Buncher Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 22, 1977

229 N.L.R.B. 217 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

THE BUNCHER COMPANY
The Buncher Company and United Mine Workers of
America. Cases 6-CA-8564 and 6-CA-8665
April 22, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, MURPHY, AND
WALTHER
On November 17, 1976, Administrative Law Judge
Anne F. Schlezinger issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel, the
Charging Party, and Respondent filed exceptions
and supporting briefs, and Respondent filed a brief
in answer to the General Counsel's and the Charging
Party's exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached 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 her recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, The Buncher
Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order.
I The General Counsel, the Charging Party, and Respondent have
excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law
Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an Administrative
Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear
preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the
resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544
(1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefully examined the
record and find no basis for reversing her findings.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ANNE F. SCHLEZINGER, Administrative Law Judge:
Upon a charge filed in Case 6-CA-8564 on August 25, and
a charge filed in Case 6-CA-8665 on October 7, 1975, by
United Mine Workers of America, herein called the
Charging Party or the Union, the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board, by the Acting Regional
Director for Region 6 (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), issued a
consolidated complaint and notice of hearing on December
31, 1975. The consolidated complaint, as amended at the
hearing, alleges that the Respondent, by named officers
and agents, interrogated employees about union member-
229 NLRB No. 33
ship and activities; promised employees wage increases
and other benefits to discourage union membership and
activities; threatened employees with discharge, layoff, or
other reprisals if they selected the Union as their collective-
bargaining representative; and laid off employees Archie
Jackson and Sammie Lee Rutherford on or about July 18,
1975, and thereafter failed and refused to recall them,
because of their union membership and activities; and
thereby engaged in unfair labor practices violative of
Section 8(aX1) and (3) of the Act.
The Respondent, in its answer filed on February 13,
1976, admits some of the factual allegations of the
consolidated complaint, states that Jackson was recalled
from layoff on October 30 and Rutherford on December 4,
1975, and denies the commission of the alleged unfair labor
practices.
The Union's charge of August 25 in Case 6-CA-8564
alleges that the Respondent on or about February 27, 1975,
terminated David Koeber, Steve G. Owens, Robert
Sheperd, Thomas Kubicka, Joseph Sparvero, Joseph
Bouchard, David Cochran, Robert Crumb, and William
McDonough, because of their membership in and activities
on behalf of the Union. Its charge of October 7 in Case 6-
CA-8665 alleges that the Respondent laid off Dave
Cochran on or about April 28, and laid off Bob LaBryer,
Larry Weiher, Jack LaBryer, Jackson, and Rutherford on
or about June 11, 1975, because of their union membership
and activities. The Regional Director, on the ground that
investigation showed insufficient evidence, refused on
December 10, 1975, to issue a complaint as to the charges
of discrimination against those named in the charge in
Case 6-CA-8564, and, as to the charges of discrimination
in Case 6-CA-8665, refused on December 23, 1975, to
include Cochran, Weiher, and Bob and Jack LaBryer in the
allegations of discrimination, limiting them to Jackson and
Rutherford. Appeals regarding these refusals were filed by
the Union. The Regional Director on April 30, 1976,
notified the parties that, upon reconsideration, he was
revoking his refusal to issue a complaint as to alleged
discrimination with respect to Cochran, Weiher, and Jack
and Robert LaBryer, and, on May 26, 1976, issued an
amended consolidated complaint incorporating the 8(a)(3)
charges as to these four individuals, which was further
amended at the hearing by changing the location at which
some of the incidents in issue were alleged to have
occurred, and by striking the only allegation involving a
particular supervisor as to an incident that occurred in the
pre-10(b) period. In response to the Respondent's protest
of the Regional Director's revocations of earlier determina-
tions, the Regional Director, in a letter dated June 25, 1976,
explained his actions and denied the allegations of lack of
due process. The Respondent filed its answer dated June 2,
1976, to the amended consolidated complaint.
Pursuant to notice and several postponements granted
by the Regional Director, a hearing was held before me in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on June 30 and July 1, 2, 20, and
21, 1976. All the parties appeared at the hearing and were
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce relevant evi-
dence. At the opening of the hearing, the Respondent
presented, and argued, a motion to dismiss, to strike
217
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
certain allegations of the amended consolidated complaint,
or, in the alternative, to postpone the hearing, on the
ground that the Regional Director's revocation of the
refusal to issue a complaint as to four alleged discrimina-
tees, without affording the Respondent adequate notice
and opportunity for discussion, deprived the Respondent
of due process. The Respondent stated that it was unable
to file this motion in advance of the hearing because
certain responses from the Regional Director were not
received until immediately prior to the opening of the
hearing.
The Respondent's motion to dismiss, to strike certain
allegations of the amended consolidated complaint, or, in
the alternative, to postpone the hearing, made at the
hearing and based on the procedures in issuing the
amended consolidated complaint, were denied by me at the
hearing. These motions, renewed in the Respondent's brief,
are hereby denied.' The Respondent's motions to dismiss
the amended consolidated complaint in its entirety, or as to
certain allegations, based on lack of evidence, made at the
close of the General Counsel's case and at the close of the
hearing, were denied with the assurance that they would be
considered by me in reviewing the entire record, and are
disposed of as indicated below. The parties agreed to
incorporate herein the entire record in a representation
case involving the parties (Case 6-RC-7096). The General
Counsel made an opening statement at the beginning of the
hearing. All parties at the close of the hearing waived the
opportunity to present closing argument. Subsequent to the
hearing, the General Counsel and the Respondent filed
briefs on or about September 27, 1976, and the Charging
Party filed a notice that it was in agreement with the
position taken by the General Counsel, all of which have
been fully considered.
Upon the entire record in these cases and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is a Pennsylvania corporation with its
principal offices located in Pittsburgh, where it is engaged
in the business of industrial land development, scrap metal
processing, steel fabrication, and rail, river, and truck
terminal operations. Involved herein are the Respondent's
operations at its Nine Mile Run facility and its Glennwood
dock facility, located approximately a mile apart in the
Pittsburgh area. During the past 12-month period, the
Respondent shipped goods and materials valued in excess
of $50,000 directly to points outside the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. The complaint alleges, the Respondent
admits, and I find, that the Respondent is, and at all times
material herein has been, an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The complaint alleges, the Respondent admits, and I find
that United Mine Workers of America is, and at all times
material herein has been, a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The parties stipulated that the Union's election petition
was filed on February 11, 1975, seeking a production and
maintenance unit at the Glennwood dock and Nine Mile
Run slag reclamation facility in the Pittsburgh area; that
the hearing in that proceeding was held on February 26
and March 11; that the Decision and Direction of Election
issued on March 28; and that the election, held on April 25,
resulted in a 10-8 vote for the Union, which was certified
on August 11, 1975. The parties also agreed to incorporate
the representation case record in part because of the
description therein of the Respondent's unit operations.
That record shows that at Nine Mile Run the Respondent
ran slag, received from steel mills by truck, through a series
of processing machines which magnetically separated the
metallic contents, and sized, processed, and loaded them
for delivery back to the steel mills in railroad cars. The
residual waste product was deposited into trucks and used
as landfill at the Nine Mile Run site of over 200 acres, but
this landfill operation had been almost completed at the
time of that hearing.
The Glennwood dock, located on the bank of the
Monongahela River, is owned by the B & O Railroad. The
Respondent, which operated it under a lease arrangement,
owns the equipment used at that location. At Glennwood
the Respondent unloaded coal from railroad cars and
loaded the coal onto barges which transported the coal via
the river to the steel mill purchasers. That operation was
run for many years with about six employees. The
complement increased in about 1974 as a result of the steel
mills, during the energy crisis, buying coal from mines with
which they did not ordinarily do business, resulting in
increased tonnage sent to Glennwood. The Respondent put
in a great deal of new equipment that mechanized much of
the Glennwood coal processing.
Green, the Respondent's executive vice president, stated
at the representation case hearing that there were about 10
employees at Nine Mile Run and 19 at Glennwood, that
many of the employees had done work at both locations,
and that, with the construction at Glennwood virtually
completed, there would be an immediate layoff of nine of
the employees there, with their recall very unlikely, a layoff
that had been delayed at counsel's request until that
hearing was held. One of those named for layoff was
Cochran, who had been employed for many years as a
welder, and who was at the time not working because of an
injury received on the job. Green named the employees
who would not be laid off, including Jackson and Jack and
Robert LaBryer, but stated that further layoffs would be
See Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.. 224 NLRB 1418 (1976).
218
THE BUNCHER COMPANY
made later. He also stated that seniority was a factor in the
layoffs, but of less importance than ability.
The General Counsel conceded at the instant hearing
that the Respondent had economic justification in making
layoffs during the period here in issue, but contended that
the selections of the individuals to be laid off were
discriminatorily motivated as shown by interrogation and
threats directed at each of them by Buncher and Green.
Buncher and Green denied the alleged interrogation and
threats and maintain that the selections for layoff were
based on completion of certain construction on which
some employees had been working, on elimination of some
jobs as a result of the new construction, and on considera-
tions of which employees in the small remaining comple-
ment would be most useful in the Respondent's operations.
The Respondent carried on other industrial operations, not
directly involved herein, but at which a number of the unit
employees had worked at times.
The General Counsel requested that judicial notice be
taken of a Board decision involving the Respondent and a
different labor organizations in which the Board, in June
1961, affirmed the findings that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by interrogating
employees about their union activities and the activities of
other employees; threatening employees with loss of
employment if they continued in their union activities;
promising employees benefits if they would discontinue
their union activities; requesting employees to engage in
surveillance of the union activities of other employees and
report said activities to the Respondent; soliciting and
directing employees to join a particular union other than
the charging party therein; by statements and conduct
causing employees to believe that the Respondent was
engaging in surveillance of their union activities; and
making a reduction in staff for which the Respondent had
economic justification but was substantially motivated in
its timing and in its selection, for transfer or layoff, or both,
of 13 named employees including Jackson and Rutherford,
by the employees' known or suspected union activity. The
court of appeals enforced the Board's Decision and Order.3
Buncher, president of the Respondent since it was
incorporated 6 or 7 years ago and previously for many
years the owner, and Green, associated with the Respon-
dent since 1946 and the executive vice president for about 4
years, were the individuals found to be primarily involved
in the unlawful conduct described above, and are charged
with the conduct alleged herein to be violative of the Act.
The General Counsel called as its witnesses in this
proceeding Cochran, who was laid off on February 27,
Weiher and Robert LaBryer, who were laid off on June 11,
and Jack LaBryer, Jackson, and Rutherford, who were laid
off on July 18, 1975. The last two were later recalled to
work by the Respondent and were still employed at the
time of the hearing herein. The Respondent called Buncher
and Green, as well as Thomas Turnbull, regional sales
2 Jack G. Buncher, d/b/a The Buncher Company, 131 NLRB 1444 (1961).
3 N.L.R.B. v. Jack G. Buncher, d/b/a The Buncher Company, 316 F.2d
928 (C.A. 3, 1963).
4 The Respondent objected to the General Counsel's reference to the
prior case on the ground it had fully complied with that order, objected
repeatedly to the General Counsel's presentation of testimony regarding
certain events as background. and objects in its brief to any consideration
manager of coal traffic for the Chessie railroad system, who
was also under subpena by the General Counsel, to testify
regarding the economic situation at the Glennwood dock.
The General Counsel's witnesses presented, as additional
background evidence, testimony as to incidents that
occurred prior to the 10(b) limitations period.4
B. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
I. Testimony of laid-off employees
The Union began organizing the Respondent's employ-
ees in about December 1974. An organizing meeting held
at the Seahorse Lounge in late January 1975 was attended
by approximately 30 employees.
Cochran began his employment with the Respondent in
1965. He was injured on the job on January 15, 1975, and
was still out of work when he was laid off on February 27,
1975. Cochran, Behun, Jones, and Owens were among a
small group of employees who first discussed union
organization. Cochran signed a card in December 1974 and
attended the Seahorse Lounge meeting. He testified that he
went to Green's office a few days before that meeting to get
his compensation check, and was told by the secretary to
see Green; and that Green asked why the men wanted the
Union and asked who started it, asked him to find out and
report who started it, and said Buncher did not want the
Union. He also testified that Buncher telephoned him the
next day, talked about his injury, then asked if he knew
more about the Union than he told Green, and asked him
to come in to see Buncher; that, when he did, Buncher
suggested that he go to see a particular back specialist but
he said he was satisfied with his doctor; that Buncher then
asked what he knew about the Union; that when he told
him about the Seahorse Lounge meeting, Buncher said four
others had told him of it; that Buncher asked him to talk to
the men about not going union; that Buncher asked him to
return to work on Monday and, when he said his back was
too painful, explained it was not to work but just to talk to
the men about not going union, and failure to do so would
show which side he was on; but that he said he could not
make it. This testimony was presented as background
evidence.
Weiher was employed by the Respondent first in about
1970. He was laid off after a year, but was rehired in
November 1972, and was employed until his layoff on June
11, 1975. Weiher testified that he learned of the employees
organizing in December 1974 from Cochran and Jones,
who invited him to the Seahorse Lounge meeting; that he
attended and signed a card; that he and many others
obtained buttons in early February and wore them at work
at Nine Mile Run; that Pasquarelli, the superintendent,
asked him about the button in early February, and he said
the Union would be a good thing at Nine Mile Run; that
Green spoke to him in late February and in March about
the Union, indicating he was known to be prounion, and
thereof in determining the issues herein. The objections made at the hearing
were overruled. The evidence has been viewed as background only. See
Local Lodge No. 1424, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO
IBryan Manufacturing Co.] v. N.LR. ., 362 U.S. 411, 416 (1960): Gerald F.
Hinkle, d/b/a Akron Novelty Manufacturing Company, 224 NLRB 998
(1976).
219
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
said the Respondent was giving him good job training but
the Union would not. This testimony was presented as
background.
Weiher also testified that Green asked him in March if
he would vote for the company, and he said he would; that
in April, about 2 weeks before the election, Green told him,
with Buncher present, Pasquarelli would not always have
the superintendent's job, if he voted for the company he
would have a shot at that job and a raise, and if the Union
lost he would get a raise in a week; and that, on the day of
the election, Green again asked if he would vote for the
company, and he said he would. He also testified, on cross-
examination, that, when Buncher and Green asked him
about the Union, "I told them that we wanted the benefits,
and the wages that we could get from the Union."
Robert LaBryer testified that he was employed by the
Respondent the first time in July 1968, quit after about a
month because he wanted higher wages, returned and quit
again at the end of June 1973 because he was promised a
higher wage but did not get it, and returned again and was
employed until laid off on June 11, 1975. He had difficulty
recalling even the year of some of these events. LaBryer
testified that he learned from Owens about the Union
organizing in late November 1974; that he obtained a card
from his brother and signed it just before the Seahorse
Lounge meeting; that he attended that and a few later
union meetings; and that he got a union button from
another employee and wore it on the job almost all of
February and until he was hurt on March 16, 1975, at
Glennwood, and was out of work about 8 weeks; 5 and that
the Respondent paid him for about 3 weeks until his
Workmen's Compensation checks began.
When LaBryer went to the company offices in late
March to pick up his paycheck, the secretary told him to go
in to see Buncher and Green. He testified that they said
they were sorry he got hurt and talked about when he
would be able to return to work; that Green talked of the
steel mills slowing down, shortage of coal, and the
possibility of more layoffs; that Buncher asked what he
would get by going union; that when he replied that he
wanted principally a pension and job security, Buncher
offered to put his money in the bank, and said he could
trust Buncher with his pension money as well as the Union;
and that Buncher said he could be laid off at any time and
replaced by men from Nine Mile Run, and Buncher could
not see why the men wanted the Union as Buncher always
took good care of the men. He also testified, on cross-
examination, that Green said the company began building
the new plant at Glennwood in about February 1974 with
the hope it could operate with fewer men; that Green spoke
of the layoffs at the time of "the first trial," and said "the
reason for them being laid off was because most of the
work had been done and there was very little work to
complete the operation. They wouldn't need that many
men"; that Green said, because of the slowdown of the
steel mills, "they would have to close down Nine Mile, and
the men from Nine Mile would be in turn transferred to the
coal docks," and "I could be replaced by men from Nine
Mile, he didn't say I would be, he said I could be . . .
5 He was injured when he tried to get a line to his brother and Jackson,
who were on coal barges that were breaking loose. Green gave each of these
because I had less seniority than any of them"; and that
Green spoke of seniority, not skills. He testified further that
Green then left the office and Buncher continued the
conversation; that Buncher referred to the first hearing and
said Jack LaBryer and others who testified did not lie; that
Buncher said "if the Union got in that I could be replaced
by men from Nine Mile" with more seniority; that he
responded only about wanting a pension and job security;
and that Buncher said he had kept the Union out for 45
years and was not going to let it in at that time, "not if he
could help it."
LaBryer also testified that he was in his car on the way to
the coal dock to vote on the day of the election when he
met Buncher and Green in a car; that they asked him to
come to Nine Mile Run to talk; that he followed their car
in his car to where they could talk under cover as it was
raining very hard; that Buncher said he should vote for the
company and not for the Union, Buncher knew he would
vote the way his brother did, he could be replaced with
men from Nine Mile Run as he "didn't have much time
there," and if he was not "a little bit shakey" about how he
was going to vote, there was something wrong with him;
that Green indicated agreement with what Buncher was
saying; and that he said he was not sure how he would vote
as he appreciated that the company had paid him after his
injury until he began getting his unemployment compensa-
tion checks. He also testified that he was not sure but
thought he was not wearing a union button at the time.
Jack LaBryer testified that he began working for the
Respondent in late 1963 or early 1964; that he quit after
about 2 years; that he ran into Pasquarelli months later
and said he had quit because of John Monahan; that
Pasquarelli told him Monahan had left, and asked him to
return with his seniority continued; that he did so, and
thought this was in 1965; and that he worked until his
layoff on July 18, 1975. He also testified that he heard of
the Union from Cochran and Owens in November 1974,
that he signed a union card in early January at Owens'
request and distributed cards to his brother and other
employees, and that he attended meetings including the
one at the Seahorse Lounge.
LaBryer testified on cross-examination that about 3
weeks before the election Buncher spoke to him on the
dock and that Buncher said something about L & N
railway cars and the Union, expressed opposition to
outsiders telling Buncher how to run the company. He also
said the Union did not guarantee job security and he could
be discharged and the Union could not force his rehire, but
he did not indicate he was going to be discharged. He also
testified that Buncher complained about his practice of
listening to Buncher's talks and not saying anything.
LaBryer also testified that, 2 weeks before the election,
he was finishing up his work at Glennwood when Green
"called me aside and he talked about how business was
slowing down, due to the auto and steel industry problems,
and how there was going to be a lay off in the future, and
that they would try to lay off the youngest men in seniority,
first, and keep the oldest. He also said, how I never got laid
off before, in the past, and the company had always taken
men $20. He testified that he would have given them more but the amount
was suggested by counsel so it would not appear to be a bribe.
220
THE BUNCHER COMPANY
care of me. He then told me about the company's plans to
keep only six men to operate the coal docks, including me
and my brother Bob, and he asked me how I felt about the
union, and I would not answer him.... He asked me or
he told me that he knew I had influence over the men and
he wanted me to talk to them, and try to convince them,
not to vote for the Union." As this conversation took place
after quitting time, LaBryer was paid overtime.
LaBryer denied on cross-examination that Green in this
conversation talked about the ballot being secret so those
who signed cards were free to vote "No," about the
importance of voting, the Union's inability to fulfill its
campaign promises, the benefits provided by the Respon-
dent, or what he owed the Respondent for providing him
for so long with employment. He testified further that
although Green never showed him any newspaper clip-
pings about the Union, he saw some posted and could not
recall if Green, in any of their conversations, talked about
the new Glennwood equipment needing fewer men.
LaBryer testified that Green spoke to him again about 2
days before the election; that Green asked him to convince
his brother not to vote for the Union; and that Green said
that, with the Union, there would have to be a layoff, the
men would not be able to transfer jobs as they had in the
past, and there would be strikes and strike funds the men
would have to support.
LaBryer also testified that on the day of the election,
when it was raining hard, Buncher called him into the
power shanty; that Buncher "started talking about my
position as far as the union, and he said that he trusted me,
but he still wasn't satisfied, that he didn't know how I
stood, as far as the company or the union, and he wanted
to know what he could do for me, could he buy me a new
car, or give me five hundred dollars, or Jerry Burns' old
job"; that Green, who had joined them, said Buncher
would give him whatever Buncher promised; that his
response was that he did not need any help like that and
"that I didn't have to tell him anything about how I was
going to vote, and that I had been selected by the men to
be the union observer"; that Buncher then "said this had
nothing to do with it, that I would never talk to you again,
if the union won"; that Buncher also told him Jackson and
Rutherford "had screwed him with the last union, and he
gave them a second chance, but they wouldn't get another
one, and he told me that I already made one mistake"; and
that he saw Buncher after that at Glennwood, but Buncher
has never spoken to him since then.
LaBryer denied on cross-examination that Buncher
spoke to him about the secrecy of the ballot or asked him
to vote for the company, and testified that he did not recall
any discussion of company benefits or of a possible layoff
at Glennwood, nor recall talking to Buncher about his
father working on the B & O or about his buying houses,
which he was doing.
Jackson began working for the Respondent in February
1959. He was laid off in 1960 and reinstated in 1962
pursuant to Board order. He was laid off on July 18, 1975,
was recalled by the Respondent on Ocotber 31, 1975, and
was still employed at the time of the hearing. Jackson
testified that he learned of the Union in December 1974
when Owens told him of a meeting to be held, that he went
to the meeting and got a card from Owens which he signed
a week later and returned to Owens, and that he wore a
union button during January, February, and March, 1975.
Jackson testified that he was called to the office, asked
by Buncher and Green about rumors of racial discrimina-
tion, and assured that company policy did not condone
such conduct. He was told to go to the office by
McDonough, who was found in the representation case to
have been laid off for economic reasons on February 27,
1975, and as to whom the Regional Director refused to
issue a complaint. Counsel agreed, therefore, that this
Jackson incident occurred in the pre-10(b) period, and the
General Counsel presented it as background only. Jackson
testified that in this conversation Green asked why he was
wearing the union button; he said he wanted better pay,
benefits, and a pension; and Green responded that "we're
going to give you a pension plan, when you get old you're
going to draw Social Security."
Jackson testified further that he saw Buncher and Green
at Glennwood on April 21; that Buncher was going to talk
to him but Green asked to do so instead; that Green asked
if he was still going to vote for the Union, and he said he
was; that Green said the company was going to lose
shipments on L & N and other railcars because of new
river docks being built; and that Green said the Union
wanted only his dues, urged him to discuss the matter with
his family, and commented that they were like a family and
Green had taken care of him in the past. Jackson also
testified that Green spoke to him again "in the car puller
house" at Glennwood on April 24 and asked if he talked to
his family; that he said he did and was "going to go with
the company"; and that Green "said I don't believe you,
but he said I will see. He said you know you're going to
lose anyhow, because we've got ten votes to eight votes."
Jackson testified on cross-examination that Green on
April 21 said the employees as a group would have to pay
the Union $2,700 a year in dues but that would not take
care of the office in Pittsburgh; that Green on April 24
expressed again the hope he would vote "No," but did not
mention the secrecy of the ballot or say anything about the
company being good to him, about company benefits, or
about wages or pensions, although Green in other conver-
sations spoke of having taken care of him; that Green in all
their talks expressed the hope that he would vote "no
union" and "for the company"; and that Green said the
vote was secret, but did not say he was to vote as he felt.
Rutherford began working for the Respondent in 1956.
He was laid off after about 2 years as the work was slow,
but was called back a few days later. He was laid off again
in 1960 but was reinstated in 1962 under the Board order.
He was laid off July 18, 1975, was recalled to work on
December 4, and was still employed at the time of the
hearing herein. Rutherford testified that he learned of the
Union organizing in December 1974 from Jackson; that he
signed a card at the Seahorse Lounge meeting; that about a
week later Green asked if he had signed a card, and said
the card did not mean anything; that Green asked if he did
not feel, after being employed 17 or 18 years, that he owed
the company something; that he said it seemed so and he
would think about it; that Green asked what he wanted
from the Union; and that when "I told him I wanted the
221
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pension fund," Green said he should get savings bonds
which "would equal up to a big pension fund." Rutherford
also testified that he received a union button weeks after he
signed a card, but thought he did not wear it.
Rutherford testified that Green spoke to him again
outside the office, he thought in March but admitted on
cross-examination it may have been in February; that
Green asked what he was thinking about the Union, and he
answered he did not give it much thought; that Greeii told
Buncher, who joined them, that "he ain't talking too
good"; that Buncher said that he and Jackson "got me
once, but you won't get me again," and said to Green "I
told you you should have got rid of Sam [Rutherford] and
Archie [Jackson] a long time ago"; that Green said "that
don't matter right now. All I want him to do is sign for the
Company"; and that both Buncher and Green said in
conclusion they could not offer him anything "but when
it's over and you vote for the Company you won't regret
it." Rutherford testified, on cross-examination, that, during
the conversation in February or March, Green said the
Union was not necessary, there would be a vote by secret
ballot, "the card didn't mean nothing, just vote for the
company"; and that his response was that he might vote
for the company and that he wanted a pension fund.
Rutherford denied that Green discussed race discrimina-
tion in any of the talks about which he testified, but
admitted Green discussed this matter separately with him
at one time, he did not recall when. In view of Rutherford's
uncertainty about the dates, the above conversations will
be considered only as background.
On the day before the election, the Respondent held a
meeting of employees at Nine Mile Run at which it
provided luncheon, and at which both Buncher and Green
spoke. Rutherford testified on cross-examination that he
approached Buncher before this meeting; said to Buncher
that "like you said, you was pretty good to me and
everything," and that he bore no grudge because of any of
the union matters; that he could not recall what Buncher
responded; that Buncher might have said he was free to
vote as he pleased but Buncher hoped he would vote "No";
and that Buncher did say that at the luncheon meeting.
Rutherford testified further that he could not recall much
of what was said at that meeting or that they said the vote
was secret, that it was important that everyone vote, or that
everyone was free to vote in secret and there would be no
discrimination against anyone because of the vote; but he
did recall that Buncher said the Union just wanted the
dues, that both Buncher and Green said the company
could make no promises under the law, and that both at the
end said "all we want you to do is vote for the company."
Rutherford also testified that he was sent to Glennwood
to do some work after the "meeting party"; that Green
came to where he was working there and asked "what was I
thinking about the union. How was I thinking of voting,
and I told him I don't know, I still hadn't really gave it a
thought, and he said well, we've got ten, but what I want is
all of you. So at that time, Archie Jackson came by ... So
he [Green] just said there's Archie . . . would you like to
see him on Welfare. .... I said no, but I will vote for the
Company, just like that, and that's about all that was said."
2. Testimony of Buncher and Green
Buncher and Green testified that they carried on a
vigorous campaign to urge "No" votes for 3 or 4 weeks
before the election of April 25, 1975. Buncher, who
normally visited the worksites involved once in a month or
two, and Green, who visited them for a few hours about
twice a week, went there daily and talked repeatedly to
each of the eligible employees. They arranged in advance
which employees each would talk with that day. Literature
was distributed to the employees with their paychecks and
by registered mail to their homes. Buncher and Green
maintained that they said the same things to the employees
day after day in these conversations, varying them only to
refer to literature that might have been distributed since the
preceding talk; that, as described by Buncher, "we made it
a point. . . almost on a daily basis. . . to. . . see as many
of the people, on a personal basis, and have direct
conversation with them, and try to sell them basically, on
the soundness of. . . going along and voting no union";
that both of them spoke to the assembled employees at the
luncheon meeting the day before the election; and that
their campaign was cleared with counsel. They maintained
that virtually all of their conversations were on a one-to-
one basis, denied that both participated in certain conver-
sations about which witnesses of the General Counsel
testified, and denied making the unlawful remarks attrib-
uted to them.
Buncher testified that during his talks he showed the men
newspaper articles critical of the Union and other labor
organizations, including one that "was full of Allis
Chalmers' statements as to why the plant was being shut
down, and it was union, union, union." He also testified
that "I did everything that I could to convince them, that
they had done well without the union, and that I had been
a good employer, and I had given them good salaries, good
wages, I had yearly added to their benefits. . . . These are
the things that I spoke with to each and every one of the
men, anybody who would listen, I hammered at them ...
I tried to convince them that they were much better off, to
remain and leave it at status quo," because they could then,
as they had in the past, discuss any "gripe" about the work
with him.
Buncher testified, as to the conversation with Cochran,
that it took place at Cochran's request. Cochran com-
plained about the supervisor as in previous conversations
and they both discussed Cochran's work and injury.
Buncher stated that if Cochran was wearing a union button
he did not see it, that there was no discussion of the Union,
and that he did not know of the union drive at that time.
Buncher specifically denied making the references to the
Union to which Cochran testified.
Buncher testified that he spoke to Weiher a number of
times, including on election day and the day before, at
Nine Mile Run and in the office. He testified that he told
Weiher that the voting would be by secret ballot, that "the
signing of the card did not commit the man to vote for the
union," that Weiher had a good work record and "was the
kind of person that he would like to have." Weiher started
as a laborer on a wrecking job on Herrs Island but was put
on other jobs when that one finished and was taught skills
on the job and given wage increases. Buncher testified that
222
THE BUNCHER COMPANY
"this basically is what we talked about at every opportunity
that I saw to sit down and talk with him."
Buncher also testified that Weiher, like most of the
others, did not have much to say; that he did not recall
what was said in the earlier conversations but did recall the
ones close to the election; that "This man had been
wearing a button, all the time . . . I don't know that he
wore it all the time, but I know that on several occasions, I
did see it"; that he did not recall if Weiher was wearing a
button at the first conversation in the office but "He could
have, yes, because I know that I saw him with one on, but
which meeting or when or what, I cannot tell you." He
testified, on cross-examination, that in April 1975, "I don't
know that I specifically looked, I remember seeing it, at
least once, but beyond that, I don't recall that I ever looked
to see if it was on or off, from then on." As to whether he
told Weiher in April 1975 that the signing of a card did not
commit him, Buncher testified that "I don't know whether
it was said to him at that time or whether I said it to him at
all.... If I saw him with a button on it may have
prompted my saying it, but I don't know if he had a button
on at that time.... I'm positive that I did not say it to
him, if I said it at all.... I don't specifically remember
making a statement like that to him at all."
Buncher denied that he and Green ever spoke together to
Weiher, then admitted they went together to the jobsites to
campaign, and that he or Green may have been present
long enough to hear snatches of conversations the other
was carrying on. He denied hearing Green make the offers
to which Weiher testified, denied that he offered Weiher
benefits, and maintained that both he and Green spoke of
promotions only in terms of pointing to Green and the
supervisors who had been taught skills and given advance-
ments from lower rated jobs to their present positions. He
also denied asking any questions about how Weiher would
vote, but stated that he "certainly did" say he hoped
Weiher "would vote for the company."
Buncher testified that he and Green spoke separately to
Robert LaBryer, who had come to the office to get a
compensation check, but that "nothing too much was said
other than, I had confidence in the fact, that I could
convince Jack LaBryer that his best interest lie with voting
no union, and voting for the company.... and I told him
that I had hoped that I could do the same with him, and I
did say . . . there was no animosity because of Jack's
previous testimony in the representation case, because the
man had had basically, stated facts as they were, and I just
- well, there was no resentment ... " He testified that
he did not recall whether LaBryer was wearing a union
button at the time, and that the only other matter they
talked about was LaBryer's injury. He denied making all
the comments about the Union to which LaBryer testified,
and stated, as to the comment about having kept a union
out for years, that the "one thing that was said, I said for all
of the years that I have been in business, the men had
trusted me enough, to the extent that they did not never
need a union, and I was hoping that that would con-
tinue... ."
Buncher also testified that when he and Green asked
LaBryer to follow them on the day of the election, Green
spoke to LaBryer first, and he later spoke briefly, and that
it was "the same thing again, I said to him about the secret
ballot, about going in, and I didn't care what had
transpired, and I was aware by then, that he had at times
been wearing a union button, and I didn't care anything
about any of that, when he got in that booth, no one would
know how he voted, and I hoped that he would vote for the
company, and I hoped that we had convinced him that he
would vote for the company, and if we hadn't at that point,
I just gave up, and that was the extent of my conversation
with him." Buncher denied the other remarks pertaining to
the Union to which LaBryer testified, but admitted
LaBryer "may have construed as he said, as being shaky, I
said, I just give up, if I haven't been able to convince you,
that you are making a mistake, that the union can't do for
you, as much as we can, we have proven ourselves to you,
we are proving you a known quantity, and you are dealing
with an unknown... ."
Buncher testified that he had no "serious conversation"
with Jackson because Green felt he could reach Jackson
better. He and Green did have a conversation with Jackson
and each of the other black employees in late January or
early February about the rumors of racial discrimination,
and urged these employees to report to them any such
incident. Buncher testified, when asked if Jackson was
wearing a union button, "I don't remember, I'm not
certain, I think he may have been, but I cannot be sure."
He denied that he or Green asked why Jackson was
wearing a union button or had any discussion pertaining to
any union matter. Buncher also testified that he had no
conversations with Jackson from that time until the
election other than to make comments in passing to the
effect that "I hope we can count on you." He again
asserted that, as to every eligible voter, "I certainly
emphasized the fact, that their best interests lie with voting
no union, I felt that I had proven myself as a good
employer over the years, and I told him that I felt that that
certainly was better than taking something that you are
uncertain with."
Buncher testified that he spoke to Rutherford about
racial and other matters a number of times, but that he
recalled no conversations about the election before early
April; that Rutherford showed great reluctance to talk to
him and was always busy when he approached; that "I
almost felt that I had the man convinced" after the
luncheon meeting; that Rutherford approached him after
the meeting and "almost apologetically" asked if he was
angry, "and I told him that I wasn't angry, and I said you
worked too long for me, and I feel when you get into that
booth tomorrow, in the election, you will do the right thing,
and I put it on the basis that I expected him to do it, and
that's the way I left it." He denied that he asked how
Rutherford was going to vote. As to whether he stated how
he wanted Rutherford to vote, Buncher answered, "Do you
mean did I say, vote for the company, I could have, but I
don't know if those were the words that I used, it seems to
me that I used vote the right way, I can't tell you if I said
vote for the company, I meant vote for the company, and
there was no question about that, and there was no
question in his mind, that I meant vote for the company."
Buncher denied other remarks about the Union to which
Rutherford testified, and denied that he and Green
223
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
together had any conversations with Rutherford. He
denied that he spoke to Rutherford about investing
Rutherford's money for a pension fund or getting a pension
in the form of social security, but admitted having "a little
comment like that" with Jack LaBryer. He denied that he
said anything about getting rid of Jackson and Rutherford,
and that he said they "got" him once but would not again.
On cross-examination, he testified that he did not believe
Jackson's name was mentioned; that he did not recall it
being mentioned; that "I would say if I had to but I would
say that it was not mentioned. But I am not positive.. .. I
know that I didn't mention it for any specific reason. There
was nothing there that would bring it up"; and that he did
not see Jackson at the time and thought Jackson and most
of the men had left.
Buncher testified that he had many conversations about
the election at Glennwood, starting in early April, with
Jack LaBryer, because "in my book he represented two
votes, and he also represented some influence, and I felt, if
I could persuade him, I had a chance, and I knew his
brother would go along . . . and possibly influence
somebody else, so I did seek him out"; that he asked
LaBryer to influence his brother and others to vote for the
company and against the Union; that he knew LaBryer
wore a union button at times; that in these conversations
he complimented LaBryer who "had performed a beautiful
job, and done his work well"; that LaBryer complained
because he had been working there for years and, when
Maynard left, the promotion to Maynard's job was given to
Burns; and that he said he would look into this, and did,
and found this action was justified because LaBryer "had a
run in, many years ago with John Monahan," but did not
report this to LaBryer. Buncher testified that LaBryer
talked about his father working at B & O and indicated he
would prefer to be working for B & O; that he said the
company needed flexibility in transferring men but the
Union would not permit it; that when LaBryer talked
about a car problem, he asked why LaBryer did not buy a
new car; that LaBryer said he had bought a home and
another house so he could not afford to buy a car; and that
he said LaBryer "can always get the money for the down
payment or something from Moe [Pasquarelli], because his
work record was good, and this was common practice" to
get "a company loan, without interest."
Buncher testified that one of the equipment changes that
would make LaBryer's work of handling barges easier
apparently made LaBryer fear there would be less work for
him, but, at other points, that LaBryer argued there would
be more work, men would be hired, and the dock operation
would go to three shifts; that LaBryer did not believe what
he said about there being less work when the equipment
changes were completed even though he showed LaBryer
articles about other river docks getting into operation to
which coal would be sent that had been going to
Glennwood; and that, when they were discussing job
benefits, LaBryer brought up pensions, and he replied there
was so much dishonesty about pension systems it might be
better to set up a savings plan of some sort, the
Government had come up with a new plan for setting
money aside, and "I told him that if he wanted, I would
look into it for him, and I would help him do it, and that
was all, now if that's a promise of setting up a pension, I
don't know."
Buncher testified that he took one more shot at LaBryer
on the day of the election; that he knew from LaBryer's
head shaking that he had not "reached" LaBryer but, at
another point, that he still hoped LaBryer would vote for
the company; that when he said LaBryer could still make
the right decision, LaBryer said he was elected to be the
union observer; and that "I remember saying Jack I feel
bad, but if that's your decision, this is the last conversation
that we will have about it. He walked away, and I walked
away, and that's all that was said." He testified that he had
not seen LaBryer since the election until the hearing, and
would have spoken if he had.
Buncher denied that he offered LaBryer a car, $500, or a
promotion to vote against the Union or to campaign for the
company; that he said Jackson and Rutherford "screwed"
him or mentioned their names; that he discussed discharg-
es except to say the company would need fewer men when
the construction was completed; and that he said he could
discharge LaBryer and the Union could do nothing about
it. He testified that they did not touch on job security, he
thought, other than his comment that LaBryer had been
there a long time and would be there "as long as we were
there, if we had the business, and could maintain it fine, I
saw no reason to discuss job security, I can't ever recall
saying that."
Green testified that he as well as Buncher carried on
daily talks with all the men at both jobsites beginning in
early April; that he saw quite a few union buttons worn on
the job; that he told the men that they could get greater
benefits from the company than from the Union, that the
company did a great deal for them and would continue to
do so, and, in every conversation, that he would like them
to vote for the company. He also asked that the men talk to
him about any "gripes" they might have. Green testified
that the luncheon meeting the day before the election
lasted about 1-1/2 hours, that they ate for 45 minutes and
then he and Buncher spoke for 45 minutes, and that they
stuck pretty closely to prepared remarks and repeated what
they had been saying in the numerous conversations; that
they spoke of what they had done for the men, of how the
company kept the business going without the Union and
saw no need for it, and that "we think we can do more,"
and hoped they would vote next day for the company.
Green denied ever asking any employee if he signed a card
or how he would vote, that he made any promise of benefit
conditioned on voting against the Union or for the
company, or that he threatened any employee with
reprisals if the employee voted for the Union.
Green testified that when Cochran came to the office in
January 1975, and "claimed" to have hurt himself,
Cochran had been out of work for a couple of weeks and
came for his compensation check; that he arranged with
the secretary that he would hand Cochran the check; that
he inquired about how the injury occurred and expressed
sympathy for the back trouble Cochran was having, which
took about 5 minutes; that this was all they discussed; and
that there was no reference to the Union. He also pointed
out that Cochran was held ineligible to vote in the election
as a permanently laidoff employee.
224
THE BUNCHER COMPANY
Green testified that he had 8-10 preelection talks with
Weiher beginning in early April, but did not recall a
conversation in February; that Buncher took no part in his
talks with Weiher; that he saw Weiher wearing a union
button; and that he told Weiher of the company's
improving job benefits and promotional opportunities. He
denied ever promising Weiher benefits to vote against the
Union or for the company.
Green testified that he had conversations with Robert
LaBryer, who wore a union button, at Nine Mile Run, at
Glennwood, and in his office, and that he explained, as he
did to other employees, that LaBryer had performed
various kinds of work at different locations but would not
have that flexibility under a union classification, and that
"this is why I don't believe the Union can do you any
good." He also testified that he gave LaBryer $20 for
preventing a barge from breaking loose, and intended to
give more but was advised against it by counsel on the
ground that it would be construed as a bribe.
Green testified as to the conversation with LaBryer on
the day of the election that "We talked about the union
benefits as opposed to the benefits of the Buncher
Company.... and we certainly think that he's taking it
into consideration, his future, as well as that of the family,
to vote for the Company which has been giving him steady
work in the past. And, it looked like it was going to
continue to keep him gainfully employed." Green denied
that LaBryer ever said he was looking for pensions or job
security from the Union, that they ever discussed LaBryer's
brother Jack, and that he ever discussed seniority with any
of the men.
Green testified that he spoke to Jack LaBryer several
times during April; that in the first talk he asked if
LaBryer, who was wearing a union button, had received
and understood the company literature; and that he
pointed out the benefits of the company job flexibility "to
assure continued work," but "if the union were to come in
here, they would probably classify you as a dock hand,"
there would be no more shifting to other work, so that "if
we didn't have barge work for you, we would have no
alternative but to lay you off for that day ... I think it is
going to be in your best interest to vote against the union,
and vote for the company... ." Green testified that their
next talk would have been the same, and would have taken
place in a day or so as he tried to reach all the men about
every other day. He also testified that in their talk at the
dock on the day of the election, LaBryer said nothing
about being a poll watcher and he never heard LaBryer
was to be one.
Green denied that he asked how LaBryer would vote;
that there was any discussion of LaBryer's brother; that he
asked LaBryer to tell his brother or other men to vote
against the Union; that he told LaBryer there would be a
layoff if the Union got in; that he offered LaBryer a raise,
new car, or promotion to vote for the company or heard
Buncher do so; or that he heard Buncher say Jackson and
Rutherford "screwed" him but would not again, or say
LaBryer made his first mistake.
Green testified that he had "repeated" conversations
with Jackson at Glennwood; that if he spoke to Jackson in
March, it was late in March as he started his "actual
campaign" in early April; and that he spoke to Jackson in
about February about the reports of racial discrimination,
but there was no discussion of the Union, and no reference
to the union button Jackson was wearing. Green testified
that in his conversations with Jackson beginning in early
April, he asked if Jackson received the company literature
and if Jackson and his wife had discussed it; that "I said
does your wife agree with you, that you are working steady,
that you don't lose any overtime, and he said yes, and I
said I think that's one of the benefits working with the
Buncher Company, working with us is steady work, and I
said, you know, I don't know if you are going to be able to
enjoy that benefit, if the union comes in here, because
Archie remember, your classification is laborer, and you
don't have any skills, I don't know what the union is going
to say about that .. ."; that Jackson helped on electrical
and maintenance work, and on moving barges and cars;
and that those were the benefits he enjoyed as an employee
of the company whereas the union benefits were getting a
card and paying dues. Green denied that he ever talked
with Jackson about pensions or job security, or asked how
Jackson was going to vote.
Green testified that Jackson and the other employees
were at the luncheon meeting on the day before the
election; and that, in his next talk with Jackson, on the day
of the election, he told Jackson, "I think you will agree
that, what's best for you would be to vote for the
company." He denied that he predicted the outcome of the
election, and that there was in this conversation any
indication of how Jackson would vote.
Green testified that he spoke to Rutherford about the
reports of racial discrimination, that there was no reference
at this time to the Union, and that he did not think
Rutherford was wearing a union button. He also testified
that later, during his campaign, he had several conversa-
tions with Rutherford in which he asked if Rutherford read
and understood the company literature, "and I asked if he
had considered the advantages to him, staying with the
company the way it was and has been, as opposed to what
it might become if we had union representation ... I think
if you think it out right, you are going to vote for the
company . . ." Green denied that he asked how Ruther-
ford was going to vote, that Rutherford mentioned wanting
a pension or job security and that he discussed these
matters with any of the men, that there was any talk in
March or April in which Jackson was mentioned, and that
he or Buncher ever said that they should have gotten rid of
Jackson and Rutherford or that they could not offer
anything at that time but Rutherford would not be sorry if
the company won the election.
Green testified that he talked to Rutherford and others
the day before the election but merely repeated his
campaign talk, and that he spoke to several of the men
after the luncheon meeting, but merely asked if they had
any questions about the talks. He denied that he had any
discussion with Rutherford or anyone else about any
pending layoffs at Nine Mile Run or at Glennwood.
Green testified that he talked to Parham and Washington
about the rumors of race discrimination, and that he had
the same campaign talks with them as he did with every
eligible voter.
225
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Concluding Findings
Each of the six laidoff employees impressed me as a
candid and forthright witness, testifying to the best of his
recollection to what was said in the many conversations
Buncher and Green held with each of them. On the other
hand, I found Buncher and Green evasive and argumenta-
tive witnesses, whose testimony about these conversations
contains many improbabilities, inconsistencies, and self-
contradictions, and lacks the ring of truth. I therefore
credit the testimony of the laidoff employees as to these
conversations.
Accordingly, I find, on the basis of the credited
testimony, of the admissions made in the testimony of
Buncher and Green, and of the record in its entirety, that
the General Counsel has established the Respondent's
knowledge of the union organizing activity shortly after it
began as well as the Respondent's union animus. I find
further that Buncher and Green, the two principal officers
of the Respondent, in their daily barrage over a period of
weeks directed at a small complement of employees, within
the 10(b) period, coercively interrogated employees about
membership in and activities on behalf of the Union; that
they told employees repeatedly about the wage increases
and other job benefits the company had provided over the
years without the Union, indicated that continued benefits
would be forthcoming if the employees voted for the
company and against the Union, whereas the employees
could not know what to expect with the Union if it won the
election, and thereby actually or impliedly promised
employees wage increases and other benefits in order to
discourage membership in and activities on behalf of the
Union; that they talked about pending layoffs and about
the company practice of transferring men to different
jobsites and teaching them new skills in order to keep them
employed, whereas the Union, if it won the election, would
insist that employees get job classifications and be
permitted to work only in those classifications, with the
result that employees would have to be laid off whenever
there was no work in their classification, and, by repeatedly
warning employees of an inevitable curtailment of work if
the Union won the election, threatened employees with
discharge and/or layoff and other reprisals if the employ-
ees selected the Union as their bargaining representative;
that this conduct interfered with, restrained, and coerced
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act; and that the Respondent, by such
conduct violated Section 8(aX)(1) of the Act. 6
C. The Layoffs
Cochran was laid off on February 27, Weiher and Robert
LaBryer on June II11, and Jack LaBryer, Jackson, and
Rutherford on July 18, 1975.
Cochran began working for the Respondent in 1965 as a
laborer at Nine Mile Run. After about a year he learned
and did welding also, but most of his work continued to be
as a laborer at Nine Mile Run. He went to Glennwood at
times to load coal, and on occasion did laborer work at the
6 N.L.R.B. v. Colonial Haven Nursing Home, Inc., 542 F.2d 691 (C.A. 7,
1976); General Automation Manufacturing, Incorporated, 167 NLRB 502
(1967); Gilbert International, Inc., 213 NLRB 538 (1974); Quemetco. Inc., a
Respondent's Leetsdale location in about the early 70's,
laid track and did other laborer work at Northside on
Preble Avenue for about 6 months, and helped out at the
Heinz warehouse in an ice storm. In 1974 he worked at
Glennwood, where he put belts on the conveyor, unloaded
coal, moved cars, and welded. His welding was done on
equipment in the field, not in the shop. There was a good
deal of welding on the new construction at Glennwood.
Cochran also did some welding on Glennwood equipment
at Leetsdale after Nine Mile Run closed down. Cochran
testified that much of the welding the last year he was
employed was done by Behun, Owens, and himself, and
Jack LaBryer helped when not busy on other work.
Cochran testified that Green, in January 1975, men-
tioned the layoffs in the coal industry, and said the
Respondent was thinking of laying everyone off, and that it
was not because of the Union. Cochran was injured on the
job on January 15, 1975. On April 1, 1975, the insurance
company told him there would be no more compensation
payments and he could go back to work. He had been laid
off, however, on February 27. He was never previously laid
off. He testified, at a hearing on a compensation claim he
brought against the Respondent in February 1976, that he
could do only light work and no heavy lifting. Green
maintained that all of the Respondent's welding work
required heavy lifting.
Weiher went to work for the Respondent in 1970 as a
burner cutting up scrap on demolition work at Herrs
Island. He was taught this work by the Respondent. He
was laid off after about a year. Weiher was rehired as a
burner on demolition work at Preble Avenue in November
1972. In January 1973 he was transferred to Nine Mile Run
as a mechanic's helper and general laborer. He was
tranferred in May 1975, shortly after the election, to
Glennwood to work on the track unloading railcars and
barges until his layoff on June 11. He testified that Nine
Mile Run closed down in June. A few times while at
Glennwood he helped Strangis, a mechanic, repair heavy
equipment, and he received some training as a mechanic
and on other work. He also shoveled coal from under the
conveyor belts, drove the parts truck at Nine Mile Run,
and went to the company's Squirrel Hill offices to pick up
the payroll for Nine Mile Run and Glennwood employees,
but, he testified, the last few months of his employment he
worked for the most part as a general laborer. Weiher
testified that Green told him, Robert LaBryer, Stoltz, and
Trotter of their layoff at the same time, and that Green said
there was no work and no indication when it would pick
up, and suggested he find anotherjob.
Robert LaBryer first went to work for the Respondent in
July 1968 as a laborer on the track at Glennwood, quit
after about a month for higher wages, returned and quit
again at the end of June 1973 because a promise of higher
wages was not kept, returned in August to do the same
work, and was laid off on June 11, 1975. During his
employment LaBryer worked at the Respondent's Preble
Avenue location about a month, 3 or 4 years before his
layoff, burning scrap. He testified that he also helped
subsidiary of RSR Corporation. 223 NLRB 470 (1976); Masoneilan Interna-
tional, Inc., 223 NLRB 965 (1976); Serv-U-Stores, Inc., 225 NLRB 37 (1976).
226
THE BUNCHER COMPANY
Jackson, Rutherford, and Evans lay track at Herrs Island
for a few days in about 1971 or 1972, and was sent there by
Maynard, at that time a supervisor at Glennwood who was
later succeeded by Burns, as there was no coal to be loaded
or other work then at Glennwood. He returned to
Glennwood on May 12 to work on the track. He testified
that he worked basically as a laborer at Glennwood.
Occasionally on Saturdays, if not busy at Glennwood, he
was sent to Nine Mile Run to help shovel coal out under
belts and clean up. He has helped Strangis, the mechanic,
make equipment repairs, but he did not do welding,
operate equipment, or possess the skills that were exercised
by some of the Respondent's employees.
LaBryer testified that when he was in the office in late
March 1975, Green talked of the slacking down in the steel
industry and in the coal supply which meant "they were
going to have to make more layoffs.... they built up the
new plant, with hoping to operate with fewer men . . .";
that Maynard had said this when construction began at
Glennwood in or about February 1974; that the construc-
tion was designed to load coal faster into two barges
simultaneously instead of one at a time, and made part of
the operation automatic; and that a new conveyor was in
operation at the end of February 1975, but work was
continuing on another conveyor when he was laid off.
LaBryer testified that on June 11 he was helping Monahan
on some rigging work when he was called to the office with
Weiher, Stoltz, and Trotter, and that Green told them they
were laid off due to lack of coal, he did not know for how
long, and suggested they look for other jobs.
Jack LaBryer began working for the Respondent in late
1963 or early 1964, worked at Nine Mile Run for 6 months
largely on welding, and was sent to Glennwood, which was
being rebuilt, to do welding for about I- 1/2 years, when he
quit. He testified that he happened to meet Pasquarelli
months later and said he quit because of John Monahan,
that Pasquarelli said Monahan had left and asked him to
return with his seniority continued, and that he returned to
Nine Mile Run to do welding and maintenance repair on
equipment. He was sent back to Glennwood after about 3
months, where he was engaged principally in loading
barges, but also worked on the track and did other laborer
work. Robert LaBryer testified that his brother was a
laborer as he was, but also worked on the barges and
helped on the track. Jack LaBryer testified that he also
welded and repaired barges, operated and repaired certain
equipment, and helped on diesel repairs. He admitted he
was not a diesel mechanic, but testified that he had been an
auto mechanic in the Army. After about 1972 he worked at
Glennwood except that he went to Nine Mile Run once to
replace Behun, who was laid off, and sometimes on
Saturdays. LaBryer testified that men from other opera-
tions including Leetsdale came to Glennwood at times to
work on the new construction. He admitted that his
welding on new construction was done under the supervi-
sion of Monahan or Burns, and that Behun and Owens,
who were also laid off, had done some welding.
LaBryer testified that the men usually received their
paychecks at noon and cashed them at the bank, but on
July 18 the checks were delayed until quitting time; that
Jackson was called into the office first, and then he was;
that Green told him the layoff was for lack of work, there
was no coal in sight, and Green had no idea when there
would be any; and that he was never before laid off.
LaBryer admitted that Glennwood was not getting much
coal in July, that he was doing maintenance work on the
dock because not many barges were being loaded, and that
there was a slowdown in the work about a week or so
before his layoff.
Jackson began work for the Respondent in February
1959 as a laborer at Nine Mile Run. Rutherford began in
1956 as a laborer at Leetsdale, where he helped on the
building there, and, after about 7 months, went to Nine
Mile Run as a laborer. He was laid off after about 2 years
because work was slow, but was called back in a few days
to work as a laborer at Leetsdale, and after a few months
was sent back to Nine Mile Run. He was there about a year
when he and Jackson were laid off in 1960. Both were
reinstated in 1962, pursuant to Board order, to jobs at
Leetsdale as laborers.
After his reinstatement, Jackson was moved around to
Carson Street, Corralis, Herrs Island, Nine Mile Run, and
Glennwood, and was at Nine Mile Run and Glennwood an
equal amount of time from about 1970 to 1975 except for 2
days at Leetsdale. He was at Glennwood from May 1975,
working as a laborer on barges and railway tracks until
Friday, July 18. On that date he was called to the office to
see Green, who gave him 3 checks for his pay, "pay in the
hole," and vacation pay, and said Jackson was a good
worker but had to be laid off for lack of coal.
Rutherford after his reinstatement worked at Leetsdale
as a laborer about 8 years. He ran the highlift and the
forklift, unloaded barges, rolled pipe, and dug ditches.
Since 1970 he spent most of his time at Nine Mile Run. He
was at Glennwood for a year, worked as a laborer on the
construction of a Heinz warehouse on Carson Street for a
few months, and occasionally at other locations for periods
of a few days. He was at Nine Mile Run for 3 or 4 weeks
after the Board election, and was sent back to Glennwood
in or about late April until July 18. He was changing
clothes that day when he was told to see Green, who gave
him his checks and said he was being laid off for lack of
work and should look for another job as Green did not
think he would be recalled.
Both Jackson and Rutherford were recalled to work,
Jackson on October 31 and Rutherford in late November
1975. Since their recall, Jackson has worked on the barges
and track at Glennwood, and Rutherford has unloaded
coal cars, sometimes helped on barges, and helped on dock
repair and other maintenance work at Glennwood that did
not include work on motors. Both Jackson and Rutherford
are sent to Nine Mile Run at times to help tear down a
plant. Jackson testified that Pasquarelli said when assign-
ing this work that the plant would no longer be operated,
and that he heard that Nine Mile Run stopped operating,
and Rutherford testified that work at Nine Mile Run
stopped in late April or early May, and that he and other
men were transferred about that time to Glennwood.
Jackson testified there was less coal at Glennwood for a
month or so before the layoff, that the operation went from
89 to 3 or 4 barges a day, and that at times they were doing
only maintenance work as was the situation at the time of
227
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the hearing. He also testified that no new equipment has
been installed at Glennwood since Jack LaBryer's layoff;
that when new winches of about 6 feet were installed, an
operation that took months, he and Rutherford did the
laborer work while Monahan did the installation, Burns
operated the crane, and Redding and Shurick did the
electrical work.
Rutherford testified that, on the Monday before the
hearing herein, only he, Evans, Bums, and Strangis were
working at Nine Mile Run, he and Evans tearing down a
plant, Burns running a crane and taking apart a conveyor,
and Strangis working on the engine of a water truck, and
that some weeks they did only maintenance work.
Both Jackson and Rutherford admitted they did not have
the skills of certain other employees but occasionally
assisted them, that they worked as laborers, and that the
other complainants herein did also. Moreover, the testimo-
ny of the complainants shows that, while some of the
individuals who were retained worked at times as laborers,
they also possessed and exercised various skills, that
Monahan was in charge of installation of new equipment,
laid out the work, took care of the blueprints, did rigging,
and gave directions to the crane operator; that Bums was a
foreman and crane operator who worked at Glennwood
and, in the past year, was at Nine Mile Run to help in
taking down the conveyors and to run the highlift; that
Evans was a maintenance man at Nine Mile Run who
came to Glennwood to install and repair belts, on which
both Jackson and Rutherford had assisted him, and
laggings on which Jackson and both LaBryers had assisted;
that Madonna operated the highlift and other equipment;
that Parham operated a power shovel at Nine Mile Run
and a barge puller at Glennwood; that Redding did the
electrical work assisted by Shurick, also an electrician; that
McDonough was an equipment operator; and that Strangis
was a mechanic.
The Respondent put in evidence a great deal of
testimony and documentary evidence as to the economic
causes of the layoffs here in issue. Shipments of coal to the
Glennwood coal dock, engaged primarily in transferring
coal from railroad hopper cars to river barges with
conveyors and other equipment, had been sharply reduced
with no foreseeable resumption at the previous level, and
the Nine Mile Run operation has been dormant except for
dismantling of equipment since its only customer, Jones &
Laughlin, directed the Respondent to stop shipping metal
as the Pittsburgh works were to be closed in June 1975, and
shipments later resumed at a greatly reduced level. Much
of the equipment at both sites was "put in mothballs." The
Respondent at present has no scrap operations, and did no
demolition work in 1975. Some of the complainants
testified they were aware of the curtailment of operations,
and Green announced the layoff of Cochran and others at
the representation case hearing and on various other
occasions. The General Counsel has conceded that there
was economic justification for a layoff, but maintains that
the selections of employees for layoff were discriminatorily
motivated.
7 Pasquarelli underwent brain surgery, and Madonna fractured his ankle
at work, but they were not replaced.
The General Counsel established the Respondent's
knowledge of the union organizing activities and its union
animus as set forth above. In addition, while the Respon-
dent admitted that seniority was a consideration in
selecting employees for layoff, some of those laid off were
senior by many years to others who were retained. The
Respondent's witnesses testified, however, that, while
seniority was a factor, the principal consideration was to
retain in the small remaining complement the individuals
who were most skilled, who could perform the laborer work
at both sites as well as the more skilled operations that
might at times be necessary, and whose skills would be
needed if Glennwood or Nine Mile Run resumed opera-
tions; that those retained were willing to perform the
laborer work, and did so, but were able also to perform
operations that those laid off could not do; and that Nine
Mile Run was virtually closed down, and the Glennwood
dock was closed down completely for the first time in 15
years and would be closed down for an indefinite time, so
that the employees retained could be given a week's work
only if able to perform various operations working part of
each week at Nine Mile Run and at Glennwood. The
Respondent also maintained that there was no longer work
for those laid off at other operations where they had on
occasion been employed. The work at those sites involved
site preparation which was completed, scrap yards which
were phased out, constructing buildings which have been
completed and leased, and other operations that have been
completed or on which, where the Respondent was still
operating, it had a full crew of workers or was completing
work with subcontractors as had been its practice on the
work involved. There is occasionally electrical work to be
done in the buildings, which Redding and Shurick do, but
no laborer work that the employees laid off could perform.
The Respondent also asserted at the hearing that, just as
it recalled Jackson and Rutherford to work when there was
a need for their services, it would recall others who were
laid off when and if there is work for them. It made no
contention that any of them were laid off for work
deficiencies, and, in fact, admitted some were exceptionally
good workers. The record shows that no new employees
have been hired since the layoffs, not even as temporary
replacements for individuals who have been unable to
work for periods of time because of illness or injuries.7 The
Respondent has in 1974 and once in 1976 engaged
personnel through a Manpower agency, but Green testified
that this was done at the request of a customer occupying
warehouse space leased by the Respondent, who specified
Manpower personnel for the work in question, and this
personnel could perform work that the laidoff employees
could not.
Moreover, the record shows that a number of employees
other than the complainants were laid off, some before the
complainants were, and some who were more active in
union organizing than the complainants, that employees
had been on notice for some time that layoffs would be
made, and that the Respondent has on previous occasions
laid off employees for lack of work.
228
THE BUNCHER COMPANY
With respect to the qualifications of the individuals
retained, Green's testimony shows as follows:
Pasquarelli had been for a long time the superintendent
of both operations with an office at each one. After the
layoffs and the decrease in work at Nine Mile Run, he was
based at Glennwood. Burns was a foreman in charge at
Glennwood under Pasquarelli. Burns, who is also a master
mechanic who can maintain and operate all the equipment,
has since the layoffs been reduced to a rank-and-file
employee, and operates a crane.
John Monahan is a master rigger, master welder, and
steel layout man, who has been with the Respondent since
about 1949. He receives requests to install equipment at
sites all over the world, and on several occasions over the
years has taken time off from his work for the Respondent
to do so. Jack LaBryer could weld, but not with the same
skill as Monahan or do other work Monahan did. LaBryer
also worked on maintenance, but only as a helper to
Pasquarelli, Evans, Burns, or Monahan.
Redding, a registered electrician who has been employed
since August 1972, does all kinds of electrical work at the
Respondent's various locations. He is assisted by Shurick,
who was hired in May 1973 on Redding's recommenda-
tion, and does electrical work although not a registered
electrician. Both have done some laborer work since the
layoffs.
Strangis, who was hired in July 1974, was trained in Italy
and speaks little English, but he is a qualified motor and
diesel mechanic at Nine Mile Run, where much of the
equipment is diesel-powered. Since the layoffs he has
worked on the mothballing of equipment, repairs mechani-
cal equipment at various locations, and has done some
laborer work.
Madonna, who began working for the Respondent in
March 1962, operated the highlift, the dragline crane, and
the shovel, for the most part at Nine Mile Run, but since
June 1975 has been doing principally laborer work at
Glennwood. Weiher, who was being trained as a mechan-
ic's helper, had assisted Strangis at times, drove the truck
on errands for the superintendent, and performed other
duties at various locations, but never operated the highlift,
shovel, or crane, or worked as a diesel mechanic. Jackson
had operated the highlift in Madonna's absence, but not
with the same skill as Madonna did in operations such as
road grading, and Jackson never operated other equipment
that Madonna operated.
Parham, who has been working for the Respondent since
1951, operated at times all the power equipment at both
locations, which none of the laidoff men could do. He
operated the conveyors and the shovel, and has been doing
laborer work since the layoffs. Jack LaBryer operated the
conveyors for a brief period, but never the shovel.
Evans, who began working for the Respondent in 1961 as
a skilled mechanic, is a highly specialized maintenance
mechanic on conveyor equipment, who also does installa-
tion, maintenance, and field welding, operates the highlift,
serves at times as a leadman on a major repair job, and
does laborer work. Jack LaBryer, a laborer who spent most
of his time moving barges up and down the river, did other
kinds of work also, including some maintenance and
welding, as did Behun and others who were laid off. He
also helped Evans at times on conveyor belt maintenance,
on which he did the manual labor while Evans did the
skilled work; but he was not a crane operator and lacked
other skills that those who were retained possessed and
exercised.
Edington was hired in June 1974. He worked at Nine
Mile Run, was a unit employee who voted in the election,
and was transferred in June 1975 to the warehouse
operation built at Leetsdale about 3 years ago. He is a
young man who had some warehouse experience before
being hired, came to the Respondent because he wanted a
better job than he had, but was willing to start as a laborer
to learn the business, and worked as a laborer at Nine Mile
Run while learning clerical work from Pasquarelli. He was
sent to Leetsdale to train under office manager Byers so he
could be a backup for Byers and be trained as a warehouse
foreman. He also worked as a laborer, worked in the
warehouse and in the office, and ran the pickup truck on
trips to customers and to deliver interoffice mail. An
attempt had been made to train some of the laidoff
employees in clerical work but they were unable to perform
such work satisfactorily. Weiher ran the pickup truck while
at Nine Mile Run, but did not perform any clerical duties.
Concluding Findings
As set forth above, I have found that the record
establishes the Respondent's knowledge of, and active
opposition to, the union organizing drive, and its attempts
by unlawful acts and statements to discourage employees
from voting for the Union in the Board election. The
credible testimony presented by the General Counsel also
casts some doubt on the bases for the Respondent's layoff
selections. The Respondent asserted that seniority was a
factor, but laid off some senior employees before it laid off
other employees who had less seniority, and laid off some
with far more years of service than others who were
retained. Furthermore, Green and Buncher indicated in a
few instances that certain laid off employees had less, and
certain retained employees had more, seniority than was
shown by company records to be the fact. There is also
evidence that indicates the Respondent might have been
able to furnish occasional work to the laidoff employees at
some of its job locations.
On the other hand, the economic data presented by the
Respondent shows that a substantial personnel reduction
was warranted. Moreover, the Respondent explained why
it utilized Manpower, subcontractors, and other personnel
sources after the layoffs. It also showed that work at its two
locations herein involved, Nine Mile Run and Glennwood,
was considerably reduced at the time of the layoffs, with
the economic factors indicating that the reduced need for
personnel would continue. Moreover, the record shows
that the Respondent laid off a number of employees who
were not included in the complaint, including some who
were active in initiating the union organizing campaign and
some who were named in the Union's charges, and that it
laid off one of the complainants, Cochran, before the
election, and the other five complainants months after the
election.
In addition, the Respondent showed, as the principal
basis for its selections, that those retained had abilities,
229
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
skills, experience, or potentials that made them of particu-
lar value in carrying on the Respondent's existing opera-
tions with a reduced complement of employees. It is true,
as the General Counsel argues, that those retained have
since the layoffs spent much of their time doing laborer
work which those laid off were qualified to perform. I am
not convinced, however, from the record in its entirety,
that the Respondent selected the employees to be laid off
because of their union membership or activities, and
selected those to be retained because they refrained from
membership in or activities on behalf of the Union rather
than, as it maintained, because they had skills which the
operations at times required and which the laidoff
employees did not have. I find, therefore, that the General
Counsel has not established that the reasons given by the
Respondent for the layoff selections were pretextual, nor
shown by a preponderance of the credible and probative
evidence that the complainants were laid off because of
their membership in and activities on behalf of the Union
and because they engaged in concerted activities with other
employees for the purpose of collective bargaining and
other mutual aid and protection and in order to discourage
membership in the Union.8 I shall therefore recommend
dismissal of the allegations of the complaint that the
Respondent, by these layoffs, violated Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the Respondent's
operations described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, 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 of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(I)
of the Act, I find that it is necessary that the Respondent
be ordered to cease and desist from the unfair labor
practices found and from in any like or related manner
infringing upon its employees' Section 7 rights, and to take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the
entire record in this proceeding, I make the following:
8 See Nutmeg Coal Company, Inc., 224 NLRB 1098 (1976); Bromine
Division, Drug Research, Inc., 224 NLRB 1275 (1976); Parts, Jobbers,
Warehouse, Inc., 224 NLRB 1511 (1976); East Bay Newspapers, Inc., d/b/a
Contra Costa Times, 225 NLRB 1148 (1976).
9 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, The Buncher Company, is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. United Mine Workers of America is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By coercively interrogating employees concerning
their membership in and activities on behalf of the Union,
promising employees employment benefits to discourage
membership in and activities on behalf of the Union, and
threatening employees with discharge, layoff, or other
reprisals if the employees designated the Union as their
collective-bargaining representative, the Respondent has
interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, in
violation of Section 8(aX 1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The General Counsel has failed to establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent, as
alleged in the amended consolidated complaint, laid off six
employees discriminatorily in violation of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) 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:
ORDER 9
The Respondent, The Buncher Company, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from coercively interrogating
employees concerning their union membership and activi-
ties, promising employees employment benefits to discour-
age union membership and activities, threatening employ-
ees with discharge, layoff, or other reprisals if the
employees designate United Mine Workers as their
collective-bargaining representative, or in any like or
related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its premises at Nine Mile Run and Glenn-
wood Coal Docks copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix."l Copies of the notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 6, after being duly signed
by the Respondent's representative, shall be posted by the
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, in conspicu-
ous places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
'o 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 read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."
230
THE BUNCHER COMPANY
the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the amended consolidated
complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges that the
Respondent laid off six employees in violation of Section
8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing in which all parties had the opportunity to
present their evidence, the National Labor Relations Board
has found that we, The Buncher Company, violated the
National Labor Relations Act, and has ordered us to post
this notice and to keep the promises that we make in this
notice.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate employees
concerning union membership and activities, promise
employees employment benefits to discourage union
membership and activities, threaten employees with
discharge, layoff, or other reprisals if the employees
designate United Mine Workers as their collective-
bargaining representative, or in any like or related
manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act.
THE BUNCHER COMPANY
231