Chrysler Credit Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 23, 1979

241 N.L.R.B. 1079 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

CHRYSLER
Chrysler Credit Corporation and Charles A. Ardizzoni,
and Francis L. Palladino. Cases -CA-13061 and
I CA- 13275
April 23, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND MURPHY
On December 22, 1978, Administrative Law Judge
John C. Miller issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the
Respondent filed exceptions and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, 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 Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby or-
ders that the Respondent, Chrysler Credit
Corporation, Dedham, Massachusetts, its officers,
agents. successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order, except that
the attached notice is substituted for that of the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge.
I The Respondent and the General Counsel have each 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 credihility unless the clear preponderance of all of the rel-
evant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dr
Wall Products Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950). enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 19 51
We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his
findings
In adopting the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that Francis L
Palladino was discharged for engaging in protected concerted activitles., we
find it unnecessary to rely on his finding that Palladino's use of Respondent's
employee counseling procedure was protected concerted activity
APPENDIX
NolTIE To EMPI.oYI!I!S
POSTED I BY ORDI)ER 01 1ILt:
NATIONAl. LABOR REI.A IONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WIlL. NO'I discharge employees for engag-
ing in protected concerted activities.
CREDIT CORP. 1079
WE WILl. NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exer-
cise of their Section 7 rights.
WE WILL offer Francis L. Palladino immediate
and full reinstatement to his former job or, if that
job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to his seniority or
other rights or privileges previously enjoyed, and
WE WILL make him whole for any loss of earn-
ings he may have suffered as a result of such
discrimination, with interest.
CHRYSLER CREIDIT CORPORATION
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN C. MILLER, Administrative Law Judge: This case
was heard in Detroit, Michigan, on March 15, 16. and 17,
1978, on a consolidated complaint issued on July 27. 1977.
alleging that Respondent violated Section 8(a)( 1) of the Act
by discharging Charles Ardizzoni and Francis L. Palladino.
At the opening of the hearing. Counsel for the General
Counsel amended the consolidated complaint to allege that
their discharges were also violative of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act.'
Upon the entire record in this case, including my obser-
vations of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the
following:
FININGS OF FA(CT
I. JURISDICTION
Chr)sler Credit Corporation is a sales finance company,
a Delaware corporation engaged in the extension and col-
lection of commercial and consumer credit. Respondent
maintained a branch office and place of business in Brain-
tree, Massachusetts. at which the alleged unfair labor prac-
tices occurred. In the course and conduct of its business,
Respondent annually receives goods and services valued in
excess of $50,000 in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
from points outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I
find that the Respondent is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6} and (7) of the Act.
II. IitF AI IE(il) IUNFAIR I ABOR PRA II('iS
A. Background and Issues
Respondent concedes that on or about February 2. 1977,
it discharged Francis L. Palladino and that on or about
April 20. 1977. it also discharged Charles A. Ardizzoni.
both of whom were employed at its Braintree. Massachu-
setts. branch office.
At the first day of the hearing on March 15. 1978. I granted Counsel for
the General counsel's motion to amend the onsolidated complaint, and
such amendment is marked G(C Exh lI(l1-).
241 NLRB No. 182
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
With respect to both individuals, the complaint as
amended alleges that Palladino and Ardizzoni were dis-
charged because of their union activities or because they
engaged in protected concerted activities in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act. Although the factual
background with respect to both employees is similar in
many respects, their discharges occurred approximately 2-
1/2 months apart. The allegations with respect to each indi-
vidual will be treated and discussed separately hereafter.
1. Subpena of company records
Considerable time was consumed at the beginning of the
trial and at different points thereafter with respect to docu-
ments subpenaed by the General Counsel. There were four
subpenas and two petitions to quash. The Respondent ini-
tially refused to furnish most of the subpenaed documents,
claiming, inter alia, that the request for records was either
irrelevant or too broad in scope and unduly voluminous
and unreasonable to produce, and moved to quash the sub-
penas. After reviewing the subpenas, I modified the re-
quests with respect to the time periods involved and deter-
mined that the requested documents were of sufficient
relevancy to deny the motions to quash.
Despite Respondent's initial noncompliance, it thereafter
reluctantly furnished or made available for examination by
Counsel Lasky, counsel for the General Counsel, substan-
tially all the documents under subpena. At the close of the
hearing, the General Counsel was given additional time to
examine the subpenaed records and to submit such docu-
ments as he deemed relevant in support of his case, and
thereafter he submitted as exhibits materials designated as
A -. ' Unless otherwise noted, I have examined such docu-
ments in reaching the conclusions hereafter reached, even
though I may not have specifically referred to any of them.
While Respondent's initial noncompliance may have con-
stituted a basis for drawing an adverse inference, the subse-
quent production of records during the trial and the exami-
nation of such documents by counsel for the General
Counsel during and subsequent to the close of the hearing
was, I find, the result of a belated good-faith attempt by
Respondent to comply with the subpenas. I am, therefore,
not finding or relying on any adverse inference with respect
to Respondent's alleged failure to comply with the sub-
penas.
2. Contentions of the parties
Counsel for the General Counsel alleges that the dis-
charges of both Palladino and Ardizzoni resulted from their
2 For purposes of the record, they have been designated as G.C. Exh.
45(A I). As previously agreed, subsequent to adjournment of the hearing,
Counsel for the General Counsel submitted a list of documents designated
A I which have been designated as Supp. G.C. Exhs, 45(A- ), which I
admitted over objections of Respondent's Counsel. Upon fuller examination
of such exhibits. I find that Exhs. D and E are irrelevant, and they are given
no weight in the disposition of this case.
discussions with employees about bringing in a union or
their engaging in protected concerted activities which in-
cluded, inter alia, the writing of letters to Respondent's De-
troit office and their discussions with employees and man-
agement about hours, promotions, and other conditions of
work. The General Counsel asserts that Respondent's bases
for discharge, namely, the allegedly poor work performance
of these individuals, is pretextual.
Respondent asserts there is no evidence of knowledge of
these individuals' union activities, if any, and no evidence
of union animus by the Respondent. With respect to alleged
protected concerted activities, Respondent asserts that Pal-
ladino was pursuing a personal grievance which does not
come within the scope of protected concerted activities and
that other asserted protected concerted activities engaged in
by both individuals occurred some months previously and
were unrelated to their discharges.
3. The question of protected concerted activities'
The alleged protected concerted activities included: (a)
conversations regarding unionization of the Braintree
branch office from 1973 through 1977; (b) a letter sent to
Respondent's Detroit headquarters in June 1975, written by
Carol Nickerson and circulated among employees by
Charles Ardizzoni, protesting the demotion of Supervisor
Cyr; (c) an anonymous letter sent by Ardizzoni to Respon-
dent's Detroit headquarters protesting problems and mo-
rale at Braintree office; (d) a meeting in September 1976
with two of Respondent's officials, R. Pear, director-ad-
ministration, and D. Craven, vice president of Respondent's
Eastern U.S. operations, at which Palladino publicly criti-
cized Respondent's policy on working hours and promo-
tions; (e) Palladino s appeal to Barmashi on January 27,
1977, of a written reprimand by Harrington.
Conversations regarding unionization appear to be pri-
marily associated with union activities and discipline as a
result of such conversations would normally be violative of
Section 8(a)(3). However, the conversations themselves,
without more, also constitute protected concerted activity,
since they were spawned from employee discontent with
working conditions, including job security. In addition, the
conversations here led to no overt union activities or or-
ganization and in such a context would also be protected
concerted activities.
With respect to (b), a letter dated May 29, 1975, asking
an explanation of the demotion of Louis Cyr from branch
operations supervisor to collection supervisor (G.C. Exh. 7),
I find it is also a protected concerted activity, because the
letter, signed by 10 employees, stated, inter alia, that under
Cyr's leadership employees were motivated to do a good
job and that his demotion was harmful to morale in the
office. Thus, Cyr's demotion was viewed in terms of its im-
pact on employees' working conditions and morale.
As to (c), an anonymous letter (G.C. Exh. 30, sent by
For reasons noted hereafter, I find no basis for concluding that the dis-
charges of Palladino and Ardizzoni were prompted by occasional discussion
of the need for a union nor by Ardizzon's belated efforts to contact a busi-
ness agent of the United Auto Workersjust prior to and after his discharge.
Suffice it to say that the principal issues to be decided are whether their
discharges were prompted by their engaging in protected concerted activi-
ties.
1080
CHRYSLER CREDIT CORP.
Ardizzoni in August 1976) to Respondent's officials asking
for an investigation of working conditions at the Braintree
office, this too was a reflection of certain employees' views
of working conditions and is also protected concerted ac-
tivity.'
Item (d), Palladino's criticism of Respondent's policies
with respect to working hours and promotions in an em-
ployee meeting with Respondent's officials, Pear and Cra-
ven, is also protected concerted activity.
As to (e), Palladino's appeal of a reprimand to Regional
Manager Barmashi, it is a closer question as to whether it
falls within a category of protected concerted activity. The
Board recently held that pursuing an individual grievance is
also protected concerted activity.' Moreover, in this in-
stance, Respondent had established an employee counseling
procedure by which appeals could be taken to the regional
manager. While neither Palladino nor Barmashi spoke di-
rectly to each other in terms of the employee counseling
procedure in their discussions leading up to Palladino's dis-
charge, it was a de facto use of the employee counseling
procedure. Whether Palladino's discharge is a violation for
merely invoking the counseling procedure I leave for later
discussion and disposition. Inasmuch as Palladino's testi-
mony is undisputed and credited that he informed Clifford,
the branch manager, that he wished to invoke the counsel-
ing procedure and talk to Barmashi, the regional manager,
I find such action is protected concerted activity.
B. Francis L. Palladino
Palladino was hired in August 1974 and was discharged
on February 2, 1977. During his period of employment, he
worked in the collection department with the title of field
representative. His undisputed testimony is that his princi-
pal duty was wholesale auditing, i.e., auditing auto dealer-
ship, and that in the first 1-1/2 years of his employment he
spent approximately 75 percent of his time in the office and
25 percent on the road. While in the office, he spent most of
his time working as a telephone adjuster, whose principal
task was phoning individuals who were delinquent in their
car payments to the Respondent and requesting payments
or adjustments of their accounts. The collection department
usually got a printout of accounts labeled as delinquent
when payments were approximately 12 days overdue.
Thereafter, the telephone adjusters would contact the indi-
viduals who were delinquent and cajole, urge, and persuade
ther to make their proper payments or to make some ad-
justment of their accounts. Accounts were labeled 30- and
60-day accounts, and the supervisory hierarchy was partic-
ularly concerned about keeping the 30-day and 60-day ac-
counts to the minimum, Their concern was prompted by
the fact that the office was rated on the percentage of ac-
counts delinquent over 30 days and the branch manager
and regional manager were furnished reports showing the
number of delinquent 30- and 60-day accounts. It was es-
tablished that the Braintree branch office had a higher rate
of delinquency than the national average for other branch
offices of the Respondent.
Palladino was discharged on February 2, 1977, by Bar-
4Air Surrey Corporation, 229 NLRB 1064 (1977): Diagnostic Center Hospi-
tal Corp. of Texas, 228 NLRB 1215 (1977).
Alleluia Cushion Co., Inc., 221 N LR B 999 (1975).
mashi, the Boston regional manager. The immediate event
precipitating the discharge was a dealer audit performed by
Palladino on January 26, 1977. Palladino was assigned to
do an audit at Silver Lake Dodge that morning and left the
office about 11:30 a.m. The auditing of dealers consisted of
checking the serial numbers of new cars listed on a printout
sheet and noting the mileage. Those cars that could not be
located, e.g., those en route or not physically present on the
lot for whatever reason, had to be reconciled with the book-
keeper or appropriate official at that automobile agency.
The task was essentially a physical inventory of cars on the
dealer's lots that Respondent had financed for the dealer.
On the audit in question, Palladino was assisted by a
trainee, Ron Johnson, a newly hired employee in the collec-
tion department. Palladino stated he arrived separately at
Silver Lake Dodge and began his audit and was shortly
thereafter joined by Johnson. There were two lots located
near the dealership, and they completed inventory of those
lots at 2 p.m. and thereafter went to lunch. At 3 p.m., they
commenced inventory of a third lot which was located a
half-mile to a mile away. Palladino credibly testified that in
some areas of the auto lot where snow had been plowed the
snow almost reached his shoulder level and that Johnson
staying in one parked car while Palladino continued the
inventory, keeping in contact with walkie-talkies. Accord-
ing to Palladino, the inventory was completed by 4 p.m.,
and as they prepared to return to the dealer for a "reconcili-
ation" of cars not accounted for, their company car had a
flat tire, which delayed them further. After changing the
tire, they returned to the dealer, where Palladino began to
reconcile some unaccounted-for cars with the bookkeeper.
At about 5 o'clock, Harrington called to inquire as to their
progress and assigned Johnson other work. At 6:30 p.m.,
Palladino called Harrington, his immediate supervisor, and
advised him the that inventory was completed. In view of
the lateness of the hour, Harrington told him to simply go
home and not report in to the office. The collection depart-
ment usually worked later than other departments, working
10 a.m. to 7 p.m., with some variations. The following day.
Harrington gave a memorandum to Palladino (Resp. Exh.
2) which noted that an audit of 203 new cars and 28 used
cars was performed at Silver Lake Dodge by Palladino and
that it took him till 7 p.m. to complete the audit, although
assisted by another employee. The last paragraph of the
memo stated, "Mr. Palladino must make a major improve-
ment in his road work." Palladino read the memo and in-
formed Harrington that he did not agree and would not
sign it and that he wanted to talk to Mr. Clifford. the
branch manager, about it. He did talk to Clifford about the
reprimand, and when Clifford advised him to sign the repri-
mand or write a rebuttal on the back and forget it. Palla-
dino advised him that he wanted to utilize the employee
counseling procedure and talk to Mr. Barmashi. the Boston
regional manager, about it. Thereupon Clifford became in-
censed and asked Palladino to leave his office.
Palladino, upset by Clifford's reactioii. saited until the
next day. January 28. 1977. to call Barmashi about the rep-
rimand. Barmashi informed him he would investigate it and
call him back. On February 2, 1977. Barmashi phoned him
and. with Clifford on an extension. told Palladin( :.hat he
agreed with his men, that he was a troublemaker aind re-
1081
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
quested that Palladino resign. When Palladino refused, Bar-
mashi advised him he was discharged. While Barmashi de-
nied calling Palladino a "troublemaker" in his initial
conversation, he made no reference or explicit denial as to
the second conversation. I credit Palladino's undisputed tes-
timony that Barmashi used such terminology in the second
or termination phone call on February 2, 1977.
Barmashi conceded that neither Harrington nor Clifford,
Palladino's immediate supervisor and branch manager, re-
spectively, had recommended to him that Palladino be dis-
charged. He stated that Palladino was discharged because
of poor performance, that he had been rated "barely ac-
ceptable" in a December 1976 appraisal, and that his dete-
riorating work performance, beginning the month or so be-
fore, prompted his discharge. 6
Palladino testified that in his 2-1/2 years of employment
the possibility of getting a union was frequently discussed
with his peers and on occasion with Cyr, the collection su-
pervisor, and with Harrington, who subsequently became a
supervisor.7 However, the fact that discussions of a union
and union benefits had transpired over the years without
any overt retaliation is a factor which leads me to conclude
that Palladino's discharge was not caused by his discussions
about unions or his expressed views that a union was
needed to insure job security. Secondly, there was no dis-
cussion of unions or active union organization going on at
the time of his discharge in February 1977. Accordingly,
the allegation that his discharge was motivated by his union
views and/or union activities is dismissed as being without
merit.
A closer question is presented, however, as to whether his
discharge was prompted by his pursuing an appeal on a
reprimand or by his oft-expressed criticisms to management
about working conditions, primarily hours and lack of pro-
motions, or by both.
Palladino was a signatory to a letter sent to higher man-
agement in Detroit complaining about the demotion of
Louis Cyr from acting branch manager to collection super-
visor in May 1975. Sometime after the letter was sent, Cra-
ven, a vice president, and Barmashi, the regional manager
of Respondent, arrived and had a meeting with the collec-
tion department employees. Barmashi, who at the time was
recovering from a bad back, voiced his disappointment over
the fact that employees had not come to him first before
writing a letter to higher management in Detroit. At the
meeting Craven and Barmashi spent considerable time em-
phasizing the employer's goals, and each of the employees
6 I credit Palladino's unrebutted testimony that his December 1976 evalu-
ation (.C. Exh. 2) did not contain an asterisk in the acceptable box nor
state "attached memo" nor contain an attached memorandum when shown
to him in December 1976. Barmashi conceded he never learned of Palla-
dino's performance until Palladino called him about his reprimand.
I do not find that union organization was constantly under discussion in
the years 1975 76. Rather, in accord with ouis Cyr's testimony, as certain
events like Cyr's demotion occurred, the possibility of getting a union to
represent them was discussed among certain employees at various times,
including Nickerson, Palladino, Ardizzoni, Miller, and Breen. Thus, while
the Union's contract with Chrysler may have been a topic of' discussion on
many occasions because employees in the Braintree branch office got the
same benefits as those granted to union employees, I find that actual discus-
sions of getting a union for the Braintree branch office employees occurred
sporadically throughout the years from 1973 77.
was asked to sign a letter stating that a meeting was held
with the employees and these matters had been discussed.
In August 1976, another letter was sent to Respondent's
Detroit office, requesting that an investigation be made of
the working conditions at the Braintree office. Ardizzoni
credibly testified that he helped prepare and mailed the
anonymous letter and that a number of employees, includ-
ing Harrington, were aware that he had. Shortly thereafter
Mr. Pear, from the Detroit headquarters, and Mr. Craven,
the area vice president, visited the Braintree office and
asked the employees to air their problems. Palladino's un-
disputed and credited testimony is that he expressed the
view that few people from the collection department were
getting promotions and that the working hours concerned
people, as well as the fact that a secretary to Mr. Gray was
promoted to a credit position that should have gone to
someone in the collection department. Mr. Craven was up-
set that Palladino questioned his authority as to whom
would be promoted to certain areas in the office. Another
employee, Paul Miller, credibly testified that after the meet-
ing Mr. Craven told him that "[Palladino] had no future
with the Company."8
Palladino's undisputed and credited testimony is that he
was having coffee one morning with Mr. Clifford, the
branch manager, sometime after the meeting with Mr. Cra-
ven and Mr. Pears and that Clifford told him, "Frank your
biggest problem is your big mouth. In that meeting I was
never so embarrassed in my life by what were saying to Mr.
Craven. Again, your big problem Frank, is you have a big
mouth."
Harrington, collection supervisor and immediate supervi-
sor of Palladino, testified, and Barmashi conceded, that
Harrington did not recommend that Palladino be dis-
charged. Harrington did state that when Mr. Clifford, the
branch manager, asked if he had any objections or reserva-
tions about the discharge of Palladino, he said no.
Francis Callahan was also a field representative, as was
Palladino, and by his own admission was the worst per-
former in the collection department. He was put on proba-
tion at least twice and was recommended for discharge by
his immediate supervisor and by Branch Manager Clifford.
Barmashi, however, disagreed with the recommendation,
and Callahan was not fired. Callahan also credibly testified
that he personally had done the Silver Lake audit on a
number of occasions and that it normally took him about 6
hours to complete it alone. Callahan was never admonished
or reprimanded for the amount of time he took on such an
audit. In August 1977, Callahan voluntarily left Respon-
dent's employment.'
To the extent that Palladino testified that Miller told him that his (Palla-
dino's) days were numbered, I credit Miller's testimony that it was Louis ('yr
who expressed that view. For example, at 315 of the transcript, Miller cred-
ibly testified:
He [Cyr] said Frank was speaking out too) much. And that his days were
numbered. ...
Later Miller testified:
It wasn't one time. It was a couple of times. Frank had spoken out a
couple of times. Mr. (yr had said that Frank was voicing his opinion
to) much.
Louis Cyr also credibly testified that (Callahan was the worst performer in
the collection department, which was readily conceded by Callahan. More-
oser, G.C(. Exh. 37ic) has a notation on the reverse side that (Callahan had 23
overdue accounts for the month of July 1976, which contributed to a poor
1082
CHRYSLER CREDIT CORP.
There are a number of factors which persuade me that
Barmashi discharged Palladino for engaging in protected
concerted activity. First, there was no recommendation by
either Harrington. Palladino's immediate supervisor, or
Clifford, the branch manager, that Palladino be discharged.
Second, Palladino's performance had never warranted
being placed on probation, an action taken several times
with Callahan. He was abruptly terminated at least in part
for the effrontery of challenging the correctness of a repri-
mand up to the regional manager, or, stated another way,
for using the employee counseling procedure. Third. Re-
spondent afforded Palladino disparate treatment (i.e.. by
Barmashi), as contrasted to the treatment it afforded Calla-
han. Fourth, I credit Palladino's undisputed testimony that
in the termination conversation with Barmashi Barmashi
did refer to Palladino as a "troublemaker." This determina-
tion is supported by the credited testimony of Carol Nicker-
son that Barmashi had used the term "troublemaker" with
respect to Ardizzoni in a conversation she had with Bar-
mashi about who had written a May 1975 letter to Detroit
protesting the demotion of Cyr form operations manager to
collection supervisor. Hier testimony not only establishes
that he used such terminology but also indicates the nature
of activities that Barmashi was concerned with, namely any
questioning of actions by management, when he used such
terminology. In addition, there is the undisputed testimony
of Palladino. which I credit, that Branch Manager Clifford
stated he was "so embarrassed" by Palladino's remarks at a
meeting with Vice President Craven and Administrative Di-
rector Pear, in which Palladino was critical of Respondent's
actions with respect to promotions and working hours, and
also stated that Palladino had a "big mouth." I am con-
vinced and find that but for Palladino's previously voiced
criticisms of management with respect to its policies on pro-
motions and working hours, as well as other protected ac-
tivities, Barmashi would merely have denied his appeal of
the reprimandJ. The characterization as a "troublemaker"
could only refer to Palladino's publicly voiced objections to
Respondent's policies on working conditions and promo-
tions. Such expressions are clearly protected concerted ac-
tivity, because they involved working conditions of all em-
ployees in the collection department. Accordingly, I find
that Palladino's discharge by Barmashi was prompted by
Palladino's prior participation in protected concerted ac-
tivities as well as by his invoking an appeal on his personal
delinquency record for the Braintree office. Callahan also admitted attending
the races on working days and repeatedly profferring as an excuse for not
being at work attendance at the funeral of a proverbial uncle. Despite such a
record, despite being t ice placed on probation and being recommended for
discharge by his supervisor and branch manager. Barmashi refused to dis-
charge him, in contrast to Barmashi's treatment of Palladino. Although Bar-
mashi only needed to investigate the reprimand for the Silver Lake audit, he
reviewed, sua sponbe. Palladino's entire work performance and seized on a
December 1976 appraisal as "barely acceptable" and the reprimand for the
Silver Lake audit as grounds for discharge.
1 I am cognizant that 10 employees signed a letter in May 1975 protesting
the demotion of Louis Cyr and that, with the exception of Palladino and
allegedly Ardizzoni, none suffered any adverse consequences as a result of
such activity. As to Palladino, I rely pnmarily on his speaking out at the
employee meeting in September 1976 and his conduct in appealing his repri-
mand through he employee counseling procedure and secondarily on the
other factors detailed above.
reprimand, and such discharge. I find. is violative of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.'
C. C'harles Ardizzoni
Ardizzoni was hired on January 1, 1971, and was dis-
charged on April 20. 1977. His immediate supervisor, Har-
rington, recommended he be discharged because of his fail-
ure to improve despite several reprimands. HIarrington's
recommendation was concurred in by Lambert, the branch
operations manager, and by Clifford, the branch manager.
Ardizzoni was a telephone adjuster who. like others in his
category, spent his working time contacting individuals
who were delinquent in their auto payments to Respondent.
As noted previously, employees who did telephone adjust-
ing work received a list of names of delinquents whom they
were to contact by telephone and get to make their proper
payments or some adjustments on their accounts.
In November 1976, Frank Harrington was named as stu-
pervisor in the collection department as a replacement for
Louis Cyr, who was discharged for failing to improve the
collection department's performance. As part of his ap-
proach to the job, it is undisputed that Harrington told all
the individuals under his supervision, either separately or in
a group, that he wanted to improve the performance of' he
department and that he planned to monitor the work of
collection departmemt employees on a daily basis.
On January 21, 1977, Harrington wrote memos critical of
the work of employees Ardizzoni and Breen. stating that
their work lacked quality' and quantity'. Subsequently, on
February 15, 1977, Harrington wrote a favorable evalu-
ation of Ardizzoni's work. On April 11. 1977, Harrington
wrote another memorandum critical of Ardizzoni's work,
particularly his poor followthrough on delinquent accounts
until shortly before the date due. When his deficiencies
were brought to his attention, Ardizzoni told Harrington
not to worry about it. On April 13, 1977, Harrington wrote
another critical memorandum, identified herein as General
Counsel Exhibit 14. On April 14, 1977, Lambert. branch
operations supervisor, was critical of Harrington because of
Ardizzoni's work, and Lambert asked if Harrington wanted
him to talk to Ardizzoni. Thereafter Ardizzoni was brought
to Lambert's desk, where his work was discussed and Ardiz-
zoni was warned that if there was not immediate improve-
ment he would be terminated. The following day. April 15,
Ardizzoni called in, stating he could not work because yes-
terday's discussion had so upset him that he had taken
medication and was unable to come in to work. ' Harring-
ton credibly testified that he felt that Ardizzoni's absence
on April 15 reflected a poor attitude toward his job and
concluded little improvement would be forthcoming. That
same day he recommended that Ardizzoni be discharged.
Ardizzoni was also absent on Monday. April 18, because of
an injury incurred while engaging in a sports activity and.
because Branch Manager Clifford was absent on Tuesday.
April 19, Ardizzoni was not discharged until April 20, 1977.
.4llelua (ushion Co., supra. 4ir Surrey (Corporation, supra
12 Ardizzoni stated he had a recurrence of high bloxl pressure. In ans
event, I find that Respondent's reaction to Ardizzoni's absence was not mo-
tivated by his engaging in protected concerted activities.
1083
)DECISIONS OF NATIONAL ABOR RELATIONS BOARD
When (' r was demoted from branch operations manager
to collection supervisor in May 1975, Ardizzoni was active
in tirculating a letter to Respondent's Detroit office which
was critical ol' (yr's demotion. Both C(arol Nickerson and
I'alladino credibly testified that Ardizzoni circulated the let-
ler and was icti e in discussing unionization among the
employecs. Moreover. it was Regional Manager Barmashi
who told Nickerson that he thought Ardizzoni had written
the letter and that he was a "troublemaker." Further.
Ardizoni was responsible lor an anonymous letter sent to
lRespondent's Detroit headquarters in August 1976 which
c\presscd dissatisfactioni with the operation of the Boston
hranch offilice and requested that someone be sent to investi-
gate the oilfice. Thereiafter raven. vice president. and R.
l'Per, director administration, went to the Braintree office
altid met ith employees afiord them an opportunity to ex-
piess their grievances. Both Miller and Palladino credibly
lestitied that tilhe werec the only two employees who spoke
up al said mleeting. Ardizzoni acknowledged that he was
nol present at the meeting due to a prolonged illness.
Ardizzoni conceded that ilarrington had been critical of
his work ill .laiuary 1977 and that on April 14. 1977. both
Ilal-rinigton aild Lambert had been critical of his work.
Ar-dliz,oni credibly testilied that aftcr being orally criticized
hb I;lrrington and I.amlbert he returned to his desk, called
ie I nited Auto Workers, aid, after learning the union
husillcs e rpre'snta;ltive as not in. advised the secretary
hath ctlploll ceCs Ncrc intlereslcd in a union and concluded
his call. rdizzoni also credibly testified that he called the
I AW office roli the Nuss rsidence on April 15. 18. and
25. and this is conlirmed by General (ounsel Exhibit 42.
While Ardizzoni testilied that Ilarrington approached his
desk a, hie was conicludiing his call to the UAW on the 14th,
Ilialrinlton denied hearing or knowving of such a call. I
credit Ilarriigti n that lie neither o(verheard anys call to the
I A;W nor owas aware of Ardizoni's attempts to contact the
I nion prior to his discharge. Ardizzoni testified that when
ai union business representative finallly contacted him. on
the night oft the 20th. he advised him that it was too late.
that lie had already been discharged.
Based on the above factual background and the credited
testllrtiot noted I find that Ardizzoni's belated attempts to
contact the l nion did not prompt his discharge.3 More-
over. the lilet that employees had sporadically discussed the
possibilit) of gettlling a union for several years without ad-
ver. e consequences renders it less likely that his discharge
vsas motivated by any attempts to contact the UAW. In
anys cecnt. I credit Ilarrington's testimony that he did not
hcar ny tciephonel conversation bh Ardizzoni with the
II find prtlcularly persualsive Ardizzoni's admission that he was wa;rned
h I .a hbert n April 14. 1977. that i' his work didn't improve he was going
to e "one" a;nd thai his occurred prior to any attempts to contacl the
Ilnllrl ()I the oilur ;atlempis to contacl the union, three occurred away rom
wsirk. on April I5. 18. and 25 With reterencc to his attempt to call the UAW
.in April 14ju I after his discussion wiih I amhert and Harrington about his
work. Ardizzoni testified thai "ai the end of the conversation [with a secre-
ilar at the AW otlicel he tHarringtonj walked up to) my desk before I
tinshed
lie conceded. however, p. 513. that he "couldn't swear thai anybody from
nianlagcent overheard me. n." I also credit employee Sanford that Ardiz-
loni was aware of Palladino's statement that Palladino's lawyer told him it
he had been orgainizing a union, he would have to he reinstated.
UAW and that when he recommended Ardizzoni for dis-
charge he was not aware of any such attempts by Ardiz-
,oni. Accordingly. I conclude that Ardizzoni's discharge
was not prompted by any attempts to contact the union nor
by previous sporadic discussions about unions among the
employees in which Ardizzoni participated.
A closer issue is presented with respect to whether Ardiz-
zoni's discharge was prompted by his initiation or circula-
tion of two letters to Detroit. which aroused the ire of the
local managerial staff; or by any other protected concerted
activities in which he engaged. It is true that Barmashi im-
mediately suspected Ardizzoni of writing the May 1975 let-
ter. and I credit Nickerson's testimony that Barmashi at-
tributed the letter to Ardizzoni and labeled him a
"troublemaker." However. unlike Palladino's discharge.
Ardizzoni's discharge was prompted by recommendations
from his immediate supervisors and the branch manager.
While Barmashi was presumably inlormed of such recom-
mendation and ultimately concurred in it, the motivating
force or impetus for such discharge came from Harrington.
For reasons noted hereinafter, I conclude that Ardiz-
zoni's discharge was not caused by his participation in pro-
tected concerted activities. There was repeated criticism of
Ardiz2oni's work beginning in January 1977. and especially
in April 1977, just prior to his discharge. This was conceded
by Ardizzoni. Harrington became disturbed by Ardizzoni's
"don't worry about it" attitude and by his failure to re-
spond properly to criticism. While it appears that Harring-
ton was also disturbed by Ardizzoni's repeating Harring-
ton's criticisms of his work to other employees,
Harrington's decision to recommend Ardizzoni's discharge
stemmed essentially from Ardizzoni's failure to show im-
provement or to reflect an attitude that would ultimately
result in some work improvement. Harrington, an employee
junior to Ardizzoni in terms of length of employment, was
made a collection supervisor in November 1976 and was
attempting to improve the record of the collection depart-
ment and the individuals working therein. Ardizzoni's
quantity of work was low, considering that he was an em-
ployee of some years' standing, and his attitude was appar-
ently blocking Harrington's efforts to improve Ardizzoni's
and the department's record. After being criticized by both
l.ambert and Harrington on April 14, Ardizzoni's response
was not to report to work the following day, a Friday. al-
ways a busy day in the collection department. Also, unlike
Palladino, Ardizzoni was not even present for the Septem-
ber 1976 meeting with Respondent's Detroit representa-
tives. I cannot accept or credit a theory that Harrington
was in conspiracy with Barmashi or upper-echelon Chrysler
management to fire Ardizzoni because of his previous con-
certed activity, which, at best, occurred more than 7 months
previously. I do not find that Ardizzoni's recounting Har-
rington's criticism of himself to other employees or ex-
changing views, as it were, of Harrington's criticisms of
their work, prompted his discharge even if it were construed
to be protected concerted activity. I find that Ardizzoni's
discharge was in fact prompted by his failure to respond
properly to criticism of his work; that his work was not
consistent with respect to quantity and quality, and that his
unresponsive attitude toward improving his work alienated
his new supervisor and resulted in his being recommended
f;or discharge.
1084
CHRYSER CREDI' CORP.
I note. or exatmple. that the collection department had a
particularly high turnover rate and that according to Cyr's
credi testimony. some 10 to 12 employees in the collec-
tion department were terminated while he was employed
there. Moreover. Respondent's attempt to improve the pro-
duction of the branch office had resulted in the discharge of
Cyr. who at one time had been branch operations manager
and then collection supervisor. It is clear, therefore, that
both supervisors and employees were under increasing pres-
sure to improve the record of the branch office and that
demotions. promotions, and discharges were part of an ef-
fort designed to improve the efficiency of the Braintree of-
fice.
I conclude, therefore. that Ardizzoni's discharge was not
prompted by his earlier discussions about a union or his
attempts to secure the assistance of a union when criticism
of his work began to increase. Nor was it prompted by his
earlier participation in protected concerted activities. par-
ticularly the writing of letters to management complaining
about the demotion of Cyr or other complaints about the
functioning of the Braintree office, in August 1976. some 8
months before his discharge. The allegation, therefore, with
respect to Ardizzoni's discharge, is dismissed in its entirety.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record,
I make the following:
CONC.LSIONS OF LAW
1. By discharging employee Francis L. Palladino be-
cause of his protected concerted activities, the Respondent
engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. The aforesaid unfair labor practice affects commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. The discharge of Charles A. Ardizzoni was for cause
and was not violative of Section 8(a)(3) or (1) of the Act.
4. The Respondent has not otherwise violated the Act.
TIHE REMEDY
The recommended Order will contain the usual provi-
sions requiring the Respondent to cease and desist from the
unfair labor practice found, to offer reinstatement with
backpay to Francis L. Palladino, and to post a notice to
that effect. Reinstatement shall be to Palladino's former po-
sition or to a substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges.
Palladino shall be made whole for any loss of earnings he
may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against
him by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that
which he normally would have earned from the date of the
discrimination to the date he is offered reinstatement by
Respondent, less net earnings, if any, during such period, to
be computed in the manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest thereon as set
forth in Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977)."
"See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co. 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record in this proceeding. and pursuant to
Section IO(c) of the Act. I hereby issue the follovwing recom-
mended:
ORDERs
The Respondent, Chrysler Credit Corporation. Dedham,
Massachusetts, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging employees because of their participation
in protected concerted activities.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the purposes of the Act:
(a) Offer to Francis L. Palladino immediate and full rein-
statement to his former job or, if such position no longer
exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without preju-
dice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make
him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as
a result of Respondent's discrimination, with interest, in the
manner set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records neces-
sary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms
of this recommended Order.
(c) Post at its premises at Dedham, Massachusetts, cop-
ies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."'6 Copies of
said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 1, after being duly signed by Respondent's repre-
sentative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region , in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed
insofar as it alleges unfair labor practices not found herein.
" 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.
1S In the event 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
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."
1085