Carolina Steel Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 24, 1976

225 N.L.R.B. 20 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

20 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Carolina Steel Corporation and International Molders
& Allied Workers Union, AFL-CIO-CLC. Case
11-CA-6288
June 24, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
On April 14, 1976, Administrative Law Judge
Robert Cohn issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Carolina Steel Corpora-
tion, Greensboro and Colfax, North Carolina, its of-
ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT COHN, Administrative Law Judge: On Novem-
ber 26, 1975,' a complaint issued pursuant to a charge filed
on October 7 by International Molders & Allied Workers
Union, AFL-CIO-CLC (herein the Union). The complaint
alleges, in essence, that Carolina Steel Corporation (herein
the Respondent or Company), violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein the
Act), by threatening to warn, and warning, employees for
engaging in activities protected by Section 7 of the Act. In
its duly filed answer, Respondent admitted the jurisdic-
1 All dates hereinafter refer to the calendar year 1975, unless otherwise
indicated
tional allegations of the complaint, but denied the commis-
sion of any unfair labor practices
A hearing in this case was held before me on January 6,
1976, in Greensboro, North Carolina. At the conclusion of
the hearing, counsel made brief closing arguments. In addi-
tion, helpful, posthearing briefs have been received from
both counsel for the General Counsel and counsel for the
Respondent, which have been duly considered.
Upon the entire record in this case, including arguments
of counsel, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES 2
At all times material, the Respondent has been engaged
in the business of structural steel fabrication and ware-
housing at its Greensboro and Colfax, North Carolina,
plants. At Greensboro, Respondent employs approximate-
ly 190 production and maintenance employees; at Colfax it
employs approximately 90 such employees. As far as the
record shows, there has been no labor relations history at
either of the aforementioned plants.
During the latter part of August, the Union commenced
an organizational drive among the Respondent's employ-
ees Apparently, this activity soon came to the knowledge
of Respondent since, on September 2, the Respondent's
president made a speech to the employees in which he
urged them to reject the Union.3
On September 10, the Union notified the Company by
mail of its organizational campaign, and listed some 59
employees of the Respondent as being members of an in-
plant organizing committee who would be assisting in such
campaign. The letter was received by the Company on Sep-
tember 15.
On September 16, the Respondent posted at its Greens-
boro and Colfax plants, the following notice:
TO ALL EMPLOYEES
We have recently received a letter from a Mr. Alex
Grant, saying that he is an organizer for the Moulders
Union and that a number of Carolina Steel employees
are helping him try to get his union into our plants.
His letter gives the names of the employees at Greens-
boro and Colfax, whom he says are his in-plant organ-
izers.
This is a union device to try to gain some kind of
protection for the men who have signed union cards.
The idea is that if he reveals their identity, then our
hands are supposed to be tied so that the card signers
won't have to follow the rules and cannot be disci-
plined.
2 There is no issue raised as to the jurisdiction of the Board or of the
status of the Union as a labor organization The complaint alleges sufficient
facts, which are admitted in Respondent's answer, upon which I may, and
do hereby, find that the Respondent is, and has been at all times material,
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec 2(6) and (7)
of the Act The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that, at all
times material, the Union has been a labor organization within the meaning
of Sec 2(5) of the Act
3 However, nothing stated in his speech is claimed to constitute an unfair
labor practice
225 NLRB No. 5
CAROLINA STEEL CORP.
I am sorry for the men who believe such ideas. As Mr.
Dorland told you in his recent talk, a man can join a
union or he can refuse to join.
If he thinks that he cannot make it on his own, he can
work for the union. But if a man believes a union here
might bung trouble, lostjobs and lost benefits, he can
work to keep it out.
One thing is clear. No union member is going to get any
more favorable treatment than anyone else. If one of
those on the list neglects his own work or interferes
with the work of others, he will be severely disciplined
or discharged, dust as anyone else in the plant would
be for the same activity
Since we have been officially notified that these men
intend to work for the union inside the plant, each of
them is being given an official warning on plant rules.
When they signed union cards, we doubt that they
intended to be put on a list to the Company. However,
the union has done so and we will take appropriate
steps.
Also on September 16, Respondent's supervisors individ-
ually read a statement entitled "Supervisor to Employee"
to those employees named as being on the in-plant organiz-
ing committee who were present on the job that day.4 The
record reflects that it was the procedure for the supervisory
employee to call aside the in-plant committee member
from the latter's job and read the statement to him "in
private" either in the plant area or in the supervisor's of-
fice. The "Supervisor to Employee" statement referred to is
as follows:
SUPERVISOR TO EMPLOYEE
, I WANT TO READ A SPECIAL STATEMENT TO
YOU SO THAT THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION OF WHAT I SAY
YOUR NAME HAS BEEN REPORTED AS A UNION MEMBER WHO
INTENDS TO WORK FOR THE UNION INSIDE THE PLANT THE OR-
GANIZER FOR THE MOULDERS UNION HAS SENT THE COMPANY A
LIST OF EMPLOYEES THAT HE SAYS ARE TO BE IN-PLANT ORGANIZ-
ERS, AND YOUR NAME IS ON THE LIST
SOME OF THE NAMES DID NOT SURPRIZE US WE KNEW THAT
NOTHING WOULD EVER SATISFY SOME PEOPLE THERE ARE
OTHERS WHO WE THOUGHT WOULD REALIZE THAT OUR PLANTS
ARE ALREADY AHEAD OF OUR COMPETITORS AND THAT OUR
BENEFITS ARE FAR BEYOND EVEN THE UNION SHOPS IN OUR
AREA
MR DORLAND TOLD YOU TWO WEEKS AGO THAT YOU HAVE
THE RIGHT TO JOIN THE UNION, AND THAT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT
TO STAY OUT OF IT AND TO WORK TO KEEP UNION TROUBLE OUT
OF HERE
MOST OF YOU WHO SIGNED UNION CARDS PROBABLY DID NOT
INTEND THAT YOUR NAMES BE REPORTED BY MR GRANT POSSI-
The record reflects that although there were 59 names appearing in the
Union's letter of September 16, there were only 56 actual employees on the
in-plant committee because of duplication in the names or the fact that one
of the employees named was no longer employed by the Company It was
also agreed among the parties that only 52 of the 56 employees were read
the statement on September 16 since the other employees were not at work
that day for various reasons The remainder were read the statement when
they returned to work within the next several days
21
BLY, GRANT THOUGHT THAT SOMEHOW YOU WOULD GAIN EXTRA
JOB PROTECTION IF HE CLAIMED YOU ARE WORKING FOR THE
UNION
I HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED TO INFORM YOU THAT PUTTING
YOUR NAME ON A UNION LIST WILL NOT GAIN YOU ONE EXTRA
BENEFIT, NOR WILL IT ALLOW YOU ANY EXEMPTION FROM OB-
SERVING THE RULES OF THIS PLANT
IF YOU SHOULD NEGLECT YOUR WORK OR INTERFERE WITH
THE WORK OF OTHER EMPLOYEES, YOU WILL BE SEVERELY DISCI-
PLINED OR DISCHARGED I CALL YOUR SPECIAL ATTENTION TO
THE RULE REGARDING SOLICITING DURING WORKING TIME THIS
APPLIES TO UNION SOLICITING AS WELL AS OTHER INTERFER-
ENCE, AND IF YOU VIOLATE THIS RULE, YOU WILL BE SUBJECT TO
DISCHARGE
IF YOU WANT TO JOIN THE UNION, THAT IS YOUR BUSINESS
WHAT YOU DO ON WORKING TIME IS OUR BUSINESS
SINCE WE HAVE BEEN TOLD OFFICIALLY THAT YOU INTEND TO
WORK FOR THE UNION WHILE YOU ARE IN THIS PLANT, THEN WE
BELIEVE YOU NEED AN OFFICIAL WARNING
I HOPE THIS IS CLEAR TO YOU AND THAT YOU WILL CONDUCT
YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY 5
As noted above, the original charge in this matter was
filed on October 7, in which the Company was claimed to
have violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. Following
an investigation by an agent of the Board's Regional Of-
fice, it was apparently concluded that there was no merit to
the 8(a)(3) allegation, but the Region was prepared to pro-
ceed to complaint with respect to the 8(a)(1) allegation.
This was communicated to the Respondent's counsel by an
agent of the Board. Subsequently, on November 11, the
Respondent sought to informally adjust the matter by pro-
posing the posting of a notice to employees which it had
promulgated. This was apparently unacceptable to the Re-
gion, who counterproposed its own notice to employees.
Such notice was, in turn, unacceptable to the Respondent,
and the record shows that on or about November 11 the
Respondent posted its own notice, as follows:
TO ALL EMPLOYEES:
Most of you may remember that the Company re-
ceived a letter from the Molders Union in September
reporting the names of a number of our employees
who, according to the Union, were going to act as an
"In Plant Organizing Committee." We did not want to
make these names known to all of our employees, but
we felt that each person on the Union list should know
that he would be expected to follow the Plant Rules
just as strictly as anyone else. The appropriate supervi-
sors spoke personally with each man on the list, telling
him that the Union letter did not confer on him any
extra benefits, nor would it allow him any exemption
from observing the rules of the plant. The supervisors
said, "If you want to join the Union, that is your busi-
ness. What you do on working time is our business."
A question has been raised as to whether some of
our employees who were spoken to by the supervisor
5 The parties stipulated that the foregoing statement was "read only to
those employees who were named in the letter from [Union Organizer] Alex
Grant as being members of the in-plant organizing committee " There is no
evidence that any of the supervisors made any other statements to the em-
ployee either before or after the reading of the statement
22 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
considered that they were warned concerning all of
their activities , as distinguished from what they did on
working time, when they should be attending to their
jobs. We want no misunderstanding of our rights or
the rights of our employees.
When an employee is on working time and is sup-
posed to be attending to his work, he is forbidden to
engage in any solicitation , distribution or other such
activity When the employee is on free time , such as
during a lunch period or regular break period, this
prohibition does not apply, and he is free to engage in
such activity, provided he does not interfere with the
work of other employees.
We hope this explanation will give you a better un-
derstanding of your rights and duties in this regard.
Analysis and Concluding Findings
It is the theory of the General Counsel that the Respon-
dent interfered with , restrained , and coerced its employees
in the exercise of their Section 7 rights by announcing
(through a posted notice) that it was giving prounion ad-
herents an official warning on plant rules , and then sum-
moning these employees from their work stations for the
purpose of hearing a supervisor read to them an official
warning on plant rules . In support of his contention, the
General Counsel relies on two recent Board cases . Green-
field Manufacturing Company, a Division of Kellwood Com-
pany, 199 NLRB 756 (1972), and Starkville, Inc, et al, 219
NLRB 595 (1975).
In Greenfield, the facts were strikingly similar to those in
the instant case. There, the Respondent 's regional manag-
er, on receiving a telegram from the Union designating
some 34 employees as additional members of the Union's
organizational committee , summoned them into the
Respondent's lunchroom. There, he addressed the group in
much the same language that the supervisors here spoke to
the individual employee, i.e., efforts either for, or against,
the Union must not "interfere with your work or the work
of others," "you will not receive favored or privileged treat-
ment and that, you will be subject to disciplinary action,
including discharge . . if you violate plant rules or regula-
tions."6 The Board, reversing the Administrative Law
Judge, who had dismissed this allegation of the complaint,
stated as follows:
In our opinion, the modus operandi used by Respon-
dent in arranging this separate, exclusive assembly of
announced union sympathizers appears to be more
antithetical to these employees' Section 7 rights than
the actual content of Cannon' s message . We find that
this singling out of union supporters by calling them
out from the midst of their coworkers to attend such a
special meeting is invidious , and that it amounts to
discriminatory treatment of them and is thus coercive.
As for the regional manager's statement , he made no
allusion whatsoever to the employees' protected orga-
nizational rights and Respondent's correlative obliga-
6 199 NLRB at 756
tions under the Act, but restricted himself to empha-
sizing the dire consequences of what Respondent
presumed to be a tendency on their part to ignore
plant rules. Accordingly, we find that Respondent's
method of arranging this meeting of avowedly pro-
union employees , and the conduct thereof , is violative
of Section 8(a)(1).
Indeed, the instant case appears somewhat stronger in
several respects than Greenfield- (1) the employees were
spoken to by the supervisors alone, "in private," sometimes
in the sanctum of the supervisor's office,7 while in the cited
case they were addressed as a group in the lunchroom; and
(2) in the cited case , the Respondent's regional manager
"maintained he had received complaints or impressions
that the Union 's campaign had induced a deterioration of
discipline and work habits . .. ." 8 whereas in the case at
bar there is no such contention or evidence.
In Starkville, the Board affirmed an Administrative Law
Judge's finding that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act when the plant manager called prounion
employees into his office and lectured to them in language
substantially similar to that in the instant case and in
Greenfield In Starkville, however, it appears that both the
Administrative Law Judge and the Board relied, in part, on
the plant manager's demeanor while making his remarks;
there is no evidence in the instant case regarding this fac-
tor.
After a consideration of all of the evidence in the record,
as set forth above, I am of the opinion that this case is
controlled by Greenfield I am convinced, and therefore
find, that the modus operandi used by the Respondent here,
as in Greenfield, had an intimidatory and coercive effect
upon the employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights,
thereby violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.'
There remains for consideration the Respondent's con-
tention that, following the notification from the Regional
Office that a violation of Section 8(a)(1) had allegedly oc-
curred, it sought to "clarify" or correct the misunderstand-
ing through the posting of its own notice. It is contended
by the Respondent that the posting of this notice remedied
any prior unlawful conduct by the Respondent, and there-
The record is not clear as to how many of the 56 prounion employees
spoken to were called into the supervisor 's office or simply called away from
their work station to a private place However, it is acknowledged that all
were singled out from their fellow employees to be addressed on the subject
8 199 NLRB 756 at In 5
9 In oral argument, counsel for the Respondent appeared to draw a dis-
tinction between the right of an employer to warn prounion employees
against any engagement in union activities (which he conceded would
amount to a violation of the statute ), as distinguished from the right of an
employer to warn prounion employees respecting the latters ' obligations to
adhere to plant rules during an organizational campaign (which he contend-
ed would not amount to a violation)
It does not appear , in my judgment that the Board has attempted to draw
such a distinction , but rather deems more significant the modus operandi
used by an employer in "singling out " prounion employees for special treat-
ment respecting the necessity of adherence to plant rules while , at the same
time, not engaging in such conduct respecting all other employees
Equally without merit, in my view , is Respondent 's argument that a dis-
tinction should be drawn because it did not name or otherwise identify the
prounion employees in its September 16 notice However , the impact of the
supervisor 's summoning the prounion employees from their work stations
shortly following the posting of the notice could not have been lost on the
other employees
CAROLINA STEEL CORP. 23
fore no order or remedy should be forthcoming from the
Board I cannot agree.
This argument of Respondent proceeds from the wrong
premise. It is bottomed, as set forth above, on the proposi-
tion that the violation occurred because the agents of the
Regional Office thought that the "official warning" of the
Respondent could be construed to refer to the prounion
employees' union activities and not their adherence to
plant rules. However, my analysis of Board precedent is
that the thrust of the violation has to do with the manner in
which the Respondent goes about giving its prounion em-
ployees the "official warning," i e, by singling them out
from the remainder of the employees, sometimes in a locus
of managerial authority, for the purpose of giving them a
lecture or warning respecting their activities in the plant. It
is apparent that the notice posted by the Respondent in
this case does not approach clarifying or correcting the
Respondent's conduct in that regard. Therefore, I find that
a remedy emanating from the Board is the only proper and
effective remedy in the premises.
q . THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth above, occur-
ring in connection with the interstate operations of Re-
spondent, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation-
ship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and
upon the entire record, I make the following.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
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 to
Respondent, Carolina Steel Corporation, Greensboro
and Colfax, North Carolina, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall-
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Announcing that prounion adherents would receive
an official warning on plant rules, and summoning pro-
union employees or organizing committee members from
their work stations to attend special, private meetings with
supervisors for the purpose of lecturing such employees
solely about plant rules and penalties for violations.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its Greensboro and Colfax, North Carolina,
plants, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix." II Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 11, after being duly signed
by the Company's authorized representative, shall be post-
ed by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicu-
ous places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 11, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
have been taken to comply herewith.
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of the Act
3. By announcing that prounion employees were to be
given an official warning on plant rules, and by summon-
ing prounion employees or organizing committee members
from their work stations to attend special, private meetings
with supervisors, and lecturing said employees solely about
plant rules and penalties for violations, the Respondent has
interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act,
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I
shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
10 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec
102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes
In the event the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the 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 "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT announce that prounion employees
will receive an official warning on plant rules, and WE
WILL NOT summon prounion employees or organizing
committee members from their work stations to attend
special, private meetings with supervisors for the pur-
pose of lecturing those employees solely about plant
rules and penalties for violations.
24 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any
of their right to self-organization , to form labor orga- or all such activities.
nizations , to join or assist International Molders & Al-
lied Workers Union, AFL-CIO-CLC , or any other la- CAROLINA STEEL CORPORATION
bor organization , and to engage in other concerted