Douglas & Lomason Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 27, 1969

175 N.L.R.B. 112 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Douglas & Lomason Company and International
Union , United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW). Case 26-CA-2990
March 27, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND ZAGORIA
On November 7, 1968, Trial Examiner Harry H.
Kuskin issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in
the attached Trial Examiner's Decision He further
found that the Respondent had not engaged in
certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint and recommended that such allegations
be dismissed. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a
brief in support; the General Counsel filed
cross-exceptions and a supporting brief; and the
Respondent filed a brief in reply to the
cross-exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the
cross-exceptions, the briefs, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner with the following modifications:
We adopt the Trial Examiner's findings, as set
forth in his attached Decision, that the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) by the conduct of its several
supervisors and agents in interrogating employees,
subjecting employees to surveillance, threatening
employees directly or impliedly with a loss of
benefits and privileges, and by altering existing
privileges and working conditions.
Contrary to the Trial Examiner, we do not find
that the remarks of Supervisor Homer Guest to
employee Ralph Marshall concerning the closing of
the Marianna plant of the Jack Winter
Manufacturing Company, which was a matter of
common knowledge to the'employees, constituted an
implied threat that the Respondent's plant, if
unionized, might suffer the same fate. In so doing,
we adopt nevertheless the Trial Examiner's finding
that Guest interrogated Marshall in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. We find this
interrogation to be improper even in the absence of
the alleged threat of plant closure upon which the
Trial Examiner appears to place partial reliance as
context.
In addition , we disagree with the Trial Examiner's
findings that violations of Section 8(a)(1) ensued
from the remarks made by Harold Summers, a
supervisor , to various employees concerning his
prior experiences in a unionized shop, or his
statements that unions sometimes reneged on their
promises, or the other disparaging remarks made by
Summers about unions.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as
modified herein, and orders that the Respondent,
Douglas & Lomason. Company, Marianna,
Arkansas, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order, as so modified:
1. Delete subparagraphs 1(b) and 1(d), renumber
subparagraphs 1(e) and 1(f) as 1(d) and 1(e),
respectively, and substitute for 1(b) the following:
"(b) Threatening employees that their prounion
activity, or the filing of unfair labor practice charges
by them, or the Union on their behalf, would lead
(1) to more arduous working conditions in the plant
or (2) to a worsening of the relationship between
supervisor and employee to the detriment of the
employee's working conditions."
2. Insert a period following the word
"economically" in the fourth indented paragraph of
the Appendix, and delete the remainder of the
paragraph.
3. Delete the sixth indented paragraph of the
Appendix, about "downgrading" unions.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HARRY H. KUSK1N, Trial Examiner: This case was
heard at Memphis, Tennessee, on June 12, 13, and 14,
1968. A complaint issued herein on March 15, 1968; it
was thereafter amended once on April 9, 1968, and again
at the hearing. The complaint, as so amended, is based on
a charge, a first amended charge, and a second amended
charge, filed on January 24, January 29, and March 12,
1968, respectively, by the International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW), herein called the Union;' it
alleges that Douglas & Lomason Company, herein called
Respondent, has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act (1) by
interrogating certain of its employees concerning their
membership, activities and desires with respect to the
Union; (2) by threatening to impose on employees more
strict and arduous working conditions and to resort to
other reprisals if employees selected the Union as their
collective-bargaining representative; (3) by actually
The name of the Union appears as amended at the hearing
175 NLRB No. 18
DOUGLAS & LOMASON COMPANY 113
imposing more strict and arduous working conditions
because of their union activity; (4) by keeping under
surveillance a meeting place and a meeting of the Union;
and (5) by creating the impression among its employees
that it was engaging in surveillance of their union
activities Respondent's answer denies that it has violated
the Act in any respect alleged herein
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
witnesses, including their demeanor while on the witness
stand, and after due consideration of the briefs of the
General Counsel and Respondent, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
The complaint, as amended, alleges, and Respondent
admits, that it is a Michigan corporation with a place of
business in Marianna, Arkansas, where it is engaged in
the manufacture of automobile parts, and that, during the
past year, it received goods and products valued in excess
of $50,000 directly from points outside Arkansas, and sold
and shipped directly to points outside Arkansas goods and
materials valued in excess of that figure. I find, upon the
foregoing, as Respondent also admits, that Respondent is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent admits, and I find, that International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW), is a labor
organization within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Some Background Facts and Some Details as to
the Issues Herein
position, and that employees also saw them leaving the
parking lot after Union Representative Bernard Menge
spoke to them. The aforesaid conduct in the parking lot is
alleged to constitute unlawful surveillance by Respondent;
and the various conversations and the speeches alluded to
above are alleged to have exceeded permitted bounds in
that Respondent thereby either interrogated employees
concerning their union membership or activities, or
created the impression of surveillance of their union
activities, or made coercive threats of reprisal because of
their union activities, including threats to impose more
strict and arduous working conditions, or coerced them by
the actual imposition of such strict and arduous working
conditions. In the latter connection, while Respondent
admits that it began a new practice Ion, or'about February
1,- of placing guards at the door used by employees for
entry into, and egress from, the plant proper and that one
guard did close the door on one occasion for 15 minutes,
it contends that it made the change for reasons which
were not connected with the Union or the union activity
of the employees, that the closing of the door occurred
only that one time and was contrary to instruction, and
that, upon learning thereof, it issued instructions to
prevent the closing of the doors in the future. The
evidence relative to the above allegations and the
contentions of the parties based thereon will be treated at
length hereinafter.
In connection with the foregoing, I take official notice
of the following events which commenced in the early part
of February. Thus, on February 5, the Union filed a
representation petition in Case 26-RC-3098 seeking an
election among Respondent's production and maintenance
employees; on February 16, a hearing was held on this
petition; on February 28, the Regional Director for the
26th Region issued his Decision and Direction of Election
in the unit found to be appropriate, on March 27, the
election was held and the Union won,'! and, on: April 4,
the Regional Director certified the Union as the
bargaining representative of Respondent's production and
maintenance employees.
The Union launched a campaign to organize
Respondent's employees about the start of January 1968.2
Respondent admittedly learned very soon thereafter that
union activities were going on in the plant. As appears
hereinafter, during the course of the next month or so,
beginning on January 15, acknowledged supervisors
engaged employees in conversations about the Union. In
addition, William K. Lomason, president of Respondent,
made a speech concerning the Union to all Respondent's
employees on January 23 and another union-connected
speech about a week later, giving each speech twice, i.e.,
once to the day-shift employees at about 3 p.m. and once
to the night-shift employees, each group being assembled
for that purpose on Company time in the plant
lunchroom. The first of these two speeches occurred on
the same date as the first organizational meeting of
employees, which was called by the Union for that
evening at about 7 or 7:30 at the Civic Center in Forrest
City, which is a distance of about 20 miles from the plant
site in Marianna. It is not disputed that, at about the time
when the union meeting was to begin or shortly thereafter,
General Foreman Chester Kroll and Supervisor Billy
Smith drove into the parking lot adjoining the Civic
Center in a white Buick station wagon and parked there
for a time, that, as the lights were on in the parking area,
employees who were arriving, or had already arrived, for
the meeting saw them on the parking lot in a parked
B. The Specific Allegations of the Complaint and
Conclusions Thereon
1. The 8(a)(1)
In the interest of an orderly presentation of the 8(a)(1)
issues herein , I shall group the relevant evidence , wherever
feasible, according to the representative or agent of
management involved , all of whom are admittedly
supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the
Act.
a. Homer L. Guest, Jr.
Guest admitted that he approached employee Ralph
Marshall at his place of work during the organizational
campaign and spoke to him concerning the Union.' Guest
testified to the following in that connection: He was told
by General Foreman Chester Kroll that Marshall was
working for the Union and this surprised him. The
'All dates hereinafter are in 1968, unless otherwise indicated.
Of the 638 eligible voters , 395 voted for the Union and 181 voted
against the Union There were six challenged ballots which could not affect
the election results
'Marshall fixed the date as January 15, Guest was not sure as to the
date I am satisfied that Marshall testified credibly in this respect and I
therefore find that this conversation took place on January 15.
114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
following day, he spoke to Marshall and asked him if he
was for the Union and why he thought they needed a
union Marshall, in turn, spoke of attaining better
working conditions. He thereupon raised the question with
Marshall as to whether Marshall found him difficult to
work with and he got a "no" answer. At this point, he
asked Marshall, "well why are you working for this?,"
pointing our that he could not see where the union had
helped the employees of Jack Winter Manufacturing
Company It is Guest's further testimony that, although
the plant of the latter company in Marianna had closed
over a year before, he made no mention of such closing,
nor did he identify the union which was in that plant, nor
did he know the reason that it closed down Marshall's
testimony is substantially at odds with that of Guest only
in regard to what was said about the Marianna plant of
Jack Winter Manufacturing Company According to
Marshall, Guest said, in that connection, "look at the
other factory in Marianna. It got a Union and closed
down." It is apparent from the foregoing, and the fact
that the closing of the Jack Winter Manufacturing plant
was common knowledge, that Guest's and Marshall's
testimony in this respect differ to the extent that Guest's
admitted language says, by innuendo, what Marshall
attributes to him by direct language. I, therefore, find it
unnecessary to resolve this conflict in testimony, as I
would infer, and find, a threat of plant closing in either
version.
Under all the circumstances, I conclude, and find, upon
the basis of either version of what occurred, that Guest
interrogated Marshall concerning his union adherence,
sought to dissuade him therefrom, and, failing that,
impliedly threatened that, if Respondent's plant became
unionized, the plant might suffer the same fate as the
Marianna plant of the Jack Winter Manufacturing
Company, which was unionized and later closed its doors.
As the foregoing interrogation by Guest of Marshall as to
the latter's adherence to the Union and this attempt to
dissuade Marshall therefrom occurred in a coercive
context, it is clearly violative of the Act I therefore
further conclude, and find, that both the interrogation and
the implied threat constituted interference, restraint and
coercion in violation of Section 8(a)(I) of the Act.'
b R. L. Dugas
Dugas, the quality control manager, testified that at a
time before Respondent received the first telegram from
the Union stating that the Union was actively organizing
the plant and listing names of its employees on the
organizational committee, he approached employee Troy
Pickett and inquired about certain union activity of
Pickett.` He gave the following details as to this episode.
He had been told just before break time, which was about
9 or 9:15 that morning, by Plant Manager Kroll that
Pickett had passed out union cards the night before in the
plant. He "was kind of surprised to hear about Troy, and
just walked off . and went to speak to Troy." After
asking a few questions of Pickett about the specific job he,
Pickett, was then doing, he inquired from Pickett as to
whether he was in the Union and whether he "was passing
union cards out . . . on the job or anything" and told him,
either before or after this inquiry about union cards, that
Kroll had said that he was passing out cards there the
night before. Pickett thereupon denied having engaged in
'See Master Appliance Corporation, 158 NLRB 1009, 1015
that activity. In respect to the foregoing, Pickett
corroborated Dugas as to the conversation which preceded
the discussion relative to his union activity Thereafter,
according to Pickett, Dugas said to him that Kroll had
said that he, Pickett, had been "out here the other night
passing out cards", that he answered that Kroll was telling
a lie; and that this was "about all" on this subject He
testified further that Dugas also asked whether he was for
the Union. There is thus a divergence between Dugas and
Pickett in their testimony concerning the discussion of the
distribution of cards, with Dugas saying, in effect, that the
thrust of his inquiry was whether Pickett was distributing
union cards on the job, and with Pickett saying, in effect,
that Dugas just called his attention to what he had learned
from Kroll in this respect Inasmuch as Pickett's
testimony in this respect is more consistent with the logic
and probabilities of the situation, I credit his testimony
over that of Dugas and find that Dugas made known to
Pickett management's concern over his alleged
distribution of cards at the plant.
Dugas also testified that he had a conversation one day
with employee Billy Ray Harris about the Union.' Harris
was then wearing a union button with the legend "Vote
UAW." He recalled asking Harns why he wanted a
union However, he was unable to recall whether he
initiated the conversation or whether there was any
reference to any union cards, saying "it's possible." Harris
also testified concerning this conversation but, according
to him, there was more content to it, as follows Dugas
started the conversation by asking him why he wanted the
Union. When he gave job security as the reason, Dugas
told him about two plants in Carrolton, some 35 or 40
miles distant, saying that one had a union and one did
not, that the unionized plant was getting from 35 to 40
cents less than the non-union plant and that the union was
voted out of the former plant within 3 or 4 years. Dugas
also asked "how many cards we had signed up." He
replied that the number was 450 Whereupon, Dugas
asked how many he, Harris, had signed up and he
answered "40 or 50." Since Harris impressed me as a
forthright and credible witness and since Dugas' memory
was admittedly not clear on the details of this
conversation, I find that Harris' testimony more
accurately reflects the entire content of this conversation
and I therefore credit his version
I am persuaded that both these conversations exceeded
permissible bounds under the Act. In the case of Pickett,
Dugas not only inquired whether Pickett was for the
Union but also, in effect, manifested to him Respondent's
disapproval of his organizational activity at the plant the
night before. And in the case of Harris, Dugas not only
asked why he wanted a Union, but suggested that
unionization might, as was the case in the unionized plant
in Carrolton, result in an adverse effect on earnings they
would otherwise have, and probed Harris as the Union's
and his own progress in getting authorization cards for the
Union signed Contrary to the contention of Respondent,
The first telegram from the Union listing those on its organizing
committee was dated January 24 Among those listed was Pickett . Another
such telegram supplementing the list was sent to Respondent by the Union
on January 30 As Pickett fixed the conversation as about a day before
January 23, 1 find that Pickett and Dugas were in substantial agreement as
to the date Accordingly, I find, in accordance with the more definitive
testimony of Pickett as to the date , that the conversation occurred on or
about January 22
'Harris testified that this conversation occurred on January 29 and that
he remembered the date because he wrote the date down I credit Harris
and find that this conversation occurred on January 29
DOUGLAS & LOMASON COMPANY 115
these inquiries of Harris cannot be justified on the ground,
which I find untenable, that Harris' wearing a union
button was tantamount to initiating the conversation
about the Union, or on the further ground that Dugas
often talked to employees concerning their personal
matters, since discussion, as here, concerning the extent of
Harris' and the Union's success in getting authorization
cards signed clearly transcends the realm of a personal
matter involving only the affairs of Harris. In all these
circumstances, I find that, by Dugas' conduct of
interrogating Pickett and Harris concerning their union
membership, desires and activities, Respondent interfered
with, restrained and coerced them in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.'
c. William K. Lomason
As already found, the first union organizational
meeting was held on January 23 at 7 or 7:30 p.m. at the
Civic Center in Forrest City. At the plant, at 3 p.m. that
day, and once thereafter, Lomason addressed the
employees on the day shift and • on the night shift,
respectively, concerning the Union. The employees on
each shift were told shortly before they assembled to leave
their work benches and go to the lunch room. Another
such meeting, in two shifts, was convened by Respondent
about a week later9 in the same manner, at approximately
the same hours and in the same place. Both speeches were
reduced to writing before they were given.19 They required
approximately one half hour to deliver. Lomason admitted
that he deviated slightly from the text in a few instances
in both speeches, explaining that "as you read a speech
you find that sometimes the word isn't quite the word that
you thought was most expressive." And with particular
reference to the second speech, he testified that there was
a slight difference between the first rendition and the
second rendition, and when he changed a phrase or a word
it was in "areas where [he] didn't think it was particularly
significant." As appears hereinafter, a critical issue with
respect to the second speech is the extent of deviation by
Lomason from the text at the point at which the speech
treats with the telegram sent by counsel for the Union to
Respondent as to the filing of unfair labor practice
charges against it by the Union. In this connection,
Lomason insists that he adhered strictly to the text,
whereas witnesses for the General Counsel testified to
considerable variance from the text.
The first speech need not detain us. For, so far as
appears, both the text and the testimony of General
Counsel's witnesses" concerning what was said during
Lomason's presentation failed to reveal any instances in
which Lomason exceeded permissible, bounds. In this
speech, Lomason (1) reported on a recent Board
conducted election in Respondent's Cleveland, Mississippi,
plant in which the union was defeated by . "an
overwhelming margin" of 272 to 152; (2) applauded the
employees' choice at that plant to deal directly on a
man-to-man basis with Respondent rather than through
an outside third party (i.e., the union ), with the third party
stirring up trouble all the time, calling possible strikes and
charging employees dues, fines and initiation fees; (3)
`Weston and Brooker Company. 154 NLRB 747, 760, relied upon by
Respondent in this connection , is clearly distinguishable on its facts.
'Lomason fixed the date as either February 1, 2, or 3 . The record does
not warrant a more precise finding as to the date of the second speech.
"The first speech and the second one were introduced into evidence as
G. C. Exh. 2 and 3, respectively.
apprised the employees that Respondent was aware of
organizational activity in respect to the Marianna plant
and that Respondent does not feel that a union in this
plant "would be advantageous to the employees or to the
Company; (4) reviewed, in this connection, their "good
wage level" and their "generous" fringe benefits which
have been attained "without a third party"; (5) spelled out
what signing a union card may mean, such as, dues and
initiation fees, representation through a committee, being
called upon to swear in open court to the signing of the
card and being obligated "in ways [they] never dreamed
of"; and (6) advised them that the fact that they signed a
card did not preclude them from changing their minds and
would not, in such event, cause Respondent "to act
against [them]." While it is true, as the General Counsel
urges, that one of the themes of this speech is the loss of
personal relationship if the Union comes into the plant,
there is lacking anywhere any threats, veiled or otherwise,
that selection of a union would inevitably have adverse
economic consequences for the employees. In these
circumstances, I find no warrant for concluding that, in
this regard, the speech exceeded the bounds permitted by
the Act."
As already indicated the second speech was delivered by
Lomason to Respondent's employees about a week later.
In the opening paragraph of the written speech, Lomason
speaks of the plant being in the midst of a whirlwind
organizing campaign; characterizes the organizing activity
as a form of madness, saying "I've seen a lot of mad
people running around at times, but this affair-takes the
cake"; compares union membership to marriage, the
member being the male and the union being the female;
and warns the employees to "better think hard" because
in the whirlwind marriage the man may find that he has
married something with. store teeth, dyed hair, falsies and
a wooden leg, etc., and that this bride, on the basis of its
past record, is of this type.
After the foregoing preamble, the text (1) referred to
the two telegrams received from the Union listing the
names of employees who were acting as union organizers,
speculated that the Union thinks that it can thereby make
these employees a privileged group, and deplored the fact
that some employees think they need an outsider to
represent them; (2) stated that they did not need "the
UAW - or maybe this lawyer Kapland" coming between
us to collect dues and tell any of us what to do"; (3) noted
that the Union seemed to 'think that by sending
Respondent a "hot telegram that they can intimidate us,"
and indicated, in effect, that "some hot rodding organizers
and a legal eagle from Little Rock"" were not going to
tell Respondent that it was going to give special privileges
to anybody, and that no one would, because he wore a
"Namely , employees Charles Poff, Alvin Floyd Nicholas , Wayne Webb,
David Webb, and Billy Ray Harris . It is obvious that Nicholas and Wayne
Webb imported part of the second speech into their accounts of the first
speech . Thus, there was no comparable reference to a plant closing in the
first speech , as Nicholas testified , and no comparable reference to the list
of union organizers in that speech , as Wayne Webb testified.
"Graber Manufacturing Company, Inc., 158 NLRB 244, cited by the
General Counsel in support of this position , did include such 'a veiled
threat and is therefore clearly distinguishable.
"The text misspelled the name throughout ; it conforms to the spelling on
one of the telegrams sent by the Union to Respondent. The correct spelling
is "Kaplan," and the reference is to Philip E. Kaplan , Esq., who is
associated with the law firm representing the Union in this proceeding and
who appeared herein in behalf of the Union.
"The law firm with which Kaplan is associated has its offices in Little
Rock , Arkansas.
116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
union button or was on an organizing committee, be given
any special privilege or license to do poor work, violate
plant rules or disregard standards expected of all
employees, nor would he be discriminated against.
The text then continued by (1) saying that Respondent
does not believe that it has to stoop to discrimination
against those wearing a union button or those on the
organizing committee in order to persuade the employees
that they and their company "will be better off without
this crowd of outsiders like Kapland stirring up trouble all
the time like he is stirring up trouble like now." (2)
implying that the UAW is trying to stir up distrust and
conflict between the employees and the Company, between
employee and supervisor and between employee and the
speaker, and asking them to think of what it would be like
if the UAW did come into the plant and had to justify its
existence enough to collect dues, initiation fees and
assessments.
The text then took up a third telegram from the Union
with respect to a garnishment which had been levied
against the wages of employee George Humphrey, Jr." At
that point, Respondent took offense at being accused by
this telegram of being a "crooked, exploiting employer,"
asserted that it was acting in accordance with the law and
had so informed the Union by letter, and charged that
Kaplan is lying if he is saying that Respondent is
withholding anyone's wages because he is a union
committeeman," as his committeeman status had no
bearing on this matter.
The next section of the text referred to the filing of a
charge which was signed by Kaplan, to a telegram from
the Union concerning the charge, which was also signed
by Kaplan," to the amendment of the charge by Kaplan
and to his addition thereto of the charge about George
Humphrey. The text then continued by disclaiming that
Respondent or any of its management people, including
the speaker, is a devil with horns but added the caveat
that if Kaplan "continues to throw charges around like a
bull tosses cow crap around in the pasture without any
real basis for his accusations he is going to end up with
two things on his hands: (1) the damndest fight he ever
had because we are going to prove him wrong and (2) the
most unpleasant plant in the world to work in outside of
Siberia. The UAW has a fine record of turning brother
against brother and sometimes violence accompanies." As
already noted, this passage of the speech raises the sharply
controverted issue of whether, and, if so, to what extent,
Lomason deviated from the actual text. This will be
treated more fully hereinafter.
"The telegram, which is in evidence as General Counsel's Exhibit 4,
reads as follows:
We demand your immediate release of wages earned by George Huphrey
[sic]. Your action in withholding wages as [sic ] in clear violation of
exemption provisins [sic] in Arkansas statutes 30-207( A). Demand is
also made that you cease and desist forthwith from using civil
authorities as your agents to intimidate , harras [sic], coerce and restrain
union adherents.
"Humphrey ' s name was listed as a union committeeman on the Union's
telegram to Respondent which was dated January 24. As is shown above,
there was no mention of Humphrey' s union committeeman status in the
telegram concerning the garnishment , nor is there any accusation therein
that Respondent is a "crooked , exploiting employer."
"This telegram bears the same date as that of the original charge. It
carries the following message and was read to the employees:
[The Union] has this date filed unfair labor practice charges with Region
26, NLRB, concerning various coercive acts engaged in by Douglas and
Lomason Company. These allegations include spying, surveillance,
interrogation and intimidation . These acts are absolutely in violation of
the National Labor Relations Act. Unless said acts cease immediately
The next topic of the speech was the recent
Board-conducted election at Respondent's plant in
Newnan, Georgia, which the union lost. There followed
the boast that the union found no basis for either the
filing of an unfair labor practice charge or an objection to
the election, that Respondent has a good record of
conducting itself according to the law, and that union's
holding on "like grim death for three years" cost the
employees in that plant more than $60,000 in wages.
The speech then turned to the "sore subject" of threats
to employees to try to get them to join the Union, saying
that Respondent had heard that some of its employees
had been so threatened and that if it hears, and it wants
to be informed of a threat by one employee to another or
by an outsider to an employee for or against" the Union,
it will protect its employees' legal rights. It then
characterized those who are doing the organizing as
"young fellows . . . without wives or families . ; it
referred to their playing around, intimidating, sending
nasty telegrams; and it urged that, when this playing
around, etc., is over, Lomason and the employees get
together again for further discussion before all of them,
including Kaplan, "really think they can tell management
and the employees what to do."
The speech concluded with Respondent's reasons why
the automative parts business and the UAW are like oil
and water and do not mix. It mentioned a seating plant of
Rockwell Standard Corporation in Chicago which "had to
close because it was union ridden" i.e. "the UAW thought
it knew enough to run that plant, to dictate working
practices to set wages for about (sic) what the company
could afford." At that point, the speaker was to display
an announcement of the auction of the aforesaid plant to
be held the following week. And finally, it accused the
Union of now seeking to create dissension and arguments
among those at the instant plant and of "try[ing] to tell us
what to do here"; it urged the employees to deliberate
upon this, and closed with the following disparaging
remark concerning Kaplan: "I have pride, Douglas and
Lomason too has pride. We have a record of 65 years of
fair dealings. And we're not going to take the cheap word
of this legal eagle in Little Rock lying down. Believe me!"
As to the claimed deviation, Lomason testified that he
did not deviate from that portion of the text which marks
the end of the discussion of the telegrams and reads:
"Now fellows, I am not a devil with horns, and I don't
think any of our management people here are either. But
if Philip Kapland continues to throw charges around like
a bull tosses cow crap around in the pasture without any
real basis for his accusations he is going to end up with
two things on his hands: (1) the damndest fight he every
(sic) had because we are going to prove him wrong (2) the
most unpleasant plant in the world to work in outside of
siberia (sic). The UAW has a fine record of turning
brother against brother and sometimes violence
accompanies their campaigns." It was Lomason's
testimony that he had consulted with counsel as to the
above-quoted part of the speech, that counsel had made
some changes and that he "was very careful to read it just
as it reads here in the speech on this sheet." In the latter
connection, Plant Manager Wilson Kell testified, in
substance, that he heard both renditions of this speech and
that Lomason's remarks were in conformity with the text.
While Lomason admitted that he "probably deviated" in
we will ask the NLRB for appropriate injunctive relief and further ask
that they institute contempt proceedings based upon earlier court orders.
"The words "for or against" were underscored in the text; however, the
thrust of the text is toward threats to get people to join the Union.
DOUGLAS & LOMASON COMPANY 117
other parts of the speech in one or two instances and that
there was a slight difference between the first and second
renditions, these other deviations are not put in issue by
the General Counsel, who confined himself to adducing
testimony concerning claimed deviations by Lomason
from the above-quoted part of the speech. In contrast to
the above, employees Charles Poff, Alvin Floyd Nicholas,
Wayne Webb, and David Webb gave mutually
corroborating testimony that Lomason did not read from
the speech at this point, that he departed from the text
and said, in substance, that, if the employees thought he
was mad, they were "damned right" about it, and that he
would personally see to it, if the Union came into the
plant, that the employees would be worse off than Siberia
in this plant. Employee Billy Ray Harris testified to the
same effect, except that he did not attribute to Lomason
the statement that he would personally see that this
change came about. And employee Jimmy Blair, in his
account of what Lomason said, also made no such
attribution to Lomason and also omitted any reference by
Lomason to being mad I note, too, (1) that the witnesses
for the General Counsel on this issue seemed less definite
as to other parts of this speech, and, in some instances,
imported parts of this speech into the first speech,"
(2) that Lomason testified convincingly that,
because Respondent's counsel had checked this portion of
the speech, he "was very careful" to adhere to the text; (3)
that, even granting, as some of the General Counsel's
witnesses testified, that Lomason did not look at the text
while rendering this portion, it does not necessarily follow
that he strayed from the text; (4) that Lomason impressed
me as a truthful and forthright witness, as did Kell who
corroborated Lomason on this aspect of the speech, and
(5) that no witness for the General Counsel expressly
negated the testimony of Lomason and Kell that the
"Siberia" remarks concluded with the statement, viz.,
"The UAW has a fine record of turning brother against
brother and sometimes violence accompanies their
campaign" - a statement which would render
incongruous any comment by Lomason that he would
personally see that this change came about. In all these
circumstances, I find that the record fails to preponderate
in favor of a finding that Lomason deviated from the text
of the second speech at this point.
This is not to say, however, that the speech, considered
in its entirety was free from coercive threats. Thus, it is
apparent to me, and I find, from a reading of both written
speeches that, unlike the moderate tone of the first speech,
the second speech was pitched on a high emotional level.
It likened those organizing for the Union to a lot of mad
people running around, mad people of the most extreme
variety, it likened union membership to marriage between
the employee and the Union and added that in this
instance, the Union (the female) is grossly deceiving the
male (the employee); it talked about the Union sending
"hot telegrams having as an objective the intimidation of
Respondent; it labeled counsel for the Union as a "legal
eagle from Little Rock" and the organizers as "hot
rodding individuals", it equated union organizational
activity, as well as the presence of the Union in the plant,
should it materialize, with stirring up trouble, and stirring
up distrust and conflict between the employees on the one
hand and the Company on the other; and, finally, at the
close, it further disparaged counsel for the Union by
saying that "[Respondent was] not going to take the
cheap word of this legal eagle in Little Rock, lying down.
"See fn 11, supra
Believe me " And with respect to the delivery of that part
of the second speech, where considerable deviation is
alleged to have occurred, Lomason admitted that he
emphasized the entire paragraph by raising his voice so as
to be sure that it carried to all sides of the room, that he
"felt a sincere indignation" at the tone of Kaplan's
communication to Respondent and that he "believe[s] that
the indignation transferred itself into the reading of that
paragraph.s2"
It should also be borne in mind that the quoted
language about the change to the most unpleasant plant in
the world to work in outside of Siberia was tied to the
further filing of unfair labor practice charges by the
Union against Respondent, and was made in the following
setting: (1) the assertion that Respondent and its
employees "would be better off without this crowd of
outsiders like Kaplan", (2) the implication that
unionization is fraught with the danger of loss of wages,
such implication deriving from the claim that over a
3-year period unionization cost the employees at its
Newnan, Georgia, plant more than $60,000 is wages; and
(3) the additional implication that another byproduct
could be the closing of the plant, which implication
derives from its reference to the closing of the Chicago
seating plant of another employer because it was union
ridden.
Considering the entire context, including the
implications in the speech that unionism could threaten
the wages of the employees and even the continued
operation of the plant, and the assertion therein that a
non-union plant would serve the employees better, and
also considering the strongly emotional nature of the
speech as well as the emphasis during its delivery on the
portion which conjured up thoughts of conditions in the
plant being worse than Siberia, I am persuaded, and I
infer, and find, that this speech was calculated to, or
tended to, threaten the employees with more arduous
conditions in the plant if the Union became the bargaining
agent of Respondent's employees. As such, it exceeded
permissible bounds and interfered with, restrained and
coerced Respondent's employees in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
d. Chester Kroll and Billy Smith
About 7 or 7 30 p m on January 23, and about 4 hours
after the first speech by Lomason discussed above, the
Union held its first organizational meeting among
Respondent ' s employees at the Civic Center in Forrest
City There is testimony by employees Poff, Pickett,
Marshall and David Webb, which is mutually
corroborative in most respects and which places General
Foreman Chester Kroll and Supervisor Billy Smith in the
vicinity of the above meeting place that evening More
particularly , a composite of their testimony establishes
that, at about the time the meeting was to begin or shortly
thereafter , Kroll and Smith drove into the parking lot,
adjoining the Civic Center and used for parking by those
attending the meeting , in a white Buick station wagon and
parked there for a time; that the lights were on in the
parking area ; and that at least one of these witnesses
observed Kroll and Smith at each of the following stages:
as they arrived , as they sat in their station wagon in a
parked position and as they were departing after Union
"Lomason testified further that the indignation was over the " fact that
[Kaplan] had filed charges and the manner in which he had filed them, the
wording of the telegrams and the implied guilt "
118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Representative Bernard Menge spoke to them." This
testimony stands unrefuted on the record, as Respondent
did not call Smith as a witness and, although it called
Kroll to testify, he was not questioned about this episode.
Absent any evidence that Kroll and Smith were on the
parking lot for reasons unrelated to the union meeting
which was then about to begin or already in progress, I
infer, and find, on the basis of the largely mutually
corroborative testimony of Poff, Pickett, Marshall and
David Webb, which I credit, that Kroll and Smith were
engaging in surveillance of the union meeting at the time
and that, by this form of scrutiny of employees' union
activities, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act "
e. Harold Summers
According to the testimony of George Humphrey, Jr ,
on the morning after the above union meeting' Summers
approached him at his place of work and said, "I heard
you and the Green boy stood up last night," and Summers
then walked away." Humphrey took this reference to be
to the fact that he and other members of the organizing
committee, including Green, stood up at the union
meeting and stated their respective names at the request of
the union organizer who wanted those in attendance to see
who, among them, had authorization cards for the Union
should they want some. Humphrey testified further that
Summers returned about 50 minutes later and, in the
presence of Leroy Turley, a stock chaser, referred to him
and said, "this is the union man ," and then followed with,
"Humphrey what are you going to do now, oil the
machine or pick cotton"; to which Humphrey replied that
he was not picking cotton when he came to work in this
plant and that he would not do so when he leaves. The
testimony of Summers in respect to the above consists of
a denial that he ever had a conversation with Humphrey
either concerning the Union or Humphrey's being at a
union meeting, and further that he does not recall an
incident in which he pointed to Humphrey and made some
remarks about Humphrey's union activities or about
picking cotton.
Humphrey testified further that he had another
conversation with Summers on January 23, at the time his
wages were garnisheed by a creditor, and that, in the
course of this conversation about this garnishment,
Summers told him, without mentioning the Union, that if
he pulled his badge off and gave it to the Chief of Police
that he, Summers, would help him out if he called
Summers 23 As to this, Summers admitted having a
conversation with Humphrey as to a garnishment, but his
version was at considerable variance from that given by
Humphrey According to Summers, the following
occurred: Humphrey was pretty upset over the
garnishment, saying that he did not think the Company
had a right to take his check He thereupon told
Humphrey that the Company was not taking the check
but was holding it as regtiii•ed by law, and suggested that
Humphrey see a lawyer. Humphrey then requested of
Summers, and was granted, time off in order to see a
lawyer." Humphrey returned to work the same day He
"Menge did not testify
"See Wallace Press , Inc , 146 NLRB 1236, 8, and cases cited in in 3
therein See also Gold Spot Dairy, Inc, 169 NLRB No 158
"Humphrey incorrectly gave the date as January 23 The correct date, I
find, is January 24
"Humphrey testified that he-was then wearing a shirt with the legend
"Vote UAW" on it and also a button saying, "Vote UAW and Join
UAW"
thereafter learned from Humphrey that Humphrey,
accompanied by Wayne Webb and a few other employees,
went to see the Chief of Police the next day and that the
Chief of Police had said that, "he couldn't help him
[Humphrey] as long as he [Humphrey] was fooling with
the Union." To this, he, Summers, replied, "Well, I can't
help that, I don't have anything to do with that." At that
point, Humphrey said "well, if [the Chief of Police] can
help me, I'll pull the badge. off and give it to him";
whereupon Humphrey pulled his badge off, put it in his
pocket and indicated that he was going to talk to the
Chief of Police and tell the Chief that he was out of the
Union. The final remark by him was, "that may help, I
don't know," and he walked away. Summers specifically
denied saying to Humphrey, "if you will pull the badge
off and give it to the Chief of Police, I will help you out."
I note, in this connection, that, during cross examination,
Humphrey changed his testimony which he gave on direct
and had Summers saying that if Humphrey would pull the
badge off and give it to the Chief of Police, the Chief of
Police would help him out. I note, too, that Humphrey
acknowledged that, in his prehearing affidavit to a Board
agent, he stated that, during his conversation with
Summers about the garnishment, Summers did not say
anything about the Union. He also acknowledged that "he
may not have told" the Board agent about the Chief of
Police, and claimed-that while he did not remember it
then, he does remember it now, including the exact words
spoken by Summers.
In view of Humphrey's shifting testimony as to what
was said by Summers when the Chief of Police was
discussed; in view of the fact that Humphrey's prehearing
affidavit to a Board agent impugns his testimony that
Summers mentioned the Union, i e , taking off the union
badge; also since Humphrey omitted any reference to the
Chief of Police incident in that affidavit; since the General
Counsel adduced no corroborating testimony from other
employees who were apparently present when the Chief of
Police was discussed; and since Summers denied saying
that matters could be settled through the Chief of Police if
Humphrey pulled his union badge off, I conclude, and
find, that Humphrey is not a reliable witness and that the
record fails to establish by a preponderance of the
evidence that Summers made remarks to Humphrey
during the garnishment discussions which contravened the
Act. And I find similarly with respect to the remarks
attributed to Summers by Humphrey on the morning after
the union meeting as to Humphrey's standing up at that
meeting, as to Humphrey's being a union man , and as to
picking cotton I do so, in view of Summers' denial that
he made these remarks, and in view of my finding above
as to Humphrey's unreliability as a witness . In sum,
therefore, I find no basis for predicating any violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act on the aforementioned
testimony of Humphrey.
The record reveals other testimony by employees as to
conversations had with Summers concerning their union
activity and/or the union activity then in progress, during
which Summers, inter al► a , emphasized his opposition to
the Union by detailing his own experience as an employee
in a unionized plant. These conversations shall be set forth
hereinafter in chronological order to the extent feasible
"During cross-examination , Humphrey fixed the date of this
conversation as February 6
"Humphrey testified that this request was denied by Summers for
production reasons.
DOUGLAS & LOMASON COMPANY 119
According to employee Jimmy Blair, on January 24,
between 9 and 11 a.m. Summers spoke to him at his place
of work in the presence of employee Doaks. Summers
then said, "Blair, what's that you've got on?" And to his
answer that he had on a union button, Summers replied,
"Well you don't think very much of your job, do you?"
He responded, in turn, that he thought a lot of his job,
whereupon Summers just laughed and walked off. With
respect to the foregoing, Summers was unable to recall
any conversation with Blair concerning the Union and
specifically denied making the remarks attributed to him
by Blair
Blair testified to a second conversation with Summers
at the Chrysler line on February 13 at about 3:15 p.m. At
that time, he approached a group of men in conversation,
which included employees Wayne Webb and Billy Ray
Harris, a few other employees, and also Summers.
According to Blair, Summers said to him as he
approached, "Hey, Blair, I've done already put in for you
if the Union don't come in." Whereupon, he replied,
"Yeah, well, if the Union does come in I've done already
put in for you." Blair admitted that he used this
expression although he did not know what it meant, and
that he was only repeating what Summers had said. When
asked whether he was laughing when he said this, Blair
replied, "me and him's all the time going on about
something." In respect to the above, Summers testified
that, on the occasion in question, he came upon a group
of employees who were at his desk talking about strikes,
picket lines and violence. The views expressed were that in
the event of a strike nobody was going to cross the picket
line and anyone who did risked violence. Whereupon, he
said, inter alia , "if somebody's going to jump on me, I
hope it's a little man," pointing to Blair whom they call
"Little Man." At this, everybody laughed and he walked
away. Summers specifically denied saying anything in the
conversation about "I done put in for you," claiming, too,
that he does not know the meaning of the remark.
Blair impressed me as a more reliable witness than
Summers and I credit him in those instances where his
testimony is in conflict with that of Summers.
Accordingly, I find that Summers' inquiry of Blair
concerning his wearing a union button and his implied
threat at the time that Blair was thereby jeopardizing his
job, occurred in the manner testified to by Blair."
However, as to the second conversation, Blair's testimony
that he did not comprehend the statement he attributed to
Summers and did not know the meaning of his reply
which repeated the language used by Summers, and that
Summers and he were "all the time going on about
something" convinces me that this second conversation
was in the nature of banter, and I so find. Accordingly, I
conclude, and find, that Summers coercively interrogated
Blair during the first conversation concerning his wearing
a union button, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act,
and that no such violation of the Act occurred during the
second conversation.
According to the testimony of employee Wayne Webb,
on the day after the first union meeting28 Summers came
up to him in the plant and asked, in substance, whether
the "first leaders" of the Union would be willing to talk
to Assistant Vice President Knight as to why they wanted
a union in the plant if he, Summers, were to see Knight
and arrange it; that he agreed to this; that Summers
thereupon told him to "go ahead and get the other guys
"As appears hereinafter , a somewhat parallel incident occurred between
Summers and employee Murray
[he] want [ed] to"; and that, in consequence, employees
Marshall, Pickett, David Webb and he went to Knight's
office.29 Employee David Webb testified, in this
connection, that he was present at Wayne Webb's work
station about the middle of February when Summers
came over to both of them and said that Knight wanted to
talk to them and find out why they wanted a union or
thought they needed a union; that he asked if it would do
any good; and that Summers replied he was sure it would
if they explained to Knight why they wanted one. It is
thus apparent that Wayne and David Webb differed as to
when this conversation occurred, as to who were the
principals in the conversation, and as to whether Summers
was trying to arrange a meeting between Knight and both
of them or between Knight and the "first leaders."
Summers did not testify as to the foregoing.
The complaint, as amended, alleges, apparently on the
basis of the above testimony, that on January 24,
Summers created among [Respondent's] employees the
impression of surveillance of its employees' union
activities by telling its employees that it had knowledge of
their membership on the union organizing committee." I
am unable so to find. Thus, David Webb, who impressed
me as a more reliable witness than Wayne Webb, made
no mention of any reference by Summers to "first
leaders"; in addition, even assuming that the term was
used, as Wayne Webb testified, and assuming further that
the term was synonymous with members of the organizing
committee, I cannot, on this record, find that Summers
thereby conveyed the impression of surveillance. For, as
already found, on January 24, Respondent received a
telegram from the Union which listed employees
Marshall, Pickett, David Webb and Wayne Webb, inter
alios, as members of the organizing committee.
Accordingly, I find that this allegation of the complaint,
as amended, has not been sustained by the record
evidence.
According to employee Lawrence Dawson, he had a
conversation with Summers about the Union on January
29 near a press in the press department. He testified that
Summers then told him that he, Summers, thought that
the employees "were making a mistake by getting this
union in"; that he had been under a union before and due
to a strike called by the union he had lost his home and
his car; that Respondent was doing the employees a favor
by continuing to operate while Chrysler and General
Motors (which companies it served as a supplier of seats)
were on strike; and that if the employees continued their
union activity and kept giving Respondent "trouble with
the Union," the plant was going to shut down that Friday.
Dawson testified further that he was then wearing a union
button and Summers told him that he ought to take it off.'°
During cross - examination, Dawson testified that there
were two occasions in which Summers talked of a plant
shut down on Friday; on one occasion he said that this
"The date of the first union meeting was January 23
"There is no allegation in the complaint, as amended, with respect to
what occurred at this meeting.
"Although Dawson testified that he overheard Summers tell "an old
elderly like man that he better not sign a union card because, if he did, he
might lost his job ," Dawson was unable to identify the individual or to fix
the date on which this occurred I, therefore , attach no probative force to
this testimony.
Nor do I attach any probative weight to his testimony that Summers
told "a colored boy" on the same machine with him, in effect , that because
of the union activity, the employees were going to have to raise production
by that Friday or be fired. Here, too, Dawson did not identify the
employee by name, nor could he fix the date
120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
would happen because of production needs up North, and
on another occasion he said this would happen because of
the Union." In this connection, Dawson referred to a red
address telephone book in which, on instructions of a
union organizer, he made notes of whatever a supervisor
said to him; he admitted that it had nothing in it about
the plant closing down because of the Union, and that the
only entry in this respect was the following: "Summers
told Thursday that the plant would shut down Friday, the
first month, 26th day of 1968 if things did not improve."
With respect to the foregoing, Summers testified that
Dawson introduced the discussion of the Union by saying
that "these boys around here think they get the Union
Mr. Lomason's going to close the plant"; and that he
answered that he did not think that would ever happen but
that there was a possibility of losing jobs should the
Union get into the plant and go on strike, as had
happened when "Chrysler pulled out some jobs and some
men lost their jobs." He testified further that Dawson
asked him what he had against the Union and that he
then told Dawson what he had told the other boys about
his experience with a union in a plant where he used to
work, i.e., that the employees went on strike and the
union did not keep its promise to help the employees,
including him, to keep up with the payments on their car
and their house; that he indicated that so far as he was
concerned all unions are alike; and that he asked Dawson
whether he had a good job and was being treated right
and Dawson answered in the affirmative. Summers
specifically denied telling Dawson that if he kept up with
his union activity the plant would close down, or that it
would close down on Friday, and further denied telling
Dawson that he ought to take his union button off.
As noted above, Dawson's testimony attributing to
Summers a threat on January 29 to shut down the plant if
the employees continued in their union activity is not
borne out by Dawson's own notes as to what Summers
said on that occasion. Those notes show only that
Summers said that the plant would shut down on January
29, "if things did not improve" and that the conversation
occurred on January 25. I am therefore not convinced,
and am unable to find, even were I to disregard Summers'
conflicting testimony, that such a threat was, in fact,
made by Summers. Nor am I able to find, in view of the
above evidence as to the reliability of Dawson as a
witness, that Summers told him that he ought to take off
his union button. However, I do find, on the basis of
Summers' own testimony, that he disparaged the Union to
Dawson by implying that it would renege on its promises
to the employees it represented, and further that he
implied that Dawson would be better off without a union
by asking him contemporaneously with such
disparagement whether he had a good job and was being
treated right by Respondent.
According to the testimony of employee Billy Ray
Harris, he had two conversations about the Union with
Summers, i.e. about the first part of February and about
the middle of February. Harris testified that both
conversations took place at his place of work. During the
first conversation, Summers told him that he, Summers,
had worked with unions before, that they were no good,
and that he lost his car and home because of the union;
and during the second conversation, Summers said, in the
presence of employee David Webb, that "Al Capone was
the one that started the Union, and that the way he would
do that, he would promise merchants certain prices for
" Dawson could not give the date of these conversations.
their goods and then when they got it he would make
them pay." As to the foregoing, Summers testified that he
could not recall any such conversation with Harris. Harris
impressed me as a reliable witness. In view of this, and as
Summers did not specifically deny either of these
attributions by Harris to him, I credit Harris and find
that, on both these occasions, Summers disparaged the
Union.
Employee David Webb and Richard Murray, each
testified to having a conversation with Summers, which
Summers initiated, about the last of January or the first
of February at their respective places of work.J2 According
to each of them, Summers spoke of his unhappy
experience with a union at a plant where he worked, in
that the employees went on strike and he lost his car and
his house. David Webb testified further, in substance, that
Summers attributed his losses to the union 's reneging on
its promises to pay strike benefits. And Murray testified
that Summers told him that once the Union came into the
plant, the employees would not be able to get the favors
they are now getting from Respondent, such as getting
them out of jail or granting them company loans. As to
the above, Summers testified broadly, without detailing
what he told either Webb or Murray, that employees,
acting individually or in groups, would call him over to
their places of work and ask him such questions as
whether they should join the Union and why he did not
like the Union," and that he spoke to about 30 percent of
the employees, in all, in this vein. He would answer the
first mentioned question by saying that it was their
decision to make and he would answer the second
question by telling them that he had been in a union
which he did not identify, while working at Kroger
Bakery, and that his experience was not good, i.e. there
was a ten week strike and the Union reneged on its
promise that it would see to it that employees would get
help and would not lose anything, with the result that he
lost his car and had to move. Summers also testified that
he mentioned loans to Murray during a conversation but
as appears hereinafter, he placed this in a context of a
discussion concerning Murray's wearing a union badge
and, according to him, the loans referred to were personal
loans from him to Murray.
The union badge incident, according to Murray,
occurred in February at his place of work in the presence
of his helper, Eddy Green. It is his testimony, in
substance, that the following occurred: Summers
approached him and said, "Cowboy, every time I see you
with that badge on I feel like kicking your ass." To this,
he replied that he was not wearing the badge against
Summers, and Summers' rejoinder was, "as long as you
have that on it' s against me. You are going to regret the
day you ever saw that badge." Summers left right after
this. Whereupon he went over to where Wayne Webb was
working and told Webb what Summers had said, and then
returned to his own job. Shortly thereafter, Summers
approached him again and said, "I am really going to give
you something to talk to that boy about the next time I
catch you over there talking to him. I am going to pull
your card. You work for me. I don't want to catch you
back over there any more." Summers left and returned in
about two or three minutes, saying that he "had to move
one of you all." Summers then moved him to "Lee
"According to David Webb , employees Wayne Webb, Turner, and
Martin were present at the time.
"Summers testified, in this latter connection, that it was well known that
he was against the Union.
DOUGLAS & LOMASON COMPANY 121
Holloway's side on the assembly line." About 20 minutes
later, Summers returned to him, saying that he, Summers,
was "just joking" when he spoke about "kicking my ass"
and that he felt he could talk like that because they were
friends." With respect to this testimony concerning the
badge incident, Summers testified as follows: On the day
in question he walked over to Murray and said, referring
to the union button that Murray was wearing, "is that for
real?" At this, Murray laughed; whereupon he said,
"Well, I thought you'd be the last person to go union.
Well, as much as I've done for you. I got your job back
for you, loaned you money." Murray then inquired
whether he was mad, and he replied that he was "hurt
more than anything," and that because Murray hurt him,
Murray should not come to him for any more favors and
that he, personally, would not lend Murray any more
money. In about five minutes, after Murray had gone over
to Wayne Webb, the latter called Summers to his place of
work and inquired as to a remark attributed to Summers
by Murray, concerning Summers' kicking Murray's
"butt" for wearing a union badge. He denied saying this
to Murray. Thereafter, he approached Murray, inquiring
as to whether he, Murray, had stated the above to Webb.
When Murray insisted that he, Summers, had said that he
"was going to kick Murray's butt," he acknowledged to
Murray that he had made such a statement the day
before,75 that it had nothing to do with the Union and that
he did not then see a union button on Murray. And when
he reproached Murray for saying what he knew was not
so, Murray "did not say anything, grinned and walked
off." It was also Summers' testimony that he did not say,
during this episode, that he or the Company would
prevent Murray's getting out of jail, or that during any of
these conversations with Murray he made any reference to
pulling his card, something he is not authorized to do.
Richard Murray impressed me as one given to
exaggeration in order to strengthen the General Counsel's
case. I, note, too, that Eddy Green who was present
during the claimed anti-union remarks by Summers was
not called as a witness and it does not appear that he was
unavailable. Absent such corroboration, I am unable to,
and do not, predicate any findings on his testimony in
those instances where there is countervailing testimony by
Summers. David Webb did, however, testify in a
straight-forward and truthful manner concerning his
conversation with Summers, and I credit him.
Accordingly, on the basis of Webb's testimony and the
admissions inherent in Summers' testimony, I find, that,
as in the cases of other employees referred to heretofore,
Summers disparaged the Union to Webb and Murray, and
further that Summers sought to dissuade Murray from
wearing a union button and from union adherence by
threatening a hardening of the relationship between them
on the matter of personal loans from him to Murray and
other favors." This form of pressure upon Murray to
desist from his union activity, albeit it was couched by
Summers in terms of personal motivation, was
nevertheless coercive and violative of the Act." As to
Summers' disparagement of the Union to David Webb
and to Murray, he sought, as he did with other employees,
to instill fear in them that they would be worse off if the
"Murray testified that he has joked with Summers only when Summers
has joked with him, but this was "not very often."
"Summers explained that Murray began about 3 or 4 weeks before then
to sit down on a long rail where seats are stacked as he would complete his
welding operation on each seat ; that, on this particular occasion , he found
Murray sitting on the rail and said, "Cowboy, what am I going to have to
do, kick your butt to get you off that rail."
Union came into the plant . Such conduct likewise tends to
coerce employees in violation of the Act. Accordingly, I
find that , by the conduct of Summers in the foregoing
respects , Respondent interfered with , restrained and'
coerced employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
f. Tony G. Webb
On January 24, Respondent received a telegram from
the Union advising that it was actively engaged in
organizing at Respondent's plant and listing the names of
employees on its organizing committee. Victor Knight,
assistant vice president of Respondent, reacted promptly
to this telegram and called a meeting that day of his
supervisory personnel. Tony G. Webb was one of those in
attendance. At this meeting, Knight discussed the listing
in the telegram of the individuals on the organizing
committee and issued instructions to all supervisors as to
talking by such employees in the plant. According to
Personnel Manager Kell, who was also in attendance,
Knight indicated that merely because these names are
listed as an organizing committee does not give them the
right to organize and talk about union activities during
working hours, and that these organizers can talk about
union activities on their own time but not on company
time. There was then, according to the testimony of Tony
G. Webb, "no plant rule against talking. There [was] a
plant rule against going around and talking to a man and
holding him off production five, ten and fifteen minutes at
a time." It is apparent, too, from the record that
employees were allowed to talk among themselves while at
work and to do some talking while moving around the
plant."
The same day, after the meeting, Tony G. Webb
approached employees Blair , Pickett and Harris,
individually, and initiated a conversation with each of
them concerning their organizational activity.79 The three
conversations occurred "within an hour or two" of one
another.'° Webb testified, at one point, that he told each
of them that "they couldn't be organizing on company
time or talking about the price of cars or anything else on
company time; that they were to work and not to be off
their job for anything."
In view of all the foregoing, I find unconvincing Webb's
testimony that he spoke to Blair and Pickett because of
the extent of their being away from their job talking to
other employees on that day. Rather do I infer, and find,
on the basis of the entire record, that Webb did so in
response to instructions from Knight, after the meeting of
supervisors, to discuss the subject of talking with known
"One such past favor , according to Summers, was helping Murray to get
his job back from Respondent.
"See Beatrice Foods Company, 84 NLRB 493, 494.
"Supervisor Gerald Wheeler testified , in this connection, that employees
are allowed to talk to each other during working time if they just talk in
passing or are working on something together.
"Blair and Pickett gave mutually corroborative testimony that the date
was January 24. 1 note that, while Tony G . Webb testified that these
conversations occurred the day after the aforesaid meeting with Knight, he
acknowledged that his prehearing affidavit to a Board agent fixes the date
as the same day as this meeting . Accordingly, I credit the testimony of
these two employees in this respect.
"Webb testified that he spoke to Pickett because he had the " feeling"
that Pickett had been away from the job "more than usual"; and that he
spoke to Blair after he saw Blair "off the job ." Webb did not testify as to
any specific conduct by Harris at the time which caused him to speak to
Harris.
122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
union organizers in the current organizational activity."
And I find further that he told all three of them, inter
alia , that they were not to talk about anything on
company time or "be off their jobs for anything." This
clearly constituted a marked curtailment of the degree of
freedom of movement and conversation among employees
while at work which was permitted under the existing
plant rule. When this curtailment is coupled with the fact
that these employees were singled out by Tony Webb
because they were known to be union organizers, it
follows therefrom, and I find, that, by this change in the
plant rule as to them Respondent imposed more arduous
working conditions on employees who were union
organizers and thereby interfered with the organizational
activity of its employees for union-connected reasons in
violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
g. John Gilmore Benham
Employee Ronnie Turner testified as to a conversation
he had with Benham concerning the Union, in the
presence of employee Hart, the day after the holding of a
union meeting." According to Turner, Benham
approached him at his place of work and asked him if he
had gone to a union meeting last night over at Forrest
City and had barbecue and beer, whether he had signed a
union card yet and what did he think about the Union.
Also according to Turner, to his answer to the last
question that he thought the Union was a "pretty good
thing," judging from the experience when he worked at
the neighboring Waggoner plant, Benham replied that he
heard that a lot of the unions are nothing but a racket. As
to the foregoing, Benham denied having a conversation
with Turner in which he asked the above questions of
Turner. He placed a conversation with Turner concerning
the Union at a time subsequent, namely, after Turner's
transfer to the night shift, which transfer appears to have
occurred on February 8. Hart did not testify in this
proceeding. According to Benham, he had called Turner
over to talk about a die the latter was working on, and, in
the course thereof, Turner asked him his personal opinion
of the Union, and this led to the following exchange: He
answered that "they wasn't nothing but a bunch of
racketeers." Whereupon, Turner accused him of calling
him, Turner, a racketeer. His reply was a reference to
James Hoffa being "in the pen" and that Hoffa was
president of one of the unions. In view of the fact that
Turner, despite his uncertainty as to dates, showed no
such uncertainty in his testimony as to the contents of the
conversation itself, and since this latter testimony had the
ring of truth whereas Benham's denials thereof did not, I
credit Turner rather than Benham and find that the above
conversation occurred in the manner testified to by
Turner. I also find for the reasons indicated heretofore
that the conversation occurred on January 24." It follows
from all the foregoing, and I conclude, and find, that
Benham's interrogation of Turner as to his union
:membership and activity, underscored as it was by
Benham's derogation of the Union and the other unfair
labor practices found herein, exceeded permissible bounds
and that Respondent thereby engaged in interference,
restraint and coercion in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
"The testimony of these three employees impliedly negates any finding
that Webb called them to account for having been away from their job on
that day talking to other employees.
all am satisfied , on the .basis of the record testimony , that Turner was
referring to the union meeting of January 23. Although Turner was
h. Wilson Kell
Turner testified that about February 8, after he was
transferred to the night shift, the following occurred: He
was notified by Wheeler, his immediate supervisor, that
then Personnel Manager Kell" wanted to see him in his
office. When he arrived at the office, Kell, Benham" and
Wheeler were there. He was then wearing a union button
and Kell remarked, "I know the reason you think you're
in here, because of that badge you've got on," and added
that that was not so. To this, he made no response, and
Kell accused him of "not doing the job right" in the last
few weeks, whereas he had been doing a "real good" job
before that time. He protested that there was no change in
his work and Kell then added that Benham and Wheeler
"said you've been talking too much and fooling around
too much." Benham reminded him of an incident on the
day shift when he was talking to Cagle and Benham asked
him to quit talking. He acknowledged that he stopped
talking and then resumed again because he noticed that
another group of employees continued talking for about
10 or 15 minutes before they were also stopped. Benham
then asserted that the aforesaid change in his work was
because he was irked over being transferred to the night
shift. His answer was that he did not like being
transferred, but that he still thought he had to do his job.
He was then told to go back to work and was assured that
if he did "[his] job and everything right," there would be
nothing else said. Also during the meeting, Wheeler
mentioned that he, Wheeler, had had to get after him
about his spending too much time talking," and Wheeler
told him to clean his machine if he finished a job and to
do so even if the machine had been cleaned just before. As
to the foregoing, Wheeler recalled taking Turner to a
meeting in Kell's office and that Kell talked to Turner
"about his work, about him standing around and talking."
According to him, it was Turner who first mentioned the
Union saying, "I know why I'm up here," pointing to the
union button that he was wearing on his shirt, and that
Kell assured him that wearing the union button had
nothing to do with it. At that time, Kell asked whether
Turner was "mad" because he was transferred to the night
shift and Turner answered that "that was part of it." Kell
then told Turner not to stand around and talk to different
people while he was supposed to be working. According to
Wheeler, the meeting was brought on by the following: he
had observed Turner, on one occasion during working
time ," at Cagle's work station for about 15 minutes,
talking to Cagle. He told Turner that he was supposed to
be working on a die at his work station a distance away
and that he should go back to work. Turner then inquired
what he was to do if he ran out of work and he, Wheeler,
was not around . To this, he replied that , in such a
uncertain as to the date of the above conversation, the logic and the
probabilities of the situation support a finding that the date he meant was
January 24.
"Turner testified credibly, I find, that Benham did not talk to him again
concerning the Union.
"Kell was plant manager at the time of the hearing.
"Benham is the supervisor of the tool room and is above Wheeler, a
supervisor , in the plant hierarchy.
"Turner testified that he does not remember whether he admitted or
denied this accusation.
"Wheeler placed this incident on a day in January during the second
shift . However, this could have happened only sometime after February 8,
the date of Turner's transfer to the night shift. I therefore find that
Wheeler was in error as to the date and that it occurred about the time
testified to by Turner.
DOUGLAS & LOMASON COMPANY 123
situation, he, Turner, should get a rag and start wiping
down the machinery in the tool room. Turner thereupon
returned to his job. A similar incident occurred the
following day, according to Wheeler. On that second
occasion, he observed Turner and Cagle in conversation at
Cagle's bench for about 10 minutes and he again ordered
Turner back to his job He reported these incidents to
Kell and to Benham, and Kell arranged for the meeting in
his office. While conceding that others were talking that
evening, Wheeler added that the length of time of such
conversations was 2 minutes, at the most, and that
management allows employees to talk to each other
during working time if they just talk in passing or are
working on something together. There is also testimony
by Benham and Kell as to this meeting. According to
Benham, he reminded Turner at the meeting of having
had to break up a conversation between Turner and Cagle
on the day before his transfer to the second shift and he
made the points to Turner that an employee can't be
talking about his job with another employee if the
conversation lasts for 10 minutes, and that Turner would
not be in Kell's office if his work were satisfactory. It was
his further testimony that Turner first introduced the
name of the Union, saying that he was in the office
because he was for the Union, and that Kell thereupon
denied that this was the reason. Kell himself testified
similarly on the way in which the subject of the Union
was imported into the conversation He also corroborated,
in substance, the testimony of Wheeler and Benham as to
why the meeting was called. He testified, in this
connection, that Wheeler complained to him about Turner
not staying on the job as he, Wheeler, thought Turner
should, and that Turner was wandering around in the
plant too much; that he then arranged for Turner to come
to the office and he talked to Turner in the presence of
Benham and Wheeler about the importance of staying on
the job and doing a good job and why the Company could
not have him running around in the plant.
Turner did not deny that he had been away from his
place of work talking to Cagle on both occasions and for
the periods testified to by Wheeler. And he, in effect,
admitted the incident testified to by Benham , saying only
that he stopped talking to Cagle at Benham's request and
then resumed because he noticed that another group of
employees kept talking for about 10 or 15 minutes before
they were stopped by Benham. Thus, Kell's action of
calling a meeting, upon being apprised thereof, in order to
discuss the aforesaid conduct with Turner, in the presence
of Benham and Wheeler, finds support in reasons divorced
from Turner's union activity. And even assuming, without
deciding, that Turner testified credibly, in substance, that
Kell first mentioned the Union during the meeting and
added that it had no connection with Turner's being there,
these remarks tend to negate, rather than establish, that
the meeting was prompted by Turner's union activity. In
all these circumstances, I am persuaded, and find, that the
record fails to establish by a preponderance of the
evidence that the reprimand administered to Turner by
Kell during this meeting was for union-connected reasons.
Accordingly, I conclude, and find, that the complaint, as
amended, has not been sustained in this respect.
i. Jimmy Webb
Turner testified to another instance on February 18 in
o'clock that evening, he went on a work break, and, about
7.15 p.m., when break period was over, he was on his way
back to work, while eating an ice cream cone. By the time
he arrived at his work place, also according to Turner, he
had finished eating the ice cream cone and went back to
work. Shortly thereafter, he was told by Wheeler that
Jimmy Webb wanted to see him in the office after supper.
After supper, he encountered Webb in the plant and Webb
and he went to the office where they found Wheeler
While in the office, Webb reminded him that he had been
in the office once before, and mentioned that Wheeler had
reported that he was eating ice cream on the way back
from break Webb continued by saying that he, Turner,
had been "talking a lot and fooling around and stuff like
that," that Wheeler had contacted Kroll, who directed
giving him another chance and not to fire him. At this
point, Webb volunteered that, "If it were left to me I
would fire you." His response to this was, "Well, we used
to go to break and get something and if we wasn't
through with it we could eat it on the way back and
nothing ever was said about it. It seems like since the
Union started trying to come in, why, everything's done
changed. I can't figure it out " Thereupon, Webb rejoined
with, "Well, I don't give a damn if you prostitute (sic) me
or not. I'm going to tell you the reason why. Because of
the god-damned union If it was left up to me I'd fire you
now." Both Wheeler and Webb then told him that from
now on they wanted him to leave on break when the
buzzer sounds and to be back on the job when the buzzer
sounds, which was the way a union factory was run And
in response to his inquiry as to what he was to do if an
employee came to him and asked him something, Wheeler
answered that he should send the employee to Wheeler
and to turn his back on the employee.
According to Wheeler, on the occasion in question,
Turner stood near Cagle right after break for about 8 or
10 minutes and ate an ice cream sandwich and talked to
Cagle. He reminded Turner that he, Turner, was supposed
to be on the job working and not standing around talking
to employees while they were trying to work. Thereafter,
he talked to Jimmy Webb, the night superintendent, about
this and Webb told him to bring Turner to the office after
supper When he went to the office, after supper, Webb
and Turner were already there and were talking. He
testified further to the following: Turner said that, on
break, they used to go to a nearby ice cream stand, called
the "Mug and Cone," and take about 20 or 25 minutes
and nothing was said about it by management, "but since
this union stuff has been coming in here, we can't take a
break like that anymore " He replied that the Union had
nothing to do with it, that since Mr. Knight arrived at the
plantd8 a lot of changes had occurred. And Webb said that
Turner had been in the office before and had been warned,
that it did not seem to be doing any good, and that if it
was left up to him he would fire Turner. At this point, he
told Turner that Kroll had been contacted about this
matter and it was Kroll's instructions to wait until Kell,
who was then on a trip, returned Wheeler also testified
that the subject of the Union first entered the conversation
when Turner said something about a change in the
practice as to work breaks since the union thing started,
that he did not remember Webb saying anything about the
Union at the time, that Webb voiced his preference for
firing Turner, and that Webb said nothing about Turner
prosecuting him. In addition, Wheeler denied that he told
which he was told that he was wanted in the office. "Mr Knight was, at the time of the hearing, Respondent 's vice president
According to Turner, the following occurred: At about 7 of manufacturing He was assigned on a full-time basis to the plant herein
124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Turner that he wanted him back at his station when the
whistle blew, adding that he did tell Turner that a normal
time for him to be back at his station after the whistle
blew would be 2 or 3 minutes.
There was also testimony by Webb concerning this
meeting to the following effect: Wheeler was having a
little difficulty with Turner and asked Webb to speak to
Turner. This eventuated in a meeting at his suggestion,
with both Turner and Wheeler in attendance. At the
meeting , Wheeler talked about Turner buying ice cream
right at the end of break and carrying it back to the shop,
and standing there talking to his fellow employees while
he ate his ice cream, and interfering with their work, and
thus taking a 25-minute break instead of the authorized
15-minute break. He, in turn, talked to Turner about
Turner's going around in the plant and talking to other
production workers and interfering with their work and
added that if he had his way he would fire Turner right
now." Turner wanted to know "since when the employees
were not allowed to go over to the 'Mug and Cone' on
break time." To this, he replied that they were still
allowed to do so during break and lunch period, and again
mentioned to Turner that he was objecting to Turner's
going around the plant talking to employees and holding
up production. Thereafter, he told Turner to return to his
job and that, if he, Turner, did what was expected of him,
he would hear no more from management. Webb
specifically denied saying anything about not caring
whether Turner prosecuted him or about being willing to
fire him because of his union activity, or about the Union,
in general , or about Turner's union activity. In connection
with the foregoing, I note (I) Turner's admission that he
was eating the ice cream cone after break time; (2) my
earlier finding, in effect, that Turner had on several
occasions been away from his job station talking to Cagle
and for as much as 15 minutes on one such occasion; (3).
the fact that Turner, by his own admission , was the first
one to mention the Union in the course of the meeting,
and (4) the fact that Webb's and Wheeler's testimony was
mutually corroborative, in substantial part, on the
question of what was said concerning the Union, and that
such testimony negates Turner's testimony in this regard.
In light of the above, I am unable to find that the record
preponderates in favor of a finding either that Webb made
anti-union remarks during this meeting or that the
reprimand administered by Webb to Turner was for
union -connected reasons. It therefore follows, and I find,
that the complaint, as amended, has also not been
sustained in this respect.
j. Gerald Wheeler
Employee Cagle testified to a conversation about the
Union with Wheeler in the parking lot adjoining the plant
about February 1, after midnight. According to Cagle, he
had just gotten off from work and was with Turner when
he met Wheeler, his supervisor, on the parking lot, and
the following occurred: He initiated the conversation by
asking Wheeler whether he had found a green card. "
Wheeler replied that he had found such a card.
Whereupon he asked Wheeler what did he want with the
card and Wheeler replied that he did not need the card
and that he, Cagle, did not need it either. When he
answered that that was not so, Wheeler asked why.
on December 19, 1967, and was made responsible for all plant operations.
"Webb testified that during the preceding 2 weeks he had observed
Turner spending considerable time away from his job station at the
stations of other employees , just standing and talking instead of working.
Thereupon, he aired his grievances about not being treated
right by Respondent, about being required to work an
awful lot of hours against one's wishes, and about the fact
that Turner was unrepresented when he was taken to the
office and confronted by several management people,
which would not be the case if the Union was in the plant.
Turner did not testify as to this episode. In respect to the
foregoing, Wheeler's testimony was that, on the occasion
in question, he advised Cagle, when he was asked about
the card, that he had turned it into the office and, when
pressed as to why he did so, he answered that he thought
that was what he was supposed to do with it. To Cagle's
further question as to what need Respondent had for the
card, he answered .that it did not need the card. He then
asked why Cagle needed the card and Cagle replied that
its purpose was to get a union in the plant. He followed
this by asking whether Cagle thought he needed a union
and Cagle replied in the affirmative. At this point the
conversation ended.
I am persuaded that Cagle testified credibly, and I find
that this testimony correctly reflects what occurred during
this conversation. However, I am persuaded, and find,
particularly in view of Cagle's testimony that he initiated
the conversation, that the inquiries made by Wheeler did
not exceed permissible bounds under the Act.
Accordingly, I conclude, and find further, that
Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
any of Wheeler's remarks to Cagle during this episode.
Cagle testified, in addition, that he had another
conversation about the Union with Wheeler on a Saturday
in February." At that time, according to Cagle, Wheeler
approached him in the area of one of the spot welding
machines and asked whether "[he was] going to the
meeting they were having the following Sunday," and,
although the Union was not mentioned, he took it for
granted that Wheeler meant the union meeting" and
answered that he was going to attend. Also, according to
Cagle, Wheeler then added that he wished that he had
never become a leader and that they were giving him hell
about this mess; that he did not blame Cagle for wearing
a union button and that it made no difference to him.
There was further testimony by Cagle that Wheeler also
inquired as to how much the Union charged as dues and
as to what the employees would be earning after the
Union came into the plant. As to the foregoing, Wheeler
testifidd only that he did not remember making an inquiry
of Cagle as to whether he was going to a union meeting or
saying anything about wishing he was not a leader or
about how much hell he was catching about the Union.
In view of Wheeler's failure specifically to deny the
above testimony by Cagle, and since Cagle impressed me
as a credible witness, I find that the conversation occurred
in the manner testified to by Cagle. And I find further
that, although the Union was not mentioned by Wheeler
in haec verba , the reference thereto was unmistakable
from Wheeler's additional remarks during the same
conversation, such as, his inquiry as to the amount of
union dues and to what would be the earnings of
employees if the Union came into the plant. I therefore
conclude, and find, that Wheeler's inquiry of Cagle as to
whether he was going to the union meeting the next day,
"The reference was to an authorization card for the Union, which had
been signed by an employee, and which Cagle had lost.
"This occurred on the day shift. There was no night shift on that
Saturday and the employees affected, including Cagle, worked that day on
the day shift.
"According to Cagle, a union meeting was scheduled for the next day
and had been announced in union literature which had been distributed.
DOUGLAS & LOMASON COMPANY 125
when considered in the context of other unfair labor
practices found herein, constituted interrogation
proscribed by the Act and that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(l) thereby. And this is so, even assuming, as
Respondent contends, that Wheeler made this inquiry out
of personal curiosity."
k. Jessie Edward Hamilton
Employee Eugene Flowers testified that, in the latter
part of January, he had a conversation in the plant about
the Union with Hamilton who was then his supervisor
According to Flowers, he was working on the night shift
and Hamilton called him over and asked whether he knew
that "the Union's trying to get in out here." He answered
in the negative and Hamilton then told him that if
someone came up to him and talked to him about the
Union that "[he should not] fool with it," and that if he
does, "the money that [he puts] in a union , [he] can buy
[himself] a nice pretty shirt with it " Also according to
Flowers, Hamilton told him that, if the Union were in the
plant and if he worked over 6 hours on the ten-point
operation, he, Hamilton, would have to send him home.
He took this to mean that he could not work on the
10-point operation and then be moved somewhere else in
order to complete a regular day's work. Hamilton's
testimony in regard to the foregoing consisted of a denial
that he had a conversation with Flowers about the Union
and of specific denials that he had made any of the above
statements attributed to him by Flowers. With particular
reference to the ten-point operation, Hamilton testified as
follows This is an assembly operation on the seat cushion
for a Chevrolet truck and requires a crew of 10 men who
perform welding operations. Flowers was one of the crew
and his specific job at the time was to load the rear rail of
the operation, known as the 325 rail. During the month of
January, the crew on the night shift would work 4 hours
or less on the ten-point operation and eight of them would
then be shifted to the six-point operation, which is also a
welding operation and requires only a crew of eight men.
The remaining two men were then used as repair men.
Hamilton explained that "you have got to retain the
[entire ten man crew] in case you have to go back "
Assuming, without deciding, that Flowers testified
credibly that Hamilton called his attention to the fact that
the Union was trying to get into the plant and told him, in
effect, that union membership would cost him money
which he could better spend on clothing for himself, I
make no finding adverse to Respondent thereon as such
remarks fall short of constituting interrogation concerning
Flowers' union membership or activity." Further, in the
light of Hamilton's uncontroverted testimony as to the
prevailing practice with respect to conducting both the
10-point operation and the 6-point operation, which I
credit, I find unconvincing Flowers' testimony that
Hamilton, in effect, threatened a change in this practice to
his detriment. Accordingly, I find that the complaint, as
amended, has not been sustained in the foregoing respects
1. M F Walker
Employee Grant Long, Jr., testified to a conversation
concerning the Union with Wheeler in the presence of
employee James Caffee, near the water fountain in the
plant sometime in February. According to Long, he was
"See in 37, infra
"See Shoppers' Fair (Superior Sales, Inc ), 151 NLRB 1604, 1607
about to start work that evening when Walker approached
him and told him to go on the folding machine and that
he "better get" production and that "two days after the
Union gets in"," if he did not get production, he would be
out of luck and "his ass would be out of the door." Long
admitted, in this connection, that he had been
reprimanded by Personnel Manager Kell in the fall of
1967 for not getting enough production on the folding
machine. Caffee did not testify in this proceeding. With
respect to the foregoing, Walker testified, as follows: It
had reached the point in January or February where Long
"wouldn't run half production." In conversations with
Long, Long would always say that "the machine was tore
up " He also noticed that Long would adjust the machine
"a lot." After talking to Long three or four times about
his production, he took Long to see Kell Kell told Long
that he was not getting production, and Long did start
getting production thereafter. There is further testimony
by Walker denying that he made the remark attributed to
him by Long concerning what would happen to Long after
the Union came into the plant.
Long did not impress me as a reliable witness, whereas
Walker did Accordingly, I credit Walker and find, on the
basis of his testimony, that his discussion with Long about
Long's production in February was free of any coercive
threats It therefore follows, and I find, that the
complaint, as amended, has not been sustained in this
regard.
m Victor Knight
The plant herein has two doors on the front One of
these is normally used by employees for ingress to, and
egress from , the plant, and the other leads to the plant
offices Beginning around February 1, Respondent
instituted the practice of posting a guard on each shift at
the door leading to the shop . As to the initiation of this
change, Knight testified that (1) he had observed strangers
walking around in the plant on a number of occasions
over a period of months and this upset him; (2 ) on the day
before the change, four children walked into the plant to
see their father, an employee, and he observed them
gathered around a press in the middle of the shop; (3) he
did not reprimand the father of these children; (4) he
thereupon ordered Kroll to post the guards and gave
orders that anyone wishing to see an employee on duty
was to be directed to the personnel office; and (5) he
instructed employees Robinson and Walker , who served,
at the start , as guards," to record the late arrivals [among
the employees ] at lunch and break time and turn them
over to the personnel offices'
Knight admitted that , within a day or two after the
guards were posted , there was one instance when the door
was locked by a guard for about 15 minutes . However, he
testified further that he did not give instructions to the
guards to lock the door; that , as soon as he learned about
it, he told the guard on duty never to lock the door again;
and that this was relayed to the other guard , as well. Also
according to Knight , he did not give the guard involved or
the other guard a key and he did not know where the
guard got the key. In addition to the foregoing , there is
"During cross -examination , Long said the time lapse stated by Walker
was 3 days
"it appears that Walker was then working for Respondent as a
truckdriver
"Kell testified that the guard takes the names of those who are
"excessively late" after break or after lunch
126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
testimony by employee David Webb to the effect that the
locking" of the doors, after break and after lunch, began
around the first of February and lasted for "several days"
and that, on one occasion, after talking to employee
Pickett about the closing of the doors, he observed
Pickett, from a point near the water fountain, as Pickett
tried the door and the door was locked.59
In assessing Respondent's position with respect to the
issue of placing the guards at the door, I note the
following: it contends that the reason for its action in
placing guards at the door was to keep out of the plant
unauthorized personnel, yet the precipitating incident for
such action did not bring forth any comment thereon to
the father of the children who were involved in the
unauthorized visit to the plant; and significantly, it
directed the guards simultaneously with its institution of
this program to keep a list of employees who arrived late
from their break and from lunch and to turn the names
into the office. It asserts that it did not give the guard a
key on the one occasion when it admits he closed the door
either after a break or after lunch, yet it did not know
how he obtained the key and apparently made no
investigation thereafter as to this matter. In addition, it
failed to call as witnesses the guards who were stationed
at the door, and nowhere does it appear that they were
then unavailable I note also the credible testimony of
David Webb that the door was locked nght after break
and right after lunch on more than one occasion, and I
note the fact that this change was effected during the
Union's organizational drive, apparently without any prior
announcement or explanation of the reason therefor to
Respondent's employees. I am persuaded from all the
foregoing, and I infer, and find, that the timing of this
change was prompted by the organizational drive of the
Union rather than by Respondent's concern over
unauthorized personnel entering the plant and, but for the
organizational dnve by the Union, Respondent would not
have then altered existing practices with respect to
employees returning from break and from lunch to their
disadvantage. Under all these circumstances, I conclude,
and find, that by these precipitate changes Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(I) of the Act.
Recapitulation of the 8(a)(1) Findings Above
It is apparent from the foregoing that Respondent's
supervisory personnel in the course of the first month or
so of the Union's organizational drive, committed
numerous violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act as
follows:
(1) Early in the organizational campaign, i.e., around
January 15, Guest, a leader, interrogated Marshall
concerning his union adherence and sought to dissuade
him therefrom and, failing that, impliedly threatened that,
if Respondent's plant became unionized, the plant might
suffer the same fate as the Marianna plant of the Jack
Winter Manufacturing Company, which was unionized
and later closed its doors.
(2) Also early in the organizational campaign, Quality
Control Manager Dugas separately interrogated Pickett
and Harris concerning their union membership, desires
and activities.
"Employees Dawson and Flowers also testified concerning the locking of
the doors , but I place no reliance thereon in view of my findings heretofore
that both of them were unreliable witnesses
"Pickett did not testify as to this incident
(3) On January 23, General Foreman Kroll and
Supervisor Smith engaged in surveillance of the Union's
first organizational meeting.
(4) On January 24, Summers, a leader, coercively
interrogated employee Blair concerning his wearing a
union button by implying that it might jeopardize his job.
(5) Around January 25, and thereafter, Summers
disparaged the Union to various employees and implied
that the Union would renege on its promises to the
employees it represented, and thereby instilled in them the
fear that they would be disadvantaged by the Union.
(6) About the last of January or the first of February,
Summers disparaged the Union to employees David Webb
and Murray and sought to dissuade Murray from wearing
a union button and from union adherence by threatening a
hardening of the relationship between them on the matter
of personal loans from him to Murray and on other
favors, if he did not desist.
(7) On January 24, Tony G. Webb, a leader, told
employees Blair, Pickett and Harris, known organizers for
the Union, that they could no longer talk to employees
while at work, as formerly, thereby imposing more
arduous working conditions-on these employees.
(8) On January 24, Supervisor Benham interrogated
employee Turner as to his union membership and activity
and underscored this interrogation by speaking
derogatorily about the Union.
(9) On a Saturday in February, Supervisor Wheeler
interrogated Cagle as to whether he was going to a union
meeting the following day.
(10) About February 1, 2,• or 3, President Lomason
delivered a speech twice to Respondent's employees, once
on the day shift and once on the night shift, which speech
was calculated to, or tended to, threaten the employees
with more arduous working conditions in the plant if the
Union became the bargaining agent of Respondent's
employees.
(11) Around February 1, Assistant Vice President
Knight made precipitate changes in existing practices with
respect to employees returning to work from break and
from lunch.
Upon the basis of the entire record, I make the
following.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its
employees in the excercise of their rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act in the manner above found,
Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
As I have found that Respondent engaged in unlawful
interrogation, surveillance and coercive threats, I shall
DOUGLAS & LOMASON COMPANY
order Respondent to cease and desist from these unfair
labor practices and to take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the purposes of the Act.
127
complaint , as amended , alleging violations of the Act not
found herein be dismissed.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law , and upon the entire record in the case,
I recommend that Respondent , its officers , agents,
successors , and assigns , shall-
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating employees concerning their union
membership, activities or desires i n a manner constituting
interference , restraint or coercion in violation of Section
8(a)(l) of the Act.
(b) Threatening employees that their prounion activity
would lead ( 1) to more arduous working conditions in the
plant or (2) to a worsening of the relationship between
supervisor and employee to the employee ' s economic
detriment , or (3) to a possible closing of the plant.
(c) Coercing employees because of their prounion
activity by altering existing practices in respect to talking
while at work and in respect to being back at work after
break time and after lunch to their disadvantage.
(d) Coercing employees by speaking derogatorily about
unions and , in the course thereof , instilling in them the
fear that they would be worse off if there were a union in
the plant.
(e) Engaging in surveillance of lawful union or
organizational activities.
(1) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining , or coercing employees in the exercise of their
right to self-organization , to form , join, or assist
International Union , United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), or
any other labor organization , to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection as
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, or to refrain from any
and all such activity.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its plant in Marianna , Arkansas , copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix.""" Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 26, shall , after being signed by a representative of
Respondent, be posted by Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof and be maintained for 60 consecutive days
thereafter in conspicuous 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, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(b) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing , within
20 days from the date of the receipt of this Trial
Examiner ' s Decision , what steps Respondent has taken to
comply herewith."
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that those allegations of the
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that.
After a trial at which all sides had the chance to give
evidence, the National Labor Relations Board found that
we, Douglas & Lomason Company, violated the National
Labor Relations Act, and ordered us to post this notice
and to keep our word about what we say in this notice.
The Law gives you the right
To form, join or help unions;
To choose a union to represent you in bargaining with
us;
To act together for your common interest or protection;
and
To refuse to participate in any or all of these things.
The Board has Ordered us to Promise You that:
WE WILL NOT interfere with your rights.
WE WILL NOT question you about your union
membership, activities or desires in a manner which
disregards your rights.
WE WILL NOT threaten you that your union activity
will lead to (1) moredifficult working conditions in the
plant, or (2) a change for the worse in your relationship
with your supervisor to your disadvantage economically
or (3) a possible closing of the plant.
WE WILL NOT seek to impose our will on yours
concerning having a union in the plant by changing
your working conditions in respect to talking while at
work and in respect to being back at work after break
time and after lunch, to your 'isadvantage.
WE WILL NOT seek to impose our will on yours
concerning having a union in the plant, by downgrading
unions and saying things to make you fear that you will
be worse off if a union comes into the plant.
WE WILL NOT engage in spying upon your union
meetings or upon what you do in connection with
organizing a union.
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the
words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In
the further event that the Board ' s Order is enforced by a decree of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order," shall be substituted
for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order."
Dated By
DOUGLAS & LOMASON
COMPANY
(Employer)
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting, and must not be altered,
128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
defaced , or covered by any other material. directly with the Board's Regional Office, 746 Federal
If employees have any question concerning this notice Office Building, 167 North Main Street, Memphis,
or compliance with its provisions they may communicate Tennessee 38103, Telephone 534-3161, Area Code 901.