General Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 9, 1981

253 N.L.R.B. 1189 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

GENERAI. ELECrRIC COMPANY
General Electric Company and George Beebe. Case
29-CA-7146-2
January 9, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND PENELLO
On July 18, 1980, Administrative Law Judge
Arthur A. Herman issued e attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereaf , the Charging Party
filed exceptions and Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,'
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt his recommended Order.
In this proceeding, the Administrative Law
Judge dismissed the complaint allegation that Re-
spondent had violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by
discharging employee George Beebe. He did find,
however, that Respondent had engaged in illegal
interrogation of certain of its employees in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. We agree with
both these findings, contrary to our dissenting col-
league, who would dismiss not only the 8(a)(3) al-
legation but the 8(a)(1) interrogation finding as
well.
The facts relevant to the 8(a)(l) finding indicate
that, for approximately a year prior to April 1979,
Respondent had been investigating alleged employ-
ee thefts at its Long Island City, New York, facili-
ty. The investigation culminated in the discharge of
a number of its employees at Long Island City.
These discharges were spaced over a period from
April 10 to May 9, 1979. On April 18, 1979 (the
i The Charging Party has excepted to certain credibility findings made
by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not
to overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Prod-
ucts, Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951) We
have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his
findings.
The Charging Party also contends that the Administrative Law Judge's
credibility resolutions, findings of fact, and conclusions of law stem from
bias or hostility. We find no merit in this contention. There is no basis for
finding that bias or partiality existed merely because the Administrative
Law Judge resolved important factual conflicts in favor of Respondent's
witnesses. As the Supreme Court stated in NL.R.B. v Pittsburgh Steam-
ship Company, 337 U.S. 656, 659 (1949), "T]otal rejection of an opposed
view cannot of itself impugn the integrity or competence of a trier of
fact."
day before Beebe was discharged), 2 employee
Eoanidis was discharged as a result of the investi-
gation. On that same date, Eoanidis was discussing
his discharge with Union Shop Committeeman I)i-
Benedittis in the dispatch room when Beebe n-
tered. Present also in the room were dispatchct
Loachino and Sheridan. DiBenedittis asked Beebe
to help him word a grievance on Eoanidis' dis-
charge, and Beebe indicated that he did not think
there was any merit to the grievance. He also sug-
gested that DiBenedittis go to the union leadership
with the problem, but DiBenedittis said that the
leadership was not doing anything and that the em-
ployees were being harassed and accused of thefts.
Beebe then said that "if you had good union lead-
ership, like old John L., the men would probably
hit the bricks until things got straightened out." Su-
pervisor Ron Webster was standing in the doorway
when Beebe made his remarks. Immediately. Web-
ster called Loachino into his office, questioned him
about what Beebe had said, and asked him to sign a
statement as to what he had heard Beebe say. Loa-
chino refused. Shortly thereafter, Loachino, Sheri-
dan, and a third individual were called into Web-
ster's office and were asked to sign statements con-
cerning what they had heard Beebe say. When
they refused, they were brought to another super-
visor's office and again asked to sign statements.
They continued to refuse until Respondent's man-
ager of employee relations entered and said such
statements were unnecessary.
Respondent defended its actions in its interroga-
tion of employees Loachino and Sheridan by con-
tending that Beebe's comments were an incitement
of unit employees to strike in violation of a valid
no-strike clause. Respondent contends that, as
Beebe's comments were illegal, its interrogation of
employees concerning them was in turn not illegal.
Apparently, our dissenting colleague agrees with
Respondent's construction of Beebe's remarks. We
do not. The Administrative Law Judge aptly sum-
marized the situation as follows:
I do not regard Beebe's utterance as an
exhortation to strike. To place the remark in
its proper perspective, one must view it from
the setting in which it occurred. In the pres-
ence of just four employees, Beebe is asked to
help word a grievance on a discharge. His ini-
tial response reflects a doubt as to the feasibil-
ity of a grievance; secondly, he suggests that
the participants consult the union leadership;
and thirdly, he reminisces that in the old days
'Charging Party Beebe was discharged on April 19. 1979. and the Ad-
ministralise l.aw Judge dismissed the 8(a)(3) allegation related to that
discharge We agree with that dismissal
253 NLRB No. 155
I 1 I9
I)DECISIONS OF NATIONAL IAOR()K RELATIONS BO()ARI)
a strike would straighten matters out. By
Beebe's own admission, the entire conversation
took three minutes. To me, Beebe's remark
was an offhanded expression of opinion as to
the ineptness of present union leadership. It
was not an incitement to strike. The fact that
management chose to consider it as such by its
subsequent interrogation of employees does
not make it so.
We agree that the statement was not "an incite-
ment to engage in a wildcat strike," as claimed by
our dissenting colleague.3 As Beebe's statement
was not unprotected and as it arose in an otherwise
protected discussion, Respondent was not privi-
leged to interrogate its employees about the state-
ment. Having done so, it thereby violated Section
8(a)(l) of the Act. Again, as the Administrative
Law Judge concluded:
The very fact that the Respondent chose to in-
terrogate Loachino and request that he sign a
statement as to Beebe's remark, and upon his
refusal, to follow it up with not one, but two
sessions within the confines of management's
offices, in which both employees were urged
to sign statements to the same effect is intimi-
dating and has a coercive effect upon employ-
ees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights,
thereby violating Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
We agree, and therefore affirm the Administrative
Law Judge's finding of 8(a)(1) interrogation in this
proceeding. 4
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, General Elec-
tric Company, Long Island City, New York, its of-
ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order.
:' Ihat Warner. one of the persons present. responded to Beebe's state-
ment by saying. "lDle quiet, don't say things like that around here" does
not indlcate that Warner thought Beebe was advocating a strike Con-
trary to our colleague's conclusion to that effect. Warner's statement is
too ambiguous to support such a conclusion
' We are in agreement with the case precedent our dissenting col-
league cites in his dissent, but we find the reasoning of those cases inap-
plicable here where the statement at issue was not unprotected and an
investigation concerning it thus was not permissible. Contrary to our col-
league. we do not read the Administrative Law Judge's statement that
the interrogation "was an attempt to coerce employees to give evidence
against a fellow employee, and this is impermissible under the Act" as
indicating a blanket prohibition oin the investigation of emplovee miscon-
duct by employers, which investigation might include employee inter-
views. As the precedent cited by our dissenting colleague indicates. em-
ployee interviews may be permissible in certain situations Rather, we
conclude that this case is not of those situations
MEMBER PENELLO, dissenting in part:
I agree with my colleagues that Respondent did
not violate Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by
discharging employee George Beebe. I disagree,
however, with their adoption of the Administrative
Law Judge's finding that Respondent's interroga-
tion of two employees violated Section 8(a)(l) of
the Act. The Administrative Law Judge concluded
that the interrogation "was an attempt to coerce
employees to give evidence against a fellow em-
ployee, and this is imr nissible under the Act."
This is an incorrect sti ment of the law. Under
well-established Board precedent, Respondent's
questioning was entirely proper.
For almost a year, Respondent investigated alle-
gations that service employees at one of its facili-
ties were stealing parts and appliances and were en-
gaged in other wrongdoing. The investigation re-
vealed that several employees had participated in a
variety of dishonest activities, and that Beebe
either knew or should have known of this miscon-
duct. At the beginning of April 1979, 5 Respondent
decided that these employees should be discharged.
The discharges were to be spread throughout the
following several weeks so that the operation of
the facility would not be disrupted.
Two employees were discharged on April 18.
Beebe entered the dispatch room as a union com-
mitteeman, Sal DiBenedittis, was talking with one
of these employees. The employee had apparently
resigned, but Respondent discharged him before
the resignation became effective. DiBenedittis and
the employee were discussing whether the Union
should file a grievance concerning the discharge.
DiBenedittis asked Beebe to help him draft the
grievance. Beebe replied that he did not think that
there was any merit to the grievance, and that he
believed that an employee could be discharged
even if he had resigned. Beebe then suggested that
DiBenedittis take the matter to the union leader-
ship. DiBenedittis said that the union leadership
was not doing anything, and that the employees
were being harassed and accused of thievery.
Beebe responded that "if you had good union lead-
ership, like old John L., the men would probably
hit the bricks until things got straightened out."
Two dispatchers, Paul Loachino and John Sheri-
dan, and another person, Max Warner, 6 were pres-
ent in the dispatch room during the conversation.
Ron Webster, a field service supervisor, was stand-
ing in the doorway. Upon hearing Beebe's last
remark, Warner became upset and said to
Beebe,"[B]e quiet, don't say things like that around
5 All dates herein are in 1979.
6 The record is unclear regarding whether Warner is an employee or
an independenlt contractor
I1 I)
GENERAL EI.EICTRIC COMPANY
here." Beebe denied that he had said anything im-
proper. The entire conversation lasted approxi-
mately 3 minutes.
Webster immediately called Loachino to his
office, questioned him about what Beebe had said,
and asked him to sign a statement regarding
Beebe's remark. Loachino refused to sign such a
statement. Webster then asked him if he would do
so if Webster prsuaded Warner and Sheridan to
sign statements. Loachino said that he did not want
to get involved, and left the office. Shortly after-
wards, Loachino, Warner, and Sheridan were
called into Webster's office and asked to sign state-
ments. They each refused. They were next taken to
the office of Product Service Manager Charles Mc-
Carthy. He asked them to sign statements about the
incident, but they again declined to do so. When
they were in McCarthy's office, the manager of
employee relations, William Fishback, entered and
was apprised of the situation. He responded that it
was not necessary to have signed statements, and
the meeting ended.
Beebe was discharged on the following day be-
cause of the wrongdoing uncovered in Respond-
ent's investigation. His exit interview took place in
McCarthy's office with McCarthy and Fishback
present. Near the end of the interview, Beebe was
reminded of his April 18 remark and accused of
agitating for a strike. 7
Contrary to the Administrative Law Judge's
conclusion, the Board has upheld an employer's
right to investigate violations of work rules and
other improper activities. An employer may also
question its employees during such an investigation,
and insist that they cooperate. In Cook Paint and
Varnish Company, 246 NLRB 646 (1979), the Board
explained that:
. . an employer can, without violating Sec-
tion 8(a)(1), seek to compel its employees to
submit to questioning concerning employee
misconduct when the employer's inquiry is still
in the investigatory stage and no final disci-
plinary action has been taken. Service Technol-
ogy Corporation, a Subsidiary of L TV Aerospace
Corporation, 196 NLRB 845 (1972); Prima-
donna Hotel, Inc., d/b/a Primadonna Club, 165
NLRB 111 (1967). In those types of cases, we
have been required to balance the right of em-
ployees to make common cause with their
fellow employees against the need for an em-
ployer to maintain the orderly conduct of its
7 The collectise-bargaining agreement in effect between Respondent
and Local 3, IBEW, covering a unit of service technicians, stlates that
"[t]he Union agrees that there shall he no stoppage of 'sork, strike, sit-
down, slowdown, picketing or any other suspension or cessation (lf vsork
during the term of this Agreement for an) reason"
business. Where the employer's questioning
takes place in an investigatory context prior to
disciplinary action, we have struck the balance
in favor of the interests of the employer.
In Service Technology, two employees allegedly
threatened to beat up two other employees and the
employer sought to investigate the incident. How-
ever, the two employees who purportedly made
the threat and another employee who witnessed
the incident refused to cooperate, even when the
employer threatened them with discharge. The
Board upheld the employer's right to investigate,
even to the extent of threatening the employees,
stating that:
a proper balance must be struck between
the Company's right to uncover improper con-
duct on the part of certain employees in its en-
deavors to maintain order in its business and
the rights of those employees .... [N]o right
accrued to the employees under the Act.
which protected their refusal to talk or to
remain uncooperative, and . . . therefore,
these threats were not violative of the Act.
[Id. at 847.]
Since an employer can compel employees to come
forward with information during an investigation
of misconduct, it follows, and the Board has decid-
ed, that simple, noncoercive questioning of employ-
ees, like that conducted by Respondent, is not a
violation of the Act. See, e.g., St. Louis Comprehen-
sive Neighborhood Health Center, Inc., 248 NLRB
1078 (1980) (questioning of employees who alleged-
ly participated in picket line misconduct); Bath
Electrical Systems. Inc., 233 NLRB 762 (1977)
(questioning of several payroll clerks concerning
the disclosure of confidential information).
Beebe's statement in the presence of employees
that, "if you had good union leadership, like old
John L., the men would probably hit the bricks
until things got straightened out" is on its face an
incitement to engage in a wildcat strike. Indeed,
besides Supervisor Webster, at least one person
who was present, Max Warner, seems to have
thought that Beebe was advocating a strike, be-
cause when he heard the comment he said, [B]e
quiet, don't say things like that around here." At
the very least, Respondent was entitled to take
Beebe's remark seriously to the extent of investigat-
ing the matter. The fact that Beebe was reminded
of this remark and accused of inciting a strike
when he was discharged the next day indicates that
Respondent's investigation focused upon Beebe's
11')1
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
remark rather than the grievance discussion. 8 Fi-
nally, Respondent's investigation was entirely non-
coercive. Respondent did not threaten the employ-
ees when they refused to cooperate, even though
this would have been permissible under Board law,
as previously outlined. Respondent ceased to
pursue the matter when it became clear that the
employees were not going to sign statements.
Therefore, I would find that Beebe's remark on
April 18 can reasonably be interpreted as an incite-
ment to employees to engage in an unprotected
strike, and that Respondent was entitled to investi-
gate the incident. Board law clearly holds that an
employer may question employees pursuant to a
bona fide investigation, and I would therefore find
that Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(l) of
the Act by interrogating Loachino and Sheridan.
k M5lcl behc;silte the remark as uttered during a discussion of a
"11x. ll. (jic e d l nl tranllorlri Ii ilt protected activity
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ARTIHUR A. HEIRMAN, Administrative Law Judge:
This case was heard at Brooklyn, New York, on Novem-
ber 8 9, 1979. The charge was filed by George Beebe on
April 20, 1979; the complaint issued on June 7, 1979, and
was subsequently amended on October 18, 1979. In issue
are the questions whether Respondent (1) unlawfully in-
terrogated its employees on April 18, 1979, concerning
their protected concerted activities, and (2) discrimina-
toril) discharged George Beebe on April 19, 1979, be-
cause Beebe spoke in behalf of unions, in violation of
Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the National Labor Relations
Act.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of
the demeanor of the witnesses, and after due considera-
tion of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and Re-
spondent, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent, a New York corporation, maintains a
place of business at Long Island City, New York, where
it is engaged in the sale and distribution of appliances
and appliance parts, and service to appliance users.
During the past year, Respondent's purchases of goods
and materials directly from sources outside the State of
New York exceeded $50,000. The Respondent admits,
and I find, that it is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
II. THr Al.l.EGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
George Beebe was hired by the Company as a service
technician in 1965, was promoted to the position of field
service supervisor in February 1968, was demoted to the
position of customer relations specialist in September
1977, and was discharged by the Company on April 19,
1979. His entire period of employment was served at the
Company's major appliance product -service facility lo-
cated in Long Island City, New York. During Beebe's
first year of employment, he was elected shop steward
over the unit of service technicians represented by Local
No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO; he held that position until he became a super-
visor in 1968. As a service technician, Beebe repaired all
of the Company's major appliances in the home. In Feb-
ruary 1968, Beebe spearheaded a drive to organize the
Company's office clerical employees; he obtained em-
ployee signatures on authorization cards, filed a petition
for election with the Board, and acted as observer for
the union at the election.' During the course of the
union campaign, Beebe accepted the Company's offer to
become a supervisor, a position he held for 9 years, until
1977. In 1975, Beebe suffered a heart attack, and in
August 1977, he had a recurrence. One month later,
Beebe was demoted to the position of customer relations
specialist?. He contends that this demotion was because
of the heart attack, but the Company cites his low per-
formance appraisal, and by Beebe's own admission, he
was told to take the lower position or he would be fired.
As a customer relations specialist, it was Beebe's duty to
handle customer complaints and to try to satisfy the cus-
tomer. Of necessity, the job of the customer relations
specialists was closely related to the duties of the service
technicians.
There are basically three types of work that a service
technician does: (I) In-warranty-calls-These are serv-
iced with no charge to the customer for either parts or
labor, and any parts used or labor performed is billed
back to the product component; (2) service contract
calls-This, in effect, is when the customer purchases an
extension of the warranty for a specific period of time
and provides the same coverage as an in-warranty guar-
antee; (3) out-of-warranty calls-In this situation, the
customer pays for both parts and labor.
For approximately a year prior to the discharge of
Beebe, beginning in or about March 1978, the Company
had been investigating alleged thefts of appliances and
parts that were occurring at the Company's premises in
Long Island City. The investigation was conducted by
Investigations, Inc., Division of Norman Jaspan Asso-
ciates, Inc. Initially, an undercover agent was placed in
the Long Island City facility during the summer of 1978.
His investigation revealed, in general terms, falsification
of invoices, illegitimate removal of appliances from the
warehouse, withdrawal of money by employees from
cash registers, and failure to charge customers for re-
pairs. The Company decided, therefore, to have Investi-
gations, Inc., conduct interviews of its employees to
verify the information of the undercover agent and to
pinpoint the suspected dishonest practices. Between De-
cember 1978 and April 1979 about 20 to 30 product
I The Union lost the election and there has not been another election
since then.
2 his is a ionunit position and is itot represented b any labor organi-
zation
I 1"
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
service personnel were interviewed and affidavits taken.3
Several employees admitted their wrongdoing and some
implicated Beebe and other employees in the process.
C. R. Greer II, the manager of employee relations for
the Company's entire product service operation, testified
that evidence of wrongdoing was unearthed in all three
areas of activity performed by service technicians as de-
scribed above. Technicians were writing up in-warranty
calls which were never called in, thereby allowing tech-
nicians to devote their time to personal endeavors. On
many occasions, this was done in collusion with a friend-
ly General Electric dealer by writing up warranty calls
on a product sitting on the dealer's floor. In the service
contract area, friends of technicians would get out-of-
warranty products repaired and the repair would be
charged to an existing service contract. In addition, there
were instances where, due to collusion between office
personnel and the service technicians, certain expensive
out-of-warranty calls were repaired and paid for by the
customer, but no invoice was left with the customer nor
any record kept in the office, and the money would be
pocketed by the employees.
On April 4, 1979, the Company held a meeting at its
headquarters in Louisville, Kentucky, for the purpose of
reviewing the evidence obtained in the interviews and to
discuss recommendations regarding employees involved
therein. Present at the meeting besides Greer, were R.
Kalember, general manager of the product service de-
partment; R. B. Lewis, general manager of distribution,
finance, and service operation; Wray Hiser, counsel for
the product service department in Louisville; Ken
Farmer, manager of finance; Tom Maslyk, manager of
auditing for the sales and distribution operation for major
appliances in Louisville; O. Vickre, manager of the
Northeast product service department; and William Fish-
back, manager of employee relations for product services
in the Northeast region. At the meeting, Maslyk and
Fishback presented a summary of the disclosures and
Greer made recommendations as to what personnel
action should be taken. Specifically, that Bruno Perri,
the field service supervisor, be discharged because he
either knew or should have known about thievery that
was taking place; that three parts department employees,
Allman, Lehman, and Simon,4 and service technicians
Tighe and Eoanidis be discharged because they con-
fessed to certain disreputable activities they engaged in;
that since the technicians could not have conducted such
activities without the knowledge of the dispatchers,
Greer recommended discharge of backup dispatcher
Loachino and dispatchers Salvio and Marino. Greer
stated that even though Salvio did not confess to any
wrongdoing, it was concluded that because of the nature
of his job, he had to know what was going on and
should have brought it to the attention of management.
Greer further recommended that both customer relations
specialists, Dennis Finley 5 and George Beebe, be dis-
charged. It was Greer's view that not only did the cus-
3 Beebe was not interviewed
'Fishback testified as to these three employees He stated that Lehman
resigned on April 20, Allman was discharged on May 9, and Simon's
status was in doubt because he was seriously ill
Finley admitted to conduct detrimental to Respondent
tomer relations specialists have to know what the techni-
cians were doing, but in addition, several of the technli-
cians implicated Beebe. 6 At the conclusion of the April 4
meeting it was agreed that the recommendations he re-
viewed by company counsel before implementation. And
so, on April 6 a meeting was held in Greer's office at
which Hiser, Maslyk, and Arthur E. Joyce, Respondent's
labor relations counsel, were present. Each of the recom-
mendations were reviewed and the meeting ended with
counsel's concurrence that the Company proceed with
the agreed-upon determinations. Greer was to develop
individualized scripts which were to be read to each dis-
chargee when effecting the termination. Fishback testi-
fied that he was advised by Greer to proceed at once to
effectuate the discharges, but at the same time, he as
instructed to work with Charles McCarthy, the one
manager in charge of the Long Island facility, to insure
that the operation does not get disrupted while accom-
plishing the discharges. Under the circumstances. a
schedule was worked out whereby the discharges took
place over a period of about a month. Both Perri and
Salvio had been suspended on March 22, and were subt-
sequently discharged on April 10; Tighe and Eo:mnidis
were discharged on April 18, and Beebe was discharged
on April 19. Lehman was permitted to resign on April
30, and Finley did likewise on May . Loachino retired
in lieu of discharge on May I and Allman was dis-
charged on May 9.7
The complaint alleges, and the General Counsel con-
tends, that Beebe's discharge was the result of certain
events that occurred on April 18 and 19. Beebe testified
that about 3 p.m., on April 18, he walked into the dis-
patch room to find Sal Di Benedittis, the Local 3 shop
committeeman, having a conversation with Charles
Eoanidis concerning Eoanidis' discharge. It seems that
Eoanidis had resigned but before the due date of his res-
ignation, Respondent discharged him on April 18. Di
Benedittis asked Beebe to help him word a grievance on
the discharge and Beebe responded that: (1) he did not
think the grievance would stand up; (2) check it out with
the union leadership; and (3) "If you had good union
leadership, like old John L., the men would probably hit
the bricks until things got straightened out. Present in
the dispatch room during this conversation were Max
Warner, a General Electric vendor, and two dispatchers,
Paul Loachino and John Sheridan. Loachino confirms
Beebe's response, and adds the fact that Ron Webster, a
field service supervisor, was standing in the doorway
when Beebe made his remarks. According to Beebe, the
entire conversation took about 3 minutes. Shortly there-
after, according to Loachino, Webster called Loachino
6 The unrefuted affidavits of Finley. Tighe. Allman. Perri. and
Strothers contain references to Beebe's involvement And. alihoulgh
Allman was called to testify by the General Counsel, no attempt %ka
made by counsel to have the witness explain away, if plssible, his iI-
criminating remarks regarding Beebe's activities at General Electric .
therefore. credit the evidence contained in the affidavits received in csi-
dence, and I credit Greer's testimony as to Respondent's reason for dis-
charging Beebe. See, further, Emp Exh 14. prepared by Greetr in April
6, in which he gives reasons for Beebe's termination to Kalember and
Lewis, his superiors.
' While the evidence revealed that Marino was ll. his final dlposition
is not clarified in the record.
13
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to his office, questioned him about Beebe's remarks, and
asked him to sign a statement as to what he heard Beebe
say. When Loachino refused to do so, Webster asked
him if he would sign it if Webster got Warner and Sheri-
dan to sign such a statement. Loachino's response was
noncommittal and he left Webster's office. A little later,
Loachino, Warner, and Sheridan, were called into Web-
ster's office and asked to sign such a statement and all
three refused. Whereupon, they were ushered into
McCarthy's office where McCarthy attempted to per-
suade them to sign. As they continued to refuse, Fish-
hack entered, and when he was apprised of what was
going on, he responded "I see no need to have the state-
ment signed." Loachino confirms Fishback's response s
and states that that concluded the meeting.
On April 19, Beebe was discharged. His exit interview
took place in McCarthy's office with McCarthy and
Fishback present for Respondent. According to Beebe,
Fishback opened the conversation by stating that the
Company was having a lot of trouble with him and that
he was too friendly with the other employees; then Fish-
back brought up an incident involving the kiting of a
drug prescription which occurred in December 1977,
and another incident which occurred in early 1977, in
which he accused Beebe of counseling an employee, Fer-
rara,' who was slated for discharge. And finally, Fish-
back mentioned the April 18 incident and accused Beebe
of agitating the men to strike. Beebe further states that
when he disputed Fishback's accusations, Fishback
dropped the conversation and asked Beebe to resign or
be discharged. When Beebe refused to resign, he was dis-
charged To this Beebe responded, "Well, you made
good your threat that you made in the bar that night,
that you were going to get my ass fired," ° and "Gee,
that',, nice. Just like that. You pull the plug on fourteen
years of service. I walked out."
According to ishback, he opened the conversation by
stating, "George, I'm here because there is a problem
vith the continuation of your employment," At that
point, McCarthy read the script that had been prepared
by (reer., and when he concluded, Fishback offered
Beebe the opportunity to resign or be discharged. Fish-
I ail,.-hil qIuoes ishhack a havi g said, "We dlon't need no state-
Inn tfrl thcrn Sorry. we don't reed them, we have enough
Se t I 12, rea.
" Ir icildent referred to occurred when Beebe was a supersisor.
Hlhi teehe andi ti,l hback appear to agree on the facts Fishback was tell-
ing I ehe thil h wa t friendly with the men and that was nrot the
ia. 1Io ger mirer proiductiviy friom them; that if Beebe persisted in this
altlut le he ult l se Ii s job
I ulc rlip appears ll il Emp Exh. 13, dated April 6. 1979, and reads
a, loI s i petrtinent part
i"( i rgc. ou are ilu Iiibtlhcdl aware of the in vestigation which has
hben condut ed here in lrng Island City over the past few months,
;rl iar probably qualls aware of the range of activitivities we have
unico re l these icr llltles have gone on fr a period of years and
both ill you frmer psitionl as supervisor and your current position
a1 C(ustomer Relatriins Clerk you had to have known. or should have
known, rif these activities if you had been properly performing yrour
ih Yr lou were removedrl friom your position as supervisor fr poor
perlorianrice anlid your ironlfeasance in not bringing the situation to
rn;llilngerrlent' ;atllelirn at a high enough level to assure corrective
acr1l(l represeitS a griss failure of your responsibility to the Conlpa-
ny herefire, we are terrinating you effective------date fu r unsa-
tlsfactory perfl;rmance of your job responsibilities
back states that Beebe disputed the entire subject matter
of the script, denying that there had ever been either a
performance problem or conduct problem. Fishback then
reminded him of the Figueroa incident, 1 2 which oc-
curred when Beebe was a supervisor, and the Company
disapproved of his counseling an employee, since it
would tend to undermine the actions of the Company to
bring up productivity. Also, Fishback was critical of
Beebe's habit of constantly being away from his desk and
engaging other employees in lengthy conversations. In
addition, Fishback brought up the prescription incident
contending that Beebe had filed an incorrect insurance
claim. And, Fishback mentioned that Beebe had been
identified by a technician as the individual who taught
him how to manufacture fictitious service calls; and, that
it had to be concluded by the Company that an unscru-
pulous General Electric dealer was getting away with
improper concessions only because they were directing
all of their requests to Beebe and he was processing
them. In conclusion, Fishback cited, as a further example
of Beebe's unacceptable performance, the incident that
occurred on April 18 in which, as Fishback put it, Beebe
"was attempting to persuade (Di Benedittis) to take the
employees, or take the technicians out on an illegal
strike." According to Fishback, Beebe disputed each and
every allegation raised by Fishback, and then comment-
ed "that that was a hell of an attitude after fourteen
years."
Discussion and Conclusion
The crux of the problem in the instant case lies in a
determination of when Respondent came to the conclu-
sion to discharge Beebe. The General Counsel contends
that the April 18 incident triggered the April 19 dis-
charge. Respondent contends that the April 19 discharge
was preordained on April 4 and ratified on April 6. 1 am
of the opinion, and I so find, that the discharge of Beebe
was finalized on April 6, that it was thereafter scheduled
for April 19 in order not to disrupt the efficient oper-
ation of Respondent's business, and that it was not has-
tened by Beebe's remarks on April 18. My conclusions
are drawn from the facts as stated above. The uncontro-
verted evidence established that the Company was in the
throes of a wholesale ripoff by a goodly number of its
employees and it was concluded by the Company that
such a problem had to be dealt with in such a manner as
to eradicate any and all vestiges of its source. Such per-
vasive thievery had to be brought to retribution, and the
method employed by the Company, dispassionately,
called for a thorough housecleaning of the department.
Not only those employees who confessed to such iniqui-
tous acts were discharged, but all of those who knew or
should have known what was going on were also termi-
nated. Both Perri and Salvio were discharged without an
admission of wrongdoing; their discharges were on the
same basis as Beebe's. If one were to accept the General
Counsel's argument, one must come to the conclusion
that Beebe's name was never even mentioned at the
2 Ihis is the employee referred to above in fn 9 and discussed by
Beebe in his testimony.
1194
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
April 4 meeting. This I cannot do. The entire department
was suspect and certain individuals more than others.
There were only two customer relations specialists and
both had to be under scrutiny. The fact that no statement
was taken from Beebe merely accentuates the belief by
management, based upon former experiences with Beebe,
that it would be to no avail. His testimony and his de-
meanor established for me, beyond a doubt, his intransi-
gence, and a belief that he would remain steadfast in his
responses and of no assistance to the Company in its
quest for wrongdoers. Yet, there can be no doubt that
Beebe had to have known of the thefts, or at least, that
the Company was entitled to a good-faith belief that he
knew, and that was the basis for his discharge. As to
why Beebe's discharge preceded Finley's, the other cus-
tomer relations specialist and an admitted wrongdoer, I
rely on the uncontradicted testimony of McCarthy, the
management person who was to decide the order of dis-
charge so as to keep the Company's operations as order-
ly as possible. According to McCarthy, he selected
Finley to remain because Finley was more helpful to him
and more reliable; too many times Beebe was not availa-
ble at his desk when McCarthy needed him.
As to the April 18 incident itself, a twofold response is
required; one regarding the remark made by Beebe, and
two, the interrogation of employees by management
which was precipitated by the remark. In the first in-
stance, I do not regard Beebe's utterance as an exhorta-
tion to strike. To place the remark in its proper perspec-
tive, one must view it from the setting in which it oc-
curred. In the presence of just four employees, Beebe is
asked to help word a grievance on a discharge. His ini-
tial response reflects a doubt as to the feasibility of a
grievance; secondly, he suggests that the participants
consult the union leadership; and thirdly, he reminisces
that in the old days a strike would straighten matters out.
By Beebe's own admission, the entire conversation took
3 minutes. To me, Beebe's remark was an offhanded ex-
pression of opinion as to the ineptness of present union
leadership. It was not an incitement to strike. The fact
that management chose to consider it as such by its sub-
sequent interrogation of employees does not make it so. I
view management's retaliatory interrogation as an over-
reaction which shall be dealt with infra, and I find Fish-
back's remark at Beebe's exit interview regarding the
April 18 event to be a frustrating, concluding statement
on the part of management in handling the discharge of
an incorrigible employee who constantly was a thorn in
management's side, and nothing more. While the proxim-
ity of time between Beebe's protected concerted activity
on April 18 and his discharge on April 19 strongly sug-
gests a causative relationship between the two, I do not
find a nexus between them. I find Respondent's defense
plausible and well supported by the uncontroverted evi-
dence advanced by it. Accordingly, I find that the evi-
dence does not support the allegation that Respondent
was motivated by considerations unlawful under the Act
when it discharged George Beebe on April 19, and I dis-
miss the 8(a)(3) allegation in the amended complaint.
With regard to the interrogation of Loachino and
Sheridan, however, I find that to be violative of the Act.
The very fact that Respondent chose to interrogate Loa-
chino and request that he sign a statement as to Beebe's
remark, and upon his refusal, to follow it up with not
one, but two sessions within the confines of manage-
ment's offices, in which both employees were urged to
sign statements to the same effect is intimidating and has
a coercive effect upon employees in the exercise of their
Section 7 rights, thereby violating Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act. I do not view this interrogation as being work-relat-
ed, as Respondent would have me believe. Rather, it was
an attempt to coerce employees to give evidence against
a fellow employee, and this is impermissible under the
Act. 1, therefore, find that the coercive interrogation by
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS o LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
2. Local No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electri-
cal Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By coercively interrogating Paul Loachino and
John Sheridan concerning their protected concerted ac-
tivities, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. Respondent has not violated Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act as alleged in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the amended
complaint herein.
THE REMFDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, I find it necessary to order the
Respondent to cease and desist therefrom and take cer-
tain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies
and purposes of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recom-
mended:
ORDER 3l
The Respondent, General Electric Company, Brook-
lyn, New York, its officers, agents, successors and as-
signs, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interfering with rights of employees under the Act
by coercively interrogating its employees concerning
their protected concerted activities.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of
rights protected by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is nec-
essary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its place of business in Long Island City,
New York, copies of the attached notice marked "Ap-
' In the event no exceptions are filed as pro% ided by Sec 10246 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings. conclusons. and recommended Order herein shall. as prosided
in Sec 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations. be adopted by he Board and
become its findings. conclusions, and Order, aid all object!ons thereto
shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
1195
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pendix."l4 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 29, after being duly
signed by Respondent's authorized representative, shall
be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive days there-
after, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the amended complaint
in this matter be, and it hereby is dismissed as to any al-
' In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board"
leged violations of the Act not found hereinabove in this
decision.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate any of
you concerning your protected concerted ac-
tivities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
GENERAL EL ECTRIC COMPANY
1196