Cerock Wire & Cable Group, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 13, 1985

274 N.L.R.B. 888 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

888 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Cerock Wire & Cable Group , Inc. and Local Union
1100 of the International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers . Case 10-CA-20195
13 March 1985
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
HUNTER AND DENNIS
On 5 December 1984 Administrative Law Judge
Howard I. Grossman issued the attached decision.
The Respondent filed exceptions.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and has decided to
affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and conclusions
and to adopt the recommended Order as modified.'
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge as modified below and orders that the Re-
spondent, Cerock Wire & Cable Group, Inc., Hart-
selle, Alabama, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order
as modified.
1. Substitute the following for pargaraph 2(b).
"(b) Rescind the rule which discriminatorily pro-
hibits employees from talking about the Union on
company property or company time."
2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(d).
"(d) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex-
ercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7
of the Act."
3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
administrative law judge.
' The judge ordered that, in addition to rescinding its no-solicitation
rule, the Respondent mail a copy of such rescission to each of its employ-
ees, although neither the General Counsel nor the Charging Party had
requested such a remedy We are satisfied that in this case, however, the
circumstances which would require such an extraordinary remedy do not
exist and that the convent.onal remedies provided are adequate to dissi-
pate the coercive effects of the Respondent's unfair labor practices and to
give the employees an understanding of their rights under the Act See,
e g, Montgomery Ward & Co, 269 NLRB 598 (1984)
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with dis-
charge or other adverse personnel action if they
testify at a hearing of the National Labor Relations
Board or engage in protected concerted activity.
WE WILL NOT promulgate or enforce a rule
which discriminatorily prohibits employees from
talking about Local Union 1100 of the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers on company
property or companytime.
WE WILL NOT issue warnings to, or otherwise
discriminate against, employees in retaliation for
their giving testimony under the Act or otherwise
engaging in protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of
the Act.
WE WILL expunge from our personnel records
all reference to our unlawful written warning given
to Steven L. Garrison on 24 November 1983 and
notify him in writing that we have done so and
that evidence of the warning will not be used as a
basis for future personnel action against him.
WE WILL rescind the rule promulgated in De-
cember 1983 which discriminatorily prohibits em-
ployees from talking about the Union on company
property or company time.
CEROCK WIRE & CABLE GROUP, INC.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HOWARD I GROSSMAN, Administrative Law Judge.
The charge was filed on May 10, 1984, by Local Union
1100 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers (the Union or the Charging Party). Complaint
issued on June 15, 1984, and alleges that Cerock Wire &
Cable Group, Inc. (Respondent or the Company) about
November 23, 1983, threatened its employees with dis-
charge if they gave testimony at a Board hearing or en-
gaged in concerted activity, and about December 5,
1983, again threatened employees with discharge if they
engaged in such concerted activity, in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the
Act). Further, the complaint alleges Respondent promul-
gated a rule prohibiting employees from discussing the
Union during working time or on company property,
also in violation of Section 8(a)(1).
Finally, the complaint alleges that Respondent issued a
warning to employee Steven L. Garrison because he
gave testimony at a Board hearing and engaged in pro-
tected concerted activities, in violation of Section 8(a)(1),
(3), and (4) of the Act.
A hearing was held before me on these matters in De-
catur, Alabama, on July 12, 1984 On the entire record,
including briefs filed by the General Counsel and Re-
274 NLRB No. 111
CEROCK WIRE & CABLE 889
spondent, and on my observation of the demeanor of the
witnesses, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I JURISDICTION
body was engaged in work Pointer denied that Garrison
ever failed to perform a job when ordered to do so. He
did not recall complaining to Childers about Garrison,
and never told Childers that Garrison was "slacking off."
Nor did he ever hear the supervisor warn Garrison
about his performance.
Respondent is a Delaware corporation with an office
and place of business located in Hartselle, Alabama,
where it is engaged in the manufacture of electrical wire
and cable. During the past calendar year, a representa-
tive period, Respondent sold and shipped from its Hart-
selle, Alabama facility goods valued in excess of $50,000
directly to customers outside the State of Alabama. The
pleadings establish, and I find, that Respondent is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The pleadings as amended at the hearing establish, and
I find, that the Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Garrison's Employment History with the Company
and Union Activities
1 Summary of the evidence
Garrison started working in Respondent's shipping de-
partment in August 1981 at a rate of $4 per hour. He
was thereafter transferred to the casting department
where he worked for about 2 years under the supervision
of Steven Childers, foreman of the department.' Garri-
son and certain other members of the department re-
ceived raises about every 6 months. Other members of
the plant did not get these raises. Garrison was making
$6 hourly when his employment with the Company
ended in May 1984 Childers and the plant manager ap-
proved of these raises.
There was a union campaign in the summer of 1983.
Garrison was active on behalf of the Union. He tried to
persuade his friends to go to meetings, and wore a badge
and a union T-shirt. The first meeting was held on
August 8, 1983. Of the employees in Garrison's depart-
ment , a greater proportion favored the Union than did
the employees in other departments. An election was
held on September 7, 1983, which the Union won by a
large majority.2
Childers testified that he had "problems" with Garri-
son's obeying orders and with his attendance . Childers
would ask Garrison to do something , such as clean up an
area , and, instead Garrison would do something else.
This happened "once or twice," and Childers spoke to
Garrison about it in late September, according to his tes-
timony No warning was issued but Childers asserted
that he "put it in [Garrison's] record."
Johnny Paul Pointer was a leadman in the casting de-
partment . Part of his responsibility was to see that every-
' The pleadings establish, and I find, that Childers was an agent of Re-
spondent and a supervisor within the meaning of the Act
2 The Company prevailed in a separate unit of leadmen
2 Factual analysis
I credit Garrison's uncontradicted testimony about his
raises and their approval by Childers and the plant man-
ager. From the fact that not all employees received such
raises, I infer that they were not across-the-board raises.
It is improbable that an employee who disobeyed orders
and was not punctual in attendance would have received
such raises
Pointer was a truthful witness, and I credit his testimo-
ny. It is unlikely that the leadman, who had responsibil-
ity for seeing that employees were working, would have
been unaware of Garrison's alleged deficiencies. I also
note that, although Childers testified that he put the as-
serted September conversation with Garrison in the Tat-
ter's "record," no such record was introduced in evi-
dence. Childers' generalized complaint about Garrison's
attendance was never made specific or documented. For
these reasons, and because I consider Childers to have
been an unreliable witness, I do not creidt his testimony
about Garrison's supposed deficiencies. I conclude that
Garrison had a good record as an employee.
B. Garrison's Conversations with Childers in
November and the Warning
1. Summary of the evidence
a. Garrison's and Pointer's version
As noted above, the complaint alleges that Respondent
issued a warning to Garrison in part because he gave tes-
timony at a Board hearing. The hearing concerned ob-
jections to the August election, and was held on Novem-
ber 21 and 22, 1983 A principal factual issue is whether
certain conversations between Garrison and Childers
took place before or after Garrison's testimony, and
whether the warning was issued to him before or after
the hearing. Respondent contends that these events took
place before the hearing-and, therefore, were not
caused by it in any way-while the General Counsel
argues that they took place afterwards. In addition, the
evidence is in conflict as to the substance of the conver-
sations.
Garrison testified that he was absent from work on
both days of hearing, November 21 and 22, that he had
conversations with Childers on the first day after the
hearing, November 23, and received the warning on No-
vember 24. The parties stipulated that Garrison was the
first witness after the luncheon recess on the first day of
hearing, i.e., November 21.3 Respondent' s position is that
the events in question took place during the morning of
November 21.
3 Childers testified on the second day, November 22
890 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
According to Garrison, he arrived at the plant about 7
a.m on November 23, and conversed with three employ-
ees.' One of them, Betty Stover, told him that there was
a new rule that employees needed Childers' permission
before they could leave the department or talk to one an-
other Garrison repeated this to leadman Pointer.
About 7:30 a.m., Childers called Garrison to the fore-
man's desk, and said that he did not appreciate people
testifying against him, and that those that did so would
not "be [there] long."
About 9 a.m., according to Garrison's testimony, he
saw Childers in the break room, and told him that he
might have to testify again. Childers replied that he
would be fired for an unexcused absence.
Shortly thereafter, Childers ordered Garrison to move
an inductor-a device for keeping copper warm-and to
get some bricks for it Another employee, Gary Bennett;
was about to begin "bricking" the inductor, to prevent
the copper from eating through it The bricks are
changed about every 6 months, and it takes several days
to prepare the inductor, according to Garrison.
Garrison got a forklift to accomplish the job. On his
way to get the bricks, he noticed a "rack .. . fixing to
run over in the floor." Garrison and leadman Pointer de-
scribed a rack as a rotating table which holds about 8000
pounds of copper tubing as it comes out of a furnace. If
a rack overflows, the copper goes to the floor and has to
be discarded as scrap. Accordingly, the tubing must be
cut, and the full rack replaced by an empty one Garri-
son testified that, at the time of his hiring, Childers ad-
vised him of the importance of keeping the copper racks
"changed." Pointer affirmed the general policy of chang-
ing the racks when full, to avoid wasting copper Be-
cause of the great weight involved, a forklift was
needed, and a special forklift was kept in the casting de-
partment for this purpose. It takes about 2 minutes to
change a rack, according to Pointer
When Garrison saw the rack about to overflow, he
called for help from Pointer, and the two of them
changed the rack. The process took about 1-1/2 to 2
minutes, according to Garrison°s testimony, and was
completed a few minutes after 9 a.m. As he resumed the
job of getting the bricks, Childers approached him and
asked, "What did I tell you to do?" "You told me to get
the bricks for Gary [Bennett]," Garrison replied
Childers responded, "Next time you disobey a direct
order your ass'll be out the door "
Garrison testified that he then got the bricks and
moved them for Bennett. Childers then ordered him to
clean up the area, and straighten up behind the "Buhler
mill." Garrison started doing so, but, about 9:30 a.m., he
took over the operation of the Buhler mill while leadman
Pointer, who was operating it, went on break. Operation
of the Buhler mill consists of pushing two buttons and
watching the machine. Although breaks lasted about 20
minutes at that time according to Garrison, Pointer re-
turned after about 10 minutes, and the two employees
talked together while Garrison operated the Buhler mill
during the remainder of Pointer's break period. Asked on
cross-examination why he did not continue to clean up,
4 Garrison later changed his mind about one of the employees
Garrison replied that the area in front of the Buhler mill
was "pretty clean," and that he could not clean up
behind the mill because he had to watch the machine.
Leadman Pointer was cross-examined on these issues,
and supported Garrison's testimony. Pointer agreed that
he had asked Garrison to operate his machine, and that
he talked with Garrison while he was finishing his break,
and while Garrison was still operating the Buhler ma-
chine. Pointer testified without contradiction that he was
not reprimanded for engaging in this conversation.
About 10:30 a m, according to Garrison, Childers ap-
proached him and instructed him to follow the foreman
to the office On the way, Garrison asked Childers
whether it pertained to discipline, and Childers replied,
"Yes." Garrison asked for "a witness," and the supervi-
sor answered, "I'll fire your ass before you get a wit-
ness " Garrison replied that Childers would have to fire
him because he was not going to quit.
When they reached the office, Childers told Garrison
that the latter's wife had called, that Garrison should call
her back, and that Childers would see Garrison in a
minute After calling his wife, Garrison looked for
Childers but could not find him. He knocked on the door
of Plant Manager Roderick's office The door was
opened, and various foremen were in the room. Childers
approached the door and told Garrison to go back to
work
Garrison testified that he made notes of these events,
although his testimony varies somewhat as to the time or
times of the day he made the notes. He did not use them
in preparation for trial.
On the next day, November 24, 1983,5 Childers again
approached Garrison, between 9 and 10 a.m. and in-
structed him to follow the foreman to the office. Garri-
son again asked for "a witness," and Childers replied,
"No."
Childers and Garrison then entered the office of Per-
sonnel Manager Michael Ward. The foreman and the
personnel manager presented a written warning to Garri-
son and twice asked him to sign it. Garrison said that he
"didn't sign nothing without [his] lawyer seeing it." "So
then they signed it," he added Childers asked Garrison
whether he had anything to say, and Garrison asked
about his wife's maternity insurance.
The warning is in evidence. It is a two-page handwrit-
ten memo from Childers to Ward, and alleges that Garri-
son failed to obey orders, did not clean up the depart-
ment , and twice stood around talking to Pointer for
more than 10 minutes. On the first page, in the same
handwriting as the memo, is the date "11-21-83." A no-
5 Subsequent to the close of the hearing , Respondent filed a motion to
supplement record, asking that the record be reopened for additional tes-
timony to show that November 24, 1983, was Thanksgiving Day, and
that Respondent's facilities were closed on that day The General Coun-
sel opposed the motion , and I denied it on the ground that it failed to
state why the additional evidence sought to be adduced had not been
"presented previously" within the meaning of Sec 10248(d)(1) of the
Board's Rules and Regulations Lincoln Hills Nursing Home, 266 NLRB
740 fn 1 (1983)
For purposes of making credibility determinations, I take judicial
notice of the fact that November 24, 1983, was Thanksgiving Day. How-
ever, I may not take any such notice with respect to Respondent's factual
allegation that its plant was closed on that day
CEROCK WIRE & CABLE
tation appears at the bottom of the second page in differ-
ent handwritting, "Refused to sign ," with the initials
"MSW," and the date "11/28" (G.C. Exh. 2).
b. Childers' and Ward's testimonies
Foreman Childers gives an entirely different version
and date of these events. They all took place 2 days ear-
lier, on the morning of November 21-the first day of
the objections hearing, in which Garrison was the first
witness after the luncheon recess.
Childers had a meeting with Plant Manager Roderick
at 7.30 a m. on November 21 It lasted about 30 minutes.
Garrison's actions which precipitated issuance of the
warning were his standing around talking to Pointer on
two to three separate occasions, and his refusal to move
an inductor so that it could be bricked
The order to move the inductor was given to Garrison
about 9 a.m. Thereafter, Childers went to the front office
for "about an hour." During this hour, Childers testified,
employee Gary Bennett was "preparing the inductor for
bricking." Childers also testified that he asked Bennett
about 10 a.m. why he had not yet started, and that Ben-
nett replied, "Steve [Garrison] hasn't brought me the in-
ductor." At that time, Bennett was "standing there at the
inductor." Garrison was changing a rack with a forklift,
and was about 25 feet away. Childers did not speak to
Garrison at that time. Instead, Childers testified, he saw
Bennett go to Garrison, get the forklift, and obtain the
bricks. However, on direct examination, Childers assert-
ed that he thought Bennett moved the bricks, but was not
sure. A few minutes later, Childers asked Garrison why
he had not moved the inductor, and Garrison replied
that he had more important things to do.
Childers' testimony is not clear on whether the occa-
sions when he saw Garrison standing around talking
with Pointer took place before or after 9 a.m., when
Childers went to the front office for an hour. In any
event, Childers saw this on two or three occasions.
Pointer was operating the Buhler machine, and Garrison
was standing there talking to him. On the other hand,
Childers said that Garrison could have cleaned up
around the Buhler machine while he was operating it.
Childers saw all of this from his desk, and on the last oc-
casion told Garrison not to stand around talking.
Childers acknowledges that he went to the office with
Garrison on the morning in question. He told Garrison
that the latter had received an emergency call from his
wife, and they went to the office together. Garrison
asked for a "witness ," and Childers replied, "What for?"
Garrison asked whether the matter pertained to disci-
pline, and Childers denied it.
Later, Childers went alone to the office and wrote up
the warning. He returned to Garrison and read it to him,
but the latter refused to sign . Childers then took the
warning to Personnel Manager Ward. Asked what Ward
did, Childers answered, "He initialed it." When Childers'
attention was directed to the November 28 date on the
second page of the warning, he changed his testimony,
and asserted that he did not know whether Ward ini-
tialed the warning at that time. "I just handed it to him
and walked out," the foreman claimed.
891
Childers contended that the warning was given to
Garrison on November 21, "around 10:00 a.m.,",and that
he then took it to Ward on,the same day. He denied any
conversation about the Union with Garrison.
Personnel Manager Ward testified that he initialed the
warning "on the same day it was written." "I initialed it
the 28th," he declared on direct -examination., Although
Ward said on cross-examination that he had no independ-
ent recollection of the day that 'the warning was written,
he insisted on redirect examination that he first saw'it on
the day that Childers had written it. The foreman
brought it to his office "after he had talked with Steve
[Garrison]." Ward did not recall any instance when Gar-
rison was present in his office, but agreed that the latter
may have been one of several employees who asked
about maternity insurance.
2. Factual analysis
Respondent's evidence is replete with contradictions
and improbabilities. Thus, it is unclear whether Garri-
son's asserted disobedience involved the inductor, the
bricks, or both. Childers was not certain who in fact did
move the bricks. Although Bennett still works for the
Company, he was not called as a witness . Childers con-
tradicts himself on whether Garrison was standing
around talking while Pointer operated the Buhler ma-
chine, or was failing to clean the area while operating
the machine himself.
The Company's evidence on the date of these events is
hopelessly inconsistent. Childers contended that they all
took place on November 21, while Ward insists that the
date was November 28, and that it was that day that the
warning was written. Childers was ready to change his
testimony to serve the Company's cause , while Ward's
recall of events was imperfect. Taking into account
Childers' 1 hour in the office from 9 to 10 am, his time-
table of events is so crowded that it is unlikely that they
could have taken place by 10 a in., as asserted.
The parties agreed that Garrison was the first witness
after lunch on November 21, the first day of the hearing
on objections. Garrison testified that he did not work at
all on November 21 or 22. If he did in fact work either
of these 2 days, his attendance would have been reflected
in company records However, Respondent did not in-
troduce any such records From its failure to do so, I
infer that such records, if produced, would have support-
ed the General Counsel's position 8
Respondent argues that Garrison should not be cred-
ited because he changed his testimony as to one employ-
ee with whom he talked on the morning of November
23, and as to the time of day he took notes of these
events. These are minor variations or corrections, and
are not related to the substance of his testimony. That
testimony is straighforward and consistent. It is in part
6 Zapex Corp, 235 NLRB 1237, 1239 fns 12 and 13 (1978), enfd 621
F 2d 328 (9th Cir 1980), St Regis Paper Co, 247 NLRB 745 (1980) On
cross-examination , Respondent ' s counsel asked Garrison whether he was
aware that he had been "written up" for being late on November 22
Garrison again denied that he had worked on that day Respondent did
not introduce any evidence , documentary or otherwise, establishing that
Garrison received a written warning for lateness on November 22
892 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL, LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
corroborated by Pointer, and also by Childers, i.e., that
Garrison and Childers did walk to the office together,
and that Garrison asked for a witness. Childers' account
of the remainder of the conversation is improbable-why
would he be walking to the office with Garrison in the
first place if the only purpose was Garrison 's returning
an emergency call from his wife?
I, therefore , credit the testimonies of Garrison and
Pointer , and conclude that the events took place as relat-
ed by them, and that they occurred on November 23,
except for the warning
Garrison testified that he received the warning the
"next day," i.e, November 24. Although there is some
likelihood that the plant was closed on November 24,
Thanksgiving Day, this likelihood is offset by Garrison's
testimony . Although the written date " 11-28" appears
next to Ward 's initials on the warning , Ward was an un-
reliable witness . I conclude that Garrison , Childers, and
Ward met on November 24,7 and that the warning was
issued on that date. Whether this event took place on
November 24 or 28 is of lesser significance than the fact
that , in either case, the warning was issued to Garrison
subsequent to the objections hearing at which he testi-
fied.
C. Garrison's Conversation with Childers about
December 5
Garrison testified that he had another conversation
with Childers about a week and a half after receiving the
warning, i.e., about December 5. Garrison went to
Childers' desk and said that he had not been testifying
against Childers (at the objections hearing), but, rather,
about what Childers had told him There was nothing
personal in it, Garrison added-the employees needed a
union . Childers replied that Garrison should leave the
Union alone before he lost his job over it, and that he
should not be talking about it on company property of
on company time.
As indicated above, employee Betty Stover told Garri-
son on the morning of November 23 that there was a
new rule that employees needed Childers ' permission
before they talked to one another or left the department.
On the same morning, according to Pointer , Garrison
told him that there was a new rule that Garrison was not
supposed to talk to him any more . Pointer was surprised,
and said that there was (or had been ) no rule against
"talking'in the plant."
I credit Garrison 's uncontradicted testimony as to
what Childers said to him about December 5. I interpret
the report from Stover as evidence that a similar rule
had been announced previously to other employees, or
that Stover gave a garbled report of the same rule to
Garrison. I infer from Pointer 's testimony that there had
been no such rule in the past.
D. Factual Summary and Legal Analysis
The credited evidence thus establishes that Garrison
had a good work record , and that he engaged in union
Garrison testified that he asked about his wife's maternity insurance
while in Ward 's office , and the latter acknowledged that Garrison may
have been one of several employees who made this inquiry
activities in,the summer of 19,83. After a Board election,
he testified at a hearing on objections on November 21.
On November 23, Garrison's next day of work, Supervi,
sor Childers told him that .employees who testified
against the supervisor would not be there long. Later the
same day, Garrison told Childers that he might have to
testify (at a Board hearing) again , and the supervisor re-
plied that, in- such event, he would be fired for an unex-.
cused absence . Childers threatened Garrison with dis-
charge on two other occasions the same day, the first
time for asserted disobedience , which I hereinafter find
to be a pretext, and the second time in response to Garri-
son's request for "a witness " on the 'way to what he
thought was a disciplinary interview, which actually
took place the next day. Again, about December 5, 1983,
Childers told Garrison that he should'leave, the Union
alone before he lost his job over it These were all coer-
cive threats under established Board law , and were viola-
tive of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
About December 5, 1983, or earlier, Respondent orally
promulgated a new rule, prohibiting employees from talk-
ing about the Union on company property or company
time.
An employer may prohibit employees from engaging
in activities not associated with work during working
time. Our Way, Inc., 268 NLRB 394 (1983). However,
when an employer has issued a rule prohibiting certain
activities during "company time,' and has even "provid-
ed a legally adequate definition of the term `company
time,' such a prohibition may not single out union activi-
ties," and is violative of Section 8(a)(1) if it does so.
Montgomery Ward, 269 NLRB 598 at 599 (1984). In the
instant case ,, Respondent not only singled out union, ac-
tivities as the activity prohibited, but failed to provide
any definition of the term "company time." It follows
that this provision of the rule was violative of the Act
In addition , the ban on any kind of union activity on
company property, at any time was unduly broad, and
was also unlawful Montgomery Ward, id, 269 NLRB at
600. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) by its oral promulgation and enforcement of
this rule
On November 24, Respondent gave Garrison a warn-
ing, assertedly for failing to obey orders , failing to clean
up the department , and talking to a leadman . All the
stated reasons are pretextual . The asserted disobedience
is not clearly specified in the warning. All that Garrison
did was replace an overflowing rack of copper tubing:
Although he thus interrupted another job which had
been given to him, the interruption took only about 2
minutes, while changing the rack was done pursuant to a
general plant policy of giving priority to overflowing
racks, in order to avoid wasting copper. Although Garri-
son did receive an order to clean up the area, he started
to do so but was interrupted by his leadman's order to
operate a machine while the leadman was on break. Gar-
rison 's abilities to clean the area were limited by this re-
sponsibility. It was during the leadman 's break period
that Garrison engaged in conversation with him-while
continuing to operate the machine . The leadman was not
warned for engaging in the same conversation.
CEROCK WIRE & CABLE
Because of the specificity of the supervisor's threat of
discharge if Garrison engaged in further testimony
(before the Board), because of the timing of the warn-
ing-immediately following Garrison's testimony-and
because of Garrison's union activities and previous good
record as an employee, I conclude that the General
Counsel has established a prima facie case that the warn-
ing was in retaliation for Garrison's testimony at the
hearing and other protected concerted activities. Re-
spondent has not rebutted that case, since the reasons
given by it for the warning are pretextual. Accordingly,
I conclude that, by issuing such warning, Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act Wright
Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir.
1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982); Riley-Beaird,
Inc., 271 NLRB 155 (1984).
In accordance with my findings above, I make the fol-
lowing
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Cerock Wire & Cable Group, Inc. is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. Local Union 1100 of the International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By engaging in the following conduct, Respondent
committed unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
(a) Threatening employees with discharge if they testi-
fy at Board hearings or engage in protected, concerted
activities.
(b) Orally promulgating and enforcing a no-solicitation
rule which discriminatorily prohibits employees from
talking about the Union on company property or compa-
ny time.
4. By issuing a warning to employee Steven L. Garri-
son because he gave testimony at a Board hearing and
engaged in protected, concerted activities, Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act.
5. The foregoing unfair labor practices affect com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
THE REMEDY
It having been found that Respondent has engag;d in
certain unfair labor practices, it is recommended that it
be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the purposes of
the Act
It having been found that Respondent, on November
24, 1983, unlawfully gave employee Steven L. Garrison
a written warning because he testified at a Board hearing
and engaged in protected, concerted activities, it will be
recommended that Respondent expunge from its person-
nel records all references to such warning, and notify
Garrison in writing that it has done so and that evidence
of the warning will not be used as a basis for future per-
sonnel action against him. Although Garrison was no
longer employed by Respondent at the time of the hear-
ing, he may in the future apply for employment.
893
It also having been found that Respondent orally pro-
mulgated an unlawful no-solicitation rule, it will be rec-
ommended that it publish a written recission of this rule,
and mail a copy of such recission to each of its employ-
ees at his or her last known address.
It will also be recommended that Respondent post ap-
propriate notices.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed8
ORDER
The Respondent, Cerock Wire & Cable Group, Inc.,
Hartselle, Alabama, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Threatening employees with discharge or other ad-
verse personnel action if they testify at a Board hearing
or engage in protected, concerted activities
(b) Promulgating or enforcing a rule which discrimina-
torily prohibits employees from talking about the Union
on company property or company time.
(c) Unlawfully issuing warnings to, or otherwise dis-
criminating against, employees in retaliation for giving
testimony under the Act or otherwise engaging in pro-
tected, concerted activities.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining , or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Expunge from its personnel records all references
to its unlawful written warning given to Steven L. Gar-
rison on November 24, 1984, and notify Garrison in writ-
ing that it has done so, and that evidence of the warning
will not be used as a basis for future personnel action
against him.
(b) Publish a recission of its rule described in para-
graph 3(b) of the section of this decision entitled "Con-
clusions of Law," and mail a copy of such recision to
each of its employees at his or her last known address.
(c) Post at its Hartselle, Alabama plant copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix "9 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 10, after being signed by the Respondent's au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by the Respond-
ent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 con-
secutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
8 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations , the findings, conclusions , and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses
9 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of
Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board "
894 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL . LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(d) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.