili
ty unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces
us that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products Inc 91
NLRB 544 (1950) enfd 188 F 2d 362 (CA 3 1951) We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings
2In par 1(a) of his recommended Order the Administrative Law Judge
uses the narrow cease and desist language like or related rather than the
broad injunctive language in any other manner the Board traditionally
provides in cases involving serious 8(a)(3) discrimination conduct See
NLRB v Entwistle Mfg Co 180 F 2d 532 536 (C A 4 1941) Electrical
Fittings Corporation a subsidiary of I T E Imperial Corporation 216 NLRB
1076 (1975) Accordingly we shall modify the Order to require the Respon
dent to cease and desist from in any other manner infringing upon employ
ee rights This change is also made in the revised notice
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing in which all parties had the opportu-
nity to present their evidence, it has been decided
that we violated the law, and we have been ordered
to post this notice We intend to carry out the order
of the Board and abide by the following
WE WILL NOT discharge, force employees to re-
sign, or otherwise punish employees because
they have engaged in union activities or concert-
ed activities for their mutual aid or protection
WE WILL offer Tommy Ray McCann, James
Leonard Woods, Jr, Michael Shaw, and Jerry L
Guilliams immediate and full reinstatement with
backpay
WE WILL NOT coercively question employees
about their union membership, sympathies, ac-
tivities, and desires
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with dis-
charge, or other reprisals if they engage in or
continue their union activities
WE WILL NOT solicit our employees to spy
upon the union activities of fellow employees
and to report back to us concerning such activi-
ties
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exer-
cise of their rights
All our employees are free to engage in union ac-
tivities on behalf of International Union, United Au-
tomobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW), or any other labor or-
ganization, to engage in concerted activities, for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
and protection Our employees are also free to re-
frain from any or all such activities
AM GENERAL CORPORATION
224 NLRB No 119
846 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RICHARD L DENISON, Administrative Law Judge This
case was heard at Longview, Texas, on August 6, 7, 8, and
9, 1975 1 The original charge was filed by the International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW), hereafter referred
to as the Union An amended charge was filed by the
Union on May 8 The complaint, issued on June 3, alleges
that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act by discharging James L Woods, Jr, and Randy Foster
on April 4, Mike Shaw on April 11, and Everett Scudday
on March 18, and by causing Tommy "Bullet" McCann
and Jerry Guilliams to quit their employment with Respon-
dent on April 2 and April 11, respectively The complaint
further alleges numerous independent violations of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act consisting of interrogation, threats of
discharge and plant closure, the promise of a wage in-
crease, and the solicitation of employees to spy upon the
union activities of others, by Personnel Manager Bolden G
Taylor, Welding Foremen Louis Smith, Roy Overton,
Gary Givens, and Steve Whiteside, and General Manager
Jack Brown on various dates between March 1 and April
28 Respondent's answer, dated June 12, admits that the
individuals named above as supervisors are supervisors
within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act, but denies
the commission of any unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint All parties were afforded a full opportunity to
participate in the hearing Oral argument was waived The
briefs, filed by both the General Counsel and the Respon-
dent, have been carefully considered 2 Upon the entire rec-
ord, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the
following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I JURISDICTION
As admitted in the answer, Respondent is a Delaware
corporation which leases and operates a facility at Mar-
shall, Texas, where it is engaged in the manufacture of bus
frames These frames are shipped to Respondent's Misha-
waka, Indiana, plant where the assembly of the vehicle
takes place Only the Marshall, Texas, plant is involved in
this proceeding During the past 12 months, a representa-
tive period, Respondent, in the course and conduct of its
business operations at Marshall, Texas, purchased and re-
ceived goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 di-
rectly from points outside the State of Texas I find that
Respondent is now, and has been at all times material
herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2) (6), and (7) of the Act
1 All dates are in 1975 unless otherwise specified
2 Respondents unopposed motion to correct the transcript is granted
3 Marshall Texas is Respondents correct mailing address The actual
plant site is at Woodlawn Texas a few miles away Throughout the record
both Marshall and Woodlawn are used in referring to the plant in
volved in this proceeding
II LABOR ORGANIZATION
The Union is and has been at all times material herein,
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Respondents Commencement of Operations at the
Woodlawn, Texas Plant and the Alleged Interrogation of
Prospective Employees by Personnel Manager Bolden G
Taylor During Employment Interviews
The events which comprise this case occurred during the
hiring and training phases of Respondent' s operations at
its newly opened Marshall, Texas, plant, and prior to the
actual commencement of production Thus, Plant Manager
Myers began employment interviews in January The rec-
ord reveals that during the month of February the Compa-
ny acquired the services of Personnel Manager Bolden G
Taylor, Jr, on February 10, Welding Foremen Steven
Whiteside and Gary Givens on February 3, Louis Smith on
February 18, and Roy Overton on February 26 On the
very first day of his employment, Taylor, who testified to
having had a prior experience with a union campaign, held
a foremen's meeting in which he discussed the "do's and
don'ts" of an organizational drive 4 Thereafter, during Feb-
ruary and March, Taylor conducted employment inter-
views Thirty-two welders and eight machine operators
were hired March 3, and after orientation and a physical
examination began training March 5 Welder trainees were
taught mieg welding, the type of welding required for the
production of bus frames Each welding foreman had a
group of trainees who worked in pairs at a 5-by-10-foot
steel table partitioned into four welding stations After an
initial demonstration by their foreman, trainees began
practicing basic flat welding, at first, and upon mastering
this technique proceeded to vertical, horizontal, and over-
head welding technique After approximately 2 weeks the
most advanced of the trainees were given assignments con-
nected with the manufacture and installation of accessory
equipment which would be needed when production com-
menced , e g, making toolboxes, dipping vats, etc Al-
though welder trainees could be sufficiently advanced in
their training to perform production work after 2 weeks,
the average trainee required from 3 weeks to 30 days'
training Thirty days was also considered the period of
time necessary to become a class A welder It is estimated
that 90 percent of the welder trainees employed by the
Company qualified as production welders 5
Five employee witnesses testified that they were ques-
tioned by Taylor during their preemployment interviews
concerning the subject of unions
James Edward Scudday was employed by Respondent
on March 5, after having first been interviewed by Taylor
on or about February 27 at which time Taylor asked if one
of his previous employers was a union plant Scudday re-
4 Taylor held a second such meeting on March 26
5 This description of Respondent s welder training program is based on a
composite of credited testimony by Welding Foremen Smith Overton Giv
ens and Whiteside
AM GENERAL COOPORATION 847
plied it was not Then Taylor said he wanted Scudday to
know that American Motors General wasn't a union plant,
and he intended to keep it that way, after which Taylor
inquired what Scudday thought about it Scudday an-
swered he'd just have to look at the facts from both ends,
and Taylor answered "Okay "6
Tommy Ray McCann, nicknamed "Bullet," was also
hired in the March 5 group and interviewed by Taylor in
late February or very near the first of March As Taylor
examined McCann's application he asked questions about
where McCann had previously worked, and specifically
asked if he had worked at any union jobs McCann replied
he had Then Taylor asked if McCann had worked on any
nonunion jobs, and McCann replied affirmatively Then
Taylor questioned him concerning the names of the places
he had worked with a union, and after McCann answered
the question Taylor asked how McCann felt about the
Union McCann said that he didn't care for the Union
Jack Randy Foster was first interviewed by Taylor on or
about February 28 and again a week or two later, before
reporting for orientation on March 17 In the first inter-
view, which lasted about 10 minutes, he and Taylor dis-
cussed the job and the starting pay Foster was not interest-
ed at this time because the pay was less than he was
receiving elsewhere Shortly thereafter Foster quit his job
at Heat Research, and returned for a second interview with
Taylor According to Foster, Taylor said the starting rate
would be $3 30 an hour followed by merit raises Taylor
also asked if he had ever been in a union, and how he felt
about a union Foster answered that he had been a mem-
ber of the Ironworkers Local 519 at Fab Steel, but he could
take it or leave it
James Leonard Woods, Jr, reported for orientation on
March 17 and began working on March 19, after having
been interviewed by Taylor during the previous week
While reviewing Woods' application, Taylor commented
that he noticed Woods had worked at Alcoa Aluminum
Company, in Marshall, and asked if Woods was a member
of the union there Woods replied since he only worked
there 2 months before being laid off he was never active in
any union activity Then Taylor said that the American
Motors plant was nonunion at the time, and he planned on
it staying that way Taylor asked if he had made himself
clear, and Woods answered, "Yes, sir " At this point Tay-
lor announced that the Company was planning to start the
next class on Monday so Woods would be getting a call
from them to confirm his exact reporting date
Steve Ray Sloan also began his employment with Re-
spondent on March 17, after a preemployment interview
with Plant Manager Myers in January or early February,
and a second interview with Taylor during the week of
March 10 After Taylor had questioned Sloan about his
previous experience, he asked Sloan if he thought he would
like it there Sloan answered that he would because it was
close to home Then Taylor asked if Sloan had worked in a
union shop, and Sloan said he had not Taylor continued,
that he didn't want the Woodlawn plant to be a union
plant-that he wanted it to stay nonunion He said that if
6 According to Scudday this was the only time that Taylor talked to him
about the Union
Sloan heard anything not to pay any attention to it, but
that there would be people who would contact him and
talk to him about the Union
Michael Shaw, another member of the March 17-19
class, had two preemployment interviews with Taylor be-
fore being hired Taylor reviewed Shaw's application which
contained, as a part of his summary of previous experience,
a notation that he had worked for Alcoa in Scottsville
where he was a member of the United Steelworkers Taylor
asked how Shaw felt about unions, and Shaw responded
that he didn't care anything about them Taylor stated that
they were going to try and pay people right and treat them
right, so they could keep the Union out
Taylor agreed that he conducted employment interviews
following his arrival on February 10, but denied question-
ing employees concerning their union sympathies He de
niedhaving any interview with Woods, but later agreed he
talked with Woods about his application He did not deny
interviewing Scudday, McCann, Shaw, Sloan, or Foster
He agreed that occasionally during the interviews the sub
sect of the Union came up, but that in each case the ques-
tion was raised by the applicant and not by himself Ac-
cording to Taylor, his standard response was that the
Company was beginning the operation as a nonunion
plant Taylor gave individual accounts of his preemploy-
ment interviews with Shaw, McCann, and Foster Taylor
remembered he interviewed Shaw twice and that during
one of the interviews Shaw asked him if they were going to
operate as a union plant, to which Taylor replied no, they
were not Then, according to Taylor, Shaw expounded that
he was a member of the union at Alcoa, and that just be-
fore he was laid off he had a classification change, which
involved more pay, and the union had refused to help him
get his backpay since he was going to be laid off anyway
From this experience, Shaw said, he was more or less pretty
disgusted with unions With respect to McCann's inter-
view, Taylor again denied questioning McCann, but insist-
ed that McCann said that he had worked at East Texas
Fabricating which Taylor knew to be a union operation
Taylor failed to elaborate further on the details of this con-
versation Concerning Foster's interviews, Taylor remem-
bered that Foster expressed disinterest in the job at their
first meeting because the rate of pay was too low, but that
when he talked to Foster a week and a half to 2 weeks later
Foster said he'd changed his mind because he'd left his
former job while his wife had a baby Taylor denied asking
Foster how he felt about unions, but testified that Foster
raised this subject Taylor did not, however, attempt to re-
count what Foster had said in this respect
I credit the employees' versions of their employment in-
terviews, noting their consistency and detail, instead of
Taylor's testimony I find that Taylor did in fact interview
James Leonard Woods, during the week prior to his em-
ployment on March 17-19, as Woods testified Taylor's
first reference early in his testimony to these preemploy-
ment conversations treated them with the broad paint
brush of a general denial, insisting that only when appli-
cants asked him about the Union did he respond Later in
his testimony he became more specific only with respect to
his interview with Shaw He could relate only segments of
his interviews with McCann and Foster He did not refer at
848 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
all to interviews with Sloan or Scudday Taylor testified
that the March 3 welder class alone was composed of 32
trainees The record does not establish how many trainees
actually comprised the March 17 class It is clear that most
of these employees were interviewed at least once by Tay-
lor It is small wonder that Taylor memory failed him
with respect to attempting to recall the specifics of any
single preemployment interview some 5 months prior to his
testimony It is far more likely that the individual employee
would recall his single interview (or in some cases two in-
terviews) in much greater detail than would Taylor under
the circumstances presented Finally , I find that Taylor's
subsequent conduct, described below, is of a pattern which
renders it highly likely that these interviews took place as
described by the General Counsels employee witnesses I
find that Taylor violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by in-
terrogating employees concerning their union sympathies
and desires in a manner constituting unlawful interference,
restraint, or coercion
B The Events Relating to the Initial Stages of the Union
Organizational Drive, and Respondents Countermoves
Tommy Ray McCann testified that on March 7, Taylor
called him to his office , and asked if the rumors he heard
about him being seen with Johnny Buechea were true I
McCann replied , yes, he had been seen with Buechea Tay-
lor asked what Buechea had said, and McCann replied that
he had talked to him about a union, following which Tay-
lor said that if McCann saw Buechea again he would ap-
preciate it if he would talk against the Union and not for
the Union McCann replied that he would A couple of
days later, Taylor walked up to McCann and asked him
what he knew McCann replied he didn't know anything,
that although he had seen Buechea he had dodged him
According to McCann, on March 26 he was approached
by his foreman, Louis Smith, and asked whether or not he
had any union cards McCann replied that he did, and
Smith asked to see them McCann handed Smith a card
which Smith immediately took to the office About 15 min-
utes later McCann was called to Taylor's office where Tay-
lor and Foremen Roy Overton , Gary Givens , and Louis
Smith were assembled Taylor asked if McCann had any
union cards and McCann replied he had about six When
Taylor inquired where they were, Smith spoke up and said
McCann had passed them out McCann responded, "No,
they're at the house, all but the one [Louis Smith] had, and
it was blank " Then Taylor said for McCann to go back to
work and to send in Ronnie Smith, another welder trainee
McCann also testified that on other subsequent occasions
Taylor would walk up to him and ask if he had heard
anything about the Union, or if he'd heard talk about the
Union
Louis Smith testified that on Wednesday, March 26, Mc-
Cann came to him and said he had seen Johnny Buechea
and another man the night before , and that Buechea had
given him some union cards , whereupon McCann pulled
7 As further explained in other testimony summarized below Buechea is a
member of the Union who worked at the Gould Battery plant an organized
plant in Shreveport Louisiana
one from his pocket and handed it to Smith while making
a request to talk with Taylor Smith said for McCann to
wait a minute, and went to the office where he informed
Taylor of McCann's request Taylor agreed to see Mc-
Cann, and Smith conducted him to the office where he
remained while Taylor and McCann talked No one else
was present Taylor asked what McCann wanted, and Mc-
Cann responded that he had seen Buechea the night before
and another man, and that Buechea had given him some
union cards Smith handed the card to Taylor who asked
who Johnny Buechea was McCann responded , "He is a
sorry s-o-b that works over at Gould Battery in Shreveport,
and I don't want to have anything to do with him " Mc-
Cann continued that he didn't want anything to do with
the Union , and didn't want them to think he was having
anything to do with it Somewhere during the conversation
McCann said he had five other cards at home He said that
if he heard anything else of this nature about passing out
union cards he would keep them posted Taylor ended the
conversation by saying he appreciated the information
Smith insisted that this incident provided his first knowl-
edge of union organizing activities at the plant
Taylor's version of the union card incident differs some
what from that of Smith Taylor testified that Smith called
him on the morning of March 26, said that McCann want-
ed to see him , but did not relate the purpose behind the
requested interview At the outset of the conversation, dur-
ing which only McCann , Taylor, and Smith were present,
Smith pulled out a union card and envelope which he said
McCann had brought to him, and handed it to Taylor
Then McCann said he had been contacted by a Mr Bue-
chea , and had been asked to help organize the plant and to
get a list of names and addresses of employees if at all
possible Taylor then asked who Buechea was, and Mc-
Cann replied that he was a man that worked for Gould
Battery in Shreveport, Louisiana McCann said he did not
want to have any dealings with Buechea , or in an attempt
to organize , because he knew Buechea was a no good "s-o-
b " McCann said he did not want them to think he had any
dealings with the Union whatsoever Taylor thanked Mc
Cann for the information , and the conversation ended
I credit McCann 's version of his conversations with Tay-
lor and Smith It is inconceivable to me that Taylor did not
know, until McCann arrived in his office , that the topic of
conversation was to be the union card already in Smith's
possession at the time he arranged for McCann to have an
interview with Taylor I find that Smith and Taylor's ques-
tioning of McCann on March 26, and Taylor's questioning
of McCann on March 7 about seeing Buechea, and on
other occasions concerning whether he had heard talk
about the Union, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act 8
On March 26, following the meeting with McCann, Tay-
lor held a foremen's meeting to alert them about the
Union He told them that an attempt was being made to
81 do however find that McCann was in error in his testimony that
Foremen Givens and Overton were present in Taylor s office during the
interview about union cards since these foremen denied being present (in
circumstances where their testimonies would have provided Respondent
with valuable corroboration) and since McCann s testimony omitted any
reference concerning whether or not Overton and Givens said anything
during this interview
AM GENERAL COOPORATION 849
organize the plant and again went over the "do's and
don'ts" of an organizational campaign Foreman Steven
Whiteside was even more specific about Taylor's remarks
at this meeting Taylor showed them the UAW card (which
Smith had acquired from McCann earlier) and asked if
anyone knew what it was Then Taylor said they had been
expecting the Union to try and organize them at some time
or another, and "We ve got to do our best to keep the
Union out of here because we don t want to operate under
a union, but we're going to keep it out legally " According
to Whiteside, Taylor then cautioned them against question-
ing, threatening, or intimidating employees or promising
them anything in regard to the Union
On March 30 James Leonard Woods, Jr, Steve Sloan,
McCann, and others not named, met with Johnny Buechea
at the "Lake-O The-Pines," where Buechea distributed
UAW authorization cards Buechea showed the assembled
employees a UAW contract from Respondent's Mishawa-
ka, Indiana, plant, and explained some of the benefits that
employees were getting there which Woodlawn employees
were not receiving Woods signed a union card for Bue-
chea at this time Sloan did not McCann had already be-
come the first employee to sign a UAW card for Interna-
tional Representative Horner at a meeting on March 25,
which appears to have been the genesis of the card-signing
drive, and set the stage for the March 30 meeting with
Buechea
The following day, March 31, Taylor questioned Woods
at his work station in the presence of Michael Shaw and
Jerry Guilhams While making his rounds through the
plant, Taylor stopped and said, "You boys know me pretty
well by now, don't you9" The three men nodded, and Tay-
lor continued, "Well, you all know that I am pretty frank
by now?" They replied, "Yes, sir " Taylor asked, "Woods,
I want to ask you a question-are you one of Johnny
Buechea's boys9" Woods answered, "No," after which
Taylor said, "Well, I don't know who Johnny Buechea
thinks he is, but the people he works for now would give
anything if they could dust fire him " The conversation
ended at this point, but shortly thereafter Steve Whiteside
summoned Shaw to Taylor's office Once inside, Taylor
asked if Shaw thought Woods got the warning when he
asked if he was Buechea's friend Shaw said yes Taylor
confessed he knew he shouldn't have hired Woods, because
he knew Woods' father worked for Schlitz, a union plant,
but Myers had already given the okay to hire Woods, and
so he had Then Taylor said there would be some changes
made, and some people leaving, and that Bullet McCann
would be one of them Taylor continued, Don't be afraid
to go out there and tell them what I told you Okay, if you
start any s- there's going to be some s- " At this point
the conversation ended and according to Shaw he returned
to the shop and repeated to the men what Taylor had said
The testimonies of Woods, Shaw, and Guilliams are mu-
tually corroborative concerning the March 31 conversa-
tions with Taylor Taylor admitted having learned through
another employee around March 31 that Woods' father
had worked for Schutz in Longview, but denied knowledge
of Woods' organizing activities Nevertheless, he admitted
having a conversation with Shaw about "another matter
during which, he claimed, Guilliams walked up and volun-
teered, "Well, I had another call from Mr Buechea last
night wanting me to come down and drink beer," and
Shaw then spoke up saying, "Well, I had one from him
too " In the meantime, according to Taylor, Woods walked
up and joined the group, at which time Taylor asked Shaw
and Guilliams if they knew Buechea and Guilhams
laughed saying, "Yeah, he s a real good friend of mine "
Then Taylor asked, Woods, do you know Mr Buechea9"
And Woods responded, "Yes, I met him out at the lake "
According to Taylor his initial conversation with Shaw "in
dicated some problem as I recall that he was concerned
about" Therefore, after Taylor arrived back at his office
he called Whiteside and said for him to have Shaw come to
the office In the office Shaw revealed that he had come to
AM General from the construction company that was per-
forming contract work on the plant, and that Shaw was
concerned because he knew that AM General had an
agreement not to hire employees away from the contractor
After completing this phase of the conversation, Shaw
commented, "By the way, you shook Woods up out there a
while ago when you asked him that question " Taylor re-
sponded, "Well, I didn't mean to How did I do ito" Shaw
answered, "Well, Woods' father is a member of the Team-
sters Union at Schlitz Brewery, and does not want to be
associated with the UAW " Then Taylor told Shaw to go
back out into the plant and tell Woods that Taylor did not
mean to shake up Woods I credit Woods, Shaw, and Guil-
lfams testimonies over that of Taylor with respect to the
March 31 conversations 9 I therefore find that on March 31
Taylor engaged in unlawful interrogation, and threatened
employees with discharge and other retaliation because of
their union sympathies and activities in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act
Shortly after the March 30 meeting with Buechea, at-
tended by McCann, Woods, and Sloan, Sloan had a con-
versation with Taylor in early April in which Taylor told
Sloan that during the probationary period he could be fired
for any reason and that the Company did not have to tell
him the reason Taylor continued saying that union activi-
ties were not excepted Taylor admitted having a conversa-
tion with Sloan concerning the subject of the probationary
period, but insisted that the conversation took place during
the orientation program He denied telling Sloan, or any
one, that during this time they could be fired for anything
or for no reason at all, and that this included union activi-
ties I credit Sloan and find that Taylor unlawfully threat-
ened Sloan in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
It is undisputed that Jack Brown, the general manager of
the Mishawaka, Indiana, plant and the Marshall plant,
made two talks to assembled employees on April 2 and 26
Employees James Leonard Woods, Jr, and Jack Randy
Foster attended Brown's first address to assembled groups
9 Although Taylor in his version of these conversations admitted ques
tioning the three employees about Johnny Buechea he continued to insist
as he did elsewhere in his testimony that he only discussed the Union with
employees when they came to him and volunteered information This mci
dent and indeed the record as a whole shows to the contrary that Taylor
was actively seeking out employees and interrogating them in an effort to
learn as much as he could about the embryonic union campaign Conse
quently because he was not in many respects a candid witness I do not
credit Taylor s testimony except where otherwise specifically noted
850 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of employees on April 2 According to Woods, Brown in-
troduced himself and then described how AM General had
decided to locate a plant there at Woodlawn He said the
Company had sent Mr Myers all around Texas looking for
a choice location, had found this location at Woodlawn,
and was very happy with the way things were proceeding
He said everyone was doing a real good job, and that pro-
duction should be starting shortly thereafter He explained
that this plant would be producing underframes, side-
frames, and roofs for transit buses, and if everything kept
going as well as it was at this point eventually they would
be making the whole bus there Brown said the Company
had a transit bus plant in Mexico, and that they were phas-
ing it out and starting this one Then Brown said he wanted
his people to work with the feeling of freedom, and that he
didn't want them to be bound by a contract of any kind,
and if that happened he would not hesitate to shut down
the plant According to Woods, Brown talked for about 10
to 20 minutes Foster testified that during his address
Brown stated he didn't want the employees to work under
a contract, and that if they did decide or try to go to a
contract he would shut the doors
Taylor testified that he was present when Brown ad-
dressed each group He denied that Brown made any
threat of plant closure According to Taylor, Brown dis-
cussed generally the Company's benefits at the Marshall
plant, and the reason the Company had chosen to locate a
plant there Turning to the subject of unions , Brown said
he would like to see the plant operate without a third party
involved in order that the Company could deal on a face-
to-face basis with the employees He said he expected the
employees to be treated fairly Brown mentioned that the
Company had a plant in operation in Everett, Michigan,
since 1953 which was still nonunion, and that was the way
he wanted the Marshall plant to operate He described how
the Company planned to move work from a plant in Mon
terrey, Mexico, to Marshall, and that if the economics of
operating at Marshall worked out, eventually the Monter-
rey operations would be phased out and Marshall would
take over to
I am persuaded that Taylor s testimony concerning
Brown's remarks on April 2 contains a more accurate sy-
nopsis of what was really said at that time than does the
testimony of Woods and Foster, the only two employees in
the entire plant presented by the General Counsel as wit-
nesses concerning this speech Woods, whose testimony
was the more detailed of the two employees, agreed on
cross-examination that Brown said the Company was phas-
io The parties stipulated that if Brown (unavailable to testify because of
illness in his family ) had personally appeared and testified his testimony
concerning the details of the April 2 and 26 meetings would have been
substantially the same as that of Taylor Through inadvertence however
this stipulation arrived at in off the record discussion was not placed on
the record Subsequent to the closing of the hearing counsel for the Respon
dent and counsel for the General Counsel submitted a written stipulation
(marked as Resp Exh 16 for identification) to this effect together with a
point motion that said stipulation be received into evidence as Resp Exh 16
The certificate of service attached to these documents avers that Union
Representative Horner who appeared for the Charging Party at the hearing
was served with a copy of the above documents on August 28 1975 There
being no objection thejoint motion is hereby granted and Resp Exh 16 is
received into evidence
ing out the Mexico plant and starting up the one at Mar-
shall, that they wanted to operate that plant without a third
party or intermediary, and that he'd like for his people to
work with the feeling of freedom and not be bound by a
contract This portion of Woods' testimony, which con-
tains no unlawful threat by Brown , varies greatly from the
version which he gave on direct examination Woods' sec-
ond version also comports favorably with Taylor's summa-
ry of Brown 's remarks , which I find in turn to be consistent
with the theme set forth in the prepared text of Brown's
April 26 speech 11 I find that Brown did not threaten em-
ployees with the closing of the plant on April 2 as alleged
in paragraph 7(B) of the complaint
Steve Sloan testified that he was not present for Brown's
speech on April 2, but that when he reported for work on
April 3 he asked Foreman Roy Overton about it Accord-
ing to Sloan, Overton replied that Brown had said he
wasn't going to operate the plant as a union plant, and he
didn't want any troublemakers inside the plant Overton
denied making these remarks , and testified without contra-
diction that Brown's speech was for the employees only,
and that the foremen did not attend pursuant to instruc-
tions from Taylor on the morning of April 2 that they were
to send all their employees in groups to the canteen area to
hear Brown's talk Taylor corroborated Overton 's testimo-
ny that foremen did not attend Brown's speech , and fur-
ther testified that Sloan did attend Respondent presented
documentary evidence that Sloan did not leave the plant
until 11 05 a in on April 2 In view of these unexplained
discrepancies in Sloan's version , I credit Overton's denial,
and find he did not threaten Sloan on April 3
The complaint alleges that on April 26 Brown again
threatened to close the plant, and also threatened employ-
ees that Respondent would eliminate overtime if they se-
lected the Union as their bargaining representative Steve
Ray Sloan was the only witness presented by the General
Counsel concerning Brown's alleged remarks He testified
that Brown began by saying he had prepared a statement
Brown said that the plant was due to start production and
mentioned a few things they planned to do in the plant He
then commented that it would not be in the employees'
best interest to get involved with the UAW or to sign a
card Following the prepared talk there was a question and
answer session during which , according to Sloan, Brown
did not refer to any notes One of the questions asked was
whether the Company would operate the plant if it went
union, to which Brown replied that they possibly would
continue operations of the plant , but overtime would be
almost nonexistent , and they might have to start phasing
out the plant On cross-examination Sloan said that Taylor
was present during the question and answer session, but
that he did not remember whether it was Taylor or Brown
that answered the question concerning overtime He agreed
that during his talk Brown mentioned the state of the econ-
ii I do not find that Woods and Foster deliberately misrepresented what
Brown said in his talk since campaign speeches by company officials are
frequently artfully worded and subject to various interpretations by the
layman Under these circumstances it may well be that Woods and Foster
sincerely believed that Brown made the threat they attributed to him but
upon examining the state of the record here I do not believe that such a
finding is warranted
AM GENERAL COOPORATION 851
omy was bad throughout the country, and plants in the
area were laying people off right and left, and AM General
in Marshall was fortunate to be able to keep enough orders
to fill out their whole worktime According to Sloan, dur-
ing Brown's prepared remarks he said that overtime would
depend on orders, but also added that selection for over-
time had something to do with the last three or four num-
bers of an employee's social security number He agreed
that Brown said he didn't believe they needed a union
there, and that they would never have to sign a union card
or belong to a union in order to work at the plant
Taylor, who was present throughout Brown's April 26
speech and the question and answer session, testified that
the document introduced into evidence without objection
as Respondent's Exhibit 15 was a copy of the complete text
of Brown's speech 12 An examination of the text reveals
only two references to plant closure The first concerned
alleged remarks by "disgruntled employees" who "may
want to see this operation shut down " The second alluded
to some plants being forced to close because of the state of
the economy, followed by a reference to the `serious risk
involved" in strikes I find that Brown's remarks do not
constitute an unlawful threat of plant closure if employees
continued their union activities, as alleged in the com-
plaint Nowhere in his address does he say or even predict
that the Marshall plant would close or might close if the
Union's organizational efforts were successful Instead he
talked of `some plants" being forced to close because of
economic conditions There then follows an optimistic ap-
praisal of the work situation at AM General, followed by
an appeal to the employees to reject the Union and avoid
the risks and dangers inherent in strikes In many cases the
Board has found this type of campaign appeal to be within
the protection of Section 8(c) of the Act I find that Brown
did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in his April 26
speech
According to Taylor, following his prepared remarks
Brown opened up the meeting for questions, to be directed
either to himself, or to Taylor and Myers One of the ques-
tions asked was whether or not the Company planned to
work overtime Brown replied that the employees could
expect to work 6 10-hour days for at least the next 6 weeks,
because they had had several delays in going into produc-
tion and the Mishawaka plant needed parts from Marshall
badly Another question was whether the plant would be
closed if it were organized Taylor responded, "No, and
Brown added that they should bear in mind that work
schedules and overtime would be guided according to the
business received Then there was a question about how
overtime was to be scheduled At this point everyone
laughed because Brown had already said they would be
working 6 10-hour days In addition, Taylor outlined how
overtime would be scheduled in the event everyone wasn't
working Taylor denied that Brown made any statement
about phasing out operations if the Union came in, or that
overtime would be diminished or eliminated if the plant
were unionized I credit Taylor's account of the April 26
question and answer session, since he exhibited a much
more precise and detailed memory of this event than did
Sloan I find that neither Brown nor Taylor threatened to
eliminate overtime or threatened to close the plant in the
April 26 question and answer session
According to Steve Ray Sloan, he had a conversation
with Roy Overton about the Union on an unspecified date
shortly after the Lake-O-The-Pines meeting with Buechea
Overton asked if Sloan had been in contact with Buechea,
and if Sloan knew about any union activity Sloan replied
he didn't at the moment Again Overton asked was Sloan
sure that he didn't know anything about this union busi-
ness, and Sloan responded that he did not Then Overton
asked if he knew aythmg about Woods or McCann's activi-
ties for the UAW, and Sloan answered he didn't care about
what McCann or Woods did Overton denied having asked
Sloan about Buechea, or about the union activity of Woods
and McCann He admitted, however, that he knew Johnny
Buechea, and had learned around March 1 that he was
connected with the UAW 13 The conduct attributed to
Overton by Sloan closely parallels Respondent's other ef-
forts to learn as much as possible about its employees'
union activities I credit Sloan s testimony and find that
Overton interrogated Sloan sometime shortly after March
30, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
Sloan also testified that on April 4 Overton told him that
the Company was going to make some class A welders, and
that Sloan had the qualifications and experience, and the
ability to go ahead with the Company Overton said that if
Sloan would be careful and not cause trouble he ought to
make it with the Company Overton ended the conversa-
tion with the observation that he did not think Sloan had
any union ties at the moment Overton testified that he
promoted Sloan and Mary Sharon Hopkins to class A
welder on April 4, following a meeting of the foremen with
Taylor that morning in which Taylor authorized such se-
lections because the Company was nearing the start of pro-
duction About 10 30 Overton met with the assembled em-
ployees in the superintendent's office and informed them
of what Taylor had said Around 3 p in he decided to
select Sloan and Hopkins as his class A welders and in-
formed them about 3 25 p in Overton denied either men-
tioning the Union in this conversation or saying anything
about selecting Sloan because he did not think he was a
troublemaker or had any union ties Taylor testified that he
did in fact authorize the selection of class A welders at a
meeting with the foremen on the morning of April 4 Mary
Sharon Hopkins testified that her group of from 16 to 20
people were informed that class A welders would be select-
ed, at a meeting on April 4, and that later that day Overton
told her and Sloan that they were being selected Hopkins
denied that Overton mentioned the Union at this time or
that he said anything about them being promoted because
they would not cause trouble for him or the Company
Sloan's testimony about this incident was very fragmen-
tary, and displayed a decided lack of memory Indeed with
respect to the April 4 conversation with Overton, he re-
called details only after considerable leading by the Gener-
12 The text is dated April 22 the date on which it was originally scheduled
for delivery but was delayed in order to answer a union handbill Resp 13 Taylor testified that Respondent had expected an organizational at
Exh 14 tempt by the UAW before the plant was opened
852 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
al Counsel He agreed that Hopkins was present when Ov-
erton discussed the promotions In these circumstances I
find Overton's testimony, supported as it is by that of Hop-
kins, to be more believable I find that Overton did not
grant Sloan a wage increase to induce him to refrain from
supporting the Union, as alleged in paragraph 7(d) of the
complaint
Toward the middle of April, according to Sloan, Taylor
approached him and asked if he thought any union activity
was catching on in the plant Sloan answered he wasn't
sure but that he did not think it had caught on as badly as
people thought it had Taylor asked if Sloan knew anyone
who was involved in the Umon, to which Sloan answered
no Taylor next asked if Sloan would talk down the Union
as much as possible there in the plant, and Sloan answered
"Yes " Taylor ended the conversation by saying that if
Sloan heard any union talk to come to him with it first
Taylor totally ignored this conversation in his testimony
Taylor's remarks, as described by Sloan, are consistent
with his other efforts, described elsewhere in this Decision,
to learn the identity of those persons involved with the
Union I credit Sloan and find that Taylor's conduct in this
conversation constitutes both unlawful interrogation, and
the solicitation of an employee to report to management
concerning other employees' union activities and sympa-
thies As such, Taylor's conduct violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act
Also in April Sloan had a conversation with Foreman
Gary Givens in the shop area concerning a union meeting
Sloan had attended the night before Sloan mentioned that
he had gone to the meeting, and Givens asked what had
transpired there Sloan responded he really didn't remem-
ber everything, after which Givens said, "Well, you don't
remember and it was just last night? We will have to get
you a recorder or something to keep up with things like
that " Givens denied ever having such a conversation with
Sloan I credit Sloan since there is an abundance of evi-
dence in the record which clearly shows that Respondent
was conducting an intensive effort to learn as much as it
could about the details of the developing union campaign
I find that Givens' conduct described above was unlawful
interrogation proscribed by Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
C The Discharge of James Everett Scudday on March 18
Following his interrogation by Taylor, as described in
subsection A of this Decision, James Everett Scudday
talked with Johnny Buechea on March 8, in a Piggly Wig-
gly parking lot in Marshall, at which time Buechea stated
that an organizing drive was starting and asked Scudday to
obtain some names, addresses, and phone numbers of peo-
ple in the plant Scudday did not obtain any cards or sign
a card at this time On Monday or Tuesday of the follow-
ing week, Foreman Louis Smith asked Scudday if he had
heard of any union activities going on inside the plant
Scudday said he had not, and Smith replied that if Scudday
heard anything to come and tell him Thereafter "every
day or so" Smith returned to ask the same series of ques-
tions On one such occasion Scudday responded that if
things didn't straighten up and get better there would be a
union there Smith denied knowing about Johnny Buechea
or anything about his union activities or any union activi-
ties prior to the union card discussion with McCann and
Taylor in Taylor's office on March 26 He denied ever dis-
cussing the Union with Scudday in any manner, or being
told there would be a union in the plant if things didn't get
straightened out I credit Scudday's testimony and find
that Smith unlawfully interrogated Scudday and solicited
him to report on the union activities of other employees on
or about March 10, as alleged in paragraphs 7(a) and (e) of
the complaint The record shows that Scudday was Mc-
Cann's trainee partner and that it was on March 7 that
McCann was first interrogated by Taylor concerning being
seen with Buechea It was at this point that Respondent
began its efforts to learn all it could about the developing
union drive Taylor's efforts to learn more about the
Union s activities from McCann, as described earlier, bear
a marked resemblance to the interrogation of Scudday by
Smith and occurred at approximately the same time
Thereafter, Scudday talked to employees in favor of the
Union and about signing union cards, but did not have any
union cards in his possession and did not sign one himself
prior to his discharge On March 18, while he was getting
some scrap metal for some of the other welders, Smith
called Scudday to the office and, in the presence of Fore-
man Givens, discharged him According to Scudday, Smith
said that he was on 60-day probation and that he was grad-
ed on his abilities, how he could do the work, how he liked
the work, and how he got along with people Then Smith
simply said, 'As of 11 o'clock today you're no longer a
member of AM General ' Scudday did not ask any ques-
tions About 10 30 he turned in his gear and left the plant
shortly thereafter He returned on Friday to get his final
paycheck, at which time Smith said, "I hoped there was no
hard feelings I had to do it "
Smith testified that Scudday was terminated on March
18 after having discussed his work with him on three differ-
ent occasions According to Smith, Scudday did not pro-
gress in learning the type of welding which Respondent
utilized On Friday, March 7, Smith told Scudday that he
was not improving as well as he thought he should, that he
needed to apply himself a little more to the job and to the
training Scudday answered that he was doing the best he
could On the following Wednesday, March 12, Smith
talked to Scudday again, saying that it looked to him as
though Scudday didn't care whether he learned or not, and
that if he didn't improve Smith would have to take other
steps Scudday continued to maintain that he was doing
the job as best he could On March 18, at approximately
10 30 am, Smith called Scudday to the office and asked
him if he remembered his 60-day probationary period, and
the talks that they had had about his welding Scudday said
he remembered Then Smith said he didn't feel that Scud-
day would ever be able to adapt to that type of work, and,
since he was not applying himself like he should, Smith was
going to discharge him Scudday answered, "If that's the
way you feel about it, thank you," and left Concerning his
observations of Scudday's performance of the training ex-
ercises, Smith testified that Scudday had difficulty with
performing regular flat joint welding Nevertheless, when
Smith was called away from the office at times he would
return to find Scudday attempting to perform overhead or
AM GENERAL COOPORATION 853
vertical welding exercises before having actually mastered
the simpler types 14
Scudday testified that his welding training consisted only
of high school vocational training for about 4 months, but
that he had not been taught any mieg welding at vocational
school He agreed that he spent his entire 9-1/2 days in
training at Respondent welding flat pieces in various posi-
tions On cross-examination he conceded that on one occa-
sion Smith told him he needed more practice on a certain
type of weld, and that he responded he was doing the best
he could However, he denied Smith mentioning during the
March 18 exit interview that he had spoken to Scudday a
number of times about his welding Scudday further con-
ceded that in the office Smith told him he didn't think he
would be able to adapt to that type of work, and that to
this he answered , "Okay, if that 's the way you feel about
it " I credit Smith ' s version of the events leading to
Scudday's discharge , where their testimonies differ
I find that the General Counsel has failed to prove that
Scudday was discharged because of his union sympathies
or activities in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act The evidence is insufficient to show that Respondent
knew or believed that Scudday was himself an active union
adherent Scudday testified that he did not know of any
supervisor being "in the neighborhood" at the time he
talked to employees about the Union during break on
March 18 The interrogation of Scudday by Taylor on or
about February 27, and by Louis Smith on or about March
10, does not actually support his case Taylor learned only
that Scudday had not worked at a union plant and that if
the union question arose Scudday would "just have to look
at the facts from both ends " Scudday 's response to Smith's
questioning that "if things didn't straighten up and get bet-
ter there would be a union there" is not a clear indication
of Scudday's own sympathies, when it is considered that
Scudday was McCann's welding partner and Smith was
wanting to know what Scudday had heard Finally, and
perhaps most important of all, the evidence shows that
Scudday had only limited welding training and experience
prior to reporting to work at AM General, and he ultimate-
ly conceded that Smith had occasion to criticize his work
on at least one occasion prior to his discharge I will recom
mend that the allegation of unlawful discharge with respect
to Everett Scudday, as set forth in paragraph 11 of the
complaint, be dismissed
D The Termination of Tommy Ray (Bullet) McCann
on April 1
McCann's interrogation by Taylor on March 7, concern-
ing Johnny Buechea, and his subsequent questioning by
Smith and Taylor on March 26, precipitated by his display
of a union card , have been described in detail in subsection
B of this Decision McCann also testified that either Shaw
or Woods repeated to him the March 31 conversation with
Taylor in which he threatened that there would be some
changes made , and some people leaving , and that Bullet
McCann would be one of them Against this background
McCann testified that Taylor talked to him again on
April 1 On that day McCann was talking to another em-
ployee complaining that he was being "watched and bird-
dogged out there ," and as McCann turned around ran into
Taylor who said, "Bullet, why don't you just quit instead of
us having to mess up your record " McCann answered
"Well, how can anybody out here work being watched all
the time and bird-dogged " According to McCann, on
April 2 he approached Taylor and asked , "Where do I turn
in my gear9" Taylor asked, "What seems to be the prob-
lem" McCann replied , "You know what the problem is,
you've got people out here watching every step I make and
wanting me to tell you about people talking about the
Union and things like that " Then Taylor pointed toward
the toolroom and told McCann to take his equipment over
there McCann returned to the plant on Friday, April 4, to
pick up his check, at which time the secretary told him
Taylor wanted to speak with him in the office Taylor
asked for the real reason McCann quit , and McCann an-
swered , "I told you this week the real reason I quit was
because you all kept bird-dogging me out there , and just
watching every move that I made " Then McCann said he
needed to go to work , but that he couldn't stand the pres-
sure of being watched all the time Taylor answered , "Well,
if you can give me some information on these people out
here, we might consider giving your job back " is
Taylor testified that he first learned of McCann' s resig-
nation when Louis Smith called him about 7 30 a m on the
morning of April 1 However, according to Taylor, he did
not see McCann at any time on that day Taylor testified
that McCann's exit interview with him took place on Fri-
day, April 4, at which time McCann said he felt like he was
being "hound-dogged too much by the people out there "
Taylor asked what McCann meant , and McCann replied,
"I don't know " Then Taylor said, "Well, Bullet, don't you
think maybe you just may be thinking that you' re being
hound-dogged'?" McCann answered, "I don't know " At
that point the interview ended Taylor denied that McCann
asked where he was supposed to turn his gear in, but
agreed that he asked the real reason why McCann quit, to
which McCann answered he felt like he was being hound-
dogged too much According to Taylor, McCann did say
something in this conversation about going back to work
or need to go back to work Taylor answered that McCann
should not have quit in the first place, and that if he were
to be reconsidered for a job he would still be supervised
McCann answered that he understood, but Taylor re-
sponded that at that time he had so many applications and
interviews for McCann not to build up any hopes Taylor
denied inviting McCann to quit , or suggesting that his job
might be restored if he kept Taylor informed concerning
the activities of the Union
According to Louis Smith, McCann came to him about
7 30 a in on April 1 and informed Smith that he was quit-
ting No one else was present McCann said it had been
nice working with Smith, but that he had had about all he
could take , since `there were too many hound dogs out
there, and he was fixing to hang it up " Smith asked if that
15 It was stipulated that McCann s resignation form was actually signed
14 Scudday s discharge form Resp Exh 7 states Unable to adapt to on April 4 and that the words no reason given which appear on that
this type of work Not eligible for rehire form were not on the form when it was signed
854 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was really what McCann wanted to do, and McCann re-
plied it was Then Smith directed McCann to the toolroom
and told him to turn in his hard hat, hood, and glasses
Then McCann left Smith testified that he filled out a regis-
tration form and wrote the words, "Quit at 7 00 AM
4/1/75" on McCann's timecard Smith denied having
watched McCann's work more closely after learning about
his contacts with the Union, but added that prior to March
26 he had observed McCann "ambling around in the shop,
going to other welding stations, talking to people, and dis
tracting them " According to Smith, several times he had to
go get McCann and bring him back to his work area, and
that on one unspecified occasion he told McCann if he
didn't stay on the job and do what he was told, Smith
would have to resort to disciplinary action
I find that McCann was mistaken concerning the date of
his resignation, and that the correct resignation date was
April 1 Thus the conversations with Smith and Taylor
about quitting occurred on that day This conclusion is
supported by an examination of McCann's timecard which
showed that the last day on which McCann worked was
March 31 I further find, based on the similarity of their
testimonies and on the likelihood that McCann would first
inform his foreman of his intention to leave, that McCann
first talked to Smith about resigning rather than Taylor, as
Smith testified I do, however, credit McCann's version of
the contents of the conversations with Taylor to the extent
their versions differ I therefore find that Taylor violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by telling McCann that he might
consider giving him his job back in return for information
about McCann's fellow employees Lastly, I find that the
record as a whole sustains the allegation of paragraph 8 of
the complaint The evidence presented shows that, from
the time McCann was first interrogated by Taylor concern
mg his association with Johnny Buechea, McCann was fre-
quently approached by Taylor with inquiries for informa
tion concerning the union activities in the plant It is also
clear that Taylor's March 31 threat to Shaw to the effect
that because of the union situation people would be leaving
and McCann would be one of them was conveyed to Mc-
Cann by either Shaw or Woods Under these circum-
stances, McCann's choosing to resign on the day following
this threat, rather than face certain discharge, can only be
construed as a constructive discharge because of his union
sympathies and activities, and is therefore a violation of
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
E The Discharges of James Leonard Woods Jr, and Jack
Randy Foster on April 4
As discussed earlier, Woods had been interrogated by
Taylor during his employment interview concerning his
previous union membership at Alcoa Thereafter, he first
attempted to interest the Teamsters Union in organizing at
AM General by giving a list of 15 employee names to his
father who worked at Schutz, where the Teamsters Union
was bargaining agent When nothing developed from this
quarter he started working with the UAW Woods attend-
ed the March 30 meeting with Johnny Buechea at Lake 0-
The-Pines, and was interrogated by Taylor concerning his
association with Buechea along with Shaw and Guilliams
on March 31 Woods first met UAW International Repre-
sentative Horner on April 2 at Wood's home, received
some authorization cards, and thereafter assisted Horner in
organizational efforts at the Woodlawn plant On April 3
and 4 Woods distributed five cards to employees and
talked to about 20 people about the Union On April 3,
Homer wrote a letter to Plant Manager Robert Myers in
which he identified Woods as an employee serving as an
in-plant organizer for the UAW " This letter was received
by Respondent on April? 16 With respect to Foster, he had
told Taylor about his union affiliation with Ironworkers
Local 519 during his employment interview interrogation
He signed a union card on March 31 and talked to four
people about the Union There is no evidence that Respon-
dent knew of these activities, however
As referred to earlier, on the morning of April 4, Taylor
held a meeting with all of the foremen and supervisors in
which he told them that they were getting ready to go into
partial production, and that they should screen their people
to ascertain who might be qualified for class A welder It
was at this same meeting that Taylor also stated that if any
of the foremen `had people that were not working out in-
sofar as their working ability, if they had dissatisfied em-
ployees, people that they felt like would not make it and
would not stay, now was the time to get them off of our
roll 17
About 2 p in on April 4, Steve Whiteside came around
to give Woods and Foster their paychecks As Whiteside
handed them their checks he asked Foster if he could make
it on his money, and Foster answered, `I've got to put $5
with it to make a house payment " At this point Whiteside
said he didn't feel that Foster and Woods were happy with
the money they were making, that they had had better-
paying jobs with better benefits and that the Company
couldn't depend on them from day to day, and that he
didn't know when they were coming Whiteside also said
that Woods and Foster had been working at higher paying
places which had better benefits than they were getting at
AM General, and that he thought it might be wasting the
Company's time and money to train them since they would
be returning to higher paying jobs when they got the
chance At first Foster responded that he would resign, but
when Woods requested to see Taylor, Foster changed his
mind and asked to see Taylor also Woods protested that
he did not feel Whiteside was telling him the real reason,
since he had never shown any dissatisfaction with his pay
or job or benefits, and had not complained about his work
Whiteside agreed they could see Taylor on their way out
Woods preceded Foster to Taylor's office Foster was pres-
ent only near the end of the conversation While they were
alone Woods told Taylor what Whiteside had said, and
stated that he thought the real reason was because of his
union activities Then Foster entered the office, just as
Taylor was saying he would check with Whiteside and for
them to come back at 3 30 Woods and Foster returned at
the appointed time, whereupon Taylor said he had talked
to Whiteside and had to go along with him since Whiteside
16
This finding is based upon the uncontradicted testimony of Lyndel
Wellend the secretary to Plant Manager Myers
" Production actually started in May
AM GENERAL COOPORATION 855
had said that Woods and Foster were dissatisfied with their
pay Taylor said he couldn't overrule his foreman, and that
it would be better for them to resign rather than hurt their
record by being fired Whiteside was present during this
interview, and stated that the men were not satisfied, that
he could not depend on either of them, and that they
would always be looking for a better job Therefore, he
said, he didn't know whether they were going to turn up
from day to day Neither employee signed a resignation
form
Whiteside's version of his initial conversation with
Woods and Foster at 2 30 p in on April 4 varies only
slightly from Woods' and Foster's version I find Woods'
and Foster's version credible, and also credit Whiteside's
testimony that he told them, in addition, he had been in-
structed at the meeting that morning that if they had any-
one they thought wouldn't stay with them after production
began, now would be the time to get rid of them, and in his
opinion neither of them would stay after production began
Whiteside also agreed that Woods insisted upon seeing
Taylor because he wanted to find out the "real reason" he
was discharged Taylor's version of his two meetings with
Woods and Foster and Whiteside's account of the final
meeting in Taylor's office do not differ significantly from
Woods' and Foster's testimony, except that Taylor omitted
any reference to union activities on the part of Woods In
this respect, I credit Woods
According to Woods, on the evening of April 4 he saw
Foreman Louis Smith at the Country Kitchen club in Mar-
shall Woods asked to talk to Smith, and Smith agreed,
saying, "Yeah, let's go out in the front part where it's quiet
and talk " Once outside Woods asked if Smith knew why
he was fired Smith replied, "I hated to see it happen That
was one of the worst things that happened in that plant
since it opened Your foreman didn't want to fire you
either, but he didn't have any choice because that morning
they had a foremen s meeting and Mr Taylor had directed
Whiteside to fire (you) and they knew the letter saying
(you) was an organizer, was in the mail " Smith said that
Woods was one of the top hands they had, knew what he
was doing, and didn't need someone to watch him all the
time Smith testified that Woods did ask for the real reason
he was fired, and that he responded, "Well, I don't know,
but usually when somebody gets fired it is for something
they did that they shouldn't, or something they didn't do
that they should have " Then Woods insisted, "Well, it
don't make any difference what you say, I know the real
reason I got fired " According to Smith the conversation
ended at this point He denied making any of the other
remarks attributed to him by Woods I credit Smith whose
version is far more logical under the circumstances in
which the conversation arose
Steven Whiteside testified that he decided to terminate
Woods and Foster following the April 4 foremen's meeting
since he did not feel that these men would stay on after
production began Whiteside claimed that this decision was
based upon several incidents involving Woods' and
Foster s mentioning the subject of higher pay According
to Whiteside, starting with the first or second day Foster
was employed by the Company, Foster kept insisting that
he had been promised $5 an hour, and that Foster's men-
tioning this to other employees caused a number of inqui-
ries about the matter Whiteside instructed Foster to talk
with Taylor and get the matter straightened out because it
was causing unrest Later Foster returned and told White-
side that Taylor had lied to him and complained that, "I
quit a job at Heat Research making $4 80 or $4 90 an hour
to come over here I wouldn't have come over and taken a
wage cut " Following Jack Brown's speech on April 2,
Woods and Foster told Whiteside that everyone was going
to be increased to $3 90 an hour and, after that, the Com-
pany would reevaluate the wage scale and go up from
there When Taylor denied making this statement, White-
side suggested that Woods and Foster again consult Tay-
lor Later, Woods and Foster said that Taylor had told
them one story after Brown's speech, but now was telling
them an altogether different one Whiteside asked if they
were satisfied now that the rate was $3 30 an hour, and the
men answered that they understood Whiteside testified
that almost every time he talked to the two men, especially
Foster, they mentioned the better-paying jobs they had
had Foster stated that he had had several positions that
paid over $4 an hour, one that had paid $8, and that he had
come to AM General from Alcoa, where the pay scale was
over $6
Taylor testified that Woods was hired by Plant Manager
Myers, but that it was Taylor himself who contacted
Woods and placed him in the second training class Ac-
cording to Taylor, during the orientation program all the
welder trainees were told that for the first 2 weeks the rate
would be $3, but upon the successful completion of the
training period their rate of pay would go to $3 30 an hour
After 60 working days there would be a 10-cent increase
In addition Taylor claimed that he also had other conver-
sations with Woods and Foster concerning the subject of
pay and their prospects about continuing to work for AM
General On one such occasion, Taylor claimed Woods
stated that if he returned to work at Alcoa in order to
qualify for his vacation that year he would stay with Alcoa
Taylor agreed that he discussed the subject of pay with
Woods and Foster immediately following Brown's April 2
speech, at which time he simply repeated the same outline
of the wage structure he gave to all employees at the orien-
tation Specifically, Taylor remembered telling Foster he
was not making $5 an hour but the same rate as other
people This discussion followed a complaint by Whiteside
that Foster was making such a representation to the em-
ployees in his group Taylor also agreed that somewhat
later he cautioned Foster about spreading rumors that Tay-
lor had said the wage rate would go to $3 90 per hour
Woods insisted that when he first went to work for the
Company he was told the wages would be somewhere in
the area of the wages paid by Alcoa, but that the second
time he was interviewed by Taylor he was told the wages
would be somewhere in the vicinity of those paid by the
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant where employees re-
ceived $3 05 an hour Subsequently, he was told that the
Company was going to have to reevaluate the pay scale,
and would set their wages by that reevaluation Woods
denied telling Whiteside or anyone else that he had a
chance of going back to Alcoa, but testified that Taylor
said during his employment interview, "I wouldn't want
856 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
you to turn down a good paying job like Alcoa if they did
have a recall out there " Woods responded that Alcoa was
over 25 miles from his home while American Motors was
only 7 2 miles away Therefore he felt he would be saving
enough money and gasoline to make it unreasonable for
him to return Woods was making $3 40 an hour when he
left AM General, while he made about $4 90 at Alcoa
Foster testified that he had been previously employed at
Heat Research in early February, where the rate of pay
was $4 63 per hour At one of his prior jobs, Fish Engineer-
ing, his pay rate was $8 15 He admitted that when he first
came for an interview at AM General he was not interested
because of the rate of pay, but later reconsidered when he
left his job at Heat Research to be with his wife while she
was in the hospital having a baby Foster testified that in
the shop one evening, about a week after he went to work
for Respondent, Taylor walked up They began talking
about the type of welding that they would be doing Dur-
ing the conversation, which took place in the presence of
Larry Don Crooms and a man named Robertson, both of
whom did not testify, Foster again asked Taylor what the
money would be, and Taylor responded that he was going
to have to hire more people and that Foster might get a
foreman's job Thereafter, Foster says he told some of the
employees that he was going to be a foreman According to
Foster, following Brown's April 2 speech, he went to Tay-
lor and asked what top money would be, and that Taylor
replied they could work up to $3 90 on merit raises and
that the pay scale would be reevaluated later Foster
admitted that he had been cautioned by Whiteside more
than once about spreading rumors in the plant about the
pay scale When asked whether Taylor had spoken to
him about this matter also, he answered that he could
not recall
To the extent that Woods' and Foster's versions of the
conversations with Taylor and Whiteside about pay differ
from one another, I credit Whiteside and Taylor in this
instance, since their version is more logical, detailed, and
mutually corroborative With respect to Foster I find that
the General Counsel has failed to prove that his discharge,
even though abrupt, was motivated by an unlawful reason
The evidence shows that Taylor instructed his foremen on
April 4 that since production was about to begin this was
the time to terminate dissatisfied employees Foster had
frequently talked about his other higher-paying jobs, and
admitted to having circulated rumors about higher pay for
himself and others Whiteside's testimony that this conduct
caused employee inquiries about the pay rate is undisput-
ed Foster's union activity was minimal, and there is no
evidence to prove that Respondent knew anything about
Foster's limited activities on behalf of the Union When
Taylor asked Foster about his union sympathies during
one of the employment interviews, Foster responded that
he had been a member of Ironworkers Local 519, but that
he could take it or leave it Foster's name was not men-
tioned by other employee witnesses in connection with the
main stream of organizing activities and meetings which
involved McCann, Sloan, Woods, and Johnny Buechea
Under all these circumstances, I find that Foster s dis-
charge was not in violation of the Act
Woods' case presents an entirely different matter, how-
ever He was in the forefront of the Union's organizational
drive among Respondent's employees, and the record
shows that this fact was clearly known to the Company
Furthermore, Taylor's March 31 interrogation of Woods
concerning whether he was "one of Johnny Buechea's
boys," followed immediately thereafter by Taylor's conver-
sation with Shaw during which he said he knew the Com-
pany shouldn't have hired Woods because his father
worked for Schlitz which is union, coupled with the re-
mark that there would be some changes and some people
leaving, strongly indicates that Woods was one of those
marked for elimination Finally, a close examination of the
evidence with respect to Respondents defense clearly
shows that it was actually Foster, not Woods, who did the
complaining and circulated the rumors concerning pay
rates As for the likelihood of his leaving Respondent's em-
ploy because he had previously worked for Alcoa, Respon-
dent obviously knew of this possibility through its preem-
ployment conversations with Woods, following which they,
nevertheless, hired him There is little, if any, evidence on
which Respondent can claim it thought Woods was unhap-
py and contemplating quitting I find that this assertion by
Respondent is merely a pretext, and that Woods was dis-
charged because of his union sympathies and activities in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act
F The Discharges of Michael Shaw and Jerry L Guilhams
on April 11
On April 7 both Shaw and Guilhams received calls from
the UAW organizer, Horner, asking them to come to a
meeting at the Holiday Inn Thereafter, both men went
individually to Bolden Taylor, told him about the call, and
said that Horner wanted them to come and drink beer with
him and talk about the Union Taylor's response to Shaw
was, "Well, why don't you go out there and drink a beer
with him" Shaw responded, "Well, I'll go out there tonight
and talk to him " Taylor then interjected, `You do, and I'll
run your little ass off " In his testimony, Taylor omitted
any mention of a conversation with Guilliams in which
Horner's invitation was mentioned Concerning his conver
sation with Shaw about Horner, Taylor was at first evasive
and unresponsive to questioning by his own counsel on this
topic Ultimately, in response to leading questions, he de-
nied the incident I credit Shaw and Guilliams I find that
Taylor's remark that he would run Shaw off if Shaw went
to see Horner constitutes a threat of discharge for engaging
in union activities which violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
Shaw also testified that he had mentioned to Whiteside
that he had received telephone calls from Johnny Buechea
Whiteside testified that on Monday, April 7, Shaw ap-
proached him near the training tables and told him he had
received a call from a union man the night before, inviting
him to drink beer Guilliams, who was standing by at the
time, interjected that the union man had called him also,
that they did not go, and that he did not want them calling
him Whiteside testified that Shaw "indicated' that he
didn't want the Union calling him either and that' nothing
specific" was said in addition during this conversation
Guilliams gave no testimony about this incident On April
8 Guilliams came to Whiteside and told him that he had
AM GENERAL COOPORATION 857
rejected another telephonic invitation from the union rep-
resentative to come over and drink beer
Nevertheless, Shaw signed a union card on April 8 He
passed out between 10 and 15 union authorization cards to
fellow employees, including Jerry Guilliams, in the parking
lot during break and away from work He instructed the
recipients of the cards to return them either to Woods,
McCann, or himself, and thereafter three or four people
returned cards to him Guilliams' union activity consisted
of signing a union card for Shaw at Guilliams' trailer house
on April 8, and talking to other employees about the
Union
On the morning of April 10, while Shaw and Guilliams
were working at the training table, they both observed
Whiteside and Taylor holding a discussion nearby Imme-
diately thereafter Whiteside came over and asked them if
he could talk to them outside Whiteside said that there
could only be two class A welders to a group and since
they already had one he would have to flip a coin in order
to choose between them He said that he did not want to
do it that way, and therefore had obtained permission from
Taylor to make both of them class A welders Whiteside
said he didn't know how the women in the group would
take it, but that this was just the breaks of the game, and
effective that morning they would be increased 50 cents an
hour
After lunch Whiteside again approached Shaw, and said
that Taylor wanted to talk to him in the office No one else
was present Taylor said that Whiteside didn't get the raise
approved through him, and that it would be the first of the
month before the raise would take effect, since he had to
get it approved with higher people Taylor instructed Shaw
to inform Guilliams of what he had said
Shaw conveyed Taylor's message to Guilliams, and
about 2 or 2 30 p in Whiteside told them both to see Tay
for in his office Taylor explained that they were not being
promoted to class A welders, and that he had not given
Whiteside permission to make the promotion because Tay-
lor himself did not have the allocation to do it Next, Tay-
lor asked how they liked their work, and their money, and
asked Guilhams if it was too far for him to drive Guilliams
replied it was not too far, both Shaw and Guilliams said
they were satisfied with their jobs since they had been out
of work for a while Taylor responded that he really didn't
think they were happy with the money and told them to
report to his office at 7 a in the following morning Guil-
hams asked if that was a farewell notice, and Taylor said
no, but then asked if they remembered that they were still
on 90-day probation The two men responded `Yes," and
the conversation ended
That evening about 5 30 or 5 45, Shaw received a phone
call from Taylor who said he had talked with Whiteside
and that Shaw was fired Taylor said Shaw and Guilliams
worked together too much, that they gave them class A
welding jobs thinking they would get hints to quit working
together Shaw answered that every time something came
up he and Guilliams were sent to do it Taylor repeated
that Shaw and Guilliams worked together too much, and
added that they weren't really happy with the money Shaw
retorted that this was a sorry ass ' reason to fire him The
conversation ended with Shaw asking when his check
would be ready, and Taylor responding that it would be
ready the following morning at 9 Then Shaw phoned Guil-
Itams and told him about this phone call Guilliams then
phoned Whiteside, and asked if he knew anything about
the discharge Whiteside replied he did not
The next morning Shaw went to the office, but found
Guilliams already there Shaw interrupted saying he want-
ed Myers and Whiteside in the office also, and wanted to
find out the reason he was fired Since Taylor refused to
talk to both employees at the same time, Guilliams went
outside Taylor refused to call Whiteside and Myers into
the conference After Guilliams left, Taylor said, "You
came to the job making too much money, and we didn't
think you were happy with the benefits or the money'
Then Sh w asked if the Union had anything to do with the
matter , and Taylor said it did not Shaw kept insisting that
he be told why he was fired, and Taylor said to come by his
house that night for a beer, and he'd tell him the reasons
Shaw went to Taylor's house about 6 30 p in and asked
Taylor why he was fired Taylor responded that it was be-
cause he came from a job making too much money and
they didn't think he was happy Taylor denied that the
Union had anything to do with the discharge The conver-
sation ended with Taylor saying there would be some more
changes made and some people leaving
Taylor's exit interview with Guilliams was brief He said,
"You remember the little talk we had last evening?" Guil-
liams replied that he remembered Then Taylor said, "You
know you're still on a probationary period' After Guil-
liams said he knew, Taylor continued, "Well, you're just
not meeting up to our standards " Then Guilliams said that
he would just go ahead and quit Taylor asked if he would
sign a release statement, and Guilliams agreed Taylor then
typed the letter of resignation on a sheet of paper headed
"Intra Company Correspondence," and Guilliams signed
it
Whiteside testified that Shaw and Guilhams made good
progress as trainees They were performing satisfactory flat
welding and downhill welding in I week's time After 2
weeks on the training table, Whiteside began using them
for odd jobs in connection with setting up for production
However, on their first such assignment, Whiteside claimed
that while the quality of their work was satisfactory the
quantity of work performed was small The assignment
consisted of downhill welding on dipping vats According
to Whiteside, it took more than 2 days to perform this
assignment 18 Whiteside testified that he went to Shaw and
Guilliams and asked them, "Are you all having machine
trouble, have you run into a problem? Is there any way I
can help your" Whiteside testified, "They would grin,
make some remark and go back to work " On April 7 or 8,
according to Whiteside, Shaw and Guilliams were assigned
to perform some welding repairs on a heat treat oven On
the evening of April 9 the foreman over that area, a Mr
Vaughn, complained to Whiteside that Shaw and Guil-
liams would not work and asked if Whiteside had any
18 Whiteside also testified that there were four welding machines assigned
to this job and that at times welders Sharon Hopkins Gene Helms and
Ronnie Smith operated these There is no evidence that any of these welders
received any criticism whatsoever for the allegedly slow progress of thejob
858 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
other men he could send over Whiteside replied that he
didn't have anyone else 19 He then went to Shaw and Guil-
hams and told them they were going to have to go to work,
and to quit talking and get something done They replied
that the people on the tables weren't getting anything done
Whiteside could not recall whether he said anything else to
them at that time Whitehead next went to Taylor and told
him about Vaughn s complaint Whiteside told Taylor that
Shaw and Guilliams had good ability and would make
good hands "if they take ahold ' Taylor asked if he
thought they were worth salvaging Whiteside answered
that the men had ability and could make good employees,
after which Taylor suggested that he "cultivate them ' As a
result of this conversation Whiteside went and talked with
Shaw and Guilliams He said that they had the ability to do
the work, that they could be good hands, and if they would
take hold and go to work he would do anything he could to
get them a better rate According to Whiteside, Shaw said
nothing, but Guilliams said that 50 cents would help a lit-
tle Then Whiteside sent them back to the heat treat area to
work About 2 30 p in Taylor called Whiteside and "want-
ed to know what the hell I was doing promoting those boys
to Class A welders Whiteside denied having promoted
them, but told Taylor he'd said that if they took hold and
went to work he'd promote them or do anything he could
to get them a class A welder's pay Taylor instructed
Whiteside to send the men to his office, and that he would
try to straighten out the matter Whiteside did not see or
talk to Taylor again that day That night Guilliams called
Whiteside at his home and asked what the "deal" was on
the meeting they had had that evening with Taylor White-
side explained that he had not talked to Taylor Guilliams
replied that Taylor had said some pretty hard things to
them and that he was thinking about quitting, and asked if
they were trying to get rid of him Whiteside said he was
not, and they would talk about it in the morning The con-
versation ended with Whiteside saying, "You've got a job
out there dust like everybody else, and if you'll take over
and do it you won't have any problem "
Whiteside testified that his last contact with Taylor prior
to the discharge of Shaw and Guilliams was the telephone
call in which Taylor asked why he had promoted them to
class A welder At that time the prospect of discharging
Shaw and Guilliams was not discussed On the morning of
April 11, Taylor phoned and said that Shaw and Guilliams
had resigned
According to Taylor he learned from Whiteside on or
about March 9 of Heat Treat Supervisor Vaughn s com-
plaint about Shaw and Guilliams working too slowly Tay-
lor testified that Whiteside wanted to get rid of the men,
because he said this was not the first time he had criticized
them about their work and standing around Taylor asked
if they could be salvaged, and had Whiteside ever tried to
motivate them Upon receiving a negative reply, Taylor
instructed Whiteside to see what he could do to try to moti-
vate Shaw and Guilliams because they had the capability
and the Company didn't want to lose them Later in the
day, three unidentified employees came to him and asked
19 Vaughn did not testify
why Shaw and Guilliams had been promoted to welder A,
whereupon Taylor picked up the phone and demanded to
know what Whiteside was doing promoting Shaw and
Guilliams to welder A without letting him know about it
Whiteside responded that he had not promoted them, but
had told them that they had the capabilities, and if they
would apply the initiative he would do everything within
his power to see that they made welder A Taylor instruct-
ed Whiteside to send the two men to his office At about
2 30 p in they arrived No one else was present In the
office, in answer to a question from Taylor, Shaw said he
understood that they would be promoted on May I Taylor
replied that they had misunderstood Whiteside and that no
promotions were involved Guilliams retorted that 50 cents
wouldn't do him much good anyway Then, Taylor testi-
fied, I went into quite a heated discussion of all the, you
know, complaints and etc that I had had on these people
regarding their standing around talking, not being able to
separate them, and then this coming up about Welder A "
According to Taylor, he told them that they had capabili
ties and that if they wanted to stay at AM General they
would have to go out and apply themselves and do the
assigned work Shaw made a remark that he got more mon-
ey at Alcoa, and did not do as much work as was expected
of him at AM General However, both men said that if
they were ever called back by Alcoa they did not intend to
return Taylor ended the conversation by saying that, re-
gardless of how capable Shaw and Guilliams were, unless
they changed their attitude and their work habits, the rela-
tionship between them and the Company would have to be
severed According to Taylor, at some point in the conver-
sation Shaw remarked that he was bored with his work,
and Guilliams said he could take it or leave it
Taylor testified that when he arrived home from work
that evening he discovered that Shaw had called Taylor
returned the call and Shaw wanted to discuss the matter
further, whereupon Taylor invited him to come to his
home When Shaw arrived he wanted to know if the Com-
pany was trying to get rid of him He asked why in Taylor's
opinion he and Guilliams were not meeting the standards
there when the Company was not in production and they
had nothing to do Taylor denied that there was any at-
tempt to get rid of Shaw and Guilliams and said they were
trying to salvage them because, insofar as their knowledge
of the work was concerned, Whiteside was happy with
them, but unhappy about the amount of work they were
performing Shaw arrived at the house about 8 30 p m and
left about 9 30 The conversation ended with Taylor saying
he would rather continue the discussion at 7 o clock the
next morning
Both men arrived around 7 a in on April 11, whereupon
Taylor announced he would talk with them separately
Shaw remained in the office, and Guilliams waited outside
Taylor told Shaw that Plant Manager Myers did not arrive
until around 8 a in, in the event he wanted to talk to him
Shaw answered, Well, I have been thinking about our
conversation yesterday and last night, and it's very appar-
ent that you all don't want us around here anymore " Tay-
lor denied that this was the case Shaw continued, "Well, I
think under the present situation I will dust quit I don't
want to talk to Mr Myers, but I want to ask you one
AM GENERAL COOPORATION
question Is all this due to my union activity" According
to Taylor, he responded that he was not aware of any
union activities Then Taylor asked if he wanted to sign a
resignation slip, and Shaw said he did Taylor typed the
slip himself, and Shaw signed it Then he left Taylor next
talked with Guilliams Guilliams began by announcing he
wanted to quit Taylor replied, "Well, that's up to you, but
I want you to know that we're not forcing you to do this "
Then Guilliams signed a resignation slip which Taylor
typed
Shaw and Guilliams denied having ever been criticized
concerning their work by any of the supervision at AM
General, or that they ever expressed dissatisfaction with
their jobs I credit their denial I also credit their version of
the events, conversations, and other events leading up to
their terminations over those of Taylor and Whiteside
Both Guilliams and Shaw participated along with Woods
in the March 31 discussion with Taylor concerning Johnny
Buechea Later that same day, Taylor threatened Shaw in
the office concerning the Union that "if you start any sh-,
there's going to be some sh-," that there would be some
people leaving, and that upon his return to work he should
repeat this message to the other men On April 7 both
Whiteside and Taylor were informed by Shaw and Guil-
hams of their invitation to meet with Horner to drink beer
and talk about the Union It was on this occasion that
Taylor threatened Shaw that if he went to see Horner "I 11
run your little ass off " On April 8 both men signed cards
On April 10 they were informed that they would be made
class A welders This action on the part of Whiteside is
thoroughly consistent with his testimony that Shaw and
Guilliams were good workers They had been working on
the training table for 2 weeks, and there is no evidence, as
of the end of that period, that there was any criticism what-
soever of their work with respect to either its quality or the
speed in which it was performed Whiteside testified that
they had made good progress, and it is clear that as a result
of this progress he decided to utilize their services on weld
ing that was needed to prepare the plant for production It
was only after it became known that Shaw and Guilliams
had been contacted by Horner that their work allegedly
became slow and Vaughn allegedly complained about
them I am persuaded that Shaw and Guilliams' work was
satisfactory to Respondent until it suspected that they were
active in the union movement This conclusion is rein-
forced by Whiteside's admission on cross-examination that
he was upset when he heard that Shaw and Guilliams had
been terminated Considering all of the above enumerated
circumstances, there is only one logical answer to the mys-
terious sudden reversal of Shaw and Guilliams' good for-
tune, resulting in their termination only a day after they
had been promised a promotion 20 I find that Michael
Shaw and Jerry L Guilliams were discharged because of
their known or suspected union sympathies and activities
in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
20 I attac 'i no significance under the circumstances presented to the fact
that Shaw and Guilliams announced to Taylor at the final interview that
they would quit and signed resignation slips which Taylor hastily prepared
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
859
1 Respondent 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 Tommy Ray McCann on April 1,
James Leonard Woods, Jr, on April 4, and Michael Shaw
and Jerry L Guilliams on April 11, because of their union
or concerted activities, or suspected union or concerted ac-
tivities, the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
4 By interrogating employees concerning their union
sympathies and desires, by threatening that employees
would be discharged if they continued their union activi-
ties, and by soliciting employees to spy upon the union
activities of others and report back to the Company, Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
5 Respondent has not violated the Act in any respects
other than those specifically found
6 The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent is engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I find it necessary to order that Re-
spondent cease and desist therefrom and to take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act
The Respondent having discriminatorily discharged
Tommy Ray McCann, James L Woods, Jr, Michael
Shaw, and Jerry L Guilliams, I find it necessary to order
that the Respondent offer them full reinstatement with
backpay computed on a quarterly basis, plus interest at 6
percent per annum as prescribed in F W Woolworth Com
pany, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis Plumbing & Heating
Co 138 NLRB 716 (1962), from date of discharge to date
of proper offer of reinstatement I shall also order the Re
spondent to post an appropriate notice with respect to the
discriminatory discharges found and, in addition, with re
spect to the violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act found
to have occurred
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended
ORDER21
The Respondent, AM General Corporation, Marshall,
Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging employees or otherwise discriminating
against them with regard to the hire and tenure of their
employment or any other term or condition of employment
21 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board the findings
conclusions and recommended Order herein shall as provided in Sec
102 48 of the Rules and Regulations be adopted by the Board and become
its findings conclusions and Order and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes
860 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for engaging in union activity on behalf of International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW), or for engaging in
concerted activity for their mutual aid or protection, or in
any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act
(b) Interrogating employees concerning their union ac-
tivities, sympathies, and desires
(c) Threatening employees with discharge or other repri-
sals if they continue their union organizational activities
(d) Soliciting employees to spy upon the union activities
and to report back to the Company concerning such activi-
ties
2 Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Offer Tommy Ray McCann, James Leonard Woods,
Jr, Michael Shaw, and Jerry L Guilliams immediate and
full reinstatement to their former positions or, if such posi-
tions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and priv-
ileges, and make them whole for any loss of earnings, in the
manner set forth in "The Remedy "
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records, and all other records necessary to ana-
lyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this
recommended Order
(c) Post at its plant at Woodlawn, Texas (otherwise
known as the Marshall plant), copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix " 22 Copies of the notice, on forms pro
vided by the Regional Director for Region 16, after being
signed by an authorized representative of Respondent,
shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed to
the extent it alleges violations of the Act not found herein
22 In the event that the Boards 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