Martin-Brower Company

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 7, 1982

261 N.L.R.B. 752 (N.L.R.B. 1982)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Martin-Brower Company and International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, Local 592. Cases 5-
CA-12592 and 5-RC-11278
May 7, 1982
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
BY CHAIRMAN VAN DE WATER AND
MEMBERS FANNING AND HUNTER
On October 19, 1981, Administrative Law Judge
Claude R. Wolfe issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent and the
Charging Party filed exceptions and supporting
briefs.
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, find-
ings,1 recommendations, and conclusions of the
Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recom-
mended Order, as modified herein.2
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, as modi-
fied below, and hereby orders that the Respondent,
Martin-Brower Company, Fredericksburg, Virgin-
ia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the said recommended
Order, as so modified:
1. Insert the following as new paragraph 2(c)
and reletter the following paragraphs accordingly:
"(c) Expunge from the personnel records, or
other files, of Edward Nelson, Robert Cook,
Edward Finney, John Jarrell, and Michael
McCann any reference to their unlawful layoffs."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED with respect to the
election conducted in Case 5-RC-11278 on Sep-
tember 7, 1980, that the challenges to the ballots
t Respondent and the Charging Party have excepted to certain credi-
bility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's
established policy not to overrule an administrative law judge's resolu-
tions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of
the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect.
Standard Dry Wall Products Inc, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d
362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no
basis for reversing his findings.
W2 e find that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to require Re-
spondent to expunge from the personnel records, or other files, of
Edward Nelson, Robert Cook, Edward Finney. John Jarrell, and Mi-
chael McCann any reference to their unlawful layoffs.
261 NLRB No. 111
cast by Robert Cook, Edward Finney, and Michael
McCann be, and they hereby are, overruled.
DIRECTION
It is hereby directed that the Regional Director
for Region 5 shall, within 10 days from the date of
this Decision, Order, and Direction, open and
count the ballots cast by Robert Cook, Edward
Finney, and Michael McCann in the election con-
ducted in Case 5-RC-11278 on September 7, 1980,
and thereafter prepare and cause to be served on
the parties a revised tally of ballots, upon the basis
of which he shall issue an appropriate certification.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees con-
cerning their or other employees' union activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees with
respect to how they will vote in a representa-
tion election conducted by the National Labor
Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT threaten to transfer work to
other facilities or lay off employees if they
select International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Local 592, or any other labor organi-
zation, as their collective-bargaining repre-
sentative.
WE WILL NOT condition the return of trans-
ferred work or the recall of laid-off employees
on the failure of union organizational efforts.
WE WILL NOT tell employees they are laid
off because of their union activities.
WE WILL NOT transfer work to other facili-
ties or lay off employees for the purpose of
discouraging union membership or activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees
int he exercise of rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended.
WE WILL offer Edward Nelson, Robert
Cook, Edward Finney, and Michael McCann
reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those
jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent
employment, without prejudice to their senior-
ity or other rights and privileges previously
enjoyed by them, and make them and John
Jarrell whole for any loss of pay they may
752
MARTIN-BROWER COMPANY
have suffered by reason of our unlawful layoff
of them, with interest computed thereon.
WE WILL expunge from the personnel
records, or other files, of Edward Nelson,
Robert Cook, Edward Finney, John Jarrell,
and Michael McCann any reference to their
unlawful layoffs.
MARTIN-BROWER COMPANY
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
CLAUDE R. WOLFE, Administrative Law Judge: This
consolidated proceeding was heard before me in Freder-
icksburg, Virginia, on April 13, 14, and 15, 1981. The
amended complaint in Case 5-CA-12592, based on
charges filed on September 11, 1980,1 alleges some inde-
pendent violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and vio-
lations of Section 8(a)(3) consisting of the layoffs of
Edward Finney, Edward Nelson, Robert Cook, John
Jarrell, and Michael McCann, and a termination of Jar-
rell. Respondent denies any violations of the Act. The
challenged ballots of Finney, Cook, and McCann are de-
terminative of the results of the election held in Case 5-
RC-11278 on September 7, and are before me for deci-
sion.
Upon the entire record2 and my careful observations
of the witnesses' demeanor as they testified, and after
consideration of the able post-trial briefs filed by all par-
ties, I make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. JURISDICTION
Respondent is a Delaware corporation engaged in the
interstate and intrastate distribution of food and paper
products for fast-food restaurants from its Fredericks-
burg, Virginia, location. During the 12 months preceding
issuance of the complaint, a representative period, Re-
spondent received gross revenues in excess of $50,000
from its interstate transportation of freight. Respondent is
an employer engaged in commerce and in operations af-
fecting commerce as defined in Section 2(2), (6), and (7)
of the Act.
11. LABOR ORGANIZATION
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. RESPONDENT'S SUPERVISORS AND AGENTS
The following persons occupied the positions set forth
after their names in Martin-Brower's employ at the time
of the events discussed in this Decision:
Raymond Hock-Eastern Regional Manager, Na-
tional Accounts Division.
i All dates herein are in 1980 unless otherwise specified.
Certain errors in the transcript have been noted and are hereby cor-
rected.
James Bards-Transportation Manager, National
Accounts Division
William A. Wells-Director of Distribution, Na-
tional Accounts Division
Rick Martin-Center Manager, Fredericksburg
Walter Pennino-Warehouse Supervisor, Freder-
icksburg
David Rodenroth-Transportation Manager, Fre-
dericksburg
Ronald Curtis-Dispatch Supervisor, Fredericks-
burg
Leslie C. Randall, Jr.-Transportation Manager,
Manassas Center
IV. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES 3
A. Background
Edward Finney gave uncontroverted testimony that
during an earlier union campaign in March 1979 he was
questioned by Bill Wells 4 and another man with respect
to Finney's previous union affiliations. Later that day
Finney's supervisor, Snyder, called Finney in and told
him the others had thought Finney was a union organiz-
er and had instructed him to fire Finney. Snyder then
told Finney that he had told the others they were
wrong, and that if Finney "let him down on his word,"
or accused him of being a liar, he would have Finney
killed. It does not seem likely to me that Snyder would
make such an extreme threat in the circumstances, but I
have no sound reason to discredit Finney's recitation of
these March 1979 occurrences. These events are beyond
the statutory limitations period, but may be considered as
background evidence to shed light on events within the
period. Local Lodge No. 1424. International Association of
Machinists, AFL-CIO; et al. (Bryan Manufacturing Com-
pany) v. N.L.R.B., 362 U.S. 411 (1960).
B. The General Picture and Some Preliminary
Conclusions
In mid-April employee Brown was discharged, but this
was reduced to a 1-week suspension. Shortly thereafter,
within a week or two of Brown's return to work, driver
3 The facts set forth herein are based on a composite of the credited
aspects of the testimony of all witnesses, the exhibits, and careful consid-
eration of the logical consistency and inherent probability of the facts
found. Although I may not advert to all of the record testimony or docu-
mentary evidence, it has been carefully weighed and considered. To the
extent that testimony or other evidence not mentioned herein might
appear to contradict the findings of fact, that evidence has not been over-
looked but has been rejected as incredible, lacking in probative worth,
surplusage, or irrelevant. Bishop and Maelo, Inc., d/b/a Walker's, 159
NLRB 1159, 1161 (1966). There are testimonial inconsistencies on some
peripheral matters, such as McCann's incredible claim that he and Roden-
roth discussed how employees had voted before the election was held. I
have noted them, but do not consider them to be so compelling as to di-
minish my credibility findings on other more substantive matters. It is a
rare witness whose recollections are minutely correct on every item
placed before him, and it is beyond cavil that a trier of fact may properly
credit some of a witness' testimony without believing all of it. N.LR.B.
v. Universal Camera Corporation, 179 F.2d 749 (2d Cir. 1950), vacated on
other grounds 340 U.S. 474 (1951).
4 I conclude Bill Wells is William A. Wells, Respondent's director of
distribution, National Accounts Division. Wells did not testify, nor did
Snyder.
753
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Michael McCann told Rodenroth that if there were a
union Rodenroth would not be able to discharge Brown
as he had. Rodenroth retorted that union or no union he
would be able to fire him for the breach of company
policy involved.
A few days prior to his conversation in regard to
Brown's discharge McCann protested his assignment to
Rodenroth, stating that if a union was in Rodenroth
would have to send another driver. Rodenroth respond-
ed that a union would not tell him how to run his busi-
ness. 5
Respondent distributes products to fast-food enter-
prises. Red Barn is one of those distributees and was
serviced out of the Fredericksburg terminal until August
1, 1980. Raymond Hock, Respondent's eastern regional
manager in its National Accounts Division, credibly tes-
tified there were discussions in early 1980 with respect to
moving the Red Barn account to Respondent's Colum-
bus, Ohio, terminal. Pursuant to these discussions, Re-
spondent in February prepared a profit plan for fiscal
1981, commencing July 1, 1980, which shows the Red
Barn account in Columbus rather than Fredericksburg.
Hock further credibly testified that the profit plan ap-
pears as it does because "we were going to consolidate
the Red Barn business in Columbus."
An intracompany memo of May 6 sets forth the annual
saving to be realized by a transfer of the account to Co-
lumbus. Thereafter, on May 27, Respondent's vice presi-
dent and general manager of the National Accounts Di-
vision, D. J. Adzia, issued the following memo to Na-
tional Sales Manager Dimos and Director of Distribution
Wells:
SUBJECT: Red Barn Relocation-Fredericksburg to
Columbus
We have discussed the need to identify the advan-
tages and disadvantages of transferring the Red
Barn inventory from Fredericksburg to Columbus
since servicing those units from Columbus. We in-
tended to make this change effective with the start
of the new fiscal year which is only five weeks
away. To date I have not seen any information re-
garding this subject. It is imperative that both of
you sit down immediately to thoroughly analyze
this subject so that we will make the correct deci-
sion on a timely basis.
Please have this information to me by no later than
June 6, 1980.
Michael McCann signed a union authorization card on
June 1. There is no evidence of union activity by Re-
spondent's employees prior to that date.
s I credit McCann's account of the discussion in regard to Brown be-
cause it was more complete and detailed than that of Rodenroth and ap-
peared believable, but I credit Rodenroth that the incident occurred in
April because he appeared to have the more certain recollection on the
approximate date, and because Gregory Murphy affirms that Brown was
reinstated prior to the start of the union movement, which I find com-
menced on or about June 1. I credit McCann's uncontroverted account
of the work assignment conversation.
On June 17, Respondent issued route schedules for the
delivery of Red Barn materials from Columbus, effective
August 4.
On July 14, Respondent wrote the parent company of
Red Barn confirming a meeting of July 9 wherein, inter
alia, the movement of Red Barn service from Fredericks-
burg to Columbus, Ohio, and attendant benefits were dis-
cussed. The letter expresses a desire to transfer the work
in early August upon receipt of Red Barn executive
committee approval.
On July 16, the Union filed a petition (Case 5-RC-
11278) for an election among Respondent's Fredericks-
burg drivers.
The last Red Barn shipment from Fredericksburg was
on August 8 or 9.
A line-haul carrying frozen products had operated out
of Fredericksburg since November 1978, and a line-haul
carrying dry products was added in or about March
1980. Fredericksburg Transportation Manager Roden-
roth credibly testified that the line-hauls originating at
Fredericksburg had been profitable from their inception
through their existence at Fredericksburg, and there is
other credible testimony from employees that they had
been apprised of this fact by management several times.
Rodenroth denied having anything to do with the trans-
fer of these hauls, and stated he first became aware of it
in early July when the Fredericksburg center manager,
Martin, told him of it.
The movement of the line-hauls apparently began with
a phone call from Raymond Hock to James Bardo, trans-
portation manager, National Accounts Division. Accord-
ing to Hock, at the end of June he asked Bardo to take a
look at the Fredericksburg line-hauls "[b]ecause we were
moving the Red Barn, we were eliminating the third
shift6 and in conjunction with a major move like that, I
asked him to take a look at that other part of the busi-
ness." Bardo confirms that Hock asked him to look into
the line-haul situation. Bardo testified that his department
then made cost analyses of the line-hauls, dry and frozen,
and discovered that movement of the hauls would result
in savings of $231.15 per week on the dry and $227.15
per week on the frozen. Bardo reported back to Hock
shortly after July 4 and told him of the cost differentials
and various operating efficiencies which would warrant
moving the line-hauls. Respondent proffered evidence of
other efficiencies to be gained, including the elimination
of weekend layovers at Fredericksburg with frozen
goods and the avoidance of a security problem with
loaded trucks sitting at Fredericksburg occasioned by
elimination of the third shift which meant no employees
on the premises during that shift.7
Hock asserted that he made the decision to move the
line-hauls effective August 1. It appears there was little
input on this decision by the management located at Fre-
dericksburg. The cost efficiencies and some other operat-
ing efficiencies suggested by Bardo were not shown to
6 This refers to warehouse employees.
I Bardo testified that the cost differential was the biggest factor in the
dry line-haul decision, whereas the biggest factor in the frozen line-haul
decision was the change in pickup time and origin for cold water fish
which previously had to set over the weekend in Fredericksburg.
754
MARTIN-BROWER COMPANY
be matters under consideration by Hock when he asked
Bardo to look into the possible move, and therefore were
not premises on which Hock made his initial decision to
explore the possibilities of removal.
When the line-hauls were in Fredericksburg one origi-
nated in Fredericksburg and went to Lenexa, Kansas.
The other originated in Fredericksburg and went to At-
lanta. On August 1, the dry line-haul originating point
became Lenexa, Kansas, and the frozen line-haul origi-
nated at Atlanta. All of the line-hauls run in a circle and
return to their same origination point with stops in be-
tween. In effect, all that Respondent did was reverse the
Fredericksburg hauls to Atlanta and to Lenexa.
On August 18, the Regional Director for the Board's
Region 5 approved a Stipulation for Certification Upon
Consent Election s in a unit of:
All drivers employed by the Employer at its Fre-
dericksburg, Virginia location, excluding warehouse
employees, office clerical employees, sales employ-
ees, professional employees, guards and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
An election was subsequently held on September 7,
wherein five votes were cast for the Union, six against,
and three ballots were challenged by Respondent, those
of Edward Finney, Robert Cook, and Michael McCann
on the ground they were permanently terminated prior
to the election.
Drivers Nelson, Cook, McCann, Finney, and Jarrell
were all laid off within a period from the last part of
July to mid-August. They were all told by Rodenroth
that the layoffs were a result of the loss of the Red Barn
account and the line-hauls. Rodenroth recalled telling
each of the five men that their layoffs were indefinite.
Cook agreed that he was told the layoff was indefinite.
Nelson did not testify. Jarrell credibly testified that Ro-
denroth told him he might be recalled when business
picked up and "this mess" was settled. McCann agreed
that he understood his August 15 layoff was permanent.
Finney and Rodenroth had two conversations about
Finney's layoff, one on or about July 31 and the other on
or about August 15. On July 31, Rodenroth told Finney
he would be laid off soon. Finney, who had on an earlier
occasion been off on workmen's compensation because
of a back injury,9 angrily retorted that his previous
injury was due to company negligence and he would
therefore go back on workmen's compensation. The next
run Finney took, on August 7, he reported he had rein-
jured his back. Finney came to see Rodenroth on August
15 and was told he was laid off indefinitely. I find Ro-
denroth did not, as Finney claims, tell him he was "unof-
ficially" laid off, but that Rodenroth did tell him he was
indefinitely laid off, as he had the others.' ° Finney sub-
sequently applied for and got workmen's compensation
even though Respondent contested it.
s The Union signed the stipulation on August 6, and Respondent on
August 8.
9 Finney had injured his back in August 1979 and was off work until
March 1980.
'o Rodenroth was a more convincing witness than Finney on this
point.
Of the five alleged discriminatees only McCann has
been shown to be a union card signer, nor is there any
evidence of union activity by any of them other than
McCann, whose activity was minimal and clearly less
than enthusiastic before his layoff.
Prior to the layoffs, Respondent terminated a tempo-
rary driver and did not replace him. At the time of the
layoff, drivers Murphy and Charter were on sick leave.
Both had more seniority than those laid off. Rodenroth
credibly testified that he anticipated both would be back
for the seasonal business increase before Christmas.
Murphy has not yet returned, and Charter returned in
January 1981. McCann was called back on November 14
for the Christmas rush only, but continues to work, ac-
cording to Rodenroth, because another driver quit in
December. McCann was the senior man on layoff, and
seniority was followed in both the layoff and subsequent
efforts to rehire. Jarrell was also rehired for the Novem-
ber 25 rush purportedly because neither Charter nor
Murphy had returned from sick leave. The parties agree
Jarrell was discharged for cause on February 12, 1981.
Cook and Nelson were offered reemployment, Cook in
March 1981. Cook and Nelson were offered reemploy-
ment, Cook in March and Nelson in April 1981, but both
declined.
After the layoffs there were nine drivers. This re-
mained constant until the Christmas season when the
force increased to 10. There were 10 thereafter until
April 1981, the week before the hearing, when it in-
creased. No new drivers were hired between the layoffs
and April 1981.
General Counsel's evidence of one run in August,
three in September, one in October, and one in Novem-
ber wherein two drivers were used rather than one, ad-
vanced to show Respondent did not have to lay off driv-
ers, loses considerable weight by reason of Respondent's
reasonable explanations therefor and the further reason
that six such incidents in a 4-month period would seem
to be the exception rather than the rule. I do not consid-
er this evidence significant either way in determining the
need for a layoff. I find it considerably more significant
that Curtis told Murphy, a few days after the election,
that business was "really bustin', really booming, and he
didn't know what he was going to do with all the prod-
uct and routes that they had." This indicates Respondent
could have utilized more drivers than they had in Sep-
tember.
C. The Termination of Jarrell at Manassas
Returning to Jarrell, it is alleged that he was unlawful-
ly discharged at the Manassas facility on September 10
after he had gone to work there on August 26. I find and
conclude that he was not unlawfully discharged at Ma-
nassas. Leslie Randall, transportation manager at Manas-
sas while Jarrell was employed, credibly testified that
when he hired Jarrell in August he expressly told him
that Jarrell could work as long as they had work for
him, and that when he let Jarrell go on September 10 it
was due to a lack of work, which Jarrell was told. Ran-
dall also credibly stated that Jarrell was but one of 10 or
11 casuals hired commencing in June due to added work
755
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for the Manassas terminal occasioned by a strike at Re-
spondent's Philadelphia terminal, and that all casuals
were terminated when the work decreased. Jarrell con-
ceded that he was working at Manassas on an as needed
basis and was not on the seniority board. I do not credit
Jarrell" that Randall told him he was still needed but
could not be kept because of corporate instructions. The
evidence does not preponderate in General Counsel's
favor with respect to the Manassas discharge allegation,
and that allegation will be dismissed.
I now turn to a discussion of the alleged independent
violations of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
D. Statements of Curtis to Murphy and Finney
Gregory Murphy and Edward Finney testified to two
conversations with Ron Curtis when both were present.
Murphy placed the first conversation around the end of
June, but Finney recalls it was mid-July. Murphy im-
pressed me as the more certain, and I conclude late June
is probably correct. The second conversation occurred
on or about July 31.
1. The first meeting with Curtis
With respect to the first meeting, Finney testified that
pursuant to a rumor of an additional line-haul 2 he and
Murphy asked if Respondent was going to add another
line-haul. Curtis replied he had no knowledge about an-
other line-haul, but the present line-haul would be kept
because it was clearing $1,800 per trip. Finney recalled
no more of that conversation.
Murphy averred that he and Finney asked Curtis if the
line-hauls would be cut if the Union came in, and re-
ceived the reply that Curtis did not think the line-hauls
would then'3 be cut out because they were profitable,
but he did think they would be cut if the Union came in
because the Fredericksburg drivers would not cross
picket lines at other of Respondent's locations if they
were union. 4 According to Murphy, Curtis asked if he
knew anything about the Union coming in, and then vol-
unteered that he, Curtis, knew McCann and another
driver whose identity he did not know had started the
Union. On cross-examination, Murphy explained that he
and Finney inquired about the cancellation of line-hauls
because of a rumor they would be cancelled if the Union
came in, and added that Curtis said the line-hauls would
probably come back after the union vote in September if
they were cut prior to then.
Curtis did not specifically deny meeting with Finney
and Murphy, but denied questioning any drivers about
their union activities or those of others, or telling them
the discontinuance of a line-haul was associated with
union activity. He also denied telling Murphy or any
driver that he knew who started the Union.
Murphy was a calm, collected witness whose testimo-
ny appeared unrehearsed, thoughtful, and credible. Fin-
I As I note elsewhere in this Decision, Jarrell was not an overly im-
pressiv; witness. Randall appeared more candid and believable.
12 A line-haul is the transportation of goods by truck between Re-
spondent's terminals located in various cities, as opposed to a direct de-
livery to a customer's place of business.
S3 I conclude "then" refers to the time of the conversation.
I4 Many of Respondent's terminals are organized shops.
ney's demeanor and recollection left much to be desired,
and Curtis' testimony amounts only to general denials. I
credit Murphy's account because he was far and away
the best witness of the three on the basis of comparative
demeanor, and because his testimony was much more
complete, detailed, and believable.
Conclusion
Curtis is an admitted supervisor and agent. His actions
are therefore imputable to his principal, Respondent.
When Curtis questioned Murphy about his knowledge of
the Union coming in, he was interrogating him about
employee union activities without any justifiable reason
shown. That Curtis was attempting to elicit the identity
of union adherents is inferrable from his accompanying
reference to McCann and another as known leading
union adherents. Interrogation of this type has a reason-
able tendency to interfere with and coerce employees in
the exercise of their Section 7 rights and violates Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.' s
Curtis, statements that the retention of the line-hauls
was dependent on whether or not the employees selected
a union to represent them also violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act because they amount to a threat of cancellation
if the Union were selected.
2. The July 31 meeting with Curtis'6
Curtis told Murphy and Finney the line-hauls would
be discontinued, and drivers would be laid off, because
the Union was trying to organize. He then opined that
the laid-off drivers might return depending on the out-
come of the election,' 7 and that the line-hauls might be
returned if the Union did not come in.
The statement that loss of work and driver layoffs
would be the result of union organizational efforts
amounts to a threat of such adverse consequences be-
cause of employee union activity, and violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. The accompanying remark condition-
ing the return of the lost work and concomitant return to
work of laid-off employees on the failure of union orga-
nization conveyed the clear message that unless a major-
ity of the employees forswore union representation the
discontinued work and the laid-off employees would not
return. The elements of interference with and restraint
and coercion of employees in the exercise of their Sec-
tion 7 right to form, join, or assist labor organizations are
all present in Curtis' message, and his comments on July
31 therefore violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
I' See, e.g., B. K. Restaurants Olean, Inc., d/b/a Burger King Restau-
rant, 252 NLRB 465, 467 (1980) (actions of Lata).
"' For the same reasons previously expressed, I credit Murphy's ver-
sion of the July 31 conversation.
'7 I do not credit Murphy that Curtis specifically mentioned a Septem-
ber election because the agreement for such an election was not entered
into until August. The petition for such an election had been filed on July
16, prior to the conversation.
756
MARTIN-BROWER COMPANY
E. Curtis and the Cooks
On July 30, Robert Cook was told by Rodenroth and
Martin that he was indefinitely laid off because of lack of
work. I8 Nelson was also laid off on or about July 30.
According to Cook, about 5 minutes after his meeting
with Rodenroth and Martin he and his wife talked to
Curtis. His wife asked Curtis why the layoff. Curtis re-
sponded that the Company was laying off by seniority
until they reached the "person that was causing the
union." Cook asked if he would be called back, and
Curtis said it was possible after the union vote. Cook did
not mention this conversation with Curtis in his pretrial
affidavit given on September 1980, which contains the
statement, "[N]o one in management ever said anything
to me about the Union." Cook first mentioned this meet-
ing with Curtis in an affidavit given on April 11, 1981, 2
days before the hearing commenced. He explained that
he did not report it earlier because it didn't seen impor-
tant and he did not want to get Curtis, who was a friend,
involved.
Mrs. Cook stated that her husband asked Curtis why
he was laid off, and Curtis replied it was in order to get
to the main person behind the Union. She said this
person was identified by Curtis or Cook as McCann. She
continued that Robert Cook asked how long he would
be laid off and was told it would be at least until after
the union vote.
Curtis testified that he had no social contact with
Cook, but was friendly with him at work although he
only saw him when he turned in his "paper work." Ac-
cording to Curtis, he did not know Cook was going to
be laid off until after Cook and his wife left the premises
on July 30. He denied talking to either Cook or his wife
that day, and specifically denied ever making the state-
ments attributed to him. He stated that he noted Cook
was upset and had tears in his eyes when he came out of
Rodenroth's office, rejoined his wife, and left.
Cook had no reason to ask Curtis for the reason for
his layoff because Rodenroth had already given him one.
This and the disagreement between the Cooks as to
which asked Curtis why the layoff, the prior inconsistent
affidavit of Cook, his unconvincing explanation of his
failure to earlier mention such a significant incident, and
the further fact that Curtis' testimony on the event ap-
peared uncontrived and believable persuades me to
credit Curtis' version. I find Curtis did not violate the
Act as alleged in paragraph 5(g) of the complaint.
F. Statements of Rodenroth to Jarrell
John Jarrell testified that after he heard of the termina-
tion of the Red Barn account he asked Rodenroth, on or
about August 6, if there was going to be a layoff. Roden-
roth said there was. According to Jarrell, he also asked
Rodenroth about the possibility of replacement work and
the conversation gravitated to a conversation about com-
pany benefits. 1 9 Rodenroth allegedly stated that the
'8 Although Cook was told of his layoff on July 30, he actually
worked through August 7.
19 Jarrell did not really explain how the question of benefits was
raised.
benefits "could be pulled and they would have to be ne-
gotiated as part of the union contract agreement or the
union agreement."
Rodenroth simply denied telling Jarrell his present
benefits could be renegotiated.
The issue boils down to a conflict between a bare ac-
cusation bereft of any explanation as to how Rodenroth's
alleged comment arose or related to the subject matter of
Jarrell's inquiry and a bare denial. It is most unlikely that
Rodenroth would, sua sponte, launch into a discourse on
either the bargainability of benefits or the possibility of
their discontinuance as part of a response to questions
about layoffs and the availability of replacement work.
Moreover, Jarrell was selectively evasive on cross-exami-
nation and left me with the overall impression that he
was carefully avoiding any testimony potentially detri-
mental to his case. In short, I credit Rodenroth, not an
outstanding witness from the standpoint of demeanor but
superior to Jarrell on this point. Accordingly, the allega-
tion in paragraph 5(c) of the complaint will be dismissed.
Jarrell further testified that when Rodenroth told him
on August 16 that the next week would be his last be-
cause of lack of work due to loss of line-hauls and the
Red Barn account, Rodenroth also advised that Jarrell
might be recalled "when business picked up and this
mess was settled." 20
Rodenroth's version was that he told Jarrell the Red
Barn and line-haul work had been lost, and Jarrell would
therefore be indefinitely laid off. Jarrell then asked about
transferring to Respondent's Manassas, Virginia, facility,
and Rodenroth replied that he had nothing to do with
Manassas and could not tell him. Rodenroth denied tell-
ing Jarrell the men would be called back when "this
mess" was cleaned up.
Noting that Jarrell did in fact go to work at the Ma-
nassas facility within a week or two after he completed
his last workweek at Fredericksburg, I am persuaded he
probably did inquire of Rodenroth regarding a transfer
to Manassas, and I credit Rodenroth's testimony in that
regard as well as his testimony that he told Jarrell he
was going to be laid off indefinitely. Even so, Jarrell's
testimony that Rodenroth said recall might occur when
business picked up and "this mess" was settled appeared
spontaneous and truthful, in contrast to some of his other
testimony, and is credited over Rodenroth's denial.
"This mess" is ambiguous, but it is reasonable to con-
clude, in the absence of any other apparent mess and in
accordance with the general principle that ambiguities
are construed against the utterer, that Rodenroth was re-
ferring to the union campaign and the pending elec-
tion. 21 His statement thus amounts to an admission that
the presence of union activity and the pendency of an
election were controlling factors with respect to when
Jarrell might be recalled. The statement was also reason-
ably calculated to convey to Jarrell the suggestion that
he might be recalled if the Union disappeared from the
scene. For these reasons I find and conclude Rodenroth's
'0 General Counsel misquotes the record which does not say "soon as
this mess was settled."
" The election agreement had been signed by Respondent on August
5.
757
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
statement had a reasonable tendency to interfere with
Jarrell's Section 7 rights and violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
C. The Pennino Incident
Michael McCann and his wife Joanne are friends of
Warehouse Supervisor Walter Pennino, who frequently
stops by their house. On September 2, Pennino dropped
by shortly before noon. He and the McCanns became in-
volved in a conversation wherein Pennino explained that
the reason McCann was laid off was because Respondent
thought he was the main organizer for the Union, and
that Respondent only learned later that he was not. I do
not credit Pennino's denials.2 2
Pennino's statements may reasonably be said to have a
tendency to interfere with employee2 3 rights under the
Act, and advising employees that their termination had
been caused by their union activities is unlawful. 2 4 Ac-
cordingly, I find Pennino's assertion that McCann was
laid off because Respondent considered him a leader in
the union organization drive violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
H. The Cook/Rodenroth Telephone Calls
Robert Cook had told Rodenroth during general con-
versations that he was satisfied and did not think the
Union was necessary. Cook testified that Rodenroth
called him on September 6, the day before the Board-
conducted election, and asked if he had changed his
mind about the Union. Cook replied he had not, and Ro-
denroth said that was all he was concerned about. 25 Ro-
denroth agreed that he did call Cook on September 6 but
stated he only told him the election was on the morrow
and he should come and vote.
Cook further testified that the union man called him
after the election just to be talking and told him it was
none of the Union's business how he had voted. 2 6
Mrs. Cook was not sure who called whom, but testi-
fied to a telephone call with Rodenroth on September 8
wherein he asked how her husband had voted and at-
tempted to wheedle an answer from her when she de-
clined to tell him.
Rodenroth claimed Mrs. Cook called him, told him the
union man had called and asked how Cook had voted,
and asked him what she should do. Rodenroth averred
he answered that he had nothing to do with that and did
not know, and denied asking her how Cook voted.
2" The McCanns' recollections of the conversation seemed vivid, un-
contrived, and believable.
2s Whether or not McCann was lawfully laid off, he remained a statu-
tory employee on September 2. Little Rock Crate d Basket Ca, 227
NLRB 1406 (1977).
24 Tennessee Cartage Co.. Inc, 250 NLRB 112, 117-118 (1980) (state-
ments of Atnip).
2' Respondent's claim that Cook testified to a general conversation
with Rodenroth regarding the Union on September 6 is incorrect. This
occurred some time prior to that date.
*e Respondent's statement in its brief that Cook testified the Union
asked him how he voted, to which he responded it was none of their
business is incorrect.
Conclusions
I do not credit Rodenroth that he contacted Cook to
solicit him to vote,2 7 noting that Respondent had al-
ready taken the firm position Cook and the other four
laid-off men were permanently separated, and then fol-
lowed through on this position by challenging Cook
when he did appear to vote. On the other hand, credit-
ing Cook requires an anomalous conclusion that Re-
spondent challenged an employee it had reason to be-
lieve was not inclined to vote against the Union. This
anomaly is alleviated by a recognition that had Respond-
ent not challenged Cook's ballot its solid position that all
five laid-off employees were permanently severed from
the Employer would have been somewhat eroded. On
the whole, although the matter is not entirely free from
doubt, I am persuaded Cook's version should be cred-
ited. Accordingly, I find that Rodenroth violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by interrogating Cook about his cur-
rent attitude toward the Union, and that his purpose was
to ascertain how Cook would vote.
Rodenroth was, however, the more believable witness
vis-a-vis his telephone conversation with Mrs. Cook, and
I credit his version thereof. I have considerable difficul-
ty, even though Robert Cook's testimony on the point is
uncontroverted, in believing the Union called to inform
him they did not want to know how he voted. It is more
probable that the union man in fact asked Cook how he
voted, and I am persuaded that Mrs. Cook indeed called
Rodenroth and had the conversation Rodenroth testified
to rather than vice versa.
I. Final Conclusions on the Layoffs and Challenged
Voter Eligibility
The questioning of Finney by Wells during a 1979
union campaign and the concurrent statements of Snyder
to Finney establish a recent background of Respondent
hostility to union activity by its employees.
Curtis' statements to Murphy and Finney in June and
July conditioning the retention of line-hauls and the
recall of laid-off drivers on the success of union organi-
zation, Rodenroth's comment to Jarrell in August condi-
tioning possible recall on the failure of the Union; and
Pennino's statements to McCann that his layoff was due
to his suspected union activities prima facie show that
protected conduct was a motivating factor in Respond-
ent's decision to discontinue the line-hauls and lay off
drivers. Moreover, Curtis' statement to Murphy and
Finney in June that he knew McCann and another had
started the Union establishes that the Employer had
knowledge of union activity and thought he knew the
identity of employees involved therein before Curtis'
meeting with Murphy and Finney, and thus before or
contemporaneously with Hock's request to Bardo in the
last week of June to look into the line-haul situation.
Hock conceded, as did Bardo, he was aware of the union
presence in the summer of 1980. In addition, Bardo
heard of it from William Wells. The evidence is suffi-
cient to warrant a finding that Respondent knew there
27 Nor do I credit Rodenroth that he urged laid-off employees Finney,
Murphy, and McCann to vote.
758
MARTIN-BROWER COMPANY
was union activity present, and at least suspected
McCann as a participant, 28 prior to Hock's request to
Bardo.
Under the Wright Line principle2 9 the burden now
shifts to Respondent to show that it would have taken
the same action in the absence of the protected activity.
Contrary to General Counsel, I conclude the discon-
tinuance of the Red Barn account was not effected for
unlawful reasons. Respondent has convincingly shown
that the move of the Red Barn account was the result of
an orderly progression of events beginning in February
1980, long before any union activities, and proceeding to
their predetermined conclusion. I do not, however, be-
lieve that the record supports a conclusion that any of
the alleged discriminatees would have been laid off had
not the line-hauls been moved. There is some testimony
indicating that only four drivers were needed for the two
discontinued line-hauls, which would imply that Nelson,
the least senior and first laid off, was laid off due to the
loss of Red Barn. The layoffs are not that easily divisible
and attributable to one or the other of the business losses.
Rodenroth told Nelson, as well as the others, that he was
laid off because the Red Barn account and the line-hauls
had been lost. The loss of line-hauls was therefore ad-
vanced as a determining factor in Nelson's layoff as well
as the others. The burden falls on Respondent to prove
otherwise, and it has not proffered anything to contra-
dict or clarify Rodenroth's pronouncement of the rea-
sons.
The record is replete with evidence that Respondent
reaped monetary and other benefits from transferring the
line-hauls. The fact that advantages were realized as a
result of the line-haul transfers is not very persuasive evi-
dence of employer motivation because there is no con-
vincing showing that Hock was aware of or even con-
templating the specific benefits that eventually accrued
to Respondent after the transfer when he set the investi-
gation in motion. He only became aware of the monetary
and other advantages when Bardo reported back to him.
Hock's reasons for looking into the possibility of re-
moving the line-hauls are vague and unconvincing," o and
are not credited. There was no impetus from local man-
agement for this investigation, nor was there even any
solicitation of Rodenroth's opinion before Hock started
the wheels moving and made the final decision on his
own initiative. Bardo conceded that local management is
usually consulted when line-hauls are involved, and that
Rodenroth was the local management concerned in this
case. Rodenroth credibly asserted he had no participa-
tion in the decision to move the line-hauls, which he cre-
dibly averred were always profitable while they were lo-
cated at Fredericksburg. Hock's decision to move the
line-hauls was made solely on the basis of Bardo's tele-
phone report.
2a McCann's April comments to Rodenroth about a union were suffi-
cient cause for Respondent to suspect him of being an activist when Re-
spondent learned of the union presence in June.
2O Wright Line. a Division of Wright Line, Inc., 251 NLRB 1083 (1980).
'0 Hock's stated reasons are:
Because we were moving the Red Barn, we were eliminating the
third shift and in conjunction with a major move like that, I asked
him [Bardo] to take a look at that other part of the business.
The combination of a background of strong employer
hostility to unions and independent violations of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act in this case; the statements of Roden-
roth, Pennino, and Curtis with respect to line-hauls and
layoffs; Hock's unconvincing reasons for initiating an in-
vestigation into the possibility of line-haul transfer; the
timing of Hock's sudden initiative shortly after or con-
temporaneously with Respondent's gaining knowledge of
employee union activity; the rapidity of Hock's decision
to implement the transfers; the failure of Hock to consult
with anyone but Bardo before deciding to implement the
transfer; and the profitability of the line-hauls throughout
their tenure at Fredericksburg easily outweigh Respond-
ent's defense which essentially consists of reliance on
business advantages Respondent realized after the line-
haul changes were made, but were not known to Hock
when he first set out to change them. I am persuaded
that Hock had decided to remove the line-hauls because
of the existence of union activity and to discourage such
activity before he talked to Bardo, and only talked to
Bardo for the purpose of obtaining colorable reasons to
excuse actions already decided upon. Accordingly, I
conclude and find Respondent's asserted reasons for
moving the line-hauls are excuses rather than reasons,
and are pretexts developed after the fact. This being the
case, Respondent has not met the Wright Line test by
demonstrating that the line-hauls would have been trans-
ferred or five employees laid off in the absence of pro-
tected activity. Moreover, the pretextual nature of the
proferred defense with respect to line-haul moves war-
rants an inference of unlawful motivation. Shattuck Denn
Mining Corporation (Iron King Branch) v. N.L.R.B., 362
F.2d 466, 470 (9th Cir. 1966); Wellington Hall Nursing
Home, Inc., 257 NLRB 791 (1981).
It necessarily follows that the layoff of five employees
as a result of an unlawfully motivated transfer of work
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. I further find,
in the absence of some convincing showing of a legiti-
mate necessity for the layoff and considering that Re-
spondent viewed McCann as a leading union protagonist,
that the evidence preponderates in favor of a conclusion
that Respondent selected Nelson, Cook, Finney, and Jar-
rell for layoff in order to reach McCann for layoff and
yet preserve the facade of a fair seniority controlled
layoff. A method of selection for layoff designed to elim-
inate an employee perceived to be a union activist is
itself violative of Section 8(aX3) and (1) of the Act.3 1
Respondent takes the position that Edward Finney,
Robert Cook, and Michael McCann were not eligible
voters in the September 7, 1980, election because they
were permanently terminated prior to the election date.
The Union contends they are eligible and the challenges
to their ballots should be overruled. These employees
were unlawfully laid off and were therefore eligible to
vote in the September 7, 1980, election.32 The challenge
s3 Respondent's recall efforts after the complaint issued are matters to
be considered in the compliance stage of this proceeding and have no
probative weight as a defense to the unfair labor practices found herein.
s2 Jacques Syl Knitwear. Inc; Biquette Inc., 247 NLRB 1525, 1533
(1980).
759
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to their ballots is overruled and they shall be opened and
counted as hereinafter provided.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions
based thereon, and upon the entire record, I make the
following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, Martin-Brower Company, is an
employer engaged in commerce and operations affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(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. By interrogating employees about their union activi-
ties or those of others, Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By interrogating an employee with respect to how
he would vote in a National Labor Relations Board-con-
ducted election, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
5. By threatening to transfer line-hauls to other facili-
ties and lay off employees if they select the Union as
their collective-bargaining representative, Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
6. By conditioning the return of transferred work and
recall of laid-off employees on the failure of union orga-
nizational efforts, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of
the Act.
7. By telling an employee he was laid off because of
his union activities, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
8. By transferring line-hauls from Fredericksburg, Vir-
ginia, to other locations and laying off Edward Nelson,
Robert Cook, Edward Finney, John Jarrell, and Michael
McCann for the purpose of discouraging union member-
ship and activity, Respondent violated Section 8(aX3)
and (I) of the Act.
9. Respondent has not committed any other unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint.
10. Edward Finney, Robert Cook, and Michael
McCann were eligible to vote in the representation elec-
tion conducted in Case 5-RC-11278 on September 7,
1980.
THE REMEDY
In addition to the usual cease-and-desist order and
notice posting, I shall order Respondent to offer Edward
Nelson' Robert Cook, Edward Finney, and Michael
McCann unconditional reinstatement to their former
jobs, or substantially equivalent employment if those jobs
no longer exist, and make them and John JarrellS3 whole
for all wages lost by them as a result of their unlawful
layoff, such backpay and interest thereon to be computed
in the manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company,
a8 The parties agree John Jarrell was terminated for cause by Re-
spondent subsequent to his reemployment by Respondent. Reinstatement
of Jarrell is therefore not now appropriate, and his backpay is tolled as of
February 12, 1981, the date of his discharge for cause. (See Sec. 10(c) of
the Act.) The adequacy of any offers of reinstatement previously made
shall be determined at the compliance stage of this proceeding.
90 NLRB 289 (1950); and Florida Steel Corporation, 231
NLRB 651 (1977).34
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue
the following recommended:
ORDER s5
The Respondent, Martin-Brower Company, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating employees concerning their or other
employees' union activities.
(b) Interrogating employees with respect to how they
will vote in a Board-conducted election.
(c) Threatening to transfer work and/or lay off em-
ployees if they select a union as their collective-bargain-
ing representative.
(d) Conditioning the return of transferred work and/or
the recall of laid-off employees on the failure of union
organizational efforts.
(e) Telling employees they are laid off because of their
union activities.
(f) Transferring work to other facilities and/or laying
off employees for the purpose of discouraging union
membership or activities.
(g) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the purposes of the Act:
(a) Offer Edward Nelson, Robert Cook, Edward
Finney, and Michael McCann immediate and full rein-
statement to their former jobs, or substantially equivalent
employment if those jobs no longer exist, without preju-
dice to any seniority and other rights and privileges pre-
viously enjoyed by them.
(b) Make Edward Nelson, Robert Cook, Edward
Finney, John Jarrell, and Michael McCann whole for
any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of
their unlawful layoff. Said backpay shall be computed in
the manner set forth in the section of this Decision enti-
tled "The Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this recommended Order.
(d) Post at its Fredericksburg, Virginia, facility, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 36 Copies of
*4 See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
35 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.
'" In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
760
MARTIN-BROWER COMPANY
said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 5, after being signed by Respondent's author-
ized agent, shall be posted by it immediately upon re-
ceipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 5, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply with this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Case 5-RC-11278 be,
and it hereby is, severed from this consolidated proceed-
ing and referred to the Regional Director for Region 5
for the purpose of opening and counting the ballots of
Edward Finney, Robert Cook, and Michael McCann,
preparing and issuing a revised tally of ballots to be
served on the parties, and issuing and appropriate certifi-
cation.
761