Guy F. Atkinson Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 30, 1973

203 N.L.R.B. 394 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

394 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Bingham -Willamette Company , a Division of Guy F.
Atkinson Company and International Association of
Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO. Case
15-CA-4402
April 30, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND
KENNEDY
On February 5, 1973, Administrative Law Judge
Marion C. Ladwig issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed
a brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge's
Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.'
threatening to discharge an employee unless he re-
moved union stickers from his lunchbox:
WE WILL NOT prohibit our employees from put-
ting union insignia on their lunchboxes or other
personal property at the plant.
WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge any employ-
ee unless he removes union insignia from his per-
sonal property.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner in-
terfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in
the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section
7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
BINGHAM-WILLAMETTE
COMPANY, A DIVISION OF
Guy F. ATKINSON COMPA-
NY
(Employer)
Dated By
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that Respondent, Bingham-Willamette Com-
pany, a Division of Guy F. Atkinson Company,
Shreveport, Louisiana, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge's recommended Order except
that the attached notice is substituted for the Admin-
istrative Law Judge's notice.
' Respondent excepts, inter a/a, to the language of the Administrative Law
Judge's recommended notice, contending that it is too broad , it goes beyond
the scope of the recommended Order , and is improper with respect to the
nature of the single violation of the Act which was found . We find ment in
this exception and shall, accordingly , issue a modified notice
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board having
found , after trial , that we violated Federal law by
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, Plaza Tower, Suite 2700, 1001 How-
ard Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana 70113, Tele-
phone 504-527-6361.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MARION C. LADWIG, Administrative Law Judge: This case
was tried at Shreveport, Louisiana, on December 6, 1972.'
The charge was filed by the Union on March 20, and the
complaint was issued on July 27. The primary issues are (a)
whether the Company,2 the Respondent, threatened to dis-
charge a union committeeman during an organizing cam-
1 All dates are in 1972 unless otherwise stated
2 The name of the fompany was corrected at the trial.
203 NLRB No. 66
BINGHAM-WILLAMETTE CO. 395
paign unless he removed union decals from his lunchbox,
thereby compelling him to remove them, in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, and (b)
whether a remedial order is required 3
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of
the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Company,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I JURISDICTION
The Company is engaged in the manufacture of centrifu-
gal pumps at its plant in Shreveport, Louisiana, where it
annually ships goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly to
points outside the State, and receives goods valued in excess
of $50,000 directly from points outside the State. I find that
it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that the Union is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
I
11 ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Threat of Discharge
In January, the Union began an organizational campaign
the plant. About February 2, machinist Homer Willis
`,)rmally notified Machine Shop Foreman Harry Paulin
that Willis was a committeeman for the Union. This was
reported to Plant Manager Dale Patty.
On the following Monday, February 7, committeeman
Willis placed some 2-1/2-inch union decals on his lunchbox,
which he placed alongside others on the table in the lunch-
room (a nonwork area). The decals were allowed to remain
on the lunchbox until that afternoon, when they were re-
moved without notice to Willis. The next morning, after
sticking about 3 or 4 union decals on it, Willis again left his
lunchbox in the lunchroom. This time, about 8:30 a.m.,
Manufacturing Superintendent John Alkire went to Willis'
work area and, as Willis credibly testified, "said his boss,"
Plant Manager Patty, "had instructed him to tell me that if
I didn't remove the decals he was apt to fire me." Willis said
he thought he had a right to have them on the lunchbox, but
Alkire said "he had been given instructions that he would fire
me and that he would and he thought it would be best that
I went ahead and did it right then. So I went right then and
removed them. . . . During our conversation he did say
that in his opinion . . . union decals on personal objects was
the same as campaigning on company time." [Emphasis sup-
plied.] Superintendent Alkire admitted, "Well, I told Mr.
3 At the trial and again in its brief, the Company reurged its August 14
motion for summary judgment, contending that the Regional Director im-
properly withdrew approval of the May 8 informal settlement agreement.
The Board denied the motion on November 6, finding that the Regional
Director was fully warranted in vacating the settlement agreement because
such a notice as the one the Company posted alongside the settlement notice
clearly "defeats the very intent and purpose" of a settlement agreement "to
assure employees that the Respondent shall not intrude upon their self-
organizational rights" 199 NLRB No 188 (1972) The motion is denied
Willis to get rid of the stickers on his lunch bucket. . . . I
approached Homer and told him I would like to talk to him
in regards to his problem, the stickers, and I told him that
I had been instructed by Mr. Patty to tell him to get rid of
the stickers. . . . I told him if he didn't do what we told him,
we could fire him." Thereafter, upon advice from the
Union-after reporting the incident at a union meeting-
Willis refrained from taking any union insignia into the
plant until sometime in April, when he began wearing a
cloth insignia on his work shirt. (This was after the Union
filed the March 20 charge herein, and before the signing of
the May 8 settlement agreement.) The Company did not
repeat the threat.
Thus, for about 2 months during the organizing cam-
paign, the Company-through threat of discharge-prohib-
ited the display of the union decals on personal property by
advising the union committeeman that "union decals on
personal objects was the same as campaigning on company
time."
Belatedly at the trial, the Company at least implied that
it prohibited the display,of union decals on personal proper-
ty in order to avoid having the decals placed on walls and
other company property, as had occurred during the
Union's organizing campaign a year earlier. Plant Manager
Patty testified that the stickers started to appear in the plant
about the same time Foreman Paulin was informed by ma-
chinist Willis that he was one of the union organizers. (Wil-
lis, who impressed me as an honest, forthright witness,
denied knowledge of decals being placed on company pro-
perty in 1972.) Patty further claimed that he personally went
to the lunchroom on February 8 because he wanted to see
what kind of stickers were being used on the lunchbox and
how they were put on. (Although Patty testified that "only
part of the complete circle" of some of the decals "was
adhered to the lunchbox," this was not mentioned to Willis
at the time, and Willis credibly testified,."As far as I know
I thought all of them were secured on there.") When asked
the leading question by company counsel on direct exami-
nation, "Were the stickers the type that could be removed
and readhered on another surface," Patty answered, "Abso-
lutely." However he did not directly mention this consider-
ation when the counsel further asked, "Why. did you
instruct Mr. Alkire to tell Mr. Willis to get rid of the stick-
ers?" Patty answered,
As far as I was concerned this whole episode of
stickers and writing on the walls was starting all over
again and I wanted to stop it immediately. I knew from
Mr. Willis' conversation with our foreman that he was
the leader and he was the only one that I had seen with
decals on his personal property.
Thereafter, though, Patty claimed that he did not instruct
Willis in April to remove the union insignia from his work
shirt because "It couldn't be pasted on walls. It was sewn
on his shirt. It was cloth"-implying that the type of insignia
attached to the lunchbox was the controlling consideration.
Then in its brief, the Company argues that it "was solely
interested in preventing union decals from being placed on
company property." I find this to be an afterthought, as
contended by the General Counsel. There was nothing said
at the time of the threatened discharge about prohibiting
one type of insignia on personal property but permitting
396 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
another type. Furthermore, this purported justification for
the threatened discharge is inconsistent with Superinten-
dent Alkire's stated opinion (not specifically denied) that
"union decals on personal objects was the same as cam-
paigning on company time." I find that the Company was
prohibiting the display of union insignia, whether remova-
ble or not, on the employees' personal property in order to
impede the display of any union insignia in the plant-until
sometime before the execution of the settlement agreement.
Finding the Company's purported justification to be a
pure afterthought, I find that the Company's admitted
threat to discharge union committeeman Willis if he did not
remove the union decals from his lunchbox, thereby com-
pelling him to remove the union insignia, constituted an
unwarranted interference with the employees' right to en-
gage in union organizational activity, in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. Moreover, even assuming arguendo the
existence of special circumstances for ordering the removal
of the union decals from Willis' personal property, "it is
incumbent upon an employer to advise the employees why
it is ordering them to give up a protected right." Power
Equipment Co., 135 NLRB 945, 946, fn. 2 (1962). Here,
instead, the Company equated the placing of union decals
on personal objects with "campaigning on company time."
B. Requirement of Remedial Order
In its brief, the Company "submits that even if it is found
that the Employer was not justified in ordering Willis to get
rid of the decals, the incident was too isolated in nature to
warrant a remedial order and the posting of a notice." How-
ever, by threatening union committeeman Willis with dis-
charge unless he removed the union decals from his
lunchbox, and by referring to this display of the decals as
"campaigning on company time," the Company prevented
the display of union insignia on personal property in the
plant for a period of about 2 months, during the Union's
organizing campaign, thereby unlawfully interfering with
this protected organizing activity. Such interference with
employee Section 7 rights, even if only the union committee-
man were so coerced, requires a remedial order.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I find it necessary to order the Re-
spondent to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies 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 recommended:4
ORDER
Respondent, Bingham-Willamette Company, a Division
of Guy F. Atkinson Company, its officers, agents, succes-
sors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Prohibiting any employee from displaying union in-
signia on his lunchbox or other personal property at the
plant.
(b) Threatening any employee with discharge unless he
removes union insignia from his personal property at the
plant.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of theii
rights under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its plant in Shreveport, Louisiana, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix," 5 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 15, after being duly signed by Respondent's author-
ized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent im-
mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing 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 cov-
ered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent
has taken to comply herewith.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By threatening to discharge an employee unless he re-
moved union insignia from his lunchbox, thereby compel-
ling him to remove them, the Company engaged in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become its
findings, conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes
5 In the event the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."