Bank of St. Louis

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 28, 1971

191 N.L.R.B. 669 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

BANK OF ST. LOUIS 669
Bank of St. Louis and Office and Professional Em-
ployees International Union, Local No. 13, AFL-
CIO. Case 14-CA-5868
June 28, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS BROWN
AND JENKINS
On March 26,197 1, Trial Examiner Fannie M. Boyls
issued her Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engag-
ing in certain unfair labor practices and recommending
that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner also found
that Respondent had not engaged in certain other un-
fair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recom-
mended that the complaint be dismissed as to them.
Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision together with a supporting 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 powers
in connection with this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Ex-
aminer made at the hearing and finds that no prejudi-
cial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the
entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings,' -conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of
the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Re-
spondent, Bank of St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended
Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint herein
be, and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges viola-
tions of the Act not found herein.
' In the absence of exceptions , we adopt pro forma the Trial Examiner's
finding that Greenspan 's discharge was not violative of the Act.
191 NLRB No. 119
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
FANNIE M. BOYLES, Trial Examiner: This case, initiated
by a charge filed on October 7, 1970, and a complaint issued
on November 30, 1970, was tried before me on January 28
and 29, 1971, at St. Louis, Missouri. The complaint, as
amended at the hearing, alleged that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging Verna
Greenspan on or about September 28, 1970, because of her
union activities and by issuing a letter to its employees on
October 22, 1970, requesting them to report to their depart-
ment heads any constant badgering of employees by union
proponents. Respondent filed an answer denying that it had
engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged. Each of the
parties filed briefs on or about March 5, 1971.
Upon the entire record in this case, upon my observation
of the demeanor of the witnesses, and upon a careful consid-
eration of the briefs, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is a banking corporation , duly organized un-
der the laws of the State of Missouri . It maintains its principal
office and place of business at Eighth and Olive Streets in St.
Louis, as well as another place of business at Ninth and
Washington Avenue in St. Louis , where it has at all times
material herein been engaged in the general banking business.
Respondent annually receives gross income in excess of
$500,000 from investments, securities , and notes and holds
United States Government securities valued in excess of
$100,000 . It annually transfers funds in excess of $50,000
directly to banks located outside the State of Missouri. On the
basis of these admitted facts , I find that Respondent is en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act
to assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Office and Professional Employees International Union,
Local No. 13, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ALLEGED
A. The Issues
The sole issues presented are whether Respondent's dis-
charge of employee Verna Greenspan on September 28, 1970,
was motivated by her activities on behalf of the Union, as
alleged in the complaint, or was for cause, as Respondent
asserts, and whether Respondent's distribution to its em-
ployees about October 22, 1970, of a letter requesting that
they report to management constant badgering of employees
by union proponents was, under the circumstances shown, an
unlawful interference with the employees' organizational
rights.
B. The Discharge of Verna Greenspan
Greenspan had worked for Respondent at its 9th and
Washington location for about 9 years prior to her discharge
on September 28, 1970. On July 7, 1970, over 2 months before
the commencement of any union activities at the bank, she
received a written warning from Vice President of Operations
Thomas Arey because of her loud and vulgar speech and her
treatment of fellow employees and customers. Respondent
contends that following the warning, she changed her ways
for a few weeks or, at the most, until the latter part of August
670 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
but then reverted back to her old manner of speech and
conduct . She was discharged on September 28, for the alleged
reason that she was not complying with the warning given her
on July 7. At the time of her discharge, Respondent contends
that it did not know of any union activities at the bank (which
had in fact commenced on September 16) or of any participa-
tion by Greenspan in attempts to organize the employees.
The General Counsel contends that Greenspan had in fact
complied with the July 7 warning, that her union activities
had come to the attention of Respondent prior to her dis-
charge , and that those activities rather than any claimed
failure to adhere to the warning motivated Respondent in
discharging her.
Pertinent to a consideration of these issues is an under-
standing of the operations of the bookkeeping department
and its supervision or lack of supervision during the period
here relevant , a matter which will be briefly treated now.
In May 1970 Arey, who had been vice president in charge
of computer operations , became vice president in charge of
operations of the bank and as such was responsible for over-
seeing the operation of each of the 22 departments of the
bank, in which between 300 and 400 people were employed.
One of these departments was the bookkeeping department
in which Greenspan worked . Due to the serious illness and
absence of its manager, Russell Lynch, from March 1970
through the hearing in this case in January 1971, the depart-
ment was run with little supervision . Most of the employees
in the department knew what they were expected to do and
needed little direct supervision. Two of them, Norma Mah-
nich and Barbara Reed, had been designated "supervisors,"
with duties, among others, of handling the employees' prob-
lems and complaints and dealing with customers in situations
which required someone to speak with the voice of authority.
They did not, however, have authority responsibly to direct
the other employees or have such other authority as would
make them supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11)
of the Act, and it was stipulated at the hearing that they were
not supervisors in the statutory sense.
Another employee, Warren Paule, whose regular job was
programming in the electronic data processing department
(sometimes called the computer department), which adjoined
the bookkeeping department, was borrowed as early as
November 1969 to help out part-time in the bookkeeping
department when Lynch was feeling ill. In March, when
Lynch became completely incapacitated to work , Paule was
prevailed upon , against , his will , to work full-time in the
bookkeeping department, filling in for employees on vacation,
helping the women there in any way he could and learning
how to perform all of their tasks. With the assistance of
Lynch's former secretary, Cathy Russell, he took care of
some of the business correspondence and the letters which
normally went out under Paule's signature. He sometimes
signed these letters as "Assistant Manager" and sometimes
without any title. Vice President Arey from time to time
called upon Paule for reports on how the department was
getting along, but he also called upon Cathy Russell and the
two "supervisors" for reports . When assigning Paule to the
bookkeeping department full-time, Arey told him that he was
not then being made a supervisor over the department but let
him know that he might eventually be put in charge of the
department. Paule was in fact made acting manager of the
department on October 13, 1970, after both "supervisors,"
Reed and Mahnich, on August 21 and October 8 respectively,
had left Respondent 's employ.
Let us now consider the circumstances under which Green-
span received a warning on July 7, 1970.
In late May or early June Doug McCarthy, manager of the
home management department , told Arey that "a terrible
situation" existed in the bookkeeping department because of
objections by the women to Warren Paule's presence there
and because of the conduct of Greenspan in using vulgar
language and yelling at the other employees. McCarthy ex-
pressed the view that Arey should do something about the
situation . Soon thereafter Arey observed Greenspan arguing
in a loud voice with employee Linda Monk from the state-
ment counter . He then called into his office employee Cathy
Russell, Lynch's secretary, and asked her what was happen-
ing in the department. Russell reported that Greenspan was
loud, vulgar and overbearing. She added, with tears in her
eyes, that if it were not for the bank's profit-sharing plan, she
would quit her job because of Greenspan. Arey also talked to
a number of other employees as well as management repre-
sentatives about Greenspan and received numerous com-
plaints about her objectionable conduct. He had some of these
people document, in memorandum form, what they had re-
ported to him about Greenspan.
Among those Arey interviewed about Greenspan was War-
ren Paule. The latter made a report, reduced to writing on
June 30, to the effect that much of Greenspan's conversations
included "cuss words" and the subject of sex; that they were
loud enough for anyone in the room to hear; that she embar-
rassed other employees by dwelling upon their mistakes in a
loud voice; that she at times spoke sharply to customers over
the telephone; that she did not take directions from her
"supervisors"; and that she had gotten into arguments with
another named. employee.
Seven other people, some nonsupervisory employees and
others in the supervisory or management category, furnished
Arey with written memoranda critical of Greenspan's loud,
"nasty," or vulgar mouth , her arrogant, rude, or inconsider-
ate attitude toward her fellow employees and supervisors or
asserting that she was rude and impatient with some of the
customers with whom she talked on the phone when they did
not give her information she was requesting . One other per-
son, Tim McEvilly, reported that Greenspan had asked him
in May whether Paule was considered the manager of the
bookkeeping department and that when McEvilly replied
that there was nothing official but that Paule probably would
become the manager if Lynch did not return, Greenspan
replied that "the girls" were running the department , calling
Lynch at his home for instructions when necessary, and
might not want to work for Paule.
Greenspan took a week's vacation in late June and early
July. When she returned on July 7, Arey called her into his
office, informed her of the nature of the complaints against
her, and gave her a written "warning" on a form used by the
bank for that purpose. The reprimand was for "improper
conduct" consisting of loud and vulgar speech, her, general
attitude , her argumentative communication with other bank
employees, and her manner of speech to customers. Arey told
Greenspan that she would have to change, and that if she did
not he would terminate her. Arey asked Greenspan to sign
the warning notice and she did so only after being told by
Arey that he would make a notation to that effect on the
warning notice if she did not sign.
It seems clear from the record that at least for awhile after
receiving the warning, Greenspan made an attempt to change
her ways. The dispute in the record is whether this change
was only temporary or whether it lasted up to the date of her
discharge on September 28. Before considering the evidence
regarding this issue, however , let us now turn to the evidence
relating to Greenspan' s union activities and the basis for the
General Counsel's contention that Respondent knew of such
activities.
BANK OF ST. LOUIS 671
On the morning of September 16, 1970„ the women em-
ployees in the bookkeeping department and the approxi-
mately 18 other women employees who came to that depart-
ment daily for about 45 minutes or an hour to file checks and
check signatures engaged in a lively conversation about an
article appearing in a local newspaper that morning on the
subject of the Union's attempt to organize banks in the area.
The women joked about the idea for the first 5 or 10 minutes
but later some of them talked in a serious vein, speculating
on whether the Union might be able to benefit them. At the
suggestion of several of the women, Greenspan agreed to try
to get in touch with someone from the Union and have him
talk to the employees. Warren Paule, whose desk was next to
Greenspan's, did not join in the conversation., He testified
that he had heard over a radio that morning that the Union
was attempting to organize bank employees but that shortly
after the women started talking he went to the other end of
the department, about 10 or 15 feet away, and started listing
checks. According to Paule he heard someone - he did not
know who - mention the word "union" and the word
"bank" but did not pay any attention to the conversation.
According to both Donna Holtcamp and Greenspan, the only
witnesses who testified about this conversation, the em-
ployees talked very low when mentioning the idea of a union
for themselves. Holtcamp characterized the conversations as
very quiet and almost secretive, so that only the person to
whom the conversation was directed could hear what was
going on. Greenspan characterized the conversations as "pri-
vate and quiet."
Pursuant to the suggestion of several of her fellow workers,
Greenspan thereafter-spoke to two union representatives and
one ' of them arranged'for a meeting for Respondent's em-
ployees to be held on the night of September 28. In the days
following September 16 Greenspan also spoke to many of the
employees at the bank about the organizational plans. Some
would stop at her desk to talk about it and she would talk to
others as she passed- them in the hall or in going from one
department to another.' She also discussed the matter at
lunch with some, of the employees from the 8th and Olive
facility. On the evening of this occasion she telephoned Rose
Walsh, who in June had been transferred from the bookkeep-
ing department to bean assistant to Supervisor Harrihill at
the 8th and Olive location, to explain to Walsh that she,
Greenspan, had not included her in the union discussion
group because whe was a supervisor. Walsh replied, accord-
ing to Greenspan, that she understood and that since she was
on management's end, the less she knew the better.'
The record also shows that during the afternoon of Septem-
ber 16 or 17, "Greenspan had a conversation with Respond-
ent's Assistant Vice President Steinbruck about the two area
banks being organized. Steinbruck had come to the book-
keeping department at the 9th and Washington bank from his
office,at the 8th and Olive bank to inspect certain checks
which Greenspan pulled from the files for him. In response
to a questioncby Greenspan as to what he thought "about the
Union's getting into the bank" he stated that he felt.it would
be. "terrible" and that unions had no place in banks. Green-
spamresponded that he felt that way because he was "'man-
' There is no evidence, however, that any of these conversations occurred
in hearing distance of Paule or any management representative and, in view
ofeenspan's testimony that her conversations on that subject were "pri-
vate and quiet," no inference may properly be drawn that they were over-
heard by Paule or a management representative.
' Other thah the above testimony of Greenspan about Walsh, the record
affords no basis for inferring that Walsh was a supervisor within the meaning
of.the Act. She was not alleged in the complaint to be a supervisor and was
not one of those concerning whom the General Counsel sought, at the
hearing, to obtain a stipulation- that she was a supervisor.
agernent" and pointed out that his., salary was much greater
than that of the employees. He agreed with that statement but
stated that, if the employees joined the Union and then went
on strike,. he would have to perform teller work, which he
would not like. He added that the economy of the nation was
run on money and that the employees would be hurting the
economy if they struck the bank. At this point Mahnich, who
was working nearby, interposed the remark that she felt the
economy was run on credit. Greenspan expressed the view
that the Union "would be of a great deal of benefit" to the
employees so far as wages were concerned. At the conclusion
of the conversation, as Greenspan let Steinbruck out the door
with her key, he told her, "Well, I'm going to forget we ever
had this conversation, Verna." She replied, "I really do not
care whether you do or not, Bill."'
As already noted, it is undisputed that at least for awhile
after receiving the July 7 warning notice, Greenspan at-
tempted to refrain from the conduct for which she had been
criticized: 'She lowered her voice, stopped, or at least cur-
tailed,: the use of vulgar and profane language , and was
courteous to fellow workers as well as to customers. This
"new" Greenspan, according to Respondent' s witnesses,
lasted for only a few weeks or, at the most, until toward the
end of August, and she then reverted back to her old habits
of speech and conduct.
With respect to Greenspan's conduct subsequent to the
July 7 warning and the events leading to her discharge on
September 28, Arey testified substantially as follows. Because
of the installation of a new computer system in the computer
department in about mid-July, he frequently had occasion to
pass along an aisle in the bookkeeping department - which
was partially hidden from the employees' view by columns
and filing cabinets - enroute to the computer room. For a
period of 2 or 3 weeks in August and September he passed
along this aisle five or six times a day. On one of these occa-
sions in August, when telephones in the computer room were
being rearranged, and as he and a man from the telephone
company were passing along the aisle, he heard Greenspan
make an extremely vulgar remark (not necessary here to
repeat) as she was called to the telephone.
As a result of this incident, Arey states, he started checking
to ascertain the extent to which his problem with Greenspan
was continuing. About mid-August he assigned one of his
assistants, Janet Crouse, to the bookkeeping department to
help out during the vacation periods and received a report
from her about Greenspan, but since no evidence was ad-
duced as to the nature of Crouse's report, it will be assumed
that the report was not particularly significant . Arey called
"Supervisor" Norma Mahnich to his office every 2 or 3 weeks
to inquire about how the department was getting along and
she always reported that "everything was fine." He also called
Cathy Russell, an employee of the department who had been
Lynch's secretary, to his office once during the 3-week period
prior to Greenspan's discharge to ask her about how the
department was getting along and Russell stated that Green-
span "was back to her old ways." I
Arey further testified that about mid-September, when
Paule was in his office filling out his timebook, the latter
mentioned in response to Arey's inquiry as to how the depart-
ment was getting along, that "it was back to its old ways
again." Arey testified that Paule could have been referring to
' The above account is based upon the credited testimony of Greenspan,
as corroborated in part by Mahnich. Stembruck did not testify. Respond-
ent's president, Jack W. Murton, while conceding that Steinbruck was "an
officer of the corporation," testified that none of Stembruck's responsibilities
related to personnel or labor relations policies and that he never reported
any union activity on the part of any employee to Minton
672 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Greenspan then, but that Arey did not pay much attention
to what Paule then said. On the afternoon of September 24,
however, when Arey called Paule to his office to give a gen-
eral report on "how things were going downstairs," Paule
stated "that they were back to the old way again , that she
[Greenspan] was not doing all her work, that she was yelling
again and interrupting people." Arey then asked, "You mean
to tell me she's yelling at everybody and interrupting them?"
When Paule replied in the affirmative and said that there had
been no sincere change after the July 7 warning, Arey told
him "that was the end of it" and he was going'to fire Green-
span the next day.'
On the following day, September 25, according to Arey, he
requested Personnel Director Beck to prepare Greenspan's
timesheet and, upon being informed about 1 p.m., that Green-
span had gone home sick at 11:30 that morning, he directed
that her paycheck be made out for a full 40-hour week. On
the same day Arey called Paule and Mahnich to his office and
informed them about what he was doing.' Mahnich, accord-
ing to her undenied and credited testimony, protested that
Greenspan did her work well, had a lot of knowledge about
what went on in the department, and in Mahnich's view had
complied with the warning. Arey responded that Mahnich
was being loyal to Greenspan. Mahnich, as already indicated,
was one of the two "supervisors" in the bookkeeping depart-
ment . She left Respondent's employ on October 14, 1970.
On Monday morning, September 28, when Greenspan re-
ported for work, she was called to Arey's office, where in the
presence of Personnel Director Beck, Arey discharged her for
the alleged reason that there had been no sincere change in
her attitude since the July 7 warning. Greenspan's response
was: "Because of you we are going to bring the Unions to the
Bank of St. Louis." Arey asked "What unions" and she re-
plied, "That's all I'm going to tell you."'
Paule confirmed that he had in fact made a report to Arey
about Greenspan on September 24. According to Paule,
Greenspan reverted back to her old manner of speech and
conduct a few weeks after July 7. She was loud, she cursed,
and she became cross and spoke sharply to customers over
the phone when they did not give her information she needed.
She refused after July 7 to perform some of the extra duties
which had to be performed by someone in the bookkeeping
department after employee Rose Walsh left in June 1970 to
be an assistant to Supervisor Harrihill at the 8th and Olive
Arey tended to speak in general terms, his answers were not always
responsive to the questions asked him and were often in response to leading
questions The account above described, though not developed in the record
with too much clarity or in chronological order, has been pieced together
in an attempt to place the events in the sequence in which they reportedly
occurred.
' Arey did not so testify, but I find on the basis of the credited testimony
of Doris Krug, a "supervisor" in the teller department, that he also called
her to his office on September 25 for a report on Greenspan and that she
gave him a written statement that day to the effect that after the first few
weeks following the warning, Greenspan had resumed her old ways which
Krug had theretofore described in a memorandum to Arey dated July 2,
1970 Arey also obtained a statement from Paule on September 25 contain-
ing similar charges. Another employee, Nancy DiBlasi, who worked in the
bookkeeping department, and still another, Dorothy Banks from the transit
department, who worked an hour or two each day in the bookkeeping
department, testified similarly to Paule and Krug about Greenspan's' re-
sumption of her old habits of conduct about 3 weeks or more after receiving
the warning DiBlasi, however, testified that she never brought this matter
to the attention of Arey and there is no evidence that Banks did either.
6 Greenspan's account of the discharge interview differs only slightly
from Arey's, set forth above. She testified that when she said that because
of Arey, the Union would get into the bank, Arey replied, "So I have been
told," and that when she asked "By who," he said, "By you, just now " I
do not regard this variance as significant.
facility. Some of these duties, such as reconciling or balancing
statements, were voluntarily assumed by and divided among
Greenspan, Reed, Mahnich, and Paule. Although prior to
Greenspan's warning on July 7, she had on occasions said
that she did not have to do this extra work, she did it anyway.
Subsequent to the warning, however, according to Paule, she
would sometimes say that the extra work was not a part of
her job and she did not care how it got done and she would
not in fact do the work. Paule testified that he reported this
matter to Arey on September 24. I credit his testimony.
The General Counsel's witnesses, on the other hand, tes-
tified rather uniformly that the "new" Greenspan lasted up
until the time of her discharge on September 28. Thus, Green-
span herself testified that she kept her voice down, walked
away from an argument and could not remember using any
loud or vulgar language between the date of her warning and
her discharge.' Two employees whose employment with Re-
spondent ceased shortly before the hearing in January 1971
also gave testimony in support of the General Counsel's con-
tention. One of them was Donna Holtcamp, who had worked
in the new accounts department and had occasion for about
an hour each day to perform duties in the bookkeeping de-
partment, and the other was Wanda Hampton who worked
in the teller department at the 8th and Olive facility and had
occasion to talk over the phone with Greenspan about six
times a week. Each testified that between the dates of the
warning and Greenspan's discharge she did not hear Green-
span speak in a loud tone or curse. "Supervisor" Mahnich
similarly testified that from the time Greenspan was warned
until she was fired, she was more courteous to customers,
went out of her way to be nice, was softer spoken and that
Mahnich could not remember hearing Greenspan do any
cursing.5 With respect to Greenspan's refusal after July 7 to
do some of the extra work which she had done prior to that
date, Mahnich conceded that Greenspan did state in July that
she was not going to do any more of the extra work because
it was not a part of her job but testified that she continued to
do it except on some occasions when the work came in late
in the day. Mahnich and Paule would then work overtime
and do it.
Although the lines appear to be sharply drawn between
Respondent's witnesses and the General Counsel' s witnesses
on the question whether Greenspan continued up to the time
of her discharge to adhere to the warning given her on July
7 and both sides may have engaged in some exaggeration in
describing her post-warning conduct, I am convinced, on the
whole, that the testimony of Respondent's witnesses more
accurately reflects the true situation. I am also convinced that
Arey discharged Greenspan because he believed that she was
failing to heed the warning he gave her on July 7.
' Greenspan also testified that Supervisor Harrihill as well as Harrihill's
assistant, Rose Walsh, at the 8th and Olive facility had complimented her
subsequent to the warning on being very sweet and helpful. However, since
Greenspan did not indicate the date upon which these remarks were made,
such testimony is not inconsistent with Respondent's position that at least
by the end of August, if not earlier, Greenspan had lapsed back into her old
way of conduct and speech.
6 Another witness called by the General Counsel was Barbara Reed who
prior to quitting Respondent's employ on August 24 was, like Mahnich, a
"supervisor" in the bookkeeping department. According to Reed, Green-
span used some profane or vulgar language after her warning but it was
definitely less often and she made an effort to be quiet and to curb her
language. Reed's testimony, however, furnishes no significant support for
the General Counsel's case since Reed left Respondent's employ about the
time, according to Respondent's witnesses, that Greenspan began reverting
back to her old language and conduct.
BANK OF ST. LOUIS 673
I have reached this conclusion despite the fact mentioned
by the General Counsel in his brief, that Arey was aware of
Grenspar.'s resumption of the use of vulgar language (one of
the chief complaints about her) for more than a month before
her discharge but did nothing about it until shortly after she
became active in attempting to bring a union into the bank.
Arey denied that he knew anything about any union activities
in the bank until Greenspan told him after he discharged her.
His explanation for not fully investigating the extent of
Greenspan 's failure to abide by the warning and taking action
on the matter sooner was that the extreme pressure of other
business connected with the installation of the new computer
system, which caused him to work until midnight almost
every night to have data ready for the computer on the fol-
lowing morning, prevented him from acting sooner on the
Greenspan problem . I find his explanation believable. I am
not at all persuaded that Arey knew of any union activities
at the bank prior to discharging Greenspan . Paule, while
acknowledging that he heard the words "union" and "bank"
mentioned by one of the women in the bookkeeping depart-
ment on the day of the newspaper and radio reports regarding
area banks being organized , denied that he ever heard prior
to Greenspan's discharge of any union being mentioned in
connection with Respondent 's bank or that he mentioned the
subject to anyone . Nor can it be assumed that Assistant Vice
President Steinbruck , after his friendly conversation with
Greenspan in which she expressed the view that a union
might bring benefits to the employees and he expressed the
view that a union would be bad for the bank, reported her
views to Arey or to anyone else who might have brought it
to Arey's attention . He had expressly assured Greenspan that
he would not mention their conversation to anyone . Green-
span had not mentioned to Steinbruck that she intended to
take any steps to bring a union into the bank and there would
have been no particular reason why Steinbruck should have
felt obligated to repeat their conversation to anyone. One
might speculate about other sources from which Arey could
have learned of the steps Greenspan was taking but no finding
may properly be made on the basis of mere speculation.
On the basis of the facts set forth above and the entire
record, I must conclude that the General Counsel has not
proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent
discharged Greenspan because of her union activities.
C. Respondent 's October 22 Letter to its Employees
On October 22, 1970, Respondent's president , Jack W.
Minton, issued to all the bank 's employees a letter stating that
many of the bank's employees had complained that they had
been "pestered to sign a union authorization card" and that
others had said that they signed these cards "just to get people
off their backs." The letter went on to warn employees against
signing a union card in the false belief that their action would
be harmless and a mere indication of their desire to vote, to
warn them that they might not be able to get their union card
back even if they requested it, and to advise them that the
only way to insure themselves against such an unsuccessful
attempt to retrieve a union card was not to sign one. The
letter ended with the following statement:
Further, if you are threatened in any way or subjected
to constant badgering by union proponents to sign these
cards, please report these matters to your Department
Head immediately.
The General Counsel contends , and I agree , that in the
context of this letter , Respondent's request that any employee
subjected to constant badgering by union proponents to sign
a union card should report the matter to his department head
may reasonably be interpreted as a not-too-subtle attempt by
Respondent to have its employees inform management as to
the identity of the union proponents and tended to restrain
and coerce employees in their right to engage in protected
union activities. The request that employees report on such
union activities was not limited to reports on matters which
could properly be within Respondent's legitimate concern,
such as a possible disruption of work . The request was broad
enough to cover mere attempts by union proponents to per-
suade employees to sign cards at the bank during the em-
ployees' nonworking time and even off bank premises.
Depending on the point of view of the persons solicited the
same conduct by the solicitor might be described by one
employee as constant badgering and by another as persistent
attempts to persuade . The union solicitor would be in no
position to know whether his conduct in repeatedly seeking
to persuade an employee to sign a union card was being
regarded by the solicited employee as constant badgering or
as a mere attempt to persuade . Respondent 's request that
employees report immediately if they were subjected to con-
stant badgering by a union proponent was therefore tan-
tamount to a request that they report persistent attempts to
persuade . Accordingly , the letter would tend to restrain the
union proponent from attempting to persuade any employee
through fear that his conduct would be reported to manage-
ment.
It is no defense to this broad request that Vice President
Arey and Transit Department Head Gasser may have re-
ported to President Minton - as he testified they did - that
several transit department employees had been badgered and
pestered by employees from outside the department during
working hours to sign union cards, thereby interrupting the
flow of work in the transit department.' In the interest of
preventing a disruption of work , Respondent could, of
course, lawfully forbid the solicitation of union memberships
in the bank's working areas during working time , but the
letter sent to Respondent 's employees on October 22 did not
purport merely to do that . It not only sought to have Re-
spondent's employees inform management of the identity of
ardent union solicitors but it also , in effect , sought to institute
an unlawfully broad no-solicitation rule. Accordingly , even if
Respondent 's request had not been issued in the context of a
plainly antiunion appeal to its employees , it could hardly
have failed to interfere with, restrain, and coerce employees
in the exercise of their rights guaranteed under the Act. It is
therefore found that Respondent , by requesting its employees
in the October 22 letter to inform management about their
fellow employees who persistently solicited them to sign
union cards , violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.10
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By requesting its employees to inform management
about their fellow employees who persistently solicited them
to sign a union card, Respondent has interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act, in violation of
Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
2. The aforesaid unfair labor practice affects commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
' Nor is it a valid defense , as Respondent argues, that subsequent to the
issuance of the letter no employee ever reported a fellow employee for
badgering him to sign a card. From this fact it could be argued that union
solicitors were afraid to continue their solicitations.
'0 Kern's Bakery, Inc., 154 NLRB 1582, 1585-86 and authorities cited
therein; P.R. Mallory Co. Inc., 175 NLRB 308, enforcement on this point
denied on substantial evidence issue, 422 F.2d 757 (C A. 7), Edward Fields,
Inc, 141 NLRB 1182, 1189 , 1191, enfd. 325 F.2d 754 (C A. 2)
674 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. The General Counsel has not established by a prepon-
derance of the evidence that Respondent discharged em-
ployee Verna Greenspan in violation of Section 8(a)(3) or (1)
of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law,
and the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, there is hereby issued the following recom-
mended:11
ORDER
Respondent Bank of St. Louis, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Requesting its employees to inform management about
their fellow employees who persistently solicit them to sign
a union card; provided, however, that Respondent shall not
be precluded by this order from promulgating and enforcing
rules which by their terms are reasonably designed to prevent
an interruption to the flow of work.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its two banks in St. Louis, Missouri, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Immediately upon
receipt of copies of said notice, on forms to be provided by
the Regional Director of Region 14, Respondent shall cause
the copies to be signed by one of its authorized representatives
eluding all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision,
what steps Respondent has taken to comply therewith.,'
The allegation of the complaint that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act is hereby dismissed.
" In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read-
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply there-
with."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE -
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT request any of our employees to inform
management about their fellow employees who persist-
ently solicit them to sign a union card.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of
any rights guaranteed them under Section 7 of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act.
and posted, the posted copies to be maintained for a period BANK OF ST. Louis
-of 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, in- (Employer)
Dated By
" In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
Section 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and
become its findmgs, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall
be deemed waived for all purposes,
12 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor.Relations Board" shall be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by any-
one.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 210
North 12th Boulevard, Room 448, St. Louis, Missouri 63101
Telephone 314-622-4167.