Atlantic Steel Company

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 28, 1979

245 N.L.R.B. 814 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Atlantic Steel Company and Kenneth Chastain. Case
10 CA 13634
September 28, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS PENELLO, MURPHY, AND TRUESDALE
On December 15, 1978, Administrative Law Judge
Walter H. Maloney, Jr., issued the attached Decision
in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief, and the Charging
Party filed an 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 of the Adminis-
trative Law Judge, and to adopt his findings and con-
clusions only to the extent consistent herewith.
Although an arbitrator had previously upheld the
discharge of Kenneth Chastain for calling his supervi-
sor a "lying s.o.b.," the Administrative Law Judge
found that the arbitrator confined his decision to legal
issues arising under the contract and failed to con-
sider whether the conduct amounted to an unfair la-
bor practice. The Administrative Law Judge found
that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act by discharging Chastain because, at the time
Chastain made the remark, he was discussing a griev-
ance and therefore was engaged in protected con-
certed activity. Respondent maintains that Chastain
was discharged for insubordination, and that the
Board, under its Spielberg doctrine,' should defer to
the arbitrator's award which upheld the lawfulness of
the discharge. We agree with Respondent.
The facts, as found by the arbitrator, are relatively
simple.2
Around 2 p.m. on November 3, 1977, employee
Kenneth Chastain, during his regular work shift, ap-
proached his foreman in the production area, and
asked him a question about assignment of overtime
by seniority. Chastain was concerned that a proba-
tionary employee had worked overtime. Shortly
thereafter, the foreman returned with an answer, also
I Spielberg Manufacturing Company, 112 NLRB 1080 (1955).
] We defer to the arbitrator's factual findings for the reasons stated in The
Kansas City Star Company, 236 NLRB 866 (1978). to wit: (1) The findings
are consistent with the record evidence; (2) there are no irregularities in the
proceedings: and (3) there are no facial errors in the factual findings.
We note, as discussed infra, that there is a factual parrallel between the
contractual and unfair labor practice questions which makes the arbitrator's
factual findings controlling for purposes of resolving the unfair labor prac-
tice. Indeed, the arbitrator's decision implicity resolved the unfair labor prac-
tice, and we defer to this resolution.
stating that he had asked all of the crew to take the
overtime. Based on the testimony of four witnesses
two employees, the foreman, and Chastain-the arbi-
trator found that, as the foreman was walking away
from the area, Chastain turned to another employee
and either called the foreman a "lying son of a bitch"
or stated that the foreman had told a "m- f- lie"
(or was a "min- f- liar") as to whether he had asked
the entire crew to work overtime. The foreman heard
his statement and told Chastain to go to the office.
Chastain was suspended pending discharge and there-
after terminated.
At the arbitration hearing, Chastain claimed that
the foreman had been harassing him for circulating a
petition concerning benefits, and that the discharge
was part of that harassment. Other claimed harass-
ment was the foreman's complaint that he was spend-
ing too long in the bathroom, and that the foreman
had poked him in the chest with a finger, insisted that
he wear his hardhat, and objected to his rejection of
certain of Respondent's products as defective.3 The
foreman denied all of these claims except the com-
plaint about his going to the bathroom too frequently.
In any event, the arbitrator found that Chastain had
not been disciplined for any of these incidents, and
that Respondent did not rely on them as grounds for
the discharge.
The arbitrator also noted, as conceded by both Re-
spondent and the Union, that Chastain was dis-
charged on the basis of his entire record, and not sole-
ly because of the incident with the foreman. In the
preceding 3 years, Chastain had been suspended
twice and given two warning letters. The first suspen-
sion, for poor work performance which curtailed pro-
duction, was grieved but not taken to arbitration. The
second suspension which occurred only 10 months
before the final incident-was for cursing in the pres-
ence of female clerks in violation of a supervisor's
directive not to use such language. This suspension
was grieved and taken to arbitration, whereupon the
same arbitrator who issued the instant decision up-
held the suspension but reduced it from 2 days to I
day. The arbitrator also observed in the present pro-
ceeding that Chastain had a poor attendance rec-
ord-32 instances of tardiness, I of which concerned
his leaving early with no apparent excuse, and 7 un-
excused absences.
Based on all of the above, the arbitrator concluded
that Respondent had good cause for the discharge.
He found that Chastain had properly questioned the
foreman about overtime, and that the foreman had
acted promptly to answer the question. The arbitra-
tor, concluding that Chastain's obscene reaction to
the supervisor was unwarranted insubordination,
noted that:
Chastain filed five grievances claiming harassment.
245 NLRB No. 107
814
ATLANTIC STEEL COMPANY
If Mitchell [the foreman] was in error in stating
the entire crew had been offered the overtime, a
grievance was the proper way to correct the mis-
take. But the use of insulting, obloquous [sic] lan-
guage to other employees about their supervisor
in the hearing of the supervisor cannot he re-
garded as "mere disrespect." On the contrary it
shows a willful disregard for constituted indus-
trial authority, a challenge to the dignity and
character of the foreman, [and] a derrogation
[sic] of the authority necessary to direct the
working forces. Under any definition, this, in the
setting it was found, constitutes insubordination.
Furthermore, the arbitrator found that any alleged
harassment by Respondent played no role in the deci-
sion to discharge, since these alleged incidents were
not "a causitive [sic] factor for Grievant's utterance
concerning Mitchell. Grievant's language was a reac-
tion to information supplied by Mitchell at Grievant's
request. In this there was obviously disagreement, but
not provocation." He also found that, while a super-
visor once cursed an employee without being disci-
plined, that single event did not constitute a practice
which would justify Chastain's language "in the cir-
cumstances where it was uttered." Finally, the arbi-
trator concluded that the discharge was warranted
because Respondent did not discharge Chastain be-
cause of one insubordinate act. Rather, the discharge
was part of a pattern of progressive discipline by Re-
spondent, which included a prior suspension for a
similar act.
Applying the analytical framework of the majority
in The Kansas City Star Company. supra, the Admin-
istrative Law Judge refused to defer to the arbitrator's
decision. He stated two reasons for refusing to defer:
(I) The arbitrator had not decided the underlying un-
fair labor practice. and (2), alternatively, the arbitra-
tor's conclusion, based on the facts found by the arbi-
trator, was not consistent with Board law.
We do not agree with the Administrative Law
Judge. Rather, applying Kansas City Star and other
Spielberg precedent to this case, we find that the
Board should defer to the arbitrator's decision. In
Raytheon Company,4 cited in Kansas City Star and
here by the Administrative Law Judge. the Board
added the requirement to Spielberg that, in order for
the Board to defer, the arbitrator must have consid-
ered the unfair labor practice in his decision. Since
that time, there has been little discussion by the
Board as to what this requirement means. Must the
arbitrator actually discuss the unfair labor practice,
or is it sufficient that he or she considered all of the
evidence relevant to the unfair labor practice in deter-
mining whether the discharge was lawful under the
4 140 NLRB 833 (1963). enforcement denied 326 F.2d 471 (Ist Cir. 1964).
contract? A review of the decisions shows that, while
it may be preferable for the arbitrator to pass on the
unfair labor practice directly, the Board generally has
not required that he or she do so. Rather, it is neces-
sary only that the arbitrator has considered all of the
evidence relevant to the unfair labor practice in
reaching his or her decision. For example, in Ray-
theon, supra. the Board refused to defer to an arbitra-
tor's decision because "the arbitrator did not, and was
advised that he could not, even consider evidence that
protected concerted and union activities were possible
causes tior the discharges."' Accordingly,. the record
which was developed before an arbitrator was inad-
equate for resolving the unfair labor practice.
Similarly, in Clara Barton Terrace (onvalescent
('enter, a Division of National Health Enterprises-Del-
fern Inc., also relied on here bh the Administrative
law Judge, the Board, with Members Penello and
Walther dissenting, refused to defer because the arbi-
trator had not considered the unfair labor practice
issue either explicitly or implicitly. Even assuming an
"implicit" resolution of the alleged unfair labor prac-
tice, that "implicit decision necessarily conflicted with
the Act's protection."7 Thus, while refusing to defer in
that instance, the Board recognized that the Spielberg
doctrine could be satisfied where the arbitrator's deci-
sion implicitl resolved the unfair labor practice.
More recently, in Kansas City Star, supra, the
Board, with Chairman Fanning and Member Jenkins
dissenting, deferred to the findings of the arbitrator in
resolving the legality of the discharge of several strik-
ers and the subsequent rescission of the collective-
bargaining agreement. On the first issue, the arbitra-
tor not only made all of the factual findings necessary
to deciding the legalit) of the discharges, but he also
decided that the discharges did not violate the Act.
On the second issue, however, he made the requisite
factual findings, but he did not determine the legality
of rescission under the Act. The Board nevertheless
deferred to his findings with respect to both issues.
This was because the findings were both complete
and comprehensive and factuallN parallel to the un-
fair labor practice question.
In the instant case, the arbitrator's findings are also
complete and comprehensive' and factually parallel
to the alleged unfair labor practice. Thus, with re-
140 NLRB at 886.
t 225 NLRB 1028 (1976).
225 NLRB at 1029
This factor distinguishes this case from Electronic Reproduction Sncrvc
Corporation, Madison Square Offset Compan., Inc. and Xernoraphic Repro-
duction Center, nc. 213 NLRB 758 (1974). where the Board deferred io the
arbitrator's decision, even though he had not considered evidence that the
employee had been discharged for union actilits That Decision. however.
was efectively overruled in Mar Factor & Co. 239 Nl RB 804 1978). where
Member Murphy epressed her disagreement ith It (Chairman Fanning
and Member Jenkins dissented n the original )ecision
815
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spect to the confrontation between the supervisor and
Chastain, the arbitrator considered the testimony of
both participants, as well as three employees who ob-
served the events.9 On the basis of all of their testi-
mony, he made a factual determination of what oc-
curred.1 0 As part of his findings, he concluded that
Chastain could formally grieve his complaint about
overtime, but that his questions in that regard did not
justify his statements about the supervisor.
In concluding that Chastain's statements were un-
justified, the arbitrator also considered Chastain's al-
legation that he was discharged as part of a pattern of
harassment for having circulated a petition concern-
ing benefits. He rejected this claim and found that
Chastain was discharged on the basis of his entire
disciplinary record, including the uttering of the ob-
scenities about the supervisor, and not as part of any
campaign of harassment. We are satisfied that the ar-
bitrator thoroughly considered all of the evidence and
made factual findings that are clearly supported by
the evidence. Accordingly, we defer to his factual
findings."
We also disagree with the Administrative Law
Judge's conclusion that deferral was not warranted
because the arbitrator's conclusion was repugnant to
the Act. The Administrative Law Judge stated:
Without in any way disturbing the arbitrator's
credibility findings or his factual analysis, it is
clear from facts he found that this Respondent
had invaded Chastain's rights under Section 7 of
the Act.
According to the Administrative Law Judge, Chas-
tain's questions about overtime constituted a griev-
ance and protected concerted activity. Therefore,
when Chastain used the term "lying son of a bitch,"
or "m- f- lie" (or "liar"), the Administrative Law
Judge reasoned that this conduct, as a part of the res
gestae of the grievance, was also protected. As sup-
port for this conclusion, he relied on two lines of prec-
edent. The first group of cases'2 dealt with formal
9These employees testified on behalf of the Union. Only one of them
testified at the hearing before the Administrative Law Judge.
°Contrary to the Administrative Law Judge, the arbitrator's findings
were not based on a crediting of the testimony of the supervisor. While
Respondent urged the arbitrator to credit the supervisor, the arbitrator made
his factual findings on the basis of the corroborated testimony of all of the
witnesses.
i" We specifically repudiate our concurring colleague's misinterpretation
of our opinion herein. Contrary to his statement, we neither agree nor dis-
agree with the arbitrator's determination-our sole consideration is whether
the arbitrator passed on all relevant aspects of the matter now before us and
reached a conclusion which is not repugnant to the Act, in accord with The
Kansas City Star Company, supra.
1 The cases cited by the Administrative Law Judge were Thor Power Tool
Company, 148 NLRB 1379 (1964), enfd. 351 F.2d 584 (7th Cir. 1965) (griev-
ance meeting in employer's office); and Crown Central Petroleum Corporation
v. N.L.R.B., 430 F.2d 724 (5th Cir. 1970) (grievance proceeding). He also
cited N.L.R.B. v. Cement Transport, Inc., 490 F.2d 1024 (6th Cir. 1974). In
grievances or negotiating sessions which were con-
ducted away from the production area. There, in the
heat of discussion, an employee uttered an obscenity
or used extremely strong language. In that context,
the employee's conduct was found to be protected as
part of the res gestae. Under the other line of prec-
edent, represented by Merlyn Bunney and Clarence
Bunney, partners, d/b/a Bunney Bros. Construction
Company,' and Interboro Contractors, Inc., 4 the
Board concluded that an individual employee's com-
plaint under the contract about working conditions
constituted protected concerted activity. The em-
ployee in question, however, made no obscene or in-
sulting statement.
The Administrative Law Judge cited no decisions,
however, and we know of none, where the Board has
held that an employee's use of obscenity to a supervi-
sor on the production floor, following a question con-
cerning working conditions, is protected as would be
a spontaneous outburst during the heat of a formal
grievance proceeding or in contract negotiations. To
the contrary, the Board and the courts have recog-
nized (as did the Administrative Law Judge in pass-
ing) that even an employee who is engaged in con-
certed protected activity can, by opprobrious
conduct, lose the protection of the Act.'
The decision as to whether the employee has
crossed that line depends on several factors: () the
place of the discussion; (2) the subject matter of the
discussion: (3) the nature of the employee's outburst;
and (4) whether the outburst was, in any way, pro-
voked by an employer's unfair labor practice.
To reach a decision, the Board or an arbitrator
must carefully balance these various factors.
Here the arbitrator considered the factors which
the Board considers, and concluded that the employ-
ee's discharge was warranted and based on reasons
not repugnant to the Act.'6 He noted that the incident
that case the court held that an employee's use of' obscenity during an or-
ganizational campaign was protected. That situation is ery different from
the one herein.
1 139 NLRB 1516 (1962).
14 157 NLRB 1295 (1965).
is Hawaiian Hauling Service, Ltd., 219 NLRB 765., 766 (1975).
'6 By contrast, in Sea-Land Service, Inc., 240 NLRB 1146 (1979) (Member
Penello dissented), Member Truesdale concurred with Chairman Fanning
and Member Jenkins in finding that the arbitrator's decision on an issue
similar to that presented here was repugnant to the Act. In Sea-Land. an
employee had filed a grievance following a reprimand for his work, and then
the employer disciplined him in writing for having filed the grievance. The
employee was presented with the discipline letter at a meeting with the su-
pervisors over the grievance. When the employee saw the letter, he stated:
. . iT]he company must be crazy if they think that they can give [mel
instructions like this. [I] can stand on the highest mountain shouting
anything [I want to about the President of the United States .... [I
could say anything II wanted to anybody anytime [1] wanted to, and,
Kay Miller, you must be out of your f- mind if you think you can
change me.
He was summarily discharged for that outburst, and his discharge was up-
held by an arbitrator. Member Truesdale refused to defer in that instance
because the outburst occurred away from the production floor, it concerned
a formal grievance, and, most significantly, the outburst was provoked, as
816
ATLANTIC STEEL COMPANY
occurred on the production floor during working time
(not at a grievance meeting), that the employee's
question about overtime expressed legitimate concern
which could be grieved, and that the supervisor had
investigated and answered his question promptly:
but, nevertheless, the employee had reacted in an ob-
scene fashion without provocation and in a work set-
ting where such conduct was not normally tolerated.
He further considered the employee's past record and
concluded that, considered together, this record es-
tablished a reasonable basis for the discharge.
We find nothing in the arbitrator's decision that is
repugnant to the Act. Indeed, a contrary result in this
case would mean that any employee's offhand com-
plaint would be protected activity which would shield
any obscene insubordination short of physical vio-
lence. That result would not be consistent with the
Act. Accordingly, we conclude that it will effectuate
the purposes of the Act to give conclusive effect to the
grievance award, and, on that basis, we shall dismiss
the complaint in its entirety.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby orders that the complaint herein
be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
MEMBER PENELLO, concurring:
For somewhat different reasons than my col-
leagues, I agree that this case should be deferred to
the arbitration award which found that grievant
Chastain had been discharged for cause: i.e., insubor-
dination. The question before the arbitrator was es-
sentially the same as the unfair labor practice issue
herein; i.e., whether Chastain's conduct was so oppro-
brious as to make Chastain unfit for further employ-
ment. The arbitrator found that it was:
But the use of insulting obloquous [sic] language
["m- f- liar" or "lying son-of-a-bitch"] to
other employees about their supervisor in the
hearing of the supervisor cannot be regarded as
"mere disrespect." On the contrary it shows a
willful disregard for constituted industrial au-
thority, a challenge to the dignity and character
of the foreman, a derrogation [sic] of the author-
ity necessary to direct the working forces.
The arbitrator found that Chastain was discharged
because he cursed his supervisor and that, under the
circumstances, Chastain had thereby crossed the line
found by the arbitrator. by the employer's own unfair labor practice disci-
plining the employee for filing a grievance. Thus. in his view, the arbitrator's
result was not consistent with Board law.
1" Member Murphy did not participate in Sea-Land Service. Inc. supra.
and finds it unnecessary to express a position on that holding at this time
separating acceptable from unacceptable behavior.
On this basis, and this basis alone. I find that the
arbitrator's award is not clearly repugnant to the pur-
poses and policies of the Act. As the other Spielberg
standards are not at issue, I would accordingly defer
to the award. In my opinion. further consideration or
analysis is neither necessary nor warranted. See my
dissents in Hawaiin Hauling Service. Ltd., 219 NLRB
765. 767 (1975); Clara Barton Teirrace Convalescent
Center, 225 NLRB 1028, 1029 (1976): Ad,4rt, Incor-
porated, 238 NLRB 1124 (1978); and Sea-Lnd Ser-
vice, Inc., 240 NLRB 1146 (1979).
My colleagues go to some length to distinguish the
instant case from those cited above. Yet each case
involves an arbitration award which found that the
grievant had cursed a management official under cir-
cumstances in which such behavior was unaccept-
able. Of course there are differences in the cases, but
they are differences of degree rather than kind. The
only real distinction my colleagues have made is that
they believe the arbitrator herein has made the right
decision that his award fully squares with Board
precedent, that he applied the precise determinants of
what is unacceptable behavior, and, ultimately, that
his award reached a result with which they agree. My
colleagues' standard for deferral is, thus, whether the
award is in accord with the Act and Board precedent
rather than the Spielberg standard of whether the
award is clearly repugnant to the Act or wholly at
odds with Board precedent. My colleagues' mistake, I
believe, is that they first look to the unfair labor prac-
tice complaint and hearing rather than to the arbitra-
tion award. In my view, my colleagues have not "de-
ferred" to the arbitrator's award but have "adopted"
it as if the arbitrator were some sort of unofficial ad-
ministrative law judge. Deferral under such a stan-
dard furthers neither the aim nor the efficient admin-
istration of the Act but encourages full litigation
before the Board of deferrable disputes. Strict atten-
tion to Spielberg standards would, however, further
the purposes of the Act by encouraging the reliance
on collective-bargaining and its correlative offspring,
grievance arbitration. Accordingly, I would defer to
the arbitration award herein and dismiss the com-
plaint in its entirety.
DECISION
A. Statement of the Case
WAI TER H. MAILONY. JR., Administrative Law Judge.
This case came on to be heard before the undersigned in
Atlanta. Georgia. upon an unfair labor practice complaint.'
issued by the Regional Director for Region 10, which aI-
' The principal docket entries in this case are as fllows: (Charge filed
herein hb Kenneth Chastain. an individual, against Respondent on la 2,
(C'ontinued)
817
DEC)ISIONS OF NAT'IONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
leges that the Respondent, Atlantic Steel Company.2 vio-
lated Section 8(a)( ) and (3) of the Act. More particularly.
the complaint alleges that Respondent discharged Charging
Party Kenneth Chastain because Chastain was engaging in
concerted, protected activities and in union activities. Re-
spondent maintains that Chastain was discharged for curs-
ing a supervisor and that the Board, under its Spielberg
doctrine'. should defer to an arbitrator's award which up-
held the discharge. Upon these contentions the issues herein
were drawn.
B. The I ntilir Labor Practicesv Alleged
For many years Respondent has operated a steel fabri-
cating plant in Atlanta, Georgia. It employs between 1,050
and 1.125 employees in its production and maintenance
unit. For more than 30 years, Respondent has maintained a
collective-bargaining relationship in this unit with Local
2401 of the United Steelworkers of America. Its most recent
contract with the Union became effective on August 1,
1977, for 3 years. At the same time that the parties con-
cluded a collective-bargaining agreement of general appli-
cation, they also conclude a supplemental unemployment
benefit plan agreement governing the same bargaining unit
for the same period of time.
Respondent has maintained a supplemental unemploy-
ment benefit plan (SUB) for its unit employees, in accord-
ance with which it was formerly obligated to contribute an
amount equal to 5 cents per hour per employee up to a
stated ceiling. When unit employees were laid off, the Com-
pany supplemented their unemployment compensation
checks from this fund. In the winter of 1976-77, the fund
went dry because of a large number of layoflfs and a sub-
stantial number of short work weeks due to cold weather.
As a result, Respondent posted a notice at the plant in
January or February advising employees of the condition of
the fund. It also discussed the problem with Union officials.
The SUB fund was the subject of negotiations in the sum-
mer of 1977, in the course of which the Company agreed to
an 8-cent-per-hour per employee contribution and a higher
fund limitation.
Kenneth Chastain, the Charging Party in this case,
started to work for the Respondent in 1973. At the time of
his discharge on November 4, 1977, he was employed as a
galvanizer helper in the Mill Galvanizing Department. His
immediate foreman was Ruzzie Mitchell, who is familiarly
known as "Rev." I credit Chastain's testimony that, in the
1978; complaint issued on May 23. 1978 Respondent's answer filed on May
31. 1978; hearing held in Atlanta, Georgia, on October 17. 1978; briefs filed
by the Charging Party and Respondent with the undersigned on or before
November 13, 1978.
Respondent admits, and I find, that it is a corporation which maintains
an office and factory in Atlanta. Georgia,. where it is engaged in the manu-
facturing of chain link fence and other steel products. During the preceeding
calendar year. Respondent has shipped from its Atlanta, Georgia. place of
business directly to points and places outside the State of Georgia goods and
merchandise valued in excess of S50.000. Accordingly. Respondent is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2). (6), and
(7) of the Act. Local 2401, United Steelworkers of America. AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Sec. 2(5) of the Act.
Spielberg Manufacturing Company, 112 NLRB 1080.
The transcript herein is hereby corrected.
fall of 1977, he and other employees in the Mill Galvanizing
Department were unhappy about the operation of the fund.
so Chastain circulated a petition at the plant, directed
toward the Union, asking the Union to discuss the SUB
fund problem at a union meeting. He collected about thirty
signatures on the petition. I also find that his foreman,
Mitchell, was aware that Chastain was circulating this peti-
tion.'
Chastain asserts that, during this same period of time, he
was having difficulty with Mitchell. a difficulty' he attributes
to Mitchell's resentment of his effort in circulating a peti-
tion. Specifically, Chastain complains that Mitchell poked
him in the chest while speaking to him and later bumped
into him deliberately. He testified that Mitchell followed
him and his Shop Steward Joe R. Garrett to the bathroom
and criticized them for spending excessive amounts of time
therein. Chastain also complains that Mitchell required him
to place an inspection tag on a roll of fence which Chastain
felt was detective, thereby making Chastain liable for a pos-
sible conduct memorandum (written reprimand) in the
event that the purchaser of the fence returned it as defec-
tive. On November 2, the day before the incident which
triggered his discharge. Chastain filed a grievance against
Mitchell for harassment.
For its part, Respondent was less than enchanted with
Chastain. During his 4-1/2 year tenure, he received disci-
plinary warnings for absenteeism and slowness on the job.
He was also given a layoff for refusing to follow his fore-
man's orders respecting the use of a sledge hammer to
knock certain angles in line, and another layoff for cursing
in the presence of female office employees. This latter inci-
dent was taken to arbitration, at which the arbitrator up-
held the Company's action while reducing the layoff from 2
days to I day.
On November 3, Chastain learned that a probationary
employee named Cook had been given overtime by Mitch-
ell while others, including himself. who worked under
Mitchell's supervision and who had greater seniority, had
been bypassed. Chastain felt that this assignment was a
contract violation 6 and complained to Mitchell about his
' Mitchell was an unreliable and evasive witness. He denied at the hearing
in this case that he knew Chastain was circulating a petition. He even denied
knowing that the fund had run dry or that any problem had ansen concern-
ing it. Respondent's witness Ronald J. Dervales. when pressed, admitted that
Mitchell had stated at an earlier arbitration hearing that, in fact, he had been
aware that Chastain had been circulating a petition on a clipboard.
he contract provision relating to incidental overtime states:
The procedure for filling day-to-day temporary vacancies involving
overtime is established in accordance with the provisions of Section 6,7
of the Collectively Bargained Contract, and is applicable to the follow-
ing departments and occupations where specified:
Mill Galvanizer
I. Sequence to be followed when there is an operating turn immedi-
ately preceding the turn on which the vacancy exists:
(a) By an Employee performing the assignment on the turn immedi-
ately preceding the turn on which the acancy exists.
(h) By a qualified Employee from the turn immediately preceding the
turn on which the vacancy exists, in the order of descending Occupa-
tional Seniority, starting with the occupation next below the vacancy.
Such Employee doubling over with double on the occupation he worked
the preceding turn, and the Employee scheduled to work that occupa-
818
ATLANTIC STEEL COMPANY
loss of overtime and the assignment of overtime without
regard to seniority. Mitchell said he would check up on the
matter and get back to Chastain. Mitchell went to the office
and spoke with Alton Beck, another foreman, and returned
a few minutes later to the spot where Chastain was work-
ing. Two other employees, Shop Steward Garrett and Rob-
ert Dougherty. were also working in the same vicinity. I
credit Chastain that Mitchell replied to Chastain's com-
plaint by telling him that in fact Mitchell had asked Chas-
tain to work overtime. Chastain denied this assertion and
asked Mitchell if he had also asked all the other employees
to work overtime. Mitchell replied that he had done so.
Dougherty and Garrett denied Mitchell's assertion, where-
upon Mitchell threw up his hands, turned, and walked
away. When Mitchell had walked about 15 feet from where
these employees were working, Chastain spoke to Garrett.
asked if he had "gotten . . . down" what Mitchell had said,
and asked Garrett if he had "heard that lying s.o.b.?"'
Mitchell turned around and ordered Chastain to come to
the office with him. Chastain insisted on being accompanied
to the office by a union representative, so Mitchell agreed to
permit Garrett to be present. At the office. Mitchell called a
security guard. When the guard arrived, he told the guard
that he was suspending Chastain. subject to discharge. for
calling him "a lying s.o.b." and asked the guard to remove
Chastain from the premises. The guard complied with the
request.
Mitchell made a written notation of the incident in Chas-
tain's personnel file and also reported it orally to his imme-
diate superior, Bruce Davis, the superintendent of ware-
housing and shipping. On the following day, a meeting took
place between Davis, Personnel Director Dervales, and
Mill Superintendent Robert Mills. They reviewed the inci-
dent in question, as well as Chastain's personnel record,
and thereafter they decided to discharge Chastain. Dervales
testified that the decision was somewhat difficult since the
Company had never before discharged an employee for
cursing.' The Union filed a grievance over the discharge
and took the matter to arbitration before James P. Whyte, a
professor of law at William and Mary Law School and one
of the two regular arbitrators who hear cases arising under
the contract between Respondent and the Union. On Janu-
ary 6, 1978, Professor Whyte rendered an award upholding
the discharge of Chastain. The award was based on the
contract rather than upon the provisions of the Act. Profes-
sor Whyte stated that the case before him turned upon the
credibility of witnesses who told divergent stories concern-
ing the events which precipitated the discharge. He pre-
ferred Mitchell's version, found that Mitchell's recitation of
the facts spelled out a case of insubordination, and decided
that the Company was justified in attaching the penalty of
discharge to the infraction of the contract so found because
of Chastain's history of misconduct as an employee.
tion will "push up" if qualified, as will qualified Employees atx,e him
until the vacancy is filed
(c) By an Employee qualified to perform the assignmen.
'Chastain denies using the epithet "s.o h" I credit Mitchell to the effect
that Chastain did use that term
' Unlike the arbitrator. I take it as well established that the use of profane
and obscene language is commonplace among supervisors and employees
alike at Respodent's plant, as indeed it is in almost anN industrial setling
C. .4 tnavsis and (an O'/ton c is
Normally remarks made b emiploees, during the course
of a grievance meeting or collective hargainlning constitute
protected activitl, een though the, m.i include proftanc or
disrespectful language. The reason for this rule *.ias set ut
by the Fit ilth (ircuit in (Croln ('etmrcal Petrolcum ( 'rpo)lltiofl
v. .. R. B. 430) .2d. 724. 731 (1971):
It has been repeatedly ohbserxed that passions run high
in labor disputes and that epithets and accusations are
commonplace. Grievance ineetings arising out of dis-
putes between employer and emploj ee ale not calcu-
lated to create an aura of total peace and tranquility
where compliments are la'ishly exchanged....
. . a grievance proceeding is not ain .audic;lte. condi-
tionailly granted bh a master to his sersants. but a
meeting of equals adsocates of their respectise posi-
tions....
We seek neither to rank improprieties or epithets. nor
to unnecessarily generalize for a class of cases pecLu-
liarly tied to their facts. However. within the confines
of a grievance meeting, it would require seere conduct
indeed to convince us that the interest of fatir give and
take between equal parties to bargaining could be rls-
tifiably submerged.
'There is an exception to this rule for st.ateimentts shichl are
so opprobrious as to make the employee untilt for further
service. In a plant where obscenity and proftinil of speech
are commonplace. this exception could hardlx appl to
Chastain's statement to Garrett about Mitcthell. Ihe lict
that an emplosee's language is inaccurate or questions the
veracity of an employer does not remove the protective
mantle of Section 7 of the Act. Walls Manu/ctluring (Col-
pany. . v. N.I..RB., 321 F.2d 753 (D.(. ('ir. 1963). Thus.
calling an employer a damned liar., an s.o.b..' or a horse's
ass' during a grievance discussion hare been held not to he
so outrageous as to destroy an employee's protection under
Section 7. The Board and the courts have gone so far as to
hold that strong language about an employer, uttered by an
employee to other employees during the course of an orga-
nizing effort, is entitled to similar recognition and protec-
tion. N. R.B. v. Cement Transport (o., supra. A complaint
made by an employee to a union representative for the pur-
pose of enforcing the provisions of an existing collective
bargaining agreement amounts to a grievance in the course
of which statements made by the emploee are entitled to
statutory protection in the absence of outrageous or oppro-
brious language. There is no requirement that the remarks
be uttered during a formal meeting, held pursuant to con-
tract provisions, before the conditional immunity outlined
above comes into play. Interhoro Contrlactors, Int'. 157
NLRB 1295 (1966): Bunne' Brohcers Contl.irlrion (or-
pan', 139 NLRB 1516 (1962).
The context of the remarks for which ('hastain was dis-
charged was Mitchell's asserted misapplicatiotn or iolatioll
('roil (, err&'l Petr, ! ll, o r/ . p sqra
0 R B ; x mer: Tranpor (ospnam. 490 1 2d 11)24 (hi6th ('ir 19741
7ih,;r Pi,,r 7 , ('·o-.na . 148 NI RH 1379 (19t4). inedl 1 I 1 2d SS4
7th ('ir lt5t
819
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the contract (and related written understandings) con-
cerning manner in which overtime must be assigned. Thus.
his initial remarks to Mitchell were a grievance in the ge-
neric sense of the word. On two occasions, Mitchell had
assigned overtime to the least senior employee in a four-
teen-member crew. Chastain, among others, was unhappy
about this action." When Chastain expressed his opinion
that this was contract violation, Mitchell gave him a re-
sponse which he found unsatisfactory, whereupon Chastain
turned to his shop steward and suggested that Garrett make
a note of Mitchell's reply, namely Mitchell's claim that he
had offered overtime to the other members of his crew be-
fore offering it to a probationary employee. This request
could have no other meaning than a suggestion to Garrett
to institute a formal written grievance against Mitchell. In
the course of this coversation, Chastain called Mitchell a
lying s.o.b. While this expression of contempt was uttered
on the floor of the plant rather than in a company office or
across the table at a formally convened and structured
grievance meeting, it was certainly made to express dis-
agreement concerning a possible contract violation and as
the first step in preparing to take further action to enforce
the contract. Under a long line of Board and court cases
cited above, Chastain was engaged in protected, concerted
activity when he made the statements concerning Mitchell.
and such remarks are part of the res gestae of this activity.
Accordingly, when Respondent discharged Chastain for ut-
tering these remarks, he violated Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of
the Act.
I. The deferral to arbitration
The Board has long maintained a rule that it will defer to
the award of an arbitrator which arises from proceedings
which are fair and regular and in which all parties have
agreed to be bound by the decision, if the decision of the
arbitrator is not clearly repugnant to the purposes and poli-
cies of the Act. Spielberg Manufacturing Co., Inc., supra.
The procedural approach used by the Board in determining
whether or not to defer to an award was recently explicated
in Member Truesdale's concurring opinion in The Kansas
City Star Company, 236 NLRB 866, 869 (1978).
On the other hand, the majority's approach -used in
part by my dissenting colleagues-preserves the pur-
pose and doctrine of Spielberg. The majority reviews
the record evidence, sees no irregularities in the pro-
ceedings and no facial errors in the arbitrator's legal
conclusion to see if, on the facts he has found, it is
consistent with Board law. Finding that it is, and that
the arbitrator has actually considered Board law in rul-
ing on all of the discharges-including Ellis-the ma-
jority defers to the arbitrator's decision. This approach
is more consistent not only with past Spielberg deci-
12 In deciding this case, I intimate no opinion as to whether Chastain or
Mitchell was correct concerning the merits of the dispute over the proper
manner of assigning overtime.
" Normally, where an employee who holds no union office is discharged
under these circumstances, the violation is regarded as an infringement of
Sec. 8(aXI). Where, as here, the employee is seeking to enforce the terms of
a union-negotiated contract, the discharge amounts to an 8(aX3) violation as
well.
sions, but also with the strong labor polic which ta-
vors voluntary arbitration.
The question arising here is whether Professor Whyte's de-
cision of January 6. 1978. is repugnant to the purposes and
policies of the Act because it does not address or resolve the
unfair labor practice which is at issue in this case."
4
Beginning with Monsanto Chcmicial Company, 130 NLRB
1079 (1961), the Board has refused to defer to arbitration
awards when the decision of the arbitrator fails to address
and resolve the unfair labor practice allegation which is at
issue before the Board. In Raytheon Compan. 140 NLRB
883 (1963), the arbitrator addressed himself exclusively to
the contract issue presented to him b the grievant and took
no evidence which would permit him to evaluate the pres-
ence or absence of an unfair labor practice. The Board re-
fused to accept his award as dispositive because he failed to
undertake a resolution of the unfair labor practice which
had been alleged in the Board case. Other and later cases.
involving both discharges and various aspects of the statu-
tory duty to bargain in good faith, have adopted the same
rationale. Clara Barton Terrace Convalescent Center, 225
NLRB 1028 (1976); Ryder Technical Institue, 199 NLRB
570 (1972); The Kroger Company, 226 NLRB 512 (1976);
Alfred M. Lewis, Inc., 229 NLRB 757 (1977).
Where the Board has improperly deferred to arbitration
awards, the courts have intervened to require it to perform
its statutory duty. Thus, in Ban yard v. N.L.R.B., 505 F.2d
342 (1974), the D.C. Circuit remanded a case to the Board
for determination on the merits as to whether an employ-
ee's refusal to work was protected under Section 502 of the
Act, because the arbitrator failed to do so and the Board
had refused to inquire into the merits of the award. In Ste-
phenson v. NL.R.B., 550 F.2d 535 (1977), the Ninth Circuit
remanded a case to the Board for a determination on the
merits because the Board had improperly deferred to an
arbitration award which was vague on the issue of whether
the arbitrator had decided the unfair labor practice claim.
and because "the record is bare as to whether the arbitra-
tion panel was willing or able to consider the unfair labor
practice charge." 550 F.2d at 546.
If we apply Board Member Truesdale's procedural ap-
proach to the arbitration award at hand, we find that most
of the evidence presented in this case was also presented to
the arbitrator. We also find that the arbitrator confined his
decision to legal issues arising under the contract and failed
to mention, even in passing, the legal issue as to whether the
facts found amounted to an unfair labor practice. Without
in any way disturbing the arbitrator's credibility findings or
his factual analysis, it is clear from facts he found that this
'' The General Counsel does not argue that the arbitration proceedings
were attended by any procedural irregularities. It appears from the record
that Chastain requested permission of the Union to permit his own personal
attorney to appear at the arbitration hearing and that the Union denied him
such permission. It further appears that Chastain rejected the services of the
Union's regularly retained counsel and preferred that his case be presented
by the Union's business agent rather that the Union's lawyer. The denial of
the right to be represented by an attorney of one's own choice, where the
expense of retaining the attorney is borne by the grievant. is a serious proce-
dural irregularity. However, it does not appear that either Respondent or the
arbitrator was responsible for preventing the appearance of Chastain's law-
yer. and it would be unfair to set aside an award in Respondent's favor
because of something which the Union did.
820
ATLANTIC STEEL COMPANY
Respondent had invaded Chastain's rights under Section 7
of the Act. However, the arbitrator failed to arrive at this
conclusion. The Board cannot deprive employees of statu-
tory rights by depriving them of a forum in which to redress
those rights. If an arbitrator's award is to merit deference, it
must own up to standards of employer conduct laid down
by Congress and applied by the Board and the courts.
When an award fails to meet such standards, it is repugnant
to the purposes and policies of the Act. Even though it may
be in consonance with the terms of a collective bargaining
agreement, it cannot serve as a barrier preventing the Board
from performing its statutory duty.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire
record herein considered as a whole, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Atlantic Steel Company is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
2(6) and 2(7) of the Act.
2. Local 2401, United Steelworkers of America, AFL
CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
3. By discharging Kenneth Chastain because he engaged
in concerted, protected activities and in union activities.
Respondent herein violated Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the
Act.
4. The unfair labor practices recited above in Conclusion
of Law 3 have a close, intimate, and substantial effect on
the free flow of commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and 2(7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has committed certain
unfair labor practices, I will recommend that it he ordered
to cease and desist therefrom and to take other actions de-
signed to effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act. As
a discharge for engaging in union activities and in con-
certed protected activities goes to the heart of the Act, I will
recommend that the Board issue a so-called broad 8(a)(1)
order designed to suppress any and all violations of that
section of the Act. J. C. Penney Co.. Inc., 172 NLRB 1270.
fn. I (1968). The recommended order will also provide that
the Respondent be required to reinstate Kenneth Chastain
to his former or substantially equivalent employment and
to make him whole for any loss of earnings which he may
have suffered by reason of the action it took, in accordance
with the Woolworth ' formula, with interest thereon com-
puted in accordance with the adjusted prime rate used by
the Internal Revenue Service for tax payments. Florida
Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977); Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). 1 will also recommend
that the Respondent be required to post a notice, advising
its employees of their rights and of the remedy in this case.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
1 F I W Woolworth Cornpanv. 90 NLRB 289 (1950)
821