Greensboro News Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 19, 1985

272 N.L.R.B. 135 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

GREENSBORO NEWS CO 135
Greensboro News Company and Greensboro Printing
and Graphic Communications Union, Local 319,
affiliated with the International Printing and
Graphic Communications Union. Cases 11-CA-
10623 and 11-CA-10703
19 September 1985
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS ZIMMERMAN, HUNTER, AND
DENNIS
On 29 December 1983 Administrative Law
Judge Richard A. Scully issued the attached deci-
sion. The Respondent and the General Counsel
each filed exceptions and a supporting brief; the
Respondent filed a brief in response to the General
Counsel's exceptions; and the Charging Party filed
a brief in support of the judge's decision.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, 1 and
conclusions 2 and to adopt the recommended Order
as modified.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find-
ings The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative
law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all
the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry
Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951)
We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing
the findings
2 The judge found that Greene, the Respondent's classified manager,
told employee Allen in mid-September 1982 that the Respondent and its
employees could not just sit and "talk about financial or family problems
if we had a union, that everything would just have to go through proper
channels" We conclude, contrary to the judge, that this single statement
did not rise to the level of an unlawful threat of changed working condi-
tions in the event of unionization
Member Zimmerman would find the statement an unlawful threat
based on the reasoning set forth by the judge
The judge recommended dismissal of the complaint's allegation that
the Respondent's assistant advertising director, Moore, engaged in unlaw-
ful interrogation by asking employee Lovings if employee Allen spoke to
her "about the Union" We conclude, contrary to the judge, that Moore's
question to Lovings was coercive and an unlawful interrogation under
Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act In our view there was no legitimate basis or justi-
fication for the inquiry and it unlawfully coerced Lovings into revealing
whether or not she had engaged in discussion of the Union with another
employee.
We adopt the judge's conclusion that the Respondent's discharge of
employee Roberts violated Sec 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act We disclaim
any reliance, however, on fn 21 of the judge's decision We consider the
footnote speculative and unnecessary for resolving the issue of the Re-
spondent's motivation in discharging Roberts We likewise find it unnec-
essary to rely on the judge's finding that the Respondent's pressroom
foreman Patteson contradicted himself in saying that the alleged cut in
the roll of paper on the Respondent's unit 3 could have been made by
sticking a knife Into the side of the roll, after having previously testified
that the cut could have been made only from the top down
judge and orders that the Respondent, Greensboro
News Company, Greensboro, North Carolina, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the Order as modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(c).
"(c) Interrogating employees concermng the
union activity of their fellow employees."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
administrative law judge.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Boird- -has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with re-
prisals for associating with persons known to be
union adherents and/or promoters of employees'
protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT issue warnings to employees be-
cause we believe they have engaged in union or
other protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees con-
cerning the union activity of their fellow employ-
ees.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discrimi-
nate against our employees in regard to hire or
tenure of employment, or any term or condition of
employment, because of their union or protected
concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer James Roberts immediate and full
reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no
longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to his seniority or any other
rights or privileges previously enjoyed and WE
WILL make him whole for any loss of earnings and
other benefits resulting from his discharge, less any
net interim earnings, plus interest.
WE WILL expunge from our records and files
any references to the discharge of James Roberts
and the warning issued to Jane Allen on 30 July
1982, and WE WILL notify them in writing that this
has been done and that the evidence of the unlaw-
ful discharge and warning will not be used as a
basis for future personnel actions against them.
GREENSBORO NEWS COMPANY
272 NLRB No. 28
136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DECISION
RICHARD A SCULLY, Administrative Law Judge. On
charges filed on October 1 and November 30, 1982, by
Greensboro Printing and Graphic Communications
Union, Local 319, affiliated with The International Print-
ing and Graphic Communications Union (the Union), the
Regional Director for Region 11 of the National Labor
Relations Board (the Board) issued a complaint and con-
solidated complaint on November 1 and December 28,
1982, respectively, alleging that Greensboro News Com-
pany (the Respondent) had violated Section 8(a)(1), (3),
and (4) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act).
The Respondent has filed timely answers denying that it
has committed any violation of the Act.
A hearing was held in Greensboro, North Carolina, on
January 26, 1983, at which all parties were given full op-
portunity to participate, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to present other evidence and argument.
Briefs submitted on behalf of the parties have been given
due consideration. On the entire record' and from my
observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I make the
following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is a North Carolina corporation en-
gaged in the publication and distribution of daily morn-
ing and afternoon newspapers at its facilities in Greens-
boro, North Carolina. During the 12-month period pre-
ceding December 28, 1982, a representative period, the
Respondent had a total volume of business in excess of
$200,000 and purchased and received materials directly
from suppliers located outside the State of North Caroli-
na valued in excess of $10,000. The Respondent admits,
and I find, that it is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Respondent admits, and I find, that the Union is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Background
The Respondent employs approximately 400 people,
about half of whom are represented by the Union and
three other labor organizations. The Union has represent-
ed the pressmen for many years and, since June 1982, has
also represented the building and maintenance depart-
ment employees. The Respondent's largest unorganized
employee unit is the advertising department, which the
Union has been conducting a campaign to organize since
early 1982. The Respondent's policy, as expressed in its
employee handbook, is that "union membership is not nec-
essary" for its employees although it "strive[s] for sound
' The General Counsel's unopposed motion to correct certain errors in
the transcript is granted.
working relationships with our existing unions." [Empha-
sis added.]
A. Alleged 8(a)(1) Violations
1. Threats of reprisals
Jane Allen has been a salesperson in the Respondent's
advertising department since August 1977. She became
active in the Union's campaign to organize her depart-
ment in early summer of 1982. 2 She signed a union au-
thorization card, attended 2 meetings, 1 of which was
held at her apartment, and she secured signatures on
about 10 cards. She talked with employees about the
Union during lunch and breaks and on numerous occa-
sions, also had lunch with members of the union organiz-
ing committee in the one breakroom used by all employ-
ees. Sometimes, Union President James Roberts would
join them for lunch in the breakroom
July 8, during the afternoon break, Roberts came into
the breakroom and sat down and had coffee with Allen
and others. According to the testimony of Allen, whom
I found to be a credible and convincing witness, as she
was leaving the breakroom, Classified Manager Hal
Greene joined her on the way back to the advertising
department. Greene asked her if she knew Jim Roberts.
Allen said that she did, that they had lived nearby while
growing up. Greene asked Allen if she knew that Rob-
erts was head of the Union and she said yes. Greene then
said: "Well, you know it doesen't look good for you to
be seen talking to him." Allen did not respond and
Greene continued on into his office. When asked by Re-
spondent's counsel if he ever made such a statement to
Allen, Greene responded: "Not in those words, not at
all." On cross-examination Greene said that he might
have asked her how she knew Jim, but that he did not
tell her she should not associate with Roberts. Based on
their demeanor while testifying, and the fact that, as a
current employee of the Respondent, Allen would be un-
likely to fabricate such an incident, 3 I credit the testimo-
ny of Allen over that of Greene and find that Greene did
tell Allen it did not look good for her to be seen talking
to Roberts. This, coming as it did immediately after
Greene's reference to the fact that Roberts was president
of the Union, left little doubt but that it was Roberts'
union involvement and activities which were objection-
able to Greene and the Respondent. The clear implica-
tion of Greene's remark was that by associating with
Roberts Allen would be regarded as a union sympathizer
which would cause her to be looked upon with disfavor
by her employer. Accordingly, I find Greene's comment
to Allen to be coercive and an infringement on the em-
ployee's protected rights in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.4
Jane Allen testified that on the morning of November
28 Hal Greene called her into his office. After Allen sat
down, Greene threw a pack of cigarettes he was holding
2 All dates are in 1982 unless otherwise indicated
3 See Gold Standard Enterprises, 234 NLRB 618, 619 (1978), St Anne's
Home, 221 NLRB 839 (1975)
4 Lyman Steel Co, 249 NLRB 296, 302 (1980), Cone Mills Corp., 245
NLRB 159, 166 (1979)
GREENSBORO NEWS CO 137
down on his desk and told Allen that he wanted her to
know that her attitude "stinks" and he wanted to know
why. Allen was unaware of what prompted this inquiry
and asked if there had been a customer's complaint about
her or if her work was unacceptable. Greene replied that
it "had nothing to do" with her work and said, "I just
have noticed a big change in you since early summer and
I personally think that it is probably the people you are
associating with." Allen responded that there had been a
lot of discord in her department which she did not want
to be involved with, but that she was unaware of there
being anything wrong with the way she was acting.
Greene then asked her if she had ever considered leaving
her job. Allen asked if she was being fired and Green
said: "No, I don't have any reason to fire you." Allen
said she did not plan to leave and Greene said. "Well, if
you're all that unhappy about everything that's going on,
I really don't know why you would want to stay." Allen
said that she liked her job and the people she worked
with and, if for no other reason, she wanted to stay until
she qualified for the Respondent's pension plan. Greene
responded that "attitude was very important in every-
thing" and that he was afraid that Allen "was going to
end up like Ross Swearingen." According to Allen, Ross
Swearingen had been a salesman for the Respondent,
who about 2 years previously, during a union organizing
campaign, had come out of the manager's office in the
advertising department, called for the employees' atten-
tion, and announced to them that after 13 to 15 years of
employment by the Respondent he had been fired for
union activity.
Greene's testimony about this incident corroborated
that of Allen in some respects. He testified that, at the
start of the conversation, he told Allen her job was not
in jeopardy and she was not in trouble, but that he
thought she seemed depressed and he wanted to know if
it had anything to do with her job. He said that he had
mentioned Ross Swearingen, whom Green described as
someone who started "little games with his attitude to
the point where he became depressed at times," and told
Allen he "would like to see her gain control of her atti-
tude." According to Greene, the change in Allen's atti-
tude which concerned him dated back to the summer.
I credit the testimony of Allen to the extent that it dif-
fers from that of Greene It is undisputed that Allen's job
performance had been satisfactory or better prior to the
time this conversation occurred. Considering all of the
circumstances, including Greene's statement to Allen
that her attitude "stinks" and had since about the time
she got involved with the Union, his attributing this to
the people she associated with after telling Allen that it
did not look good for her to be seen associating with
union activist Roberts, and Greene's reference to Ross
Swearingen, a union supporter whom he also considered
to have a bad attitude, I infer that Greene's comments
concerning Allen's "attitude" referred to her prounion
activities and sympathies.5
5 See Virginia Metalcrafters, 158 NLRB 958 (1966), Winn-Dixie Green-
ville, 157 NLRB 657 (1966)
Although Greene's testimony suggested he simply
wanted to find out why Allen seemed depressed, the
credited testimony of Allen establishes that Greene's
statements and demeanor during their meeting conveyed
that he was unhappy with and critical of Allen's proun-
ion "attitude." Notwithstanding the fact that he found
no fault with her work, Greene suggested that Allen
should leave her job if she was unhappy with the way
things were there. This coupled with Greene's reference
to Swearingen who had previously been discharged by
the Respondent was an unlawful threat of discharge or
other reprisal in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act 7
2. Warning to Jane Allen
Jane Allen testified that on July 30 she was taken to a
conference room by her immediate supervisor, Bobbie
Cox, because Advertising Director Rick Spears wanted
to talk to her. Spears came in and, after some small talk,
told Allen that he had to speak to her because Hal
Greene was not there that day Spears told Allen that
she had been observed on the previous day by "two per-
sons up front soliciting for the Union" Spears told her
she had the right to talk during breaks, lunch, and after
work, but could not talk with anyone about unions
during worktime because it would interfere with the
workflow. Spears told her, "If this ever happens again,
you will suffer serious consequences." He then told her
to return to work.
Spears testified that he was told that Allen interrupted
the work activity of a typist, Leigh Ann Lovings, short-
ly after 5 p m., the office's "heaviest deadline period."
According to Spears, the disruption lasted about 5 min-
utes and was observed by Vice President of Operations
Richard Hendricks and Assistant Advertising Director
Gary Moore, both of whom brought it to his attention.
In his direct testimony about this incident, Spears made
no mention of the fact that Allen had discussed the
Union with Lovings and clearly attempted to convey the
impression that it was the disruption of work that Allen
was warned about and not talking about the Union.
However, a note Spears made for his own files states
that the reason for the warning was Allen's "soliciting of
the Union on company time," specifically, "soliciting
Leigh Ann Lovings in the typing area during working
hours." The note indicates that Spears explained the
Company's policy concerning union solicitation to Allen
and told her if "she does it again, more serious conse-
quences could result." Further evidence that it was not
the conversation between Allen and Lovings, but what
the Respondent thought was being discussed that con-
cerned it, was provided by the testimony of Lovings and
Richard Hendricks. Lovings stated that a few minutes
after Allen left Moore came over to her and specifically
asked if Allen was talking to her "about the Union."
6 There is no doubt that the Respondent's supervisors including
Greene and his supervisor Richard Hendricks were aware of Allen's,
union sympathies and that she was active in the Union's organizing cam-
paign as evidenced by the warning given Allen on July 30, discussed
infra
7 Barnes & Noble Bookstores, 233 NLRB 1326 (1977), Loggins Meat Go,
199 NLRB 291 (1972), Loby's Cafeteria, 187 NLRB 420 (1970)
138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Lovings said, "Yes," but was not asked anything else
about the conversation. Hendricks testified that he was
leaving the advertising department and, while standing
within arm's length of Allen, he heard her tell Lovings
"something to the effect, 'you have a perfect right to
belong to a union." Hendricks, who "couldn't believe"
what he was hearing, listened in for a minute or so and
then went to Gary Moore and told him he had better go
tell Allen "to cut that out."
The credited testimony of Allen and Lovings (who no
longer works for the Respondent and has no interest in
the matter) establishes that Allen finished work at 5 p.m.
and came into Lovings' work area with another cowork-
er who had something to drop off there. Allen, who had
talked to Lovings about the Union during a break on the
previous day, had been told that Lovings' feelings had
been hurt by the way Allen and another employee had
spoken to her. Their 2-minute conversation consisted of
Allen apologizing to Lovings for the way they had ap-
proached her about the Union on the previous day and
did not involve any solicitation to join or support the
Union. 8 Neither Allen nor Lovings had any recollection
of Hendricks being nearby while they were talking.
The evidence shows that the Respondent had no rule
prohibiting employees from talking while on the job and
that employees and supervisors alike engaged in non-
work-related conversations while working. There is no
evidence that Hendricks or any other supervisor was
aware of whether it was Allen or Lovings who initiated
this conversation, but only Allen was given a warning.
Lovings, who was the one still working and whose work
it was that was allegedly disrupted, was not warned or
spoken to about the incident by any supervisor except
for Moore's inquiry about whether Allen had talked
about the Union. Yet for all the Respondent knew, 8 it
could have been Lovings who started the conversation. I
find that this warning was given to Allen solely because
the Respondent believed she was soliciting for the Union
and not because of any concern about the disruption of
work the conversation caused.' °
9 Although Allen gave this explanation to Hal Greene a short time
after she received the warnings and Greene told her he would speak to
the people involved and tell them not to act unless they "knew the whole
truth," the warning to Allen has never been rescinded
9 Allen was not asked nor did she tell Moore or Cox anything about
the content of her conversation with Lovings before she was given the
warning by Moore
1 ° I do not credit Hendncks' testimony about his action upon observ-
ing the conversation between Allen and Lovings Although he said he
ordered Moore to put a stop to the conversation, because it was in
Moore's area of supervision, Moore did not do so He did not approach
Lovings until after Allen had left Even then, he did not caution Lovings
about neglecting her work, but only asked if Allen had discussed the
Union According to Hendricks, when he spoke to Moore and told him
what he had overheard, Moore asked if he could talk to Lovings about it
and Hendricks said that "she will verify what I heard." From this, I infer
that Hendricks and Moore were not so much concerned with Lovings'
work being disrupted as they were with the fact that the employees were
talking about the Union The testimony of Bobby Cox further confirms
this She testified that before Allen was given the warning, Spears told
her that the reason was that Allen had been observed talking about the
Union with a member of the typing pool According to Cox, there is no
prohibition against employees going into other departments and talking
about nonwork-related subjects during working time and she has had
such conversations herself
Even assuming that the Respondent's no-solicitation
rule, as explained by Moore to Allen, was in effect, the
Respondent had no evidence that Allen had violated it.
It made no attempt to ascertain whether Allen was, in
fact, soliciting for the Union, but relied on Hendricks'
statement of what he allegedly thought he heard Allen
say and Lovings' acknowledgement that Allen talked
about the Union to establish a violation of the rule. In so
doing, it unlawfully equated talking about unions with
soliciting for one." Under the circumstances, I find the
warning the Respondent issued to Jane Allen to be pre-
text designed to intimidate her for supporting the Union
without regard to whether she had violated its rules and
to be a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.' 2
3. Interrogation
The consolidated complaint, as amended at the start of
the hearing, alleges that when Gary Moore asked Leigh
Ann Lovings if Jane Allen had talked to her about the
Union there was an unlawful interrogation concerning a
fellow employee's union activity. I do not believe
Moore's single question to Lovings, which did not in-
quire Into the substance of what Lovings and Allen had
discussed or in any way seek to probe the union prefer-
ences of either employee, could be considered coercive
or constitute a violation of the Act. Accordingly, I shall
recommend that this allegation be dismissed.
4. No-solicitation rule
The complaint alleges that the Respondent maintained
and enforced a rule prohibiting all solicitations on com-
pany property except those approved by management.
The rule in question is contained in the Respondent's
manual of employee policies, procedures, and benefits
and provides:
Solicitations—To avoid interruption and disturb-
ance, it is general policy not to permit solicitation
for the sale of any products, services, chances or
contributions on company property.
The United Way, as indicated earlier, is an excep-
tion to this policy because it supports the principle
that giving in one campaign will support the majori-
ty of those who need help among the many charita-
ble agencies. Other charities may also be worthy of
support and all of us have the opportunity to help
in their - campaigns which include direct mail and
telethons.
The Company does not prohibit "passing the
hat" if the department head and the Personnel De-
partment approve. Therefore, except as noted
above, the best policy is don't engage in any solici-
tation activity, either as a customer or as a salesper-
son.
The General Counsel contends that this rule is presump-
tively invalid because it is so broad as to prohibit union
solicitation during the employees' nonworking time. The
" See W.W Grainger, Inc , 229 NLRB 161, 167 (1977).
i 2 See CTS Keene, 247 NLRB 1016 (1980)
GREENSBORO NEWS CO 139
Respondent contends that this rule did not apply to
union solicitations at all and was never enforced to inter-
fere with such activity during nonworking meal and
breaktimes.
Union President James Roberts testified that, in the
course of the union campaigns he was involved with, he
carried on organizing activities during meal and break
periods in the company canteen on a daily basis, solicit-
ing for membership and passing out union materials with-
out company interference, and that he did not know of
any attempt by the Respondent to enforce a rule pre-
venting union solicitation on company property. Jane
Allen testified that she had solicited about 10 union au-
thorization cards from employees on the company prop-
erty during lunch and breaks and that she knew she had
the right to engage in union activity at lunch and break-
times and after work. In issuing the warning to Allen for
allegedly violating the company rule concerning union
solicitation during working time, Rick Spears did not
make reference to the rule in the employees' manual and
stated that she had a right to engage in union activity
during breaks or lunch or when she was on her own
time and not working. It is not clear to what extent, if
any, this unwritten rule had been made known to Allen
and other employees by the Respondent before Allen
was accused of violating it. There is no evidence that the
Respondent made any effort to use it to unlawfully re-
strict union activity on company property during non-
working time or that employees engaged in such activi-
ties were in any doubt about their freedom to do so
during nonworking time.
Considering the language of the rule contained in the
employees' manual, the testimony of Roberts, Allen, and
Spears, and the lack of any evidence that this rule was
ever applied to union activities, I conclude that the rule
in the manual was limited to restricting sales and fund-
raising activities and was not intended, interpreted, or
enforced in connection with union solicitation or other
union activities on the Company's property. I, therefore,
find that the Respondent's maintenance of the rule in
question does not violate the Act 13
5. Threats of changes in working conditions
Jane Allen testified that during mid-September, she
met with Hal Greene to discuss a higher paying job.
During the course of their discussion, Greene stated that
he considered Cliff Wilson and Jim Roberts to be friends
of his, but that they were "very big on unions." Greene
also told her that one thing he did not like about unions
was that they could not just sit and "talk about financial
or family problems if we had a union, that everything
would just have to go through proper channels." Greene
testified that he would not have said anything about
"going through channels" because he did not use that
terminology, but he did not specifically deny having the
conversation Allen described. According to Greene, he
recalled telling some employees that he personally does
not like unions because "they can make it more difficult
for employer-employee to communicate." It was his un-
13 See Axe/son, Inc., 257 NLRB 576, 579 (1981), House of Mosaics, 215
NLRB 704, 718 (1974).
derstanding that if a union represented employees, they
could not go directly to a supervisor to discuss a prob-
lem, but would "have to go to someone else before they
can go to the manager or supervisor." I credit the testi-
mony of Allen concerning Greene's remarks to her,
which appear to be an accurate reflection of the sub-
stance of Greene's views on employer-employee commu-
nication when a union is present. Whether or not Greene
used precisely the words "going through channels," the
thrust of his comments was that, if a union were present,
Allen and other employees could not speak directly to
him or other supervisors without the intervention of a
third party. The Board has held that any such comment
"must be viewed in the context of its own particular cir-
cumstances." 4 Coming as it did, during a face-to-face
meeting requested by Allen in order to discuss a work-
related matter of concern to her, Greene's statement that
with a union they "could not just sit in there and talk"
implied that direct dealings between employees and man-
agement would be prohibited. As such, it constituted a
clear threat of loss of a benefit enjoyed by the Respond-
ent's employees and violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act. 15
B. The Discharge of James Roberts
The consolidated complaint alleges that, on September
28, the Respondent discharged James Roberts because of
his union and other concerted activities and because he
had filed charges with the Board and testified against it
at a hearing before the Board in violation of Section
8(a)(3) and (4) of the Act.
Under the Board's decision in Wright Line," the Gen-
eral Counsel must establish a prima facie case of discrim-
ination in violation of Section 8(a)(3) by showing that
the affected employee had engaged in protected activity,
that the employer was aware of this activity, that the ad-
verse action taken by the employer was motivated by
union animus, and that it had the effect of encouraging
or discouraging membership in a labor organization.17
James Roberts is a journeyman-pressman who was em-
ployed by the Respondent for 16 years prior to his dis-
charge. Roberts has been the president of the Union
since 1979 and had previously held several other union
offices. He has been the chief union spokesman in sepa-
rate contract negotiations with the Respondent for both
the pressmen's unit and the building and maintenance
unit, which he had led the Union's successful campaign
to organize in the early part of 1982.
Roberts also led the Union's campaign to organize the
advertising department. In connection with that cam-
paign, he filed an unfair labor practice charge with the
Board alleging that an advertising department employee
named Shirley Shatto had been unlawfully assigned to
different duties by the Respondent in order to impede
her activity on behalf of the Union. A complaint was
14 Sacramento Clinical Laboratory, 242 NLRB 944 (1974), enf dented
in part 623 F 2d 100 (9th Ctr. 1980)
15 Huntington Rubber Corp, 260 NLRB 1008 (1982), Limestone Apparel
Corp, 255 NLRB 722 (1981)
16 251 NLRB 1082 (1980)
" United Broadcasting Ca, 253 NLRB 697, 703 (1980)
140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
issued by the Board and a hearing held on September 15,
at which Roberts and Shatto appeared as witnesses for
the General Counsel.
The pressmen's most recent collective-bargaining
agreement expired on December 31, 1980. Negotiations
have been underway since October 1980, but no new
agreement has been reached After the Respondent de-
clared an impasse and implemented new work rules in
March 1981, the Union put up an informational picket
line for about 5 months in 1981 at the plant and also
picketed at a golf tournament and a baseball game spon-
sored by the Respondent. The parties returned to the
bargaining table in June 1981, and the Union has picket-
ed at the plant on several occasions since then.
Roberts testified credibly that, prior to the time he
began organizing in the advertising department, he often
went into that department to place ads in the paper or to
speak to friends, without incident. In February 1982,
shortly after the campaign started, Roberts went to the
plant on his day off to pick up his paycheck and while
there stopped at the advertising department and spoke
briefly with Shiny Shatto. He then went to the press-
room where Pressroom Supervisor Lawrence Emery
told him that he had just had a phone call from Richard
Hendricks and that Roberts was no longer allowed to go
into the advertising department Roberts and the union
chapel chairmen went directly to Hendricks' office to
ask him about this ban and Hendricks told Roberts "you
can't be organizing over there while everybody's work-
ing." Roberts said that he was not organizing but merely
spoke with a friend for a moment Although Hendricks
told Roberts that Rick Spears had said he was organiz-
ing, he declined Roberts' request that Spears be called in
to confront him." Roberts also testified that in January
1982 he had been having discussions with people in the
mailroom concerning a possible merger of the mailers
and the pressmen to form a single unit. While working
on a Saturday night, Roberts had gone into the mailroom
in order to get a cup of coffee from a coffee pot kept
there, as pressmen often did. On the following Monday
morning he was called into Emery's office Emery asked
Roberts if he had been in the mailroom on Saturday
night. When Roberts said he had been in there to get
coffee, Emery asked him who he had talked to. Emery
then said he "had a call about an incident down there"
and that Roberts was no longer allowed to go into the
mailroom Emery would not tell Roberts who had called
him or what he had been told and said that the ban ap-
plied only to Roberts not to other pressmen When Rob-
erts asked if he was being ordered not to enter the mail-
room, Emery said he was "suggesting" that he not do so.
Subsequently, a notice was posted by the Respondent
which stated that no one from the pressroom could go
18 Jane Allen testified without contradiction that on July 14 Roberts
came into the department and talked with her in connection with placing
an ad Five minutes later, Allen's supervisor, Bobble Cox, who had ob-
served their conversation, called Allen on the phone and asked her why
Roberts was "always bringing his ads in" When Allen said she did not
know, Cox said, "Keep this under your hat, but we've been told to dis-
courage people from other departments from coming in all the time"
This occurred within a week of the day Hal Greene observed Allen
speaking with Roberts in the lunchroom and told her it did not look
good for her to be seen talking with Roberts
Into the mailroom or any other department. However,
when Roberts complained about it, the notice was taken
down
Roberts credibly testified that in July, during the first
negotiating session between the Respondent and the
building and maintenance unit, he mentioned to Richard
Hendricks that he understood that his name had been
"raked over the coals" in several management-produc-
tion meetings. Hendricks replied that Roberts "was not
the most liked employee in the building" and said that
every time Roberts was seen talking to an employee,
someone would come and tell Hendricks about it. When
the subject of union organizing came up, Hendricks com-
mented to Roberts that it was not hard to deal with a
union organizer who was on the outside of the building,
but it was difficult to deal with one who was in the
building every day.""
Besides having filed several unfair labor practice
charges against the Respondent, Roberts' union activity
brought him into conflict with Pressroom Foreman Clay-
ton Patteson on several occasions. It was Patteson who
discharged Roberts on September 28. Roberts testified
that, in 1980, the Union and the Respondent were dis-
cussing whether pressroom foremen should be a part of
the bargaining unit. He asked the foremen to join him in
advising management that they did not feel that they
were supervisors as defined by the Act, but all of the
foremen declined to do so. About the same time, the
foremen began sitting on the management side of the
table in grievance proceedings and, at times, caucusing
with management during these proceedings. Based on
this, and the influence the foremen had with other press-
men, Roberts made a ruling that the foremen could no
longer address union meetings concerning working con-
ditions and contract matters and the ruling was upheld
by the membership. Since the rule has been in effect, the
foremen have not attended union meetings In the spring
of 1981, the Union brought charges against Patteson and
Foreman Hudson Owens for allegedly refusing to work
overtime at the Union's request but doing so at the re-
quest of management. After a trial on these charges, Pat-
teson and Owens were fined $50, which they, at first, re-
fused to pay. Under union rules, dues are not collected if
a fine is not paid and, once dues are not paid for 3
months, a member is suspended from the Union. After 3
months passed, the union treasurer asked Patterson if he
was going to pay the fine and he said, "No." Roberts
called a meeting of all the pressmen during breaktime to
discuss the matter and they went to the superintendent's
office and informed Emery and Patteson that none of the
pressmen would work as a backup pressrunner with a
foreman who had dropped his union card That after-
noon the foremen paid their fines and brought their dues
up to date. In June 1982, one of the journeyman press-
19 Hendricks denied making this statement Based on their demeanor
while testifying, and the corroborating testimony of James Slade who
was present at the negotiating session, I credit the testimony of Roberts
Although in his testimony Slade apparently confused what Hendricks ac-
tually said, it is clear that he did hear Hendricks comment about inside
and outside organizers. I find that Hendricks made the remark as attrib-
uted to him by Roberts
GREENSBORO NEWS CO 141
men had been laid off by the Respondent for economic
reasons and Patteson brought an assistant foreman in on
his day off to work overtime running a press Roberts
asked Patteson to attend a union meeting to discuss this
with the pressmen and Patteson refused Consequently,
Roberts took the men on Patteson's crew into his office
where Roberts told Patteson that he was not taking care
of the men in the Union that had taken care of him for
many years, that he was being used by management and
that he seemed to have forgotten who his friends were
On the morning of September 28, Roberts learned that
they were "dragging a dead unit," meaning, a press was
being run which was not being used to produce a prod-
uct The press in question was being run in order to try
to identify the source of a noise that had been heard in
the press on a previous shift Roberts went to Patteson
and informed him that, while he did not object to drag-
ging the dead unit in order to identify a problem, work-
ing on a dead unit was a violation of the work rules and
none of the pressmen would work on it According to
Roberts, Patteson got irritated and said he was not
"going to order anybody to work on the damn thing"
Roberts replied that he did not want to get in a fight
about it, he just wanted Patteson to know his position so
there would be no misunderstanding later
On September 27 Roberts had a discussion with Hen-
dricks concerning a grievance he had filed over the Re-
spondent's use of building and maintenance employees to
relieve guards during their lunchbreaks, which Roberts
felt violated the building and maintenance unit's certifica-
tion When they were unable to reach an agreement,
Roberts told Hendricks that he felt very strongly about
the matter and was going to the Labor Board
On September 28, Roberts was assigned to work in the
reel room on the first of the three levels taken up by the
press, where the rolls of paper are loaded into reels and
fed up through the floor to the printing units The con-
tinuous sheet of paper extending up into the printing unit
is called a web A web break occurs when the sheet of
paper breaks completely When a web break occurs, any
damaged paper must be removed and a new web created
by tapering off the leading edge of the paper and attach-
ing it to a tape which is drawn up through the printing
unit by the crew on the next level As this is done, the
person in the reel room turns the roll of paper to keep it
slack The testimony of the experienced pressmen and su-
pervisors, appearing as witnesses, establishes that web
breaks at the Respondent's plant occur unpredictably,
sometimes several times in a day, and other times there
might not be one for several days 20 A web break can
result from any number of causes, including among other
things, damage to the paper, too much water on the
paper, too much ink, cocked rollers, and trash falling
into the web A web could be intentionally broken by
striking it with one's hand One of the jobs of the press-
men is to remove snags and tears found on the edge of
20 An analysis of the number of breaks occurring during the period of
June through December 1982 was submitted and stipulated by the parties
following the hearing and is received Into evidence as It Eat' 1 I find
that this analysis which was not considered by the Respondent and had
no bearing on its decision to discharge Roberts, has no probative value
with respect to the Issues before me and I have not given it any weight
the paper rolls, which might cause the web to break, by
cutting them out with a knife issued to them for that pur-
pose
Roberts and others had been in the reel room prior to
lunch preparing for the press run After lunch, the press
was started up and Roberts went back into the reel
room As the press started, there was a web break on
unit 3 Roberts tapered and slacked the paper roll, it was
pulled back into the unit, and the press was started again
After running for a short time, the web in unit 3 broke
again As it did, Roberts noticed a wad of paper come
out of the roll, which he picked up and laid aside Patte-
son testified that he went down to the reel room at that
point to see what was wrong and saw the wad of paper
fall out This, he said, "very likely" could have caused
the web break After the press was rewebbed and had
run off about 2000 newspapers, the web on unit 3 broke
again taking the web on unit 2 with it
Roberts testified that he had tapered off one of the
units and was working on the second when Patteson
came back down to the reel room He finished tapering
the second unit and then he and Patteson slacked the
two units off As he was slacking his unit he tore out a
couple of tears in the edge of the paper with his fingers
When his unit was done, Roberts went over to the one
Patteson was slacking to finish it but, as it appeared to be
about finished, he walked about 10 feet away and picked
up a paper he had been reading and began to look it
over while waiting for the press to start up again After
Patteson left the reel room, Roberts went back over to a
point between the two units and to await Patteson's
signal from the floor above to turn on the air valves
which put tension on the paper The paper was rotating
slowly and, as Roberts put his hand on the air valve on
unit 3, he noticed a small snag on the edge of the roll
which he cut out with his knife He was still standing
there awaiting Patteson's signal when Patteson came
back into the reel room with Emery and told Roberts
the roll of paper had been deliberately cut with a knife
and that he was dismissed for deliberately slowing down
production
Patteson testified that he and Roberts were slacking
the two units and Roberts said he would finish unit 2
which Patteson was working on As Patteson turned, he
saw a cut in the paper on unit 3 about three-quarters of
an inch into the paper from the edge and about a quarter
of an inch deep, which he felt had been done with a
knife Without speaking to Roberts, Patteson immediate-
ly went upstairs to get Emery and brought him back to
the reel room Upon returning to the reel room, Patteson
saw that the cut in the roll had been repaired, that is, it
had been cut off the roll Patteson told Emery that the
roll of paper had been cut with a knife and turned to
Roberts and told him he was dismissed for deliberately
slowing down production Roberts asked Patteson if he
had seen him cut the roll of paper and Patteson respond-
ed by, again, telling Roberts he was dismissed for delib-
erately slowing down production
After being discharged, Roberts remained in the press-
room for a while and observed two more web breaks on
unit 3 Eventually, a security guard came and asked him
142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to leave but Roberts said he was waiting to see Hen-
dricks who was out of the building at the time When
Hendricks returned, Roberts and two other pressmen
went to his office and asked him to discuss the discharge
Hendricks refused, saying that a dismissal letter was
being typed up Roberts asked Hendricks if he wanted to
hear his side of the story and Hendricks said no Roberts
went back to the pressroom and Emery brought him the
dismissal letter Roberts told Emery he would not leave
the building in order to protest his firing and Emery said
Roberts could meet with Hendricks alone, but none of
the other pressmen could be spared to go with him
However, a short time later, two pressmen were permit-
ted to accompany Roberts to Hendricks' office Roberts
asked that Patteson be called in, but Hendricks refused
They asked Hendricks to accompany them to the press-
room so they could show him what they were talking
about, but Hendricks declined, saying that they would
have another meeting later Roberts returned to the
pressroom, refusing to leave until he was eventually ar-
rested and taken to jail for trespassing
On the following day, a grievance meeting was held in
which Roberts was permitted to tell his side of the story
and another meeting was held 2 days later Roberts was
given no other reason for being discharged other than
that stated in the discharge letter, "deliberately slowing
down production" Hendricks testified that he upheld
Patteson's decision to discharge Roberts because he "be-
lieved" Patteson At the second meeting, the Respond-
ent, which had previously taken the position that since
the pressmen's unit contract had expired there was no
compulsory arbitration of grievances, offered to submit
the matter to an arbitrator, but only if the Union agreed
not to file an unfair labor practice charge with the
Board The Union refused
Analysis and Conclusion
Even without taking into consideration any of the sub-
stantial volume of evidence concerning Roberts' union
activities at the Respondent's plant, and accepting Patte-
son's testimony at face value, I find it difficult to believe
that any reasonable mind would conclude that Roberts'
dismissal was justified on the basis of the evidence in the
record
Roberts had been an exemplary employee for 16 years
and was uniformly considered a good pressman even by
Patteson, the man who discharged him Notwithstanding
this record, Roberts was summarily dismissed for sabo-
tage without any meaningful investigation on the Re-
spondent's part and without giving Roberts the opportu-
nity to explain his actions Patteson's actions upon find-
ing what he considered to be a deliberate knife cut in a
roll of paper and his conclusion that Roberts had caused
the cut are neither reasonable nor logical under the cir-
cumstances presented He testified that he saw the knife
cut when he "glanced" at the roll on unit 3 for an "in-
stant" while turning away from unit 2 Instead of exam-
ining the cut more closely, Patteson, who wears eye-
glasses at all times while working, immediately left the
reel room, returning about 2 minutes later with Emery
At that point, he was unable to find any cut in the roll or
in the paper in the web, which had been moving at a
"slow walk" and he made no attempt to find any of the
between 50 and 100 pieces of paper which, according to
Patteson, Roberts had cut out of the roll while he was
out of the reel room getting Emery
Although Patteson testified that he had "no idea"
what caused the last web break on unit 3, one obvious
possibility would have been the knife cut he saw in the
paper on unit 3, which had reached the point where it
was entering the web Patteson testified that he knew
that the cut he saw was caused by a knife because he
had previously seen such cuts which sometimes occurred
when wrapping paper was being cut off the paper rolls
It is possible that such a knife cut could have been made
on the inside of the roll of paper on unit 3 and that it did
not become visible until a large amount of paper had run
off the roll If that were the case, there would be little
basis for concluding that the cut was intentionally made,
and even less for concluding that Roberts had done it,
when any number of people had handled and had access
to this roll of paper Roberts testified that he saw no
such cut in the roll of paper when he rewebbed and
slacked off unit 3 Even if the cut were there, and he had
negligently failed to find it, he was not guilty of deliber-
ate sabotage
According to Patteson, the only possibility he consid-
ered was that Roberts had deliberately cut the roll of
paper after the last web break He first testified that he
reached this conclusion because the cut was in the center
of the roll and could only have been made from the top
down However, he later contradicted himself by saying
that the cut could have been made by sticking a knife
into the side of the roll Patteson's analysis of the situa-
tion also assumed that Roberts, having deliberately made
a knife cut into the roll of paper, 21 left it in plain sight
while Patteson was in the reel room, but then repaired
the damage after Patteson had left even though he had
given no indication that he had seen the cut Although
there was a telephone in the reel room with which he
could have called Emery and asked him to come to the
reel room, Patteson did not use it When he went to
Emery he did not tell him that Roberts had cut the
paper but simply asked him to come to the reel room be-
cause he had something he wanted to show him It was
only after entering the reel room and seeing a cutout in
21 If, in fact, Roberts was seeking to slow production by causing an
other web break he appears to have chosen a method that was among the
least likely to succeed but the most likely to incriminate him The evi
dence is clear that web breaks are often caused by snags in the paper
caused when the heavy rolls of paper are laid on their sides on glass,
rocks, and other debris found in the boxcars they are shipped in or when
they are struck or dropped while being transported in the plant Such
snags are commonplace and the Respondent issues knives to its pressmen
to cut them out to prevent web breaks A knife cut in a roll of paper,
while not unheard of, would certainly be more likely to raise suspicion, if
found, than a snag As an experienced pressman, it seems likely that if
Roberts wanted to cause a web break he would simulate a snag in the
roll, rather than make the knife cut Patteson described At least one expe
rienced pressman who testified felt that a three fourths inch smooth cut
would not have caused a freak Another testified that a cut or snag is
more likely to cause a web break when the paper is moving at high speed
than while running slower Thus it would seem that if Roberts were
seeeking to cause a web break he would wait until the press reached high
speed rather than cutting paper that would go through as the press was
starting up
r+
GREENSBORO NEWS CO 143
the roll of paper, indicating that a repair had been made,
that Patteson first said that he had seen a cut in the roll
The action of Emery was no more reasonable Like Pat-
teson, he made no effort to find the pieces of paper
which had been cut out of the roll by Roberts and would
have established that there had been a knife cut 22 and he
apparently had no interest in hearing any explanation
from Roberts Likewise, Hendricks, although admitting
that he was "flabbergasted" by Roberts' discharge, re-
fused to meet with him until the dismissal letter had been
issued and then refused to discuss the matter with him
until the next day
When the foregoing facts are considered against the
background of Roberts' substantial and continuous union
activity at the Respondent's plant, which include enforc-
ing the terms of the pressmen's collective-bargaining
contract and work rules, organizing in other depart-
ments, and filing unfair labor practice charges and testi-
fying before the Board and the Respondent's knowledge
of these activities, the Respondent's union animus, as
demonstrated by the statement concerning unions in its
employees' manual, the 8(a)(1) violations found herein
and the antiunion comments of its executives Greene and
Hendricks, and its precipitous discharge of Roberts, they
convince me that the basis for Roberts' discharge was a
pretext and he was, in fact, discharged because of union
support and activity
In similar circumstances, the fact that an employer
made no meaningful effort to investigate alleged employ-
ee misconduct or to give the employee the opportunity
to explain before being discharged has been a significant
factor in a finding of discrimination by the Board and the
courts 23 It is particularly significant here because, if the
roll of paper had been cut with a knife, there should
have been a substantial amount of physical evidence
available to establish this fact Both Patteson and Emery,
who were present in the reel room immediately after the
alleged knife cut had been repaired by Roberts, were in a
position to pick up the cutouts and preserve them as cor-
roborating evidence If the cutouts were not there, it
would have established that Roberts had disposed of the
evidence Their failure to even look for the cutouts
strongly suggests that no such corroborating evidence
existed and they knew it Hendricks, too, declined the
pressmen's invitation to go to the reel room at a time
when the cutouts should have been available
As discussed above, even if Patteson's testimony con-
cerning this incident is believed, his actions and conclu-
sions are not supportable I did not find him to be a be-
lievable witness and do not credit his testimony where it
conflicts with Roberts, who was a credible and convinc-
ing witness It appears that when Patteson came back to
the reel room with Emery he had already made up his
22 While Patteson could have felt there was no need for proof of what
he had seen, or thought he had seen, I find it incredible that Emery
would have made no effort to pick up the corroborating physical evi
dence or to determine that the paper that had been cut out of the roll
was not on the reel room floor
23 See e g, Synco Corp 234 NLRB 550 (1978) Terminal Services
Houston, 229 NLRB 1117 (1977) TIME DC Inc v NLRB, 504 F 2d
294 (5th Cir 1974), NLRB v Ayer Lar Sanitarium, 436 F 2d 45 (9th Cir
1970), US Rubber Co v NLRB 384 F 2d 660 (5th Cir 1967)
mind to dismiss Roberts His statement to Roberts—"I
hereby dismiss you for deliberately slowing down pro-
duction"—which he repeated twice, sounded stilted and
rehearsed The knife cut Patteson allegedly saw had not,
up to that point, caused any slowdown Inasmuch as
Roberts' credible testimony establishes that no knife cut
existed, Patteson may very well have been accusing Rob-
erts of having caused the prior web break, which Patte-
son admitted at the hearing he had "no idea" how it had
been caused
The Respondent's argument that Patteson was solely
responsible for Roberts' discharge and, because he was a
union member with prounion sympathies, he must have
been motivated by legitimate concerns, is not persuasive
There was uncontradicted testimony that the Union had
forced Patteson and other foremen who held union cards
to choose between management and the Union by asking
that they take the position that they were members of
the bargaining unit They refused to do so and, shortly
thereafter, began sitting with management during griev-
ance proceedings which resulted in their being barred
from speaking at union meetings Patteson admitted that
he attended training sessions, production meetings, and
social events which were restricted to management Pat-
teson had several clashes with Roberts, in his capacity as
union president, over work rules and had had embarrass-
ing confrontat.c,— ;; in front of his entire crew over his
failure to pay a fine assessed against him by the Union,
and his giving overtime work to an assistant foreman
Pressman Dewey Wells testified credibly about a conver-
sation he had with Patteson, a longtime friend, in Sep-
tember 1981, in which Patteson, who had just had an
angry discussion with Roberts about work rules, pointed
to Roberts and told Wells, "he's going to keep on and
keep on until he gets it "24
While Patteson discharged Roberts, Hendricks could
have overruled this decision The record shows that
Hendricks kept close watch on Roberts' actions at the
Respondent's plant, unsuccessfully sought to limit Rob-
erts' access to other departments and was unhappy with
having to deal with an organizer (Roberts) who was
inside the plant every day While Hendricks admitted
that he was "flabbergasted" at the dismissal of Roberts
and had never known Roberts to lie to him, he upheld
Patteson's decision, in the absence of any objective evi-
dence, because he "believed" him
In summary, I find the Respondent's discharge of Rob-
erts, an active and successful union activist, who at the
time was seeking to organize the Respondent's advertis-
ing department, had no reasonable basis and was a pre-
text I also infer from this and the other evidence that
the real reason for Roberts' discharge was his union ac-
tivity Consequently, I find that the discharge of Roberts
24 Patteson denied making this statement I credit the testimony of
Wells who is a current employee of the Respondent and unlikely to fabrt
cate such a story I find this casts further doubt on Patteson s credibility
as a witness Standing alone, this comment coming over a year before
Roberts dismissal might be of little significance However the evidence
shows that Roberts did keep on and keep on, last confronting Patteson
over work rules on the morning of his discharge, and that he eventually
did "get it from Patteson
144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was discriminatory and in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act. 2 5
There is no way of telling to what extent Roberts'
filing charges with the Board and his testimony at a
Board hearing entered into his dismissal or Hendricks'
decision to uphold it. I doubt that it was a significant
factor It appears that Roberts' organizing activities were
of far more concern to the Respondent than the unfair
labor practice charges he filed with the Board, which
Hendricks told Roberts he was not worried about since
the only result would be a "slap on the hand." Under the
circumstances, I find it unnecessary to determine wheth-
er the Respondent also violated Section 8(a)(4) of the
Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, Greensboro News Company, is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
by (a) threatening employees with reprisals for associat-
ing with persons known to be union adherents and/or
promoters of employees' protected concerted activities;
(b) issuing a warning to employee Jane Allen because it
thought she engaged in union or other protected activity;
and (c) threatening employees with the loss of benefits
because of their support for the Union.
4. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act by discharging employee James Roberts because
of his support for and activities on behalf of the Union
5. The foregoing unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. The Respondent did not engage in unfair labor prac-
tices alleged in the complaint not specifically found
herein.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be or-
dered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain af-
firmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
Having found that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging James Roberts,
I shall recommend that the Respondent be ordered to
offer Roberts immediate and full reinstatement to his
former position or, if it no longer exists, to a substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority
and other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and
to make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against him.
Backpay shall be computed in the manner prescribed in
F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest
to be paid on the amounts owing in accordance with
Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977).26
28 Since this is not a "mixed motive" case, Wright Line does not apply
28 See generally Isis Plumbing Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962)
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed27
ORDER
The Respondent, Greensboro News Company,
Greensboro, North Carolina, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Threatening employees with reprisals for associat-
ing with persons known to be union adherents and/or
promoters of employees' protected concerted activities.
(b) Issuing warnings to employees because it believes
they have engaged in union or other protected concerted
activities.
(c) Threatening employees with loss of benefits be-
cause of their support for the Union or any other labor
organization.
(d) Discharging, or otherwise discriminating against
employees in regard to hire or tenure of employment, or
any term or condition of employment because of their
union or protected concerted activities.
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer James Roberts immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former position of employment, or if that po-
sition no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent posi-
tion, without prejudice to his seniority or any other
rights or privileges previously enjoyed, and make him
whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered
as a result of the discrimination against him in the
manner set forth in the remedy section of the decision.
(b) Preserve and, on request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records nec-
essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
(c) Expunge from its records and files any references
to the discharge of James Roberts and the warning
issued to Jane Allen on July 30, 1982, and notify them in
writing that this is being done and that the evidence of
the unlawful discharge and warning will not be used as a
basis for future personnel actions against them."
(d) Post at its Greensboro, North Carolina plant copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 28 Copies of
" If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses
28 See Sterling Sugars, 261 NLRB 472 (1982)
29 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of
Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board"
GREENSBORO NEWS CO 145
the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 11, after being signed by the Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Re-
spondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60
consecutive days in conspicuous places including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material
(1) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the consolidated com-
plaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations not spe-
cifically found herein