Arrow Automotive Industries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 1, 1981

256 N.L.R.B. 1027 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

ARROW AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES. INC 1027
Arrow Automotive Industries, Inc. and International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agri-
cultural Implement Workers of America. Case
26-CA-8021
July 1, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 18, 1980, Administrative Law
Judge Thomas D. Johnston issued the attached De-
cision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General
Counsel and Respondent filed exceptions and sup-
porting briefs.
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, find-
ings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as
modified herein.
On August 6 and again on August 14, 1979, Re-
spondent's supervisor, Lipford, asked employee
Kelling if he had heard anything from the Union.
In the later conversation, Lipford added that he
thought the Union had won employees Palmer and
Lemly over. The Administrative Law Judge prop-
erly found the questions regarding the Union con-
stituted unlawful interrogation, but omitted any dis-
cussion of the lawfulness of the remark concerning
Palmer and Lemly. We agree with the General
Counsel's contention that Lipford's latter remark in
the context of the conversation in which he unlaw-
fully interrogated Keeling also created the impres-
sion of surveillance of union activities in violation
of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act, and we so find. The
Administrative Law Judge's recommended Order
is modified accordingly.
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 modi-
fied below, and hereby orders that the Respondent,
Arrow Automotive Industries, Inc., Morrilton, Ar-
kansas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the said recom-
mended Order, as so modified:
1. Substitute the following for paragraph (f):
"(f) Creating impressions of surveillance of em-
ployees' union activities by supervisors informing
them they could tell who attended union meetings,
I Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made hN the
Administrative Law Judge It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credil
bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relesant evidence con-
vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect Sandard Dry Wa'ill Prdulcts
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F2d 362 (d Cir 1
9
51) We have
carefully examined the record and find ino hasis for reversing his findlinig
256 NLRB No. 152
and by telling an employee that certain other em-
ployees had been won over by the Union."
2. Substitute the following for paragraph (i):
"(i) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex-
ercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of
the Act."
3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPI.OYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR REI ATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WII.L NOT interrogate our employees
about their union feelings and activities.
WE WlI.l. NOT solicit our employees to
report to the Company if the Union contacts
them about signing union authorization cards.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that
if the Union comes in employees will be sent
hom when their work runs out rather than
their being assigned other jobs as is the present
practice.
WE WIL. NOT impliedly threaten our em-
ployees that if the Union comes in the plant
will only operate 4 days a week.
WE WILE NOT impliedly threaten our em-
ployees that the plant will be shut down and
employees laid off whenever inventory is high
if they have a union.
WE WII.L NOT create impressions of surveil-
lance of our employees' union activities by su-
pervisors informing them they can tell who at-
tends union meetings, and by telling an em-
ployee that certain other employees had been
won over by the Union.
WE WILL NOT inform our employees to dis-
courage them from signing union authorization
cards that those employees who have signed
union authorization cards could be required to
appear in court to testify about them.
WE WIllI NOT solicit our employees to
report to the Company attempts by other em-
ployees to get them to sign union authorization
cards.
WE WIL . NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ-
ees in the exercise of their right to self-organi-
zation, to form, join, or assist the International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agri-
cultural Implement Workers of America, or
any other labor organization to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own
1028 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
choosing, to engage in concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection or to refrain from any
or all such activities.
ARROW AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES,
INC.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS D. JOHNSTON, Administrative Law Judge:
This case was heard at Morrilton, Arkansas. on May 12
and 13, 1980, pursuant to an amended charge' filed by
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace &
Agricultural Implement Workers of America, herein re-
ferred to as the Union, on October 2, 1979,2 and a com-
plaint issued on October 17, and an amendment to that
complaint issued on March 21, 1980.
The amended complaint, which was further amended
at the hearing, alleges Arrow Automotive Industries,
Inc., herein referred to as the Respondent, violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, herein referred to as the Act, by asking em-
ployees to ascertain and divulge to Respondent the union
membership, activities, sympathies, and desires of other
employees; threatening its employees with temporary
shutdown, layoff, loss of transfer privilege, and shorter
hours if the Union came in; interrogating its employees
regarding their union membership, activities, and sympa-
thies and those of other employees; creating an impres-
sion among its employees that their union activities were
under surveillance by the Respondent; revoking an em-
ployee's morning coffeebreak because of its employee's
union activity; threatening and coercing its employees
that if they signed union cards they would have to go to
court and testify and thereby reveal to the Respondent
who had signed union cards or cause them to suffer em-
barrassment; solicited its employees to report to the Re-
spondent the names of employees who solicited signa-
tures on union authorization cards and threatened to dis-
charge employees whose names were reported to the Re-
spondent; and coerced its employees by telling them the
Union had abandoned employees by consenting to enter
into a settlement agreement.
The Respondent in its answers dated October 22, 1979,
and March 26, 1980, denies having violated the Act as
alleged.
The issues involved are whether the Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act as alleged by engaging in
unlawful interrogations, solicitations, threats, coercion,
impressions of surveillance, and revoked an employee's
coffeebreak all because of employees' union memberships
and activities.
Upon the entire record in this case and from my obser-
vations of the witnesses, and after due consideration of
I The original charge was filed on September 4. 1979
2 All dates referred to are in 1979 unless otherwise stated.
the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respond-
ent,3 I hereby make the following: 4
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a corporation with an office and
place of business located at Morrilton, Arkansas, is en-
gaged in the business of rebuilding automotive parts.
During the course of its operations it has annually sold
and shipped products, goods, and materials, valued in
excess of $50,000, from its Morrilton facility directly to
points located outside the State of Arkansas and it has
also purchased and received products, goods, and materi-
als, valued in excess of $50,000, at its Morrilton facility
directly from points located outside the State of Arkan-
sas.
The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace &
Agricultural Implement Workers of America, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The Respondent operates a facility located at Morril-
ton, Arkansas, where it is engaged in rebuilding auto-
motive parts. It employs approximately 390 employees
there. Included among its official and supervisory per-
sonnel are Vice President and General Manager Jim
Osment, Manufacturing Manager Wentford Harold Hen-
derson, Jr., Supervisor Charles Lipford, Supervisor
Steve DeSalvo, Supervisor Dale Beaman, and Supervisor
Joe Clay.
The Union began an organizing campaign among the
Respondent's employees and on July 9 distributed its first
leaflets to employees at the plant's main gate.
These proceedings arose out of conduct occurring
during the organizing campaign.
B. Unlawful Interrogations, Threats, Solicitations, and
Impressions of Surveillance
Charles Trezvant, who was employed by the Respond-
ent as a forklift operator until he quit his job in March
1980, testified that about the first week in August Man-
ager Henderson told him in the presence of another em-
ployee, Terry Hardwick, 5 if the Union came in and they
just had only 4 hours for forklift driving he would have
to clock out and go home whereas the way it was then if
they just only had 4 hours they would put him to work
on the lines or anywhere.
:' I he Charging P'artD did not submit a brief.
4 Unless otherwise indicated the Findings are hased upon the pleadings,
admlissions, stipulatilons, ad undisputed eidernc contaiined ii the record.
which I credit.
') Hardwick did not testif
ARROW AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES, INC. 1029
Manager Henderson acknowledged talking to Trez-
vant about the Union but denied making the statements
attributed to him. His explanation was he gave Trezvant
an example about a union promising an employee of a
carpet manufacturer that if the union got in he would
only have to operate the forklift, however, the employ-
ee's manager then told the employee that job was only a
4-hour-a-day job and if that was so he would have to
clock out and go home.
I credit Trezvant rather than Henderson and find that,
about the first week in August, Manager Henderson
threatened Charles Trezvant and Terry Hardwick if the
Union came in employees would be sent home when
their work ran out rather than being assigned other jobs
as was the present practice. Apart from my observations
of the witnesses in crediting Trezvant, I do not find Hen-
derson's explanation plausible.
Charles Trezvant also stated that about the last week
in July Supervisor DeSalvo asked him what he thought
about the Union. Upon replying he liked working under
the Union, DeSalvo mentioned the Respondent's plant in
Massachusetts was under a union and was down to 4
days a week and then asked him if he thought he could
make it on 4 days a week.
Supervisor DeSalvo acknowledged mentioning to
Trezvant the Respondent's Hudson plant was on a 4-day
workweek and they were union but denied making the
other statements to or questioning Trezvant about the
Union.
Based upon Trezvant's testimony which I credit, in-
stead of DeSalvo, I find about the last week in July Su-
pervisor DeSalvo interrogated Charles Trezvant con-
cerning what he thought about the Union and impliedly
threatened him that if the Union came in the plant would
only operate 4 days a week. Trezvant impressed me as
being a more credible witness than DeSalvo who also of-
fered no explanation for his comments to Trezvant about
the Respondent's Hudson plant.
Several employees testified about statements Supervi-
sor Lipford made to them concerning the Union. Larry
Hutchins stated about July 24 Lipford asked him if he
knew the Union was back in town. Lipford mentioned
they had 4 weeks' inventory built up in the stockroom
and said the doors of the plant could be shut down and
the employees laid off and then brought back to work
when they needed more inventory. Lipford then told
him he used to work at Chemco in Memphis, Tennessee,
where they had a union and their employees would be
laid off when they had the inventory built up and then
when they ran out of inventory they would bring them
back to work. Hutchins also stated about the middle of
July Lipford asked him if he had been contacted by the
Union.
Ernest Keeling testified on July I I Supervisor Lipford
informed him they had enough stock in the warehouse
for 4 weeks and they could shut the doors for 4 weeks
and never miss a sale. Lipford said they did not lay off at
this plant but the other plant at Hudson 6 did not work
6 The Respondent had a plant located at Hudson
that far ahead of schedule and if they did not have sales
they would lay their people off and they were laid off
about as much as they worked up there.
Further on August 6 and again on August 14 Keeling
stated Lipford asked him if he had heard anything from
the Union. On the latter occasion Lipford said he
thought they had won Mary Palmer7 and Pam Lemly
over.
Mary Palmer stated on August 10, following a union
meeting held the night before which she did not attend,
Supervisor Lipford asked her if she knew they had a
union meeting at the Confederate Inn s the previous
night. Upon asking how he knew, he replied there was a
lot of things he knew which she did not know. He said
he could even tell her everybody that was there and
most of them were from Adkins. When she inquired how
he could do that and whether he had spies, he denied it
and left.
Leta Mount testified that about July 10 Supervisor
Lipford asked her what she thought about the meeting
held in the receiving area9 and then said he did not feel
like they needed a union there and things were going
along fine. About July 24 Mount stated Supervisor Lip-
ford told her and two other employees present, Ray-
mond Robinson and Bobby Clemons,' ° that the Union
was trying to contact people and calling them on the
telephone trying to get them to sign cards and told them
if the Union contacted them he wanted to know about it.
Supervisor Lipford, while acknowledging having con-
versations with these employees about the Union, denied
questioning them about the Union or making the state-
ments they attributed to him. According to him, he had
similar conversations with all of them during which he
presented the Respondent's side of the union issue which
he asked them to consider. He also told them, based
upon rumors he had heard, that the Union was back in
town.
I credit the testimony of Larry Hutchins, Ernest Keel-
ing, Mary Palmer, and Leta Mount, rather than Lipford,
whom I discredit," and find that Supervisor Lipford
about the middle of July, July 24, and August 6, 10, and
14 interrogated Larry Hutchins, Ernest Keeling, and
Mary Palmer about the Union or their activities; on July
11 and about July 24 impliedly threatened Larry Hutch-
ins and Ernest Keeling that the plant would be shut
down and employees laid off whenever the inventory
was high if they had a union; on August 10 created an
impression of surveillance of employees' union activities
by informing Mary Palmer he could tell her everybody
who attended a union meeting held the previous evening;
and about July 24 solicited Leta Mount, Raymond Rob-
Lipford acknowledged he had obsersed Palmer distributing union lit-
erature and assumed she was a union supporter.
8 Lipford at the hearing stated he had been told by an employee that
union meetings had been held at the Confederate Inn in Morrilton.
I Mount had attended a meeting of all the employees held by Vice
President )sment in the receiving area on July 10 at which the Union
was discussed.
Neither Robinson nor Bobby Clemons testified.
' Besides my observations of the witnesses in discrediting Lipford, his
denials of any wrongdoing which reflect a pattern of unlawful conduct
are not persuasive
1030 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
inson, and Bobby Clemons to report it to him if the
Union contacted them about signing union authorization
cards.
C. March 13 Notice to Employees
On March 13, 1980,12 a proposed informal settlement
agreement in the instant case, which contained a nonad-
mission clause, was signed by representatives of both the
Respondent and the Union. However, this agreement
was not approved by the Regional Director for Region
26 and never became effective.
Later that same day a notice to the employees signed
by Vice President Osment' 3 was posted on the employ-
ees' bulletin boards at the plant. It provides as follows:
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
At the trial scheduled for today, the other side
came to us asking to settle the NLRB Case. The
Prosecutor and the Judge both agreed that the set-
tlement notice would merely be a restatement of the
Law and would not be a finding that the Company
had violated the Law in any respect.
In view of this, we decided that it would be in
the best interest of our employees and the Company
to avoid the cost of the trial, the embarrassment to
our employees and the inference that would result
in our business especially at this time. We did agree
to post a notice along with the settlement agree-
ment signed by the union which says that the Com-
pany does not admit to any violation of the law.
The amended complaint alleges this notice threatened
and coerced employees by "telling them that if they
signed union authorization cards, they would be required
to testify in court and, thereby they would suffer embar-
rassment."
The notice itself, the posting of which might detract
from the terms of any Board settlement agreement, does
not on its face contain any reference to either union au-
thorization cards or employees being required to testify
if they signed them. Therefore the evidence is insuffi-
cient to establish employees were either threatened or
coerced by the notice as alleged.
Linda Hartman testified that about 2:30 p.m. on March
13, after this notice was posted, she was in the break-
room during break period and as she passed by Supervi-
sor Clay, who she said was standing in the coffee line,
she overheard someone ask, "Well, what does this
mean?" Whereupon Clay said that the employees had
dropped their supposed charges. According to Hartman
there were several people around at the time but she
could not identify them or the person who asked the
question, acknowledging she really did not pay that
much attention.
Supervisor Clay denied making such statement or dis-
cussing the notice with anyone or being in the break-
room that afternoon. He stated that between 2 and 2:45
12 A hearing had been scheduled that day before Administrative I.aw
Judge Kaplan.
13 Osment's explanation for the notice was he relied upon the proposed
settlement agreement to draft this notice.
p.m. that day he attended a meeting held in the confer-
ence room and then went to the mechanical supply
stockroom.
Assuming Supervisor Clay made such a statement as
alleged, even Hartman's own testimony fails to establish
Clay was either discussing the proposed settlement
agreement itself or made reference to it and I find such
evidence fails to show that he told employees the Union
had abandoned employees by consenting to enter into a
settlement agreement as alleged.
D. Letters to Employees About Testifying
Vice President Osment wrote two letters which were
mailed to all the employees. He stated his purpose was to
inform the employees of the Respondent's position that it
did not want the Union in the plant.
The first letter dated July 11 provides, in pertinent
part, as follows:
There have been many people who were required
to appear in court and testify after they had signed
a union card. Most of these people did not know
that this could happen to them before they signed
the card. In every case, the people who did not sign
a union card were not subpoenaed to court to tes-
tify about it.
We would strongly recommend that you do not
sign your name to a union card or anything else
unless and until you know how you can be held le-
gally liable if you do. This is merely for your own
information and protection.
The other letter dated September 27 provides in perti-
nent part, as follows:
It is our understanding that Don Pilcher, the
union organizer for the UAW is telling people that
the card he is asking them to sign is just to get an
election; that it is only for an election and does not
mean that they would be a dues paying member of
the union if the union got in. Then in the next
breath, he's saying that he's not trying to get the
thirty percent signed up necessary to get an election
but he's trying to get fifty-one percent and he is
going to try to come in the plant on cards alone
without even giving you an opportunity to vote in
an election.
What this means is, the man is not telling the
truth either in the first instance or the second; but in
any event, he can't be doing both. Many of our em-
ployees know that he is misrepresenting the purpose
of the cards of our people. If the UAW tries to
come into this plant on cards alone without an elec-
tion, there would likely be a trial at which each
person who signed a card more than likely would
be called upon to testify in open court under oath
about what was told to them to get them to sign a
card. This has been very embarrassing to other em-
ployees who have been forced into court under sub-
poena. Has the union organizer been honest enough
to sign a single guarantee in writing for you? So
ARROW AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES, INC. 1031
again, we repeat, you should not sign a union card
unless you fully understand what it means to you
and your family. The history of the UAW would
indicate that you cannot depend on what they say
as being the truth.
This same September 27 letter, based upon Vice Presi-
dent Osment's decision, was also reprinted in the Octo-
ber issue of the Respondent's newspaper "Arrow
Motive," copies of which were distributed to the em-
ployees.
E. July 10 Speech
On July 10 Vice President Osment made a speech to
all the employees.
The General Counsel presented several witnesses who
had attended the speech to testify concerning what
Osment told them during the speech. Larry Hutchins
stated Osment told them if they signed a union card it
would be considered as a legal binding contract and
people had been known to have been subpenaed to go to
court and testify because they had signed the cards and it
caused embarrassment to them and their families. Osment
also said if anyone approached them and harassed them
in any way to sign a union card to tell their supervisor
and that person would be discharged.
Ernest Keeling recalled that Osment told them if any-
body was threatened or pressured into signing a union
card to let him or anybody in management know and
they would be terminated.
Mary Palmer stated Osment said that anyone that
signed a union card could be forced to go to court and
also told them if anybody in the plant pressured them to
sign a card to tell their supervisor and they would be
dismissed.
Leta Mount testified Osment told them if anyone was
caught talking about the Union or getting anyone to sign
a union card or pressured or threatening them to sign a
union card that person could tell their supervisor and the
other person would be discharged.
While Hutchins denied Osment had any notes or read
the speech and Mount denied seeing any notes, Keeling
acknowledged Osment had notes which he glanced at al-
though he said Osment did not read word for word.
Vice President Osment, whose testimony was corrobo-
rated by Manager Henderson, l testified he read his
speech to the employees. The text of that speech pro-
vides, in pertinent part, as follows:
You do not have to sign a card to work here and
you don't have to be a union member to work here
and you never will. If anyone interferes with your
work on your job to try to get you to sign a card, you
should report that to your supervisor and we will see
that it is stopped. If anyone threatens you that you
will lose your job if you don't sign a card, we will
take steps to discharge that person immediately be-
cause we do not operate that way around here, we
never have and we never will.
13 Henderson stated he had a copy of Osment's speech and had heen
instructed to follovw along as Osment read it, which he did
There are many cases where a union has had
people sign cards and then those people who signed
cards were subpoenaed to court where they were
required to testify. It has happened many times to em-
ployees who found out the truth after they had
signed a card, and of course, then it was too late.
Those people were required to go to court sometimes
before they even had a chance to vote in a secret
election, and sometimes even after they had voted in
a secret election to keep the union out.
The language on most cards is a binding contract
on the person who signs his or her name to it and
the courts have required people to take the witness
stand and testify after they have signed such a card
when the union tried to get into a plant based upon
the signed cards.
You have a legal right to know that you are not
required to sign such a card now or ever and further-
more, common sense will tell you that if you do not
sign something, there is no way that anyone will
ever require you to testify about your signature. My
own advice is that you should not sign your name to
a union card or anything else unless you are absolute-
ly sure that you know you can be held legally liable
if you do sign it.
I credit the testimony of Vice President Osment and
Manager Henderson and find Osment read his speech in-
cluding those portions set forth supra, to the employees
on July 10. While the subject matter alluded to by the
General Counsel's witnesses is contained in the speech
itself, their conflicting versions about what was said per-
suades me their recollections about what was actually
said were taken out of context from the actual text of the
speech as delivered by Osment.'4
F. Group Meetings
About August 22, Vice President Osment accompanied
by Terry Reynolds"' held meetings with groups of em-
ployees varying in size from 8 to 14 employees.
Several witnesses presented by the General Counsel
testified concerning what transpired at those meetings.
Larry Hutchins stated at the meeting he attended
Osment told them about other union plants which had
job classifications and said in those plants if they ran out
of anything to do on their particular job they would be
laid off until they found something for them to do and
then they would be brought back to work. Osment also
mentioned most customers they showed through the
plant asked if they had a union there and said that a lot
of times if the plant had a union in it the customers
would be reluctant to buy the product from the compa-
ny because they were afraid they would not get their
products when they ordered them on time.
Ernest Keeling testified at the meeting he attended
Osment told them the Respondent's plants at Morrilton
and Spartanburg, South Carolina, had never had a layoff
and the Respondent's plant in Hudson had never had a
4 I find this alsi applies to the tletiniorln ofI Bet5 (iuest hoi testified
a a witlness frr the Respondent
' s Re nolds did nril testify
1032 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
layoff until they went union. Osment mentioned unions
like to get job classifications and gave as an example that
Danny Higgins was a starter tester and if it got slow on
the starter line and starters quit coming down the line
they would have to send Higgins home because he was
classified as a tester. Osment also said most customers
who came through asked if the plant was union or non-
union and when he would tell them it was nonunion they
would say, "Good." He explained this to mean that if
they were union and went on strike the customers would
still need their parts and if they could not get the parts
from them they would have to go somewhere else and
afterwards they would not come back which meant the
loss of a customer.
Todd Wyatt stated at the meeting he attended, which
included employee Betty Guest, Osment told them if the
Union came in and he had so many alternators to build
and their line caught up they would go home but like it
was then being nonunion, they would transfer over and
work somewhere else. Wyatt denied Osment mentioned
this had to do with job classifications under a contract.
Osment also said a lot of their customers would ask if
they were union or nonunion and said the customers did
not want a union because they had to worry about a
strike and their product being there, where if it was non-
union they knew they were going to get their product
and not have to worry about a strike.
Both Mary Palmer and Leta Mount attended the same
meeting. Palmer testified at this meeting Osment said if
the Union did come in that they would lose more cus-
tomers.
Mount, however, testified Osment told them the
Hudson plant was on 4 days but she denied he said any-
thing about layoffs and did not remember him saying
anything about the Morrilton plant going to a 4-day
workweek. Under cross-examination Mount further
denied Osment said anything about customers, the plant
going union, job classifications, or the inability to trans-
fer.
While Hutchins denied Osment had any papers in his
hand when he spoke, Keeling, Palmer, and Mount all
stated Osment did have notes.
Betty Guest, who testified on behalf of the Respond-
ent, stated at the group meeting she attended about
which Todd Wyatt also testified, what Osment told them
about layoffs was if the Union came in and if they nego-
tiated a contract which specified they would have a cer-
tain job to do and they would not be allowed to transfer
off of that job then when they got down low like they
were then, that rather than be transferred off that job
they would be laid off if it was in the contract that way.
Vice President Osment specifically denied making the
statements attributed to him by the General Counsel's
witnesses. According to him, at the opening of each
meeting he read a prepared text' 6 but then allowed ques-
tions to be asked which he answered.
His explanation about transfers was he told them they
were then able to transfer people from one job to an-
other and keep them working but in response to their
questions about whether they would be able to transfer if
'6 This text itself does not contain those statements the General Coun-
sel's witnesses alleged were made by Osment.
the Union got in he stated he told them it depended on
the contract. He said if there was a nontransfer clause in
the contract that said they could not transfer from one
job classification to the other, when the work gave out
on a particular line, like the alternator line, starter, or
whatever, and they were classified in that particular line,
if they had no work coming down that line they had no
choice but to let them clock out and go home until work
was available. He mentioned this was also the case at
other plants that had nontransfer clauses.
Osment stated he mentioned the Morrilton and Spar-
tanburg plants were working 5 days a week and that
their Hudson plant was on a 4-day workweek because of
low sales. During these meetings he also mentioned the
Hudson plant, which was union, had several layoffs and
had short workweeks and that it also had a strike. He
further told them a lot of customers asked if they had a
union there and when he told them no they would tell
him that was good, they would not have to worry about
strikes and interruption of production.
Osment also stated upon being asked whether their
sales, which were down, were going to come up he in-
formed them he could not say but said they felt confi-
dent they would be able to get new customers.
I credit the testimony of Vice President Osment, cor-
roborated in part by Betty Guest, whom I also credit
concerning what transpired at these group meetings
rather than the testimony of the General Counsel's wit-
nesses. Not only did two of them, Palmer and Mount,
contradict each other concerning what was discussed at
the meeting they both attended but a review of testimo-
ny of the other witnesses persuades me they attributed
statements to Osment which were taken out of context
from what he actually said. Moreover, the testimony of
Hutchins and Keeling about layoffs, unlike that of
Wyatt, were linked to job classifications which is consist-
ent with Osment's explanation. Therefore, I find the evi-
dence is insufficient to establish that Vice President
Osment during these meetings threatened employees
with temporary shutdown, layoff, loss of transfer privi-
lege, and shorter hours if the Union came in as alleged.
G. Alleged Revocation of an Employee's Coffeebreak
John Lewis, who engaged in union activities and was
employed as a general maintenance mechanic in the
maintenance department under the supervision of Super-
visor Beaman, testified that about August 20 he had just
gotten a cup of coffee from the breakroom and was
standing by the bulletin board where another employee,
whose first name was Jewell, had stopped him. This was
about 6:45 a.m., and Lewis had reported to work at 6
a.m., for purposes of opening up the plant. About this
time James Holt, '7 a supervisor over the starter area,
passed by and smiling said he wanted Lewis to read
every word on the bulletin board; whereupon Lewis re-
plied he could read them but did not have to believe it.
According to Lewis, the bulletin board contained just
general things including some antiunion literature.
" tl it did not testify
ARROW AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES, INC. 1033
Lewis testified that the next morning Supervisor
Beaman called him in the office and informed him it had
been brought to his attention that he had been drinking
coffee in the morning and standing in front of the bulle-
tin board making comments to everybody that passed,
which he denied.
Later that morning, Lewis stated he asked Beaman
who had told him that, however, Beaman refused to tell
him giving as his reasons what went on in a supervisor's
meeting was confidential and it was not any of his busi-
ness and he was just doing what he was told. Lewis on
direct examination further testified Beaman told him the
Company did not want them drinking coffee in the
morning and did not want him to be at the front break
area in the morning. Under cross-examination Lewis,
while first denying Beaman told him he could not take a
break, then stated what Beaman told him was he was not
to go to the break area and get coffee or take a break
which he interpreted to mean Beaman did not want him
to get coffee.
According to Lewis, prior to this conversation it had
been his practice whenever he came in early to open up
he had a 15-to-20-minute slack period before 7 a.m.
during which he would go in the breakroom to drink
coffee.
Supervisor Beaman acknowledged calling Lewis into
the office and informing him, based upon reports he had
received from other supervisors, it had come to his atten-
tion Lewis had been observed standing by the bulletin
board making comments to other people and that he re-
fused to tell Lewis who had informed him. However, he
denied telling Lewis the Company did not want him
drinking coffee in the morning or being in the break
area. He did tell him he could not take a break at that
time of morning, which Lewis said he had been doing,
but said he could get his coffee and take it on his rounds
with him or to the maintenance shop because they were
not allowed a break until the regular break time. 18
Two other employees in the maintenance department,
Jerry Scroggins and Addison Bryant, who testified on
behalf of the Respondent, stated maintenance employees
had never been allowed to take coffeebreaks when they
came in to open up the plant in the morning but they
were allowed to and still do get coffee and take it with
them to their work areas where they drink it.
Based upon Supervisor Beaman's testimony, which I
credit rather than Lewis', I find the maintenance employ-
ees were not allowed coffeebreaks prior to their regular
break period and Beaman did not revoke Lewis' morning
coffeebreak because of his union activity as alleged.
Apart from my observations of the witnesses in discredit-
ing Lewis, his testimony appears based upon what he
perceived as being said rather than what was actually
said on that occasion.
H. Analysis and Conclusions
The General Counsel contends, while the Respondent
denies, that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act by engaging in unlawful interrogations. solicita-
Is The employees are allowed a coffeebreak at 9 a In liich I xN1% i
still takes, and also another coffcchreak in the afternoon
tions, threats, coercion, impressions of surveillance, and
revoked an employee's coffeebreak all because of its em-
ployees' union membership and activities.' 9
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act prohibits an employer from
interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in
the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
The test applied to determining whether a violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act has occurred is "whether the
employer engaged in conduct which, it may reasonably
be said, tends to interfere with the free exercise of em-
ployee rights under the Act." Electrical Fittings Corpora-
tion, a subsidiary of I-T-E Imperial Corporation, 216
NLRB 1076 (1975). Further, while an employer may
speak freely to employees regarding issues arising in con-
nection with a union organizational campaign, such state-
ments are unlawful if they contain threats of reprisal.
Components. Inc., 197 NLRB 163 (1972).
The findings supra establish that about the first week
of August Manager Henderson threatened Charles Trez-
vant and Terry Hardwick if the Union came in employ-
ees would be sent home when their work ran out rather
than being assigned to other jobs as was the present
practice. Supervisor DeSalvo, about the last week in
July, interrogated Charles Trezvant concerning what he
thought about the Union and impliedly threatened him if
the Union came in the plant would only operate 4 days a
week. Further, Supervisor Lipford about the middle of
July, July 24 and August 6, 10, and 14, interrogated
Larry Hutchins, Ernest Keeling, and Mary Palmer about
the union or their union activities: on July II and 24 im-
pliedly threatened Larry Hutchins and Ernest Keeling
the plant would be shut down and employees laid off
whenever inventory was high if they had a union; on
August 10 created an impression of surveillance of em-
ployees' union activities by informing Mary Palmer he
could tell her everybody who had attended a union
meeting held the previous evening; and about July 24 so-
licited Leta Mount, Raymond Robinson, and Bobby Cle-
mons to report it to him if the Union contacted them
about signing union authorization cards.
Applying the above test, I find the Respondent by en-
gaging in these acts of interrogations, threats, solicita-
tions, and impression of surveillance just enumerated has
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in
the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act and has thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
With respect to the July 11 and September 27 letters
from Vice President Osment to the employees, the latter
of which was reprinted in the October issue of the Re-
spondent's newspaper, as well as in his July 10 speech to
the employees, the evidence establishes Osment repeated-
ly informed employees that those employees who signed
union cards could be required to appear in court and tes-
tify about them and also that this had been very embar-
rassing to other employees who had been forced into
court under subpena. Except for Osment stating the pur-
pose of the July 11 and September 27 letters was to
inform employees of the Respondent's position it did not
I"' I tlIht estt cirlIlil f ther e allegalinols has e . ire adi beenl dsposed
If hs t hC lndltillgs iupra. 111 further discussion s arrailnted
1034 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
want a union in the plant, no valid explanation was prof-
fered to explain why such statements were made to the
employees. While these documents themselves make ref-
erence to recognition based upon union cards rather than
an election, the union had not made any demand for rec-
ognition.
Informing employees they could be forced to testify in
open court about their signing union authorization cards
has been held to be unlawful as it lets employees know
that the names of union adherents could be ascertained
and appropriate reprisals taken. See The Lundy Packing
Company, 223 NLRB 139 (1976), enfd. as modified 549
F.2d 300 (4th Cir. 1977); and N.L.R.B. v. Finesilver Man-
ufacturing Co., 400 F.2d 644, 646 (5th Cir. 1968).
Absent as here any valid reason for repeatedly inform-
ing employees that those employees who signed union
cards could be required to appear in court to testify
about them and occurring in the context of other unfair
labor practices herein found, I am persuaded and find
such statements by Vice President Osment were to dis-
courage employees from signing union authorization
cards and the Respondent thereby violated Section
8(a)(l) of the Act.
The remaining issue to be resolved is whether Vice
President Osment in his July 10 speech to the employees
unlawfully solicited employees to report to the Respond-
ent the union activities of other employees and unlawful-
ly threatened to discharge employees.
The findings supra establish the following language, in
pertinent part, was contained in Osment's speech:
If anyone interferes with your work on your job to
try to get you to sign a card, you should report that
to your supervisor and we will see that it is
stopped. If anyone threatens you that you will lose
your job if you don't sign a card, we will take steps
to discharge that person immediately because we do
not operate that way around here, we never have
and we never will.
Instructions to employees to report the identity of
union card solicitors who in any way approach them in a
manner subjectively offensive to them and which dis-
courage those employees in their protected right to solic-
it cards are unlawful. J. H. Block & Co., Inc., 247 NLRB
262 (1980).
While preventing interference with employees' work is
a legitimate concern to an employer, no evidence was
adduced in the instant case to indicate anyone's work
had been interfered with by persons soliciting union
cards or that employees had been threatened if they did
not sign a union card. Moreover, no reason was prof-
fered for giving employees such instructions and their in-
terpretations of what constitutes "interferes with," which
was not defined, could vary considerably. Rather, absent,
as here, any legitimate reason for issuing these broad
instructions and occurring in the context of other unlaw-
ful conduct herein found, I find the purpose was to en-
courage employees to report the identity of employees
who solicited other employees to sign union authoriza-
tion cards and to discourage employees from soliciting
other employees to sign union authorization cards. Ac-
cordingly, I find the Respondent to the extent it solicited
its employees to report to it attempts by other employees
to get them to sign union authorization cards violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. However, I do not find this
evidence sufficient to establish as was further alleged
that the Respondent unlawfully threatened to discharge
those employees whose names were reported to it for so-
liciting signatures on union authorization cards since the
evidence establishes such threat was specifically limited
to those employees who threatened other employees
they would lose their jobs if they did not sign a union
card.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR L.ABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCF,
The activities of the Respondent, set forth in section
III above, found to constitute unfair labor practices oc-
curring in connection with the operations of the Re-
spondent described in section I above, have a close, inti-
mate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow thereof.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Arrow Automotive Industries, Inc., is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
& Agricultural Implement Workers of America, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. By interrogating employees about their union feel-
ings and activities; soliciting employees to report to the
Respondent if the Union contacted them about signing
union authorization cards; threatening employees if the
Union came in employees would be sent home when
their work ran out rather than their being assigned other
jobs as was the present practice; impliedly threatening an
employee if the Union came in the plant would only op-
erate 4 days a week; impliedly threatening employees the
plant would be shut down and employees laid off when-
ever inventory was high if they had a union; creating an
impression of surveillance of employees' union activities
by a supervisor informing an employee he could tell the
employee everybody who had attended a union meeting
held the previous evening; informing employees to dis-
courage them from signing union authorization cards
that those employees who signed union authorization
cards could be required to appear in court to testify
about them; and by soliciting its employees to report to
the Respondent attempts by other employees to get them
to sign union authorization cards, the Respondent has in-
terfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in
the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act and has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation
of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ARROW' AUTOMOTIVE. INDUSTRIES. INC. 1035
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(l) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and the entire record and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER2 0
The Respondent, Arrow Automotive Industries, Inc.,
Morrilton, Arkansas, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating employees about their union feelings
and activities.
(b) Soliciting employees to report to the Respondent if
the Union contacted them about signing union authoriza-
tion cards.
(c) Threatening employees if the Union came in em-
ployees would be sent home when their work ran out
rather then their being assigned other jobs as was the
present practice.
(d) Impliedly threatening employees if the Union came
in the plant would only operate 4 days a week.
(e) Impliedly threatening employees the plant would
be shut down and employees laid off whenever inven-
tory was high if they had a Union.
20 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 10)2 4 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board. Ihc
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall. as prosided
in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations. he adopted by the Board and
become its findings, conclusions, and Order aid all objections thereto
shall be deemed waived for all purposes
(f) Creating impressions of surveillance of employees'
union activities by supervisors informing them they
could tell who attended union meetings.
(g) Informing employees to discourage them from
signing union authorization cards that those employees
who had signed union authorization cards could be re-
quired to appear in court to testify about them.
(h) Soliciting employees to report to the Respondent
attempts by other employees to get them to sign union
authorization cards.
(i) In any other like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its Morrilton, Arkansas, facility, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." 2 Copies of said
notice on forms furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 26, shall after being duly signed by the Respond-
ent's authorized representative be posted immediately
upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 con-
secutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 26, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT` Is FURTlER ORDERED that the amended complaint
be, and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges unfair
labor practices not specifically found herein.
2In the eecnt that this Order is enforced bh a Judgment of the
iited Siltes CouLrt of Appeals, the a.ords in the notce reading. "Posted
by Order of the Natimonal I. ahor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pur-
suanl to a ludgticnt oir the nited States Court of Appeals nforc ing aan
Order of thll National .abor Relations Board "