Louisiana Cement Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 28, 1979

241 N.L.R.B. 536 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Louisiana Cement Company, a Division of OKC Corp.
and United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-
C(1,. Case 15 CA 6657
March 28. 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MliMBEIRS JENKINS. MURPHY, AND TRUESDALE
On December 20. 1978, Administrative Law Judge
Robert M. Schwarzbart issued the attached Decision
in this proceeding. Thereafter, both the Respondent
and the General Counsel filed exceptions and sup-
porting briefs, and the General Counsel filed a brief
in support of the Administrative Law Judge's Deci-
sion in all other respects.
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,2 and
conclusions' of the Administrative Law Judge, as
modified herein, and to adopt his recommended Or-
der.
The Administrative Law Judge concluded, inter
alia, that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the
Act by creating the impression that it was keeping the
union sentiments and activities of employee Patrick
under surveillance. In support of this conclusion, the
Administrative Law Judge found that, according to
Patrick's testimony. Assistant Plant Manager Stea-
gall4 remarked to Patrick that when Patrick got to be
a union steward, he (Patrick) would no longer have to
I Respondent excepts to several of the Administrative Law Judge's proce-
dural rulings, including the Administrative Law Judge's denial of Respon-
dent's motion for postponement of the hearing pending the availability of
attorney lHolard S. inzy. As indicated, we affirm the Administrative Law
Judge's rulings, and. in affirming his denial of the motion for postponement.
we n:* particularly that, at Respondent's request, the Administrative Law
Judge adjourned the hearing at noon on the opening day thereof. to recon-
vene the tbllowing morning, on the basis of' Respondent's assurances to the
Administrative I.aw Judge that. if the proceedings were so postponed. it
so,uld thereafter be prepared to proceed and would forgo further motions for
postponement based on its initially claimed unpreparedness to proceed. Re-
spondent's subsequent contention that it was "coerced" by the Administra-
tive L.aw Judge into gising such assurances is totally unsupported by the
record before us
I he first paragraph of sec III, D. of the Administrative Law Judge's
Decision states that employees Thomas and Walker identified employee
Bounds to Assistant Plant Manager Steagall as "principal union activists
[sic": this is incorrect. tbr, as the Administrative Law Judge himself found
earlier in his Decision, and as the record clearly establishes, Bounds identi-
fied 7ho,,nrs and Walker to Steagall as principal union activists.
I Respondent contends that the Administrative Law Judge's rulings, inter-
prelation of the evidence, findings, and conclusions show bias and prejudice
against Respondent on the part of the Administrative Law Judge. We have
carefully reviewed the record and the attached Decision, and based on that
examination we are completely satisfied that the contentions of the Respon-
dent in this regard are totally without merit.
'Steagall did not testify at the hearing.
work on the railroad tracks on Respondent's prem-
ises. It is evident, however, that the Administrative
Law Judge has inadvertently misread Patrick's testi-
mony about this incident. Specifically, as reflected in
the transcript, Patrick testified that he remarked to
Steagall (and not vice versa) that when Steagall (and
not Patrick) got to be a union steward, he (Patrick)
would no longer have to work on Respondent's rail-
road tracks. Accordingly, we find that the Adminis-
trative Law Judge's factual findings were erroneously
derived from an inadvertent misreading of the record,
and we conclude, based on the correct reading of the
record, that Respondent did not violate Section
8(a)(1) in this particular respect.5
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 Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby or-
ders that the Respondent, Louisiana Cement
Company, a division of OKC Corporation, New Or-
leans, Louisiana, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said rec-
ommended Order.
5 We note, however. that the Administrative Law Judge's summary of
Patrick's testimony is in all other respects entirely accurate, as are his sum-
maries of the testimony of all other witnesses.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT M. SCHWARZBART, Administrative Law Judge:
This case was heard in New Orleans, Louisiana, on April
17, 18, and 19, 1978, pursuant to a charge filed on October
6, 1977.1 by United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-
CLC, herein the Union, and a complaint which issued De-
cember 1. The complaint alleges that Louisiana Cement
Company, a division of OKC Corp., herein the Respondent,
committed certain acts in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) of the Act. The Respondent's answer denied commission
of the alleged unfair labor practices.
Issues
I. Whether the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of
the Act by coercively interrogating various employees
about their union sympathies and activities and those of
other employees: by surveying and creating among its em-
ployees the impression that their union activities were un-
der surveillance by management: and by threatening dis-
charge of its employees and closure and relocation of its
plant if the employees selected the Union as their bargain-
ing agent.
All dates hereinafter refer to 1977 unless otherwise noted.
241 NLRB No. 83
536
LOUISIANA CEMENT COMPANY
2. Whether the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and
(I) of the Act by discharging Loyde Thomas and William
Walker, its employees, because they were active in the
Union's organizational campaign.
All parties were given full opportunity to participate. to
introduce relevant evidence. to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to file briefs. Briefs, filed by the General
Counsel and the Respondent, have been carefully consid-
ered.
Upon the entire record of the case and my observation of
the witnesses and their demeanor. I make the following:
FINDIN