Leslie Metal Arts Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 13, 1974

214 N.L.R.B. 934 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

934 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Leslie Metal Arts Company , Inc. and International
Union, United Automobile , Aerospace and Agricul-
tural Implement Workers of America (UAW). Case
7-CA-10996
November 13, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND
KENNEDY
On, July 29, 1974, Administrative Law Judge John
M. Dyer issued the attached Decision in this pro-
ceeding. Thereafter, General Counsel filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, and Respondent 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.
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 orders
that Respondent, Leslie Metal Arts Company, shall
take the action set forth in the said recommended
Order.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN M. DYER , Administrative Law Judge: On March
13, 1974, 1 the International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of Ameri-
ca (UAW), herein called the Union or UAW, filed a charge
against Leslie Metal Arts Co., Inc., herein called Respon-
dent , the Company , or Lescoa, alleging that Respondent
violated Sections 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
In a complaint issued by the Regional Director on April
30, it was alleged that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act by the coercive interrogation of employees by its
foreman, Richard Wilcox , in October 1973, and that Fore-
man Wilcox and Foreman Martin unlawfully threatened
1 Unless specifically stated otherwise, all events herein took place during
latter 1973 or early 1974
employees in October and November. The complaint fur-
ther alleges that on or about February 28 Respondent sus-
pended employee Bernard White for 1 week because of his
interest in and activity on behalf of the Union.
Respondent's May 3 answer admitted the requisite com-
merce and jurisdictional allegations and that it had sus-
pended White but denied that it had violated the Act in
any way.
There are some conflicts in the testimony of some of the
witnesses . In assessing credibility I have relied on the wit-
nesses' testimony, some uncontroverted facts, my observa-
tion of their demeanor and the nature and manner in
which responses were made and I have concluded that Re-
spondent did not violate Section 8(a)(3) of the Act in its
suspension of White, but that Respondent did violate Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act by the interrogation and threats
made by its two supervisors.
At the hearing of this matter held in Grand Rapids,
Michigan, on June 20, all parties were afforded full oppor-
tunity to appear, to examine and cross-examine the wit-
nesses , and to argue orally. General Counsel and Respon-
dent have filed briefs which have been carefully consid-
ered. On the entire record in this case I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT AND THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
INVOLVED
Respondent is a Michigan corporation maintaining sev-
eral plants in Grand Rapids where it has its principal office
and place of business. The only plant involved in this pro-
ceeding is known as the Breton Road plant or plant 4.
Respondent is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distri-
bution of steel stampings, assemblies, and related products
and during the past year received goods and materials val-
ued in excess of $50,000, directly from points outside the
State of Michigan and during the same time sold and dis-
tributed products valued in excess of $50,000 which were
shipped directly to points located outside the State of
Michigan
Respondent admits and I find that it is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
Respondent admits and I find that the Union herein is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background and Undisputed Facts
In addition to Foremen Wilcox and Martin mentioned
above, at the relevant time, Calvin Drake was the foreman
in the press department, Orrin Mancel was the plant man-
ager of the Breton Road plant, and Adam Yff was the
supervisor of the assembly department over Foreman
Drake. Leslie Tassel is the president of the Company and
Donald Tassel is the executive vice president and general
manager
One of the products made in the plant is a windshield
214 NLRB No. 133
LESLIE METAL ARTS COMPANY, INC.
wiper arm linkage for Chrysler Corporation. There were
two different lenghts of linkages, one about a quarter inch
longer than the other and at various times a number of
these linkages were mixed by the press department when
the plastic bushing was inserted by the bushing press oper-
ators. As a result one or more shipments that went out were
defective and Chrysler Corporation rejected them and sent
its representatives to the plant to see what could be done to
correct this problem.
The Company added a fixture to the bushing press
which would accept only the shorter length of windshield
wiper linkage. A piece of linkage was placed into the fix-
ture and held in place while the bushing was pressed onto
one end. If the wrong part was used it would not "nest" in
this fixture. The Chrysler Corporation representative ap-
proved the correction of the problem by the use of this
fixture. In addition to the slight size difference, which
would not be readily noticeable, the parts were numbered
separately.
Bernard White started with Respondent in August 1968
and became a foreman at plant I. In 1972 while a union
campaign was being conducted, it was alleged in an NLRB
complaint issued against the Company that White had
coercively interrogated employees. White testified that
sometime thereafter, while a union campaign was in pro-
gress, his tires were deflated and a lug nut came off of one
of his car's wheels. He talked to management representa-
tives and to the attorney for the Company and expressed a
desire to be transferred elsewhere. In March 1973, White
was transferred to plant 4 as the leadman, or assistant fore-
man, to Foreman Calvin Drake.
It was not stated precisely when union organizational
attempts were made at plant 4, but a union campaign be-
gan there just before or around the fall of 1973. The Union
sent letters to Respondent, beginning in early September,
identifying various employees as being members of the
UAW organizing committee at plant 4. On October 31,
such a letter was sent to the Company, identifying Bernard
White as a member of the UAW organizing committee.
Foreman Calvin Drake, a witness for the General Coun-
sel, testified that in either late January or early February
there was a shortage of the windshield arm linkages and in
order to relieve the shortage and to speed up the pro-
cessing, he taped a block of steel to the fixture which lifted
any linkage out of the "nest" and allowed the operator to
fit a bushing on any piece he used. Drake testified that he
instructed his operators to be very careful of the parts and
make sure they got the correct parts separated and identi-
fied in using the bushing press since the fixture was inoper-
able. He stated it was necessary to perform this way for a
short period of time to get a quantity produced and that
evening the fixture was removed from the bushing press
and the press was used for other purposes. He did not get
permission to operate in this fashion but did it on his own.
He testified that the next time he saw the fixture, some 3
weeks later, it was back on the bushing press with a block
of steel welded to the fixture. Drake went to the head of the
parts department, a Mr. Ballanger, and told him that he
wanted to get the fixture repaired as quickly as possible
and get that block off. Drake admitted it was possible he
might have mentioned Mancel's name in stating that he
935
hoped that Mancel did not see it until they got the job run.
He testified specifically that once again he warned the op-
erators and the parts handlers to be very careful with the
pieces used, to make sure the proper ones were used to-
gether because he was fully aware of the problems that the
Company had experienced with Chrysler as a result of the
previous mixing of the parts.
Drake testified that he was sure that Bernard White was
aware of this history and that White had been present and
working in the shop at the time of the problems with
Chrysler. White corroborated the fact that he knew wrong
parts had been sent to Chrysler, that they had been re-
turned and Chrysler required the Company to make
changes so the mistake would not happen again, and that
he knew the fixture was designed to prevent such mistakes
from happening and that the matter was of considerable
concern both to the Company and to the Chrysler Corpo-
ration.
Before the fixture could be removed, Mr. Mancel came
through the plant, saw it and stopped the operation of the
machine immediately. Mancel questioned Foreman Drake
about it, asking whether White had done this or not. Drake
told Mancel he felt that White had not done it but that it
might have been done by the night crew. On the following
day Drake learned from White that White had welded the
block of steel to the fixture. About the same time, Mancel
told Drake he knew that White had done it and Drake
confirmed it
White was then suspended for 4 days from work. When
he reported back to work after the suspension he was shift-
ed to the position of materials handler. Prior to this time
White had asked to be transferred to the position of mate-
rials handler from the position of leadman.
In regard to White's reason for placing the block on the
fixtures, Calvin Drake, who is no longer with the Compa-
ny, testified that while he was still working at the Company
he was told that White stated he had welded the block to
the fixture on the orders of Calvin Drake. Drake at that
point told Mancel that if White said this he was a liar.
White was asked whether he had been ordered to weld
the block or not. White's testimony on this and on a num-
ber of other points was rather confusing but finally he
came to the point saying he must have misinterpreted what
was said. He was then asked if one of the reasons for weld-
ing the block on the fixture was so that the workers could
increase their piece-rate production and earnings and he
agreed that was so.
Ex-Foreman Drake testified that White was not a good
leadman or assistant foreman until sometime in either the
summer or fall, when Mancel and one of the Tassels had
White in their office and told him of his shortcomings. He
stated that after that time White became a good leadman,
accepting responsibility and not walking around talking to
the workers as he had done prior to that time.
White states that this conversation with Tassel and Man-
cel took place during October. Again, his testimony as to
what took place during the meeting is somewhat confused,
with White saying that Donald Tassel and Pat Mancel,
among other things, asked what he was trying to pull, said
they did not care whether a union drive was going on, and
that they had a lot on him, enough to hang him. During
936 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cross-examination his testimony became a little clearer
when after a number of questions he finally admitted that
Donald Tassel and Mancel discussed his performance as a
leadman or assistant foreman and what he was doing
wrong. He admitted they accused him of being lazy.
It was not established when White began any organizing
activities, so there is no showing that the Company had any
knowledge of any union activities of his prior to this Octo-
ber conversation, since the notification by the Union to the
Company was not sent until October 31, following the con-
versation. It is possible that White's interest in the Union
developed after the October conversation.
White testified to a second conversation with Mancel,
with Calvin Drake being present, on the day after the No-
vember 7 election. Again, White's testimony was vague but
he stated that Mancel said something about getting him or
having his job. General Counsel did not ask Drake about
this conversation even though Drake was a General Coun-
sel witness who was on the stand for a long time. Possible
corroboration which was readily available was not sought
and this weakens the probability of the event.
Gary Reiffer, an employee still working for Respondent,
testified that in October Pressroom Foreman Wilcox saw
him in the shipping department and asked if he knew any-
body who was going to vote for the Union. Reiffer replied
that he did not and that Wilcox would have to ask them.
Wilcox then asked Reiffer how he was going to vote and
Reiffer made no reply. Wilcox then said that if the Union
got in he would have Reiffer pulled out of the shipping
department and put back in the pressroom where he would
work Reiffer's-off. Reiffer said you do not mean that and
Wilcox replied "the hell I don't." On cross-examination it
was brought out that Reiffer went to his foreman, Hutting-
ton, and complained about this threat from Wilcox.
Employee Danny Austin was approached by Pressroom
Foreman Wilcox prior to the election and asked if he was
for the Union. He replied that he was and Wilcox stated
"That's funny, usually only lazy are for the Union." A
few days later, Hardware Foreman Martin told Austin that
if the Union got in Mr. Tassel would close the doors and
that if the Union got in it would not change a damn thing.
Foreman Wilcox who had been a foreman for 4 years
denied that he had talked with Austin and Reiffer and
stated that he never talked to anybody regarding the Union
and did not talk in the reported manner. Foreman Martin
stated that he had no such conversation with Austin.
B. Conclusions
The General Counsel adduced testimony that Foreman
Martin, when he was a leadman, had made a change on
one of the machines by leaving some bolts off and as a
result some products were made improperly and had to be
scrapped. The testimony showed that the products were
never sent to the buyer but were caught in the plant and
the proper changes made. Further, Foreman Martin testi-
fied that he had not been explicitly told why the particular
bolts were on there and did not know that removing them
would cause the problems which it did cause.
There is no true comparison between the problems expe-
rienced by Martin and the action taken by Bernard White
and I cannot find under all the circumstances that what
occurred was disparate treatment.
As mentioned previously, I found Bernard White to be a
rather confusing witness who would say or intimate one
thing at one time and then something opposite shortly
thereafter. On direct examination his testimony was rather
vague and confusing. The cross-examination pointed out
the discrepancies to a goodly extent. His admission that
one of the reasons (if not the reason) for his welding the
steel block to the fixture was to allow employees to pro-
duce parts faster, and thus increase their piece-rate earn-
ings, is sufficient to find Respondent's actions justified. It
was White's duty as a leadman or assistant foreman to see
that the machine was properly used and not allow or make
improper changes. The change made by Drake had not
been caught by management and had been done at a spe-
cific time to answer a necessity for quick production. It is
possible that Drake should not have made that change and
could have been disciplined had it been discovered.
Under the circumstances, I cannot condemn the Compa-
ny for its treatment of this matter as a rather serious affair
since it had prior problems with Chrysler Corporation over
the problem that the fixture was designed to cure and that
this change defeated. Added to this is the new Federal stat-
ute regarding fines for the production of defective car safe-
ty equipment which would make Respondent liable up to
$1,000 for each defective part.
It certainly is not clear that the first conversation in Oc-
tober between White, Mancel, and Tassel had anything to
do with any union activities of White, but to the contrary
seems to have been solely in regard to White's lax perfor-
mance as an assistant foreman. Further, I am not con-
vinced that the remark allegedly made by Mancel to White
on the day after the election had anything to do with
White's actions, if any, as a union organizer. White testi-
fied that he did talk to people about the Union and at-
tempted to get cards signed but we do not know to what
extent, if any, he did so, and his becoming a union organiz-
er after being warned about his performance and his past
history leads to doubt as to his organizing actions.
In sum, I am not convinced that any words spoken or
actions taken in regard to White had any relationship to
anything he may have done on behalf of the Union. It
appears to me that the suspension related wholly to his
unwarranted action in modifying the fixture so that it
would not perform as it had been designed. The fact that
Mancel immediately stopped production on the machine
when he saw this addition to the fixture shows how impor-
tant the Company felt the fixture was to their operation
Therefore, I conclude and find that the suspension of Ber-
nard White did not violate Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act.
The testimony of Gary Reiffer impressed me that Fore-
man Wilcox did make the remarks alleged. The fact that on
cross-examination it was brought out that Reiffer com-
plained about this treatment to his supervisor has a ring of
authenticity to it. Wilcox' denials of his statements did not
impress me.
Danny Austin who is also still employed by Respondent
impressed me that he was telling the truth concerning both
Martin's and Wilcox' statements and threats to him. Wil-
LESLIE METAL ARTS COMPANY, INC.
cox appeared to be following a pattern of attempting to
find out who was for the Union and who was not and his
remark seemed to fit the occasion. I doubt Wilcox' denial
that he does not use such language and find that the re-
marks were made as alleged by both Martin and Wilcox.
In sum I find that Respondent did violate Section 8(a)(I)
of the Act by its coercive interrogation of employees and
by threats to them of harder working conditions if the
Union was brought into the plant and with the possibility
of the plant closing if the Union came in.
111. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section II, and
therein found to constitute unfair labor practices in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act, occurring in connection
with Respondent's business operations as set forth above in
section I , have a close , intimate , and substantial relation-
ship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in the unfair
labor practices set forth above, I recommend that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act as follows:
Having found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act by interrogating its employees as to their union
sympathies and by threatening that employees would have
harder working conditions, or that the plant might be
closed if the Union became their bargaining agent and
since it is a part of the purpose of the Act to prevent the
commission of unfair labor practices, I recommend that
Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from violating
the Act in the same or a similar manner. On the basis of the
foregoing findings and the entire record, I make the follow-
ing:
937
as a whole, it is recommended that Leslie Metal Arts Com-
pany, Inc., of Grand Rapids, Michigan, its officers, agents,
successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Unlawfully interrogating its employees as to their
union sympathies.
(b) Unlawfully threatening that employees would have
harder working conditions or that the plant might be
closed if the Union became their bargaining agent.
(c) In the same or any similar manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights
under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its plant 4 in Grand Rapids, Michigan, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of
said notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 7, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of Respondent, be posted by Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are custom-
arily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon-
dent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the 8 (a)(3) allegations of
the complaint be dismissed
2 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
3 In the event that the Board's 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 Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board "
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(I) of the Act by un-
lawfully interrogating its employees as to their union sym-
pathies and by threatening that employees would have
harder working conditions or that the plant might be
closed if the Union became their bargaining agent.
RECOMMENDED ORDER 2
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and con-
clusions of law and the entire record in this case considered
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
Following a hearing in which the Company, the Union,
and the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board participated and offered evidence, it has been found
that we violated the act. We have been ordered to post this
notice and to abide by what we say in this notice.
938 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT unlawfully ask our employees about WE WILL NOT In the same or any similar manner in-
their union sympathies. terfere with, restrain , or coerce employees in the exer-
WE WILL NOT unlawfully threaten that employees cise of rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act.
would have harder working conditions or that the
plant might be closed if the Union became their bar- LESLIE METAL ARTS COMPANY,
gaining agent. INC.