Farley and Loetscher Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 14, 1966

156 N.L.R.B. 819 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

CLOVERDALE PLYWOOD COMPANY 819
Cloverdale Plywood Company, a Division of Farley and Loetscher
Manufacturing Company and General Truck Drivers, Ware-
housemen & Helpers Union, Local 980 International Brother-
hood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America. Case No. 20-CA-3408. January 14, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 15, 1965, Trial Examiner Louis S. Penfield issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent has engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. The General Counsel
filed cross exceptions and a supporting brief.
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 [Members Fanning, Brown, and Zagoria].
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 and briefs, and the entire record
in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.]
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, with all parties represented, was heard before Trial Examiner
Louis S Penfield in Santa Rosa, California, on June 2 and 3, 1965, upon a complaint
of the General Counsel and answer of Cloverdale Plywood Company, a Division of
Farley and Loetscher Manufacturing Company, herein called Respondent.1 The
issues litigated were whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
National Labor Relations Act,, as amended, herein called the Act.
Following the close of the hearing counsel for the General Counsel and counsel
for Respondent each filed motions to correct the transcript in certain particulars.
Neither motion was opposed in any respect by either party. I have considered the
substance of each of the motions, and I am of the opinion that the corrections urged
I The complaint issued on March 2, 1965, and is based upon a charge and an amended
charge filed with the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, on Decem-
ber 21, 1964 , and February 23, 1965, respectively . Copies of the complaint , the charge,
and the amended charge have been duly served upon Respondent.
156 NLRB No. 87.
217-919-66-vol . 156-53
820 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
are appropriate to correct inaccuracies. Accordingly, each motion is hereby granted
in its entirety. It may also be noted that in addition to the matters covered by the
motions, the transcript contains other inaccuracies. I am satisfied, however, that none
of those remaining is of such nature that it distorts meaning in a manner significant to
a resolution of the issues raised by the pleadings. Accordingly, I deem no further
order correcting the transcript to be necessary.
Upon the entire record, including consideration of briefs filed by the General
Counsel and Respondent, and upon my observation of the witnesses, I hereby make
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is an Iowa corporation with its principal office located in Springfield,
Oregon This proceeding is concerned solely with the incidents occurring at a plant
owned and operated by Respondent at Cloverdale, California, where at all times
prior to April 22, 1965, it was engaged in the manufacture of plywood and plywood
products. During the preceding year, Respondent in the course and conduct of its
Cloverdale operations, had sold and shipped products valued in excess of $50,000
directly to customers located outside the State of California. I find that at all time
material to this proceeding, Respondent was engaged in a business which affects com-
merce within the meaning of the Act, and that assertion of jurisdiction over the busi-
ness of Respondent is appropriate
It was stipulated that on April 22, 1965, Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation,
herein called Fibreboard, purchased all the assets of Respondent at Cloverdale, and
that at all times since that date Fibreboard has owned and operated that Cloverdale
plant. Fibreboard did not purchase the entire business of the Respondent, however,
and Respondent has continued its business at other locations. The significance of
such purchase insofar as it relates to any remedy which may be forthcoming will be
discussed below.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
General Truck Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers Union, Local 980 International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, herein
called Teamsters, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The complaint alleges, in substance, that Respondent engaged in various acts and
conduct alleged to have interfered with the rights guaranteed employees by Section 7
of the Act, and that on or about December 16, 1964, it unlawfully terminated the
employment of two of its employees because of their union or other concerted activi-
ties Respondent denies that it engaged in any unlawful acts of interference with
employee rights either before or after the termination of the two employees, and
asserts that the two employees were terminated for cause at a time when Respondent
was unaware that either one had engaged in any activities protected by the Act.
Respondent's plywood plant was located in Cloverdale, California, a town with
a population of approximately 2,700. At all material times Respondent employed
approximately 175 employees who worked on 3 shifts and who, for the most part,
lived in the town of Cloverdale or its vicinity. James O. Green was the general man-
ager in charge of the entire operation, and Harry R. Unger was the plant superintend-
ent. The parties stipulated that Roy O. Bandeen, John G. Suesens, Floyd A. Gil-
strap, and Roland A. Gustafson were also supervisory employees within the meaning
of the Act. Jerry Schroeder and Peter McReynolds were the two employees who
were terminated by Respondent on December 16, 1964, under circumstances which
the General Counsel alleges to be discriminatory. Schroeder first came to work for
Respondent in July of 1963, was laid off in November of 1963; returned to work in
July of 1964; and worked thereafter until his termination. McReynolds had worked
steadily for Respondent from September of 1960 until the date of his termination.
Both were working on the graveyard shift under the immediate supervision of Foreman
Suesens at the time their employment ended.
A. Events preceding the terminations an December 16, 1964,
Prior to December 1964, employees at Respondent 's Cloverdale plaiit were not
represented by a labor organization.
CLOVERDALE PLYWOOD COMPANY 821
During either the first or second week of December 1964, Jerry Schroeder, on his
own initiative, visited the officers of the Carpenters Union in Santa Rosa, a town some
miles south of Cloverdale, for the purpose of discussing the possibilities of establish-
ing a union at Respondent's plant. Schroeder returned to Cloverdale with a number
of authorization cards and, on the following day, held a meeting at his home which
was attended by approximately 14 of Respondent's employees Prospects of union
organization were discussed, and many of those present signed authorization cards.
Although McReynolds was present at the meeting at Schroeder's house, he was not
convinced by what he heard, and on the following day he went to Santa Rosa himself
and talked with a Carpenters Union representative. Still not satisfied with the advan-
tages which the Carpenters Union purported to offer, McReynolds thereupon under-
took to visit a representative of Teamsters to discuss the possibility of organization
by that union. On or about December 10, McReynolds held a meeting at his own
home in Cloverdale. This was also attended by a number of Respondent's employ-
ees including Schroeder. This meeting was addressed by a representative of Teamsters,
and the employees present concluded representation by Teamsters rather than by
Carpenters Union to be more to their advantage. Accordingly, most of those present
signed authorization cards designating Teamsters as their representative A number
of them, including McReynolds and Schroeder; took authorization cards for further
distribution among the employees. Employees were solicited on company prem-
ises , at their homes, and at various locations throughout the community. There is
nothing to show that this solicitation was carried on in a manner calculated to keep
the undertaking a secret from management or anyone else McReynolds estimated
that he obtained approximately 30 signatures from employees prior to the date of his
termination, and more following that time. Schroeder did not indicate any specific
number of employees that he had induced to sign cards, but he too participated in the
solicitation and distribution.
Considerable testimony was received concerning an incident purporting to show
that some employees including McReynolds and Schroeder, had been involved in a
walkout occurring either just prior to the time that union organization had com-
menced, or a day or so before McReynolds and Schroeder were terminated It was
developed that beginning some time in the fall of 1964 Foreman Suesens had requested
on several occasions that employees working on the spreader machine work for as
much as an hour beyond their usual lunchbreak. Initially these requests were hon-
ored by the employees despite some complaints that the men were hungry 2 The
actual lunchbreak walkoff followed an informal understanding among five of the six
spreader machine employees that on the next request to defer their lunch hour, they
would ignore the request, leave their posts, and go to lunch at the usual time.' While
it is undisputed that the walkoff occurred, and that it occurred prior to the termina-
tions of McReynolds and Schroeder, there is conflicting testimony concerning the
exact date upon which it took place. McReynolds and Schroeder place it in the last
week in November; Foreman Suesens and employee Pat Daley place it on either
December 15 or December 16 The significance of such conflict will he discussed
below. Whatever the date, it is not disputed that the five, on one occasion, without
having previously notified Foreman Suesens of then intention, left their posts at
the regular lunch hour and started to walk to the lunchroom Suesens intercepted
them and told the group that he had expected them to work for an additional hour.
They replied that they were hungry and wanted to eat then, and Suesens said, "Alright,
go ahead " No order to return or further admonition is asserted. No one of the men
purported to act as leader or spokesman for the group. Suesens denies that he had
reported the incident to Superintendent Unger before the teimmation of McReyn-
olds and Schroeder, and Unger corroborates him in such denial.
Prior to December 16, 1964, neither Teamsters nor the Carpenters Union had under-
taken formally to notify Respondent of any organizational efforts either was making
among the employees. At approximately 10 am. on December 16, 1964, some 3
a Foreman Suesens testified that employee Pat Daley had informed him following the
first occasion upon which he had requested work for an extended period beyond the noon
lunch hour that McReynolds had said he had not liked it " Suesens testified that such
report led him to conclude that McReynolds was the instigator of the subsequent walkoff.
"The five employees included Peter McReynolds, Jerry Schroeder, Glen Havnes, Walt
Williams, and Bob Anderson. Pat Daley, the sixth'member of the spreader machine crew
did not participate in the discussions leading to the understanding , nor did he walk off
with the others.
822 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hours following the terminations of Schroeder and McReynolds , Respondent received
a telegram from Teamsters advising it of the organizational efforts which had been
taking place, protesting alleged efforts by Respondent to discriminate and discourage
membership , and advising Respondent that unless the employees who had been dis-
criminated against were immediately reinstated with backpay , Teamsters would
undertake legal or economic action to bring about such an end. Respondent insists
that it was not until receipt of this telegram that it had any knowledge whatsoever
of organizational efforts among its employees , or of the activity on the part of any
particular employee directed toward such end. There is evidence , however, that
points in a contrary direction . Employee Edward Lane testified that a week or more
prior to the termination of McReynolds and Schroeder , Foreman Suesens had asked
him if it were true that he had attended a union meeting . Suesens does not specifi-
cally deny such conversation , nor does he deny having numerous other conversa-
tions with Lane relating to the subject of union organization . He places most of
these, however , as occurring after December 16. Lane impressed me favorably as a
witness. In view of Suesens ' admitted convei sations on union subjects and his lack
of specificity in denying either the time or subject matter, I credit the version which
Lane has related above and find that the conversation took place prior to December 16.
iMurrl Warren , another employee , testified that in a conversation with Foreman Ban-
deen occurring shortly before the terminations of Schroeder and McReynolds, Ban-
deen had asked him if it were true that 75 percent of the swing shift was for a union,
.and upon being told by Warren that he did not know, Bandeen had remarked "Well
if they go union they will make it rough on [Bandeen] and [Bandeen] will have to
anake it rough on us." Bandeen does not specifically deny this conversation, and
admits having numerous discussions with Warren on union subjects . However, he
asserts that "to the best of [his] knowledge " these conversations did not occur until
January. Warren impressed me favorably as a witness and in view of Bandeen's
vagueness as to the timing of these conversations with Warren , I credit the version of
Warren and find that the conversation he relates occurred before the discharges of
McReynolds and Schroeder.
$. The terminations of McReynolds and Schroeder on December 16, 1964
McReynolds and Schroeder worked as usual on the regular graveyard shift com-
mencing at 11 p.m. on December 15 and concluding at 7 a.m . on December 16. It is
not claimed that at any time during the course of the employment of either he had
been an incompetent or unsatisfactory employee or that other than as set forth below
any incident occurred on this shift which reflected on the work performance of either.
Foreman Suesens testified that some time between 6:30 and 6:45 a.m. on Decem-
ber 16, he was approached by employee Pat Daley and told by Daley that "McReyn-
olds and Schroeder were dissatisfied with their jobs." Although Daley expressly
denied knowledge of union organization at that time, he did not undertake to explain
either the basis of his understanding regarding the so-called dissatisfaction, or why
he felt called upon to report of it to Suesens . Suesens makes no claim that he under-
took to question Daley regarding the basis for his report , and Suesens could recall
nothing specific that Daley told him about it other than the bare statement that the
two were dissatisfied . While Suesens states that at the time he himself believed that
he knew why the men were dissatisfied , his explanation is inconclusive . On the one
hand Suesens testified that as far as McReynolds was concerned , he "was always blow-
ing about something " and that he "had been the instigator of the lunch break walkoff."
On the other hand, Suesens states that he did not have the same feeling as to Schroeder.
Thus while his belief that McReynolds was a chronic complainer might explain his
understanding of McReynolds' dissatisfaction , he comes up with no explanation as
to Schroeder 's problem . As we shall see, however , in all subsequent events leading
to their terminations they were treated on a joint and not on an individual basis Sue-
sens' next and immediate step was to relay Daley's report to Superintendent Unger.
Suesens concedes that prior to this time he had never reported any incident of employee
dissatisfaction to Unger. He offers no explanation in this instance why Daley's
information had such impact that it demanded an almost instant report to the
superintendent.
According to Unger, Suesens came to him about 6:45 a in., only 15 minutes before
the end of the graveyard shift, and reported only that "he had two men that wasn't
satisfied with their jobs ." Unger asked how Suesens had learned of this, and Suesens
CLOVERDALE PLYWOOD COMPANY 823
told him that the information had come from Pat Daley. Unger then said "I don't
want any hearsay John. You go find out." At Unger 's direction, Suesens then under-
took to question Schroeder and McReynolds directly?
According to the men , Suesens called them over together as they prepared to punch
out and first said "I understand you men are dissatisfied with working here." Schroeder
replied that he was "not dissasisfied with working [there]" but that he was "dissatisfied
with certain conditions ." Suesens then turned to McReynolds who replied that he
too "was dissatisfied under certain aspects of working there , that [he] wanted to work
there, [he] had no desire to leave." Suesens replied that "Well we don't want any
men here who are dissasisfied ." Suesens' own version of this confrontation differs only
in emphasis . He concedes that he did ask the two men "if they wer dissatisfied with
their jobs ," and he states that both replied in the affirmative . He makes no mention
of their having indicated that they were - only dissatisfied with certain aspects of their
jobs, but states that they had told him that "they didn 't like the way the company
was run, they didn 't like the management." Following this, Suesens asked the men
to punch out and come with him to Unger 's office.
According to the mutually consistent versions of Schroeder and McReynolds, upon
their arrival at Unger's office Unger stated to them that he understood them to be dis-
satisfied , and they replied much in the manner that they had to Suesens , McReynolds
indicating that he wanted to continue working, but that he was somewhat unhappy
about certain of the work conditions , and Schroeder stating much the same thing and
indicating specifically that he was dissatisfied with the absence of a seniority policy
at the plant . At this point they state that Unger presented them with voluntary
termination slips and asked them to sign. Following their refusal , Unger told them
that they were terminated . They jointly asked for a statement of the reasons for the
discharges in writing, but this was refused at the time, and no such statement was
ever given at any later date. The versions of Suesens and Unger as to the confronta-
tion in Unger 's office do not differ substantially . Unger concedes that he asked the
men for the source of their dissatisfaction , and states that they indicated nothing
specifically , but only replied that "they didn't like management , the way the mill was
run." Unger testified that he then said, "Well , under the conditions I don't think I
would work at any mill if I wasn 't satisfied with my job." Unger says he then pre-
sented the employees with voluntary termination slips, and that when they refused to
sign them he told them they were dismissed . He served as shift foreman from 1954
to 1958 and since 1958 he had been plant superintendent Unger acknowledges that
a certain amount of grumbling among the employees as to various aspects of their
working conditions was both normal and frequent and that prior to this occasion he
had never undertaken to discharge an employee for engaging in such conduct. He
states, however, that he felt the dissatisfaction expressed here was different "because
they brought up the management " and he felt that employees that didn't like manage-
ment shouldn 't remain employed. This is the sole reason advanced by Respondent for
the discharges of Schroeder and McReynolds.
Several days later Schroeder and McReynolds , acting at the instigation of Team-
sters, visited Unger at his home to discuss the possibility of getting back their jobs.
Unger asked them if they still felt the same way, and when they responded that they
did, Unger stated that he could not give them back their jobs "because it has all been
turned over to our lawyer."
C. The events occurring after the terminations
On December 16, 1964, Teamsters filed a representation petition with the Board.
Following an election on January 21, 1965, Teamsters was certified as the statutory
representative of Respondent 's employees. During the course of the campaign lead-
4 Minor discrepancies exist in the testimony of the witnesses as to the exact sequence of
events. Suesens testified that he had questioned Schroeder and McReynolds before he
reported to Unger . Unger , however , relates the sequence as set forth above. I believe
it likely that Unger 's recollection in this instance is the more accurate and therefore I
credit his version and find the sequence to be as he relates it . Later, when the employees
were questioned on the floor of the plant before going to Unger's office, Schroeder places
both Unger and Suesens as having been present , and both as having questioned them as
to the sources of their dissatisfaction . Unger states, however , that he did not question
the employees until such time as they had been brought to his office at a later time by
Suesens. Both McReynolds and Suesens testified to the same effect. I am satisfied that
Schroeder is mistaken in his recollection on this point , and that Unger was not present
when Suesens originally questioned Schroeder and McReynolds on the plant floor.
824 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing up to the election a number of conversations concerning union organization took
place between various employees and Respondent's supervisors
As noted above I have credited the testimony of Lane and Warren that Suesens and
Bandeen had each questioned them about union meetings or the extent of union orga-
nization even before the terminations. Bandeen at that time had told Warren that if
a union came in he would have to make it hard on the employees. Lane testified
to a number of later conversations with Suesens including one in which Suesens had
characterized Lane as one of the instigators of union organization and as the successor
in this capacity to Schroeder and McReynolds. Warren testified to several conversa-
tions with Foreman Bandeen occurring on or about the day of the election. In one of
these Bandeen suggested that the men form their own union; in another he queried
Warren as to the way certain Mexican employees of Respondent were going to vote,
and upon being informed that Warren believed they would vote for a union, Bandeen
had remarked "We should send them all back to Mexico." Still later, according to
Warren, Bandeen had told him "That the fellows was making a big mistake, that
[Warren] had a lot of spare time, [he] could go around the mill and tell them to vote
against the Union." Employee Lester Rosenthal testified that Bandeen had told him
on the day of the election that he "was going to need all the no votes he could get" and
that the men should form a union of their own, and that this would be better than
getting outside union help. Edward Lane further testified that shortly before the
election Foreman Seusens had accused him of putting union signs on the bulletin
board. Lane denied that he had done so and Suesens told him that if he caught him
putting up such signs he would be fired.5 Warren testified that on the day of the elec-
tion head shipping clerk Gustafson had questioned him about the probable outcome,
and when Warren had told him that he expected it to be close, Gustafson had
remarked that "these kids are making a big mistake, they don't know what they are
doing" and that "being they put in this new machine and stuff, they can take it out
faster than it took them to put it in and close it down in a minute." Employee Newt
Peeler testified that on election day Bandeen had queried him as to how he would
vote in the election, and had remarked that it would be better if the employees formed
their own union.
Following the election in which, as we have seen, Teamsters received the majority
of the votes, Warren states that Bandeen told him that Respondent was going to make
it rough on him (Bandeen) and that he (Bandeen) was going to have to clamp down
on the men. Employee Henry Rushing testified that following the election Foreman
Gilstrap told the members of the green chain crew that since the mill was now union
they would no longer be permitted to go to the lunchroom when the machines were
shut down for repairs. Prior to this time they had been permitted to go to the lunch
room for a smoke during shutdowns of more than minimal duration. Employee
Peeler corroborates Rushing in this testimony.
Employees who testified as to these conversations impressed me favorably as telling
forthright and consistent stories of the various occurrences related above. Respond-
ent's supervisors admitted engaging in conversations concerning union organization,
and their denials generally lacked specificity and were vague and inconclusive. I
credit the versions of the employees and find that the conversations occurred in sub-
stantially the manner set forth above.
D. Discussions of the issues and conclusions
Although acts of unlawful interference are alleged, their significance as to the
employees generally is diminished by the subsequent certification, and they become
important for their effect, if any, on the central issue of the case the lawful or unlaw-
ful character of Respondent's motivation in terminating the employment of McReyn-
olds and Schroeder
It is of course axiomatic that if the decision to terminate McReynolds and Schroeder
was in whole, or in part, motivated by their participation in union or other protected
concerted activities Respondent has violated the Act. Respondent asserts, however,
that such a conclusion in the instant case cannot be reached because Respondent
lacked knowledge of union activity among its employees at the time the terminations
took place, and thus no basis exists for attributing unlawful motivation to its decision.
However, while it is true that the record lacks direct and positive confirmation of
employer knowledge prior to the terminations, I am convinced that circumstances
exist which make it reasonable to infer that at the time the decision was made Respond-
r, Suesens testified that he raised this issue with Lane because he had been informed by
employee Pat Daley that Lane had been posting union organization notices on the bulletin
board without authorization.
CLOVERDALE PLYWOOD COMPANY 825
ent's supervisors were aware not only of the general organizational efforts, but also
understood that McReynolds and Schroeder were the most active union proponents.
It stands undisputed that McReynolds and Schroeder were the prime instigators who
brought in a union and that they played a leading role in efforts to induce other
employees to sign union authorization cards. It is not shown that McReynolds,
Schroeder or anyone else undertook to carry on this activity behind a cloak of secrecy.
On the contrary, the solicitation of employees was carried on openly both on the plant
premises and within the confines of a relatively small community. While such cir-
cumstances standing alone might suffice only to raise suspicion of company knowl-
edge, here they are coupled with at least two instances of direct questioning of
employees by foremen concerning organizational efforts which occurred prior to the
date of the terminations, and the record further shows matters relating to union orga-
nization to have been the subject of frequent discussions between employees and their
supervisors during the entire course of the organizational drive. While I believe
that such circumstances alone suffice to support an inference of company knowledge,
there is also evidence in the record indicating that Respondent was directly informed
by one of the employees not only of the general organizational efforts but of the
active participation of McReynolds and Schroeder therein. Although Pat Daley, a fel-
low employee of McReynolds and Schroeder on the graveyard shift, testified that he
had no knowledge of union activity prior to the terminations, uncontradicted and
unexplained evidence relating to his conduct toward his fellow employees renders this
denial suspect. According to Foreman Suesens it was Daley who reported to him
that McReynolds was the instigator of the lunchbreak walkout; it was Daley who
reported on the day of the terminations that McReynolds and Schroeder were dis-
satisfied; and it was Daley who told him that Lane had been posting union notices
on the bulletin board. This suggests that Daley followed not only a somewhat per-
sistent pattern of informing on his fellow employees on matters relating to their con-
certed efforts, but also that he was not without knowledge to what was going on at the
plant. His report to Suesens on the so-called dissatisfaction of McReynolds and
Schroeder, the two most active union proponents is especially suspect. The inci-
dent, standing, as it does, without explanation from Daley or anyone else as to its
meaning, or of the need for reporting it at all, suggests that the term dissatisfaction
may have been a mere euphemism, and makes possible a reasonable inference that
the reported dissatisfaction, far from being the vague and abstract matter Respondent
would have us believe, related to the extensive and open activity of these two employees
in furtherance of union organization. Under the circumstances I find it more plau-
sible to believe that what Daley really reported to management at this time was that
union organization was under way and that McReynolds and Schroeder were its two
principal protagonists, and I so find. From the foregoing I am convinced that
Respondent's claim that it lacked knowledge of union activity among its employees
or of the participation of McReynolds and Schroeder therein prior to their termina-
tions cannot be sustained. Accordingly, Respondent's subsequent conduct toward
McReynolds and Schroeder must be evaluated in a context of full company knowl-
edge of the organizational drive and of the role of McReynolds and Schroeder therein.
Possession of such knowledge, however, does not alone suffice to establish that
Respondent used it to rid itself of McReynolds and Schroeder. If a plausible reason
for their terminations at this time can be made out, it may rebut any suspicion of
unlawful motivation that may arise from the fact of knowledge alone. Failure to
advance a plausible reason, however, may point in the opposite direction. While an
employer is not necessarily required to conduct itself in a reasonable or understand-
able manner to avoid the proscriptions of the law, its failure to do so may be fatal to
a defense against a charge of unlawful motivation, for it is not to be presumed that
in managing its business an employer will ordinarily act in a capricious or illogical
manner, and where evidence appears that it has done so, it suggests that the underlying
reasons for its conduct may be found elsewhere. The management position as pre-
sented in the instant case strains credulity to the utmost. We find Foreman Suesens'
hearing for the first time that two satisfactory employees of long standing are in some
vague and unspecified manner dissatisfied with their jobs. Suesens receives this
information from one of their fellow employees without explanation and he under-
takes no inquiries as to the nature or source of the so-called dissatisfaction. Never-
theless, although Suesens does not attempt to explain why, receipt of this sketchy
report triggers an immediate visit to the superintendent. Suesens acknowledges this
to be a course of action which he had never pursued before with any other employee.
Neither Suesens nor Superintendent Unger explains why the impact of such seemingly
innocuous information was so great that it necessitated the immediate summoning and
questioning of McReynolds and Schroeder. Nevertheless, such questioning was
826 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
commenced even before the men had punched out at the completion of their shift.
credit the versions of McReynolds and Schroeder that in response to the queries which
Suesens and Unger made to them jointly they had indicated no more than a general
dissatisfaction with certain aspects of the working conditions and at the same time
had made it clear that their dissatisfaction was not so extensive that they wished to
terminate their employment. The versions advanced by Unger and Suesens do not
differ substantially except that they emphasize that McReynolds and Schroeder told
them that they did not like the way management was running the mill. Even if we
assume their responses to be as Unger and Suesens relate them, I find it an uncon-
vincing explanation for the summary discharges. Unger admits that employee dis-
satisfaction was not a thing unknown to him, but on the contrary states it to have
been frequent occurrence for employees to grumble and gripe about certain aspects
of their jobs. However, he could cite no instance where this had precipitated termi-
nations of employment. Unger claims that in some way the type of dissatisfaction that
McReynolds and Schroeder had expressed at this time was different from the expres-
sions that he had received before. The only difference that he notes, however, is that
this was the first time in which employees had "brought up the management ." Unger
appears to voice the belief that any employee dissatisfaction with management func-
tioning necessitates a termination. Such an explanation is not persuasive. It is not
unreasonable for a management interested in the efficient operation of its plant to be
concerned, about, or even to undertake inquiries into, underlying reasons for employee
dissatisfaction. A normal reaction might encompass acceptance or rejection of sug-
gestions or complaints received or even a suggestion that the employee leave, but to
react by the peremptory discharge of two otherwise satisfactory employees solely
because they view management with something less than complete enthusiasm seems
neither normal nor reasonably to be expected absent some further explanation. On
the contrary, it not only supports, but also almost compels an inference that some-
thing more underlies the action. No other reason for the need to discharge these
employees at this time is advanced or appears in the record. The discharge of union
leaders is an obvious, and often effective, way of killing an organizational drive which
is just getting under way. In the absence of any other credible explanations I find
it to stand out as the most plausible reason which appears in the record for Respond-
ent's action. Under the circumstances I conclude and find it to constitute an under-
lying motivation of Respondent for the decision to terminate McReynolds and
Schroeder on December 16, 1964.
While I am satisfied that the above inference is supportable without more I find it
to be buttressed by Respondent's conduct during the course of the organizational drive
following the terminations. Respondent's expressions of opposition to union organiza-
tion have been set forth above. I have found that Respondent's supervisors queried
employees as to their union affiliation , urged them to campaign for a no vote, threat-
ened discharge for putting up union signs, urged the formation of a company union,
threatened plant closure, and threatened curtailment of formerly exercised privileges.
Such statements go beyond privileged expressions of opinion and are directed at
the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. I find that they constitute interference,
restraint, and coercion in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. The significance
of such conduct as independent violations of the Act which would require remedial
Board action , however, becomes all but nonexistent in view of Teamster's certifica-
tion and the subsequent sale of the plant. The conduct still has relevance, however, on
the issue of Respondent's motivation for the discharges, for it tends to reflect an atti-
tude of unlawful concern with employee organization and opposition to it which lends
support to inferences already drawn regarding the unlawful motivation which I have
found brought about the discharges. Accordingly, I find that Respondent used the
alleged dissatisfaction with management as a pretext, and that the underlying reason
for the discharges of Schroeder and McReynolds was their active participation as
leaders in the organizational efforts among Respondent's employees. By the discharges
Respondent has violated Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, and by such conduct and by the
other acts of interference, restraint, and coercion outlined above Respondent has also
violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
The General Counsel urges that the participation of McReynolds and Schroeder
in the so-called lunchbreak walkoff was a form of protected concerted activity, and
that an inference is warranted that Respondent discharged them for engaging in such
activity as well as for their union activity. I do not agree. Assuming the walkoff
to constitute protected concerted activity, and disregarding the question of whether
it occurred in either late November or a day or two before the terminations, I am
not convinced that on this record a conclusion is justified that the matter was of suffi-
cient concern to Respondent that an inference of retaliatory motivation can be sup-
ported. There is nothing to show that either McReynolds or Schroeder placed him-
CLOVERDALE PLYWOOD COMPANY 827
self in the position of a leader of the walkout, but even more significantly it is not
shown that Foreman Suesens was especially concerned by the action, or that he had
reported it to Superintendent Unger before the discharges took place. Accordingly,
I find, contrary to the claim of the General Counsel, that there is insufficient evidence
to support an allegation that Respondent discharged McReynolds and Schroeder for
their participation in concerted activities in connection with the lunchbreak walkout.
However another facet of the case regarding protected concerted activity has a
different aspect. To present in concert a complaint or grievance to management is
a protected right under Section 7 of the Act. It is well established that the discharge
of one or more of such grievants because of concerted efforts of this nature constitutes
a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.6 It is true that McReynolds and Schroeder
did not undertake to present grievances of their own volition. However, they were
summoned jointly by management, and queried jointly as to the sources of their
so-called dissatisfactions, and when they jointly responded by telling management
representatives their views as to the manner in which the plant was run it resulted
in their summary discharges. Thus, we find two employees placed in a position
where their grievances or complaints about management were solicited and we find
management forthwith retaliating against them because it does not like their response.
Surely, if the voluntary lodging of a concerted protest is protected against retaliation,
and even stronger case can be made to establish a similar protection where the con-
certed voicing came about following management solicitation. Accordingly, I find
that even if it be assumed that Respondent was not aware of the union activities of
McReynolds and Schroeder at the time of their terminations, its conduct in soliciting
the causes of their alleged dissatisfactions and thereupon discharging them when they
joined in criticizing management constitutes a violation of the basic rights of these
employees to engage in concerted activities for their mutual aid or protection, and
therefore their summary discharges for having engaged in such protected concerted,
activity were a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent as set forth in section III, above, occurring in connec-
tion with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices violative of
Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
I have found that Respondent discriminatorily discharged Jerry Schroeder and
Peter McReynolds on December 16, 1964. As noted above, however, in April 1965
Respondent sold its Cloverdale plant to Fibreboard, and all times since Fibreboard
has carried on the operation. Fibreboard neither assumed liability for unfair labor
practices, nor is it joined as a party to this proceeding. The record does show, how-
ever, that while Respondent sold the Cloverdale plant to Fibreboard it did not go
out of business altogether. However, this record does not further show whether
Respondent is now engaged in similar operations elsewhere or, if so, whether such
operations are being conducted in reasonable proximity to Cloverdale. Since rein-
statement cannot be directed at the Cloverdale plant, the discriminatees should be
given the opportunity to work at substantially equivalent positions at other plants
of Respondent if they so desire, and if such positions are available. Accordingly,
I shall order Respondent to offer McReynolds and Schroeder immediate and full
reinstatement to any substantially equivalent position which may be available at any
of its other plants, making them whole for any losses each may have incurred from
the date of his discharge to the date of the offer, with an allowance for reasonable
transportation and moving expenses if the offer be accepted. I shall not, however,
require that employees occupying positions at Respondent's other plants be displaced
if such be necessary for the offers to be made, or that Schroeder and McReynolds
be placed on a preferential list at any of Respondent's other plants. If the offers can-
not be made because no substantially equivalent positions are available at other plants,
or if the offers be made and are rejected each discriminatee so affected shall be made
whole for any losses he has incurred from the date of his discharge to the date that
Respondent ceased operating the Cloverdale plant and thereafter provided he has
6 Bonded Armored Carrier, Inc., 147 NLRB 100; Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc., et ad.,
149 NLRB 1577.
S28 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not already obtained substantially equivalent employment until such date as he
obtains such employment. Backpay together with interest thereon at the rate of
6 percent per annum, shall be computed in accordance with the formula and method
prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 and Isis Plumb-
ing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 to which the parties hereto are expressly referred.
• Since Respondent is no longer operating the Cloverdale plant, and Fibreboard is
not a party to the preceding, posting of a notice at such plant would neither be appro-
priate, nor is it urged by the General Counsel. General Counsel suggests that since
Respondent is still in business elsewhere it be required to mail notices in lieu of post-
ing to those persons who were employed at the Cloverdale plant prior to its sale to
Fibreboard. The principal, if not the only, reason for the notice remedy is to notify
employees still working in a plant at which their employer has committed unfair labor
practices that such employer will no longer engage in unlawful conduct, and that they
are free to exercise the rights guaranateed them by the Act. The employees who
formerly worked for Respondent at the Cloverdale plant are now either still working
there for another employer who has not been found to have engaged in unfair labor
practices, or have terminated their employment and are working elsewhere. There
is no showing that Respondent itself is operating a plant in the area or that it intends
to return. I am of the opinion that the sale of the plant to Fibreboard with the con-
sequent withdrawal of Respondent from the area is sufficient in itself to eliminate
from the minds of former employees any apprehension that they may still be sub-
jected to conduct by Respondent which might affect their rights under the Act. Under
the circumstances I not only see little purpose to be served by mailing notices to such
former employees, but I am also of the opinion that the mailing of such notices at this
late date would be more likely to confuse than to enlighten them. Posting of notices
at other plants of Respondent would normally not be ordered unless it appeared that
the unfair labor practices at the plant in question might in some way affect employees
at other plants. There is no evidence of this nature here, and accordingly I would not
deem it appropriate to post notices at any other location where Respondent operates.
Therefore, I shall not order that Respondent either post notices to its employees or
that it mail notices to former employees in lieu thereof.
The unfair labor practices committed by Respondent strike at the heart of the
rights guaranteed employees by Section 7 of the Act.7 The inference is warranted
that Respondent maintains an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act with
respect to the protection of employees in general. It will, accordingly, be recom-
mended that Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Acts
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this
proceeding, I make the following conclusions of law:
1. Cloverdale Plywood Company, a Division of Farley and Loetscher Manufactur-
ing Company is, and has been at all times material, an employer within the meaning
of Section 2(2) of the Act.
2. General Truckdrivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Union, Local 980, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America is, and has been at all material times, a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act
3. By discharging Jerry Schroeder and Peter McReynolds as found above, Respond-
ent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and
8(a)(3) of the Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, as found above, Respondent has
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices ate unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and 2(7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in this proceeding, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, I recommend that Respondent Cloverdale Plywood
Company, a Division of Farley and Loetscher Manufacturing Company, its agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
7 N.L R.B. V. Entwistle Mfg. Co, 120 F. 2d 532 (C.A. 4).
°May Department Stores, d/b/a Famous-Barr Company v. N.L.R.B., 326 U.S. 376;
Bethlehem Steel Company v. N.L.R.B., 120 F. 2d 641 (C.A.D.C.).
NELSON CHEVROLET COMPANY 829
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership of any of its employees in General Truck
Drivers,
Warehousemen & Helpers Union , Local 980, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, or any other labor orga-
nization of its employees by discharging employees for engaging in union or other
protected concerted activities or in any other manner discriminating against any
individual in regard to his hire or tenure of employment or terms or conditions of
employment except as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
(b) In any other manner interfering with , restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of their rights to self-organization , to form labor organizations , to join
or assist the above -named or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing , or to engage in concerted activities
for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such rights are to be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condi-
tion of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Jerry Schroeder and Peter McReynolds immediate and full reinstatement
to substantially equivalent positions which may be available at other plants owned or
operated by Respondent and make them whole for any loss of pay each may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against him in the manner provided above
in the section entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the Armed Forces of
the United States of their right to reinstatement upon application in accordance with
the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as
amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
(c) Preserve and upon request make available to the Board or its agents for
examination and copying all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports , and all other records necessary to an analysis of
the backpay due.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, within 20 days from
the receipt by Respondent of a copy of this Decision, what steps Respondent has
taken to comply therewith.°
It is further recommended that unless on or before 20 days from the date of its
receipt of this Trial Examiner's Decision Respondent notifies the Regional Director
that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board issue an order requiring Respondent to take the action aforesaid.
0 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, paragraph 2(d)
thereof 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 therewith."
Nelson Chevrolet Company and Automobile Salesmen & Misc.
Workers Union Local No. 192.i Case No. 13-CA-6643. Janu-
ary 17, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 11, 1965, Trial Examiner Samuel M. Singer issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Exam-
' The name of the Charging Party, as designated in the charge and thereafter in the
formal papers filed in this case, included "AFL-CIO." The circumstances which make
the AFL-CIO affiliation no longer an appropriate part of the Union's title are set out
hereinafter . Accordingly , the caption is amended to delete any indication of affiliation,
and references to the Union hereafter will exclude the AFL-CIO designation.
156 NLRB No. 88.