Monark Boat Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1985

276 N.L.R.B. 1143 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

MONARK BOAT CO
Monark Boat Company and UBC, Southern Council
of Industrial Workers, . United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO.
Case 26-CA-8921
30 September 1985
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
DENNIS AND BABSON
On 2 November 1984 Administrative Law Judge
William N. Cates issued the attached supplemental
decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a
supporting brief, and the Charging Party filed an
answer to the Respondent's exceptions.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings,' findings,2
and conclusions3 and -to adopt his recommendation.
Having overruled all the objections in this case, we
find that the election conducted 6 November 1980
was valid. We, therefore, reaffirm the Certification
of Representative issued the Union on 23 Decem-
' The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find-
ings The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative
law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all
the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry
Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir 1951)
We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing
the findings
2 We agree with the judge's finding that there is no credible evidence
of objectionable conduct with respect to Objections 15c and d Accord-
ingly, we find it unnecessary to consider the judge's alternative finding
that , even assuming the testimony of the Respondent 's witnesses were
credited , the alleged conduct would not be objectionable However, we
disavow that section of the judge's alternative finding in Objection 15c
where he places reliance on the witness' subjective impression of the al-
leged misconduct
We further agree with the judge's recommendation to overrule Objec-
tions 15g and 23a However, we note that in making this recommenda-
tion, the judge found the conduct at issue was not "intimidating," "coer-
cive," or a form of "unlawful pressure " This is not the standard for con-
sideration of third party. misconduct The proper standard, to which the
judge referred elsewhere, is whether an atmosphere of fear and coercion
has been created such as to render a free choice impossible Applying this
standard, we agree with the judge's finding that the evidence adduced
with respect to Objections 15g and 23a fails to establish objectionable
conduct
3 We find no merit in the Respondent 's exception to the judge 's refusal
to expand the scope of the hearing As the judge correctly observed, the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals specifically remanded certain objections
for a hearing and further consideration by the Board, and those objec-
tions are , therefore , the only matters properly before us
We further find no ment in the Respondent 's contention that the judge
failed to consider the effect of the objectionable conduct as a whole
After resolving each objection separately, the judge then concluded that
the evidence failed to establish that a coercive environment existed
during the time of the union campaign We agree with that conclusion
Finally, we deny the Respondent's request for oral argument, as the
record , the exceptions, and the briefs adequately present the issues and
the positions of the parties
1143
ber 1980 in Case 26-RC-6249, as well as our origi-
nal Decision and Order in this case. Accordingly,
we issue the following
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board overrules
all of the Employer's objections to the election
conducted on 6 November 1980 in. Case 26-RC-
6249, and affirms its Decision and Order issued in
this proceeding on 4 March 1982, reported at 260
NLRB 615 (1982), with the Respondent, Monark
Boat Company, Monticello, Arkansas, its officers,
agents , successors, and assigns , ordered to take the
action set forth therein.
Bruce E. Buchanan, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Tim Boe, Esq. and Martin Thomas, Esq., of Little Rock,
Arkansas, for the Respondent.
Edward J. Gorman III, Esq., of Washington, D.C., for
the Charging Party. .
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WILLIAM N . CATES, Administrative Law Judge. On
March 4, 1982, the -National Labor Relations Board
(Board) issued its Decision and Order (260 NLRB 615)
in which it found that Monark Boat Company (Compa-
ny) had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) an d (1) of
the National Labor Relations Act (Act) by, since about
December 31, 1980 , refusing to bargain with UBC,
Southern Council of Industrial Workers, United Brother-
hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO
(Union). The Union was certified on December 23, 1980,
as the collective -bargaining representative of certain of
the Company 's employees subsequent to an election con-
ducted on November 6, 1980 , in Case 26-RC-6249. The
tally of ballots furnished the parties after the election
showed 77 votes cast for and 57 votes cast against the
Union with 18 challenged and 1 void ballot . The Compa-
ny timely filed objections to conduct affecting the elec-
tion and after the Acting Regional Director for Region
26 of the Board overruled all the Company 's objections,
it sought review of his determinations by the Board On
April 27, 1981 , the Board denied the Company's request
for review of the Acting Regional Director 's decision on
its objections . The Board sought enforcement of its Deci-
sion and Order (260 NLRB 615 ( 1982)) in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The
Company urged the circuit court to revoke the Union's
certification and order a new election or to order a post-
election hearing to resolve issues raised by its objections.
The court in its decision issued on July 22, 1983, in
NLRB v. Monark Boat Co ., 713 F.2d 355 (8th Cir . 1983),
agreed with the Company that a hearing on certain of its
objections was necessary ; denied enforcement of the
Board 's Order ; and remanded the case to the Board to
hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve issues of fact
raised by Objections 15b-g; 23a-b; and the last assertion
276 NLRB No. 121 -
1144 DECISIONS OF- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in Objection 11. The circuit court, in ordering the hear-
ing, -indicated it wanted the Board to determine whether
the election was held in a coercive environment that in-
timidated the work force or any significant portion of it.
The circuit court observed that the alleged incidents
considered in isolation would probably be insufficient to
raise - an inference intimidation sufficient to warrant an
evidentiary heanng but concluded that all the alleged in-
cidents taken together did reach the level of requiring an
evidentiary hearing to resolve factual disputes and to
make determinations thereon. The circuit court found
that a hearing on all other issues .raised by the Company
was unnecessary. On June 13, 1984, the Board ordered
the record in this proceeding reopened and directed that
a hearing be held for the purpose of taking evidence in
accordance with the circuit court' s remand.
A hearing was held before me at Monticello, Arkan-
sas, on August 27, 28, and 29, 1984. Following the close
of heanng, counsel for the Company and counsel for the
Union filed briefs on the issues presented-'
On the entire record, including my observation of the
demeanor-of the witnesses and after due consideration of
the briefs, I make the following
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS -
Before setting forth the testimony-with respect to the
various objections, I find some preliminary comments on
credibility to be -appropriate. My ultimate choice in
making findings of ,fact is based on my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, the weight of the respective
evidence provided by them considered in conjunction
with established or admitted facts, inherent probabilities,
and reasonable inferences which may be drawn from the
record as a whole. With respect to the testimony, I have
home in mind the tendency of witnesses in general to-
testify as to their impressions or interpretations of what
was said rather than attempting to give a verbatim ac-
count of a situation. Further, I am not unmindful that
even in the case of persons testifying about their own re-
marks, the person may well. tend to express what they
said or intended to say in clearer or more explicit lan-
guage than they actually used in their discussion. As to
any witnesses having testified in contradiction of the
findings herein, their testimony has been discredited
either as having been in conflict with the testimony of
credible witnesses or because it .was in and of itself un-
worthy of belief. All testimony has been reviewed and'
weighed in light of the entire record. I shall hereinafter
address credibility more specifically as it applies to each
individual's testimony that is either specifically credited .
or discredited.
A. Relevant Subparagraphs of the Company's
Objection 15
I shall address -in alphabetical order each of the, sub-
paragraphs of the Company's Objection 15 for which a
The General Counsel served notice on all parties that he did not
intend to file a brief The Company' s motion to strike the,bnef of the
Union on - the basis that it was untimely filed is denied The Union's brief
was in fact ttmely .ftled with me -
hearing was ordered by the circuit court.2 The introduc-
tory portion of Company Objection 15 will only be set
forth once. It is as follows:
The UBC through its supporters, adherents, and
agents made threats of personal injury and violence,
engaged in coercive and intimidating conduct, each
of which instance instilled fear ' in the employees
minds and which restrained and coerced the em-
ployees in their opportunity to engage in' a free
choice during the election, to wit.
1. Subparagraph 15b - -
The Company's Objection 15b reads as follows:
On or about the first week of September, 1980,
UBC supporter and adherent David Crosswhite
made the statement to the welding personnel of the
employer that he would slash tires if they worked
overtime' during the holiday week.3
William David Crosswhite testified he worked for the
Company during the Union's 1980 campaign . Crosswhite
stated that during the campaign he worked as a welder
on a boat being built by the Company .for the State of
Maryland. Crosswhite, testified the Maryland boat was
one of the largest boats the Company built. Crosswhite
stated that at the time he was first assigned to work on'
the boat the project was 3 weeks behind schedule. Cross-
white testified that because the Company was behind
schedule on the Maryland boat he worked several hours
of overtime on it. Crosswhite stated he never complained
about but rather liked working the overtime because he
was planning to start his own business and needed all the
extra overtime he could get.
Crosswhite testified that his fellow workers asked him
about the Union and what a union could do for them.
Crosswhite stated he was asked about unions by his
fellow workers because he had previously worked at a
company where there was a union . Crosswhite stated
that as a'result -of these inquiries by his fellow workers,
the Company "pinpointed" him, as a union man and
thereafter stopped assigning him overtime on the boat
for the State of Maryland. • -
Crosswhite testified he never said anything to employ-
ee David Rawls about union issues or the union cam-
paign and election. Crosswhite stated he never threat-
ened anyone with any kind of violence. Crosswhite also
stated he never advised anyone that he would slash tires
2 The Company sought at trial to expand the scope of this hearing
beyond the limits specifically set forth by the circuit court and the Board
I did not permit the Company to do so at the trial and I reject its re-
newed attempt to do so in its brief It is clear that the circuit court in-
tended that the hearing deal only with certain specific objections or por-
tions thereof and it is likewise clear that all other objections of the Com-
pany were without merit and should not be considered
3 As alluded to in In . 2, I have been governed with respect to the
scope of the evidence for each particular objection by comments of the
circuit court on each of the objections It appears. on this particular sub-
paragraph of Objection 15 that the circuit court expanded the scope of
the objection to include damage to employees ' cars if they crossed a
picket line. (713 F 2d 355 at 357 )
MONARK-BOAT CO. 1145
if they worked overtime or if they went to work while
the Union was on strike.
Employee Rawls testified he worked with Crosswhite
during the time of the Union's campaign in 1980. Rawls
stated Crosswhite was a union supporter who talked
about the Union and wore union pins to work. Rawls
stated in his direct testimony that he never heard Cross-
white make any comments to employees about working
overtime during the summer of 1980.4 Rawls testified he
heard rumors that Crosswhite had told employees it
would be better if they did not work overtime. When.
company counsel confronted Rawls with a prior state-
ment he had given to the Company, he testified Cross-
white might have said something about overtime but it
had been a long time ago and he could not remember
what it was.5 Rawls asserted his prior statement given to
the Company accurately reflected what had occurred at
the time. The statement Rawls gave, the- Company was
read into the record., The statement, in part, reads as fol-
lows: - -
My name is David Rawls. I have been employed at
Monark Boat Company since November 16, 1976.
On September 4, 1980, David Crosswhite, a known
union supporter, left his work station and told other
employees not to work-overtime that week.
Rawls also testified that during the summer of 1980
Crosswhite stated, in the presence of approximately 10 to
15 employees who were on break, that "if they went out
on strike, if the union was voted in and they went out on
strike and people come in that they would cut the
tires. 116 Rawls stated he only heard Crosswhite make that
statement on one occasion and he never heard any other
statements made that he would consider threatening or
intimidating . After having his memory refreshed by his
prior company statement Rawls testified the above con-
versation took.place on September 4, 1980.
On cross-examination by the General Counsel, Rawls
denied he had asked Crosswhite any questions when
Crosswhite talked about tires being cut. However, after
being confronted with his pretrial Board affidavit, Rawls
testified he had asked Crosswhite what would happen if
Rawls crossed the picket line and it was thereafter that
Crosswhite made the statement about tires being cut.
Rawis testified he told Crosswhite at that time that he
would beat his "ass." According to Rawls, Crosswhite
replied that he had enough people to handle him. Rawls
asserts that later that same day fellow employee Huffman
told him Crosswhite did not mean anything by his con-
versation, that he was just letting off hot steam.
I carefully observed. Rawls testify and do not credit
his trial testimony. He was, far too uncertain about what
he had heard for any reliance to be placed on his testi-
mony. Rawis continually had to have his memory re-
freshened by his prior statements . Rawls also appeared to
4 Rawls however testified on'cross-examination , in response to ques-
tions by the General Counsel, that Crosswhite had told him since Rawls
was not getting paid for overtime "we ought not be working
5 There is no clear indication on this record that the statement Rawls
gave the Company was a sworn statement
6 Rawls stated that at that time the employees parked their automobiles
in an unfenced area
be somewhat hesitant even to reaffirm what he had
stated in his prior statements (sworn' or unsworn) given
to the Company and Board. Accordingly, -I place no reli-
ance on anything contained in either ' of Rawls' prior
statements.
I conclude and find there is no credible evidence that
Crosswhite ever made any statement to the effect that he
would cut or slash tires if employees worked overtime or
if they crossed a picket line established by the Union. I,
therefore, recommend that the Company's Objection 15b
be overruled in its entirety.
2. Subparagraph 15c
The,Company's Objection 15c reads as follows:
On or about. the second week of September, 1980,
the employees in lamination area, Bobbie Trotter,
Linda Johnson, and Clemmie Lambert , all union
supporters and adherents, stated that "employees
crossing a picket line would get bricks and clubs
upside their heads."7
The parties stipulated that Irma Holdcraft worked in
the crew with employees Lambert, Trotter, and Johnson.
Holdcraft was the chopper gun - operator and crew
leader.8 The parties stipulated that Holdcraft is Supervi-
sor Mac Harrison's mother-in-law . and it was likewise
stipulated that Holdcraft was not a supporter of the
Union. -
Holdcraft . testified that in her opinion Lambert, Trot-
ter, and Johnson supported the Union because "they
wore buttons and shirts and ... talked like they was for
the union.' ; .Holdcraft testified the four of them talked
about the union campaign and strikes. Holdcraft stated
she told them she did not know anything about the
Union because she had never worked on a union job.
Holdcraft testified she told her three fellow workers "I
know sometime[s] they go on strike and you know,
they-if its raining or anything you have to carry a
picket sign . I know that much because I saw it on TV."
Holdcraft stated she told Lambert, Trotter, and Johnson
that if the Union went on strike she would come to
work, that she needed to work. Holdcraft asserts Trotter
said , "Well, sometimes people get violent, you know,
when they're having strikes, they fight with clubs and
bricks. You are liable to get a brick or a club or some-
thing up beside your head." Holdcraft testified she then
stated she would just stay home and draw unemploy-
ment. According to Holdcraft, the other three told her
she could not draw unemployment. Holdcraft stated she
then told her three fellow workers she would just have
to come to • work. Holdcraft testified she did not feel
threatened by Trotter 's statement , nor did she ever take
7 It is noted that-in the Company's objections and at vanous places
throughout the transcript the first name of employee Lambert is spelled
in different ways. Lambert gave the correct spelling of her first name as
- Clemy. It is likewise noted that the first name of employee Trotter is
spelled various ways in the record It-is noted that Trotter indicated her
first name is spelled Bobbie
8 Holdcraft was not a supervisor within the meaning of Sec 2(11) of
the Act and she voted in the Board-conducted election held on Novem-
ber 6, 1980.
1146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
it as a threat because Trotter had said she was not saying
it was going to happen at the Company but that it had
been known to happen at other places. Holdcraft testified
thereafter she "just hushed" voicing her opinion `about
the Union.
Trotter testified she worked with Holdcraft, Lambert;
and Johnson, and- considered Johnson and Lambert to be
her friends but she did not know if Holdcraft would con-
sider her to be a friend or not but they fished at the same
place.
Trotter testified she did not attend any union meetings;
however, she wore a union T-shirt on the day of the
election. Trotter stated she thought Johnson and Lam-
bert also wore union T-shirts on the day of the election;
however, she was not sure with respect to Lambert.
Trotter testified she talked with crewmembers Lambert
and Johnson about the Union after the Company showed
the employees some slides., Trotter stated she did not talk
very much to Holdcraft about the Union' because she dust
did not know who was for or against the Union. Trotter
testified that after the Company showed slides she talked
with fellow employees Lambert and Johnson about
strikes and picket line violence. Trotter testified she told
Lambert and Johnson about one time when her husband
was on a strike when they lived in Kansas and the strik-
ers tried to stop a bus from coming into the plant,- that
they were shaking the bus and the police maced their
eyes. Trotter stated she did not discuss this with Hold-
craft and never discussed a strike with Lambert and
Johnson in Holdcraft's presence. Trotter testified she
never heard anyone say "I'm not saying that this will
happen here, but it has been known to happen. Someone
crossing picket lines got bricks or clubs upside their
heads." Trotter likewise stated this type comment was
not made when she told fellow employees Lambert and
Johnson about the strike in Kansas that her husband had
been involved in. Trotter testified she never mentioned
to Lambert and Johnson that rocks had been thrown
when she talked to them about the strike in Kansas.
Trotter -stated she had said that if there was a strike at
the Company she would not work. Trotter testified she
never heard anyone make any threats against anyone else
during the Union's campaign in 1980.
Johnson, an 8-year employee of the Company, testified
she supported the Union during the 1980 campaign and
was a member 'of the Union's in-plant organizing com-
mittee. Johnson stated she discussed the Union with
fellow employees Lambert and Trotter after the Compa-
ny showed the employees some slides about unions.
Johnson testified she did not take the Company's slides
on the unions too seriously because it showed people in
soup lines and things like that: Johnson testified that,
after seeing the slides, she and fellow crewmembers
Trotter and Lambert talked about "how they did in the
city whenever they went on strike." According to John-
son, Trotter told about a strike that had taken place in
Kansas where her husband had worked. Johnson stated
Holdcraft was walking behind them'at the, time Trotter
was talking about the strike in Kansas and could have
heard what the three of them were talking about: John-
son testified she never stated that employees crossing a
picket line would get bricks and clubs upside their heads.
Johnson likewise testified she never heard the comment,
"I'm not saying this will happen here but it has been
known to happen where someone crossing a picket-line
got bricks and clubs upside their head" made by anyone.
Johnson also stated that no words to-that effect were
used in the conversation Trotter had with she and Lam-
bert when Trotter talked about the strike her husband
had been involved in in Kansas . Johnson testified Trotter
did state there was an incident where a bus was rocked
in the strike in Kansas . Johnson testified she never
threatened anyone during the union campaign and she
never heard Trotter or Lambert threaten anyone.9
Lambert, a 12-year employee of the Company, testified
she and-crewmembers Johnson and Trotter talked among
themselves about the Union during the 1980 union cam-
paign . Lambert stated she guessed Johnson and Trotter
were strong supporters of the Union. Lambert testified
that she as well as Johnson and Trotter at sometime
during the union campaign wore either a union T-shirt,
sticker, or button. Lambert testified she was not a
member of the Union's in-plant organizing committee
and never attended any of the Union's meetings. Lam-
bert testified Trotter told her and fellow crewmembers
about a a strike her husband had been involved in in
Kansas . Lambert stated she told her fellow crewmembers
that if they had a strike at the Company like the one in
Kansas she would stay at home Lambert testified Hold-
craft was present during some of the conversations be-
tween her and fellow crewmembers in which strikes
were discussed but she stated Holdcraft just listened and
did not express her views on whether she would work
during a strike or not.
Lambert asserts she did not hear the statement made
nor did Trotter say, "I'm not saying that this will happen
here, but its been known to happen, where people cross-
ing a picket line got bricks and clubs upside their heads."
Lambert testified Trotter did mention rock-throwing in-
cidents and hitting people when she spoke about the
strike that her husband had been involved in that had
taken place in Kansas . Lambert asserts the conversations
about the strike in Kansas came about as a result of the
Company showing slides to the employees about a plant
being shut down and there being soup lines and violence.
Although the four witnesses who testified regarding
this particular objection did not give identical testimony,
there are certain facts that appear to be uncontradicted.
It is clear that the subject matter of strikes was discussed
after the Company showed some slides to its employees
during the Union's 1980 campaign. At least some of the
four crewmembers in question discussed strikes and spec-
ulated about whether they would come to work or not
during a strike. It is clear that Lambert, Trotter, and
Johnson discussed a strike that had involved Trotter's
husband and whether the conversation was intended for
Holdcraft or not, she probably heard some or all of that
9 After being confronted with her pretrial Board affidavit, Johnson ac-
knowledged she had stated in it that if the Union came in and if there
was a strike she would not come to work because she could not afford to
get hurt Johnson maintained , however, that the affidavit should have re-
flected that Trotter made that statement dunng the time they were talk-
ing about the Kansas strike
MONARK BOAT CO
conversation. Finally, it is undisputed that Trotter, Lam-
bert, and Johnson supported the Union and it was stipu-
lated by the parties that Holdcraft did not..I have care-
fully considered these uncontradicted facts in making
credibility resolutions.
I find the subject of rocks being thrown was men-
tioned in the conversation Trotter had with her fellow
crewmembers about,the strike her husband had been in-
volved in in Kansas as testified to by'Lambert but denied
by Trotter. Lambert seemed confused at times in her tes-
timony, but I am persuaded her confusion was honest
and not caused by any deliberate attempt to fabricate tes-
timony. I am persuaded, based on the credited testimony
of Lambert, which was corroborated in essential parts by
Trotter and Johnson, that neither Trotter nor the other
two of them made any 'st_atement to the effect that they
were not saying it could happen at the Company but it
had been known to happen that someone crossing a
picket line would get bricks or clubs upside their heads. I
am persuaded that Holdcraft either did not hear the full
conversation among Trotter, Lambert, and Johnson re-
garding strikes or, if she did, she misunderstood what
was actually said . Even if I credited the comment that
Holdcraft attributed to Trotter, which comment I- do not
credit, I would not find it to 'constitute objectionable
conduct because Holdcraft indicated she did not consider
the comment to be a threat. The subject of strikes in this
instance was instigated by the Company and it has failed
to demonstrate that anything that was said in any con-
versations thereafter created an atmosphere of ' fear and
intimidation among the work force. I therefore" recom-
mend that the Company's Objection 15c be overruled in
its entirety.
3. Subparagraph 15d
The Company's 'Objection 15d,reads as follows:
During the latter part of September or early part of
October, UBC 'supporter and adherent Barbara
David made the statement' that "no one would cross
her picket line because she would be prepared."
Irma Holdcraft testified that employee Barbara David
worked on the other side of the plant from where she
worked, but they ate lunch in the same area . Holdcraft
stated David was a strong supporter of the Union and
talked about strikes a lot. _Holdcraft testified she walked
up to the table next to where David was eating with
fellow employees and she heard David say, "Well won't
nobody, cross my picket because I'll come prepared."
Holdcraft acknowledged, on cross- examination that she
really did not know David' that well and had overheard
her talking about strikes while seated at a table next to
David's. Holdcraft testified she' overheard David talk
about strikes sometimes two or three times per day, but
could only recall David's statement about being prepared
on the picket line and that she had worked at places
where there had been strikes. Holdcraft stated she could
not really say what David had said about those other
places because she "didn't pay too much attention."
Holdcraft testified she could not recall either the day or
month that David made the remark about being prepared
on the picket line. Holdcraft testified she took David's
1147
comment to be a. threat to anyone who crossed the
picket line.
Joyce Harrison, the mother- of Supervisor Mac Harri-
son, testified she was a chopper gun operator in the lam-
ination department in the summer of 1980. Joyce Harri-
son testified she worked with Barbara David during the
summer of 1980 and it was her opinion that David was a
strong union supporter because-that was all David talked
about. Joyce Harrison also stated David wore a union T-
shirt. Joyce Harrison asserts that David talked about
strikes or picket lines on several occasions before the
November 6, 1980 Board-conducted election. Joyce Har-
rison asserts that on one occasion David said, "Wouldn't
nobody cross her picket line, because she was going to
come prepared," and that David also made other state-
ments . Joyce Harrison stated she considered David to be
talking to her on those occasions when she talked about
strikes because she was the only one in her crew that
was not for the Union: Joyce Harrison also stated that
David looked at her when she talked about strikes and
picket lines.
On cross-examination Joyce Harrison testified that she
told her son, Supervisor Mac Harrison, about the inci-
dent with David 'about crossing the picket line and he
told her to go on back to work and do her job, that
there was nothing he could do. Joyce Harrison further
stated on cross-examination that no one asked her about
the incident with David until 1 week prior to the start of
the trial-in the instant case.
David testified she had been employed by the Compa-
ny during 1980 but stated she was no longer employed
by 'the Company. During her employment with the Com-
pany, .her immediate supervisor was Mac Harrison.
David stated the crew she worked with included Martha
Fisher, Katherine McCoy, Joyce Harrison (Supervisor
Mac Harrison's mother), and-Judy Harrison (Supervisor
Mac Harrison's aunt). David stated she had at one time
also worked in a crew with Irma Holdcraft (Supervisor
Mac Harrison's mother-in-law). David stated she was not
a member of the Union's in-plant organizing committee.
David testified she never heard anyone make a threat to
anyone else during the union campaign. David also
stated she never discussed the possibility of "a strike at
'the Company. David denied she ever told Holdcraft that
no one would cross her picket line because she would be
prepared, nor did she ever state words to that effect.
David testified she never made any threat to Joyce Har-
rison about engaging in union activities:
David testified the employees in her crew never dis-
cussed the pros and cons of supporting the Union during
the 1980 campaign, nor did they discuss the possibility of
a strike at the Company. David testified she was laid off
from work for a period of time in 1980 starting either in
May or June. David was somewhat uncertain as to when
she, actually returned to work, but 'stated- she was not
employed at the Company in 'the latter part of Septem-
ber or the early part of October 1980.
In resolving credibility involving these three witnesses,
I have carefully weighed all the facts because, this is not
a situation where the witnesses may, have misunderstood
what was said but it is rather a situation where two em-
1148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees allege something was said to them by a third
person while the third person denies the conversations
ever took place. I credit David's testimony that no such
conversations took place. I am persuaded David truthful-
ly testified that she was laid off and not employed at the
Company in the latter part of September and early part
of October 1980. 1 am convinced that if that testimony'
had been inaccurate then the Company would have
come forward with records to demonstrate that she was
in fact employed during that period. Inasmuch as I find
she was not employed during that time frame, I find it
improbable that Holdcraft heard her discuss picket lines
and strikes as much as three times per day. I discredit
Holdcraft's testimony in that regard. David's absence
from the Company-during the time period indicated by
her convinces me that she did not in fact even hear her
fellow employees discuss the pros and cons of the Union
or discuss a possible strike at the Company. I am per-
suaded Holdcraft could not recall in her testimony any-
thing else David said -about strikes or picket lines in the
numerous conversations she attributed to her because no
such conversations took place. I am likewise persuaded
Holdcraft could not recall the day or month when David
told her she would be prepared on the picket line be-
cause the conversation did not occur. In making credibil-
ity resolutions, I have been mindful of the fact that
Joyce Harrison is Mac Harrison's mother and Holdcraft
is his mother-in-law and I find it is very probable both
would not desire to say anything against what- they
would perceive to be in their son's (and/or son-in-law's)
best interest as a supervisor at the Company. , -
Assuming arguendo that I had found. the comment,
"Won't nobody cross my picket line because I'll come
prepared," to have been made .by David, I would con-
clude and find that such comment standing alone was
too ambiguous in meaning to constitute objectionable
conduct. I therefore recommend dismissal of the Compa-
ny's Objection 15d in its entirety.
4. Subparagraph l5e
The Company's Objection l5e reads.as follows:
During a conversation involving at' least four em-
ployees regarding the subject matter of whether the
employees would come to work in the event of a
strike, UBC adherent and supporter May Thomas
stated that "people could get killed crossing picket
lines."i o
The parties stipulated that Irma Jean Harrison (Jean
Harrison), wife of Supervisor Mac Harrison, did not sup-
port the Union in its 1980 campaign. Jean Harrison testi-
fied she had as little to say to anyone about the union
campaign as she could because she did not wish to get
involved. She stated union talk made her nervous and
caused her to feel physically threatened. Jean Harrison
testified that on one occasion during the campaign she
heard fellow crewmembers Margie Cloud and Mae
Thomas talking in the presence of maintenance employee
Earl Railey about unions, strikes, and' "all this stuff."
Jean Harrison stated she was operating a chopper gun at
the time which made a lot of noise and she was only able
to "catch words, bits, and pieces" of the conversation.
Jean Harrison stated Mae Thomas " and Margie Cloud
said if the Union was voted in at the Company and a
picket line was put up that they would not cross the
picket line. Jean Harrison testified she told them she had
two children at home to support and if the doors of the
Company were` open she was working because she could
not do without a paycheck. According to Jean Harrison,
Thomas stated, "You know people that get crossed-get
killed crossing picket lines." Jean Harrison stated she felt
insecure and scared when Thomas made - that state-
ment. i i She also stated that although Thomas did not di-
rectly threaten her she felt threatened by what Thomas
said She testified Thomas had never -threatened her
before or after that occasion. Jean Harrison testified she
did! not know if Thomas was a union supporter or not.
Employee Margie Cloud testified-she was not a union
supporter during the Union's 1980 campaign at the Com-
pany. Cloud testified she worked every day with Mae
Thomas during the time of the union campaign and as
far as she knew Thomas did not support the Union
either. She never saw Thomas wear any union buttons or
T-shirts, nor did she ever hear Thomas say anything that
indicated she supported the Union. Cloud stated she
never heard Thomas say to Harrison that people could
get killed crossing picket lines. Cloud further testified
she never heard Thomas say anything threatening to
Jean Harrison or anyone else. Cloud testified she never
felt threatened by the union campaign in any way. Cloud
stated she and her fellow crewmembers, Jean Harrison
and Thomas, did not talk about the Union.
Cloud acknowledged Thomas was her friend but
stated she did not get along very well with Jean Harri-
son.
Employee Earl Railey testified he had worked for the
Company for the past 6 years. Railey stated he worked
as a maintenance employee during the time of the
Union's campaign in 1980. Railey stated he had never
heard Thomas threaten anyone and he did not believe
she would ever say anything threatening to anyone.
Railey testified he never heard Thomas say that people
could get killed crossing picket lines. Railey testified that
Thomas and Cloud were not supporters of the Union
during the 1980 union campaign.
Mae Thomas testified that she is currently employed
as a chopper gun operator and crew leader but that
during the Union's campaign in 1980 she was a - crew-
member working with employees Jean Harrison and
Cloud. Jean Harrison was the crew leader at that time.
Thomas testified she was not a supporter of the Union
and as far as she knew Cloud did not support the Union
either. Thomas testified that after the Company showed
the employees slides about "all this stuff like what people
- do when they go on strike," she told Cloud that if they
went on strike she would not come to work or cross the
11 Jean Harrison testified she did not remember the month Thomas
10 The record reflects the correct spelling of Thomas' first name to be made the statement'but stated it was not long before the board-conduct-
Mae ed election
MONARK BOAT CO - 1149
picket line. Thomas testified her conversation was mostly
with Cloud. Thomas testified Jean Harrison said she
would come to work because she had two children to
support. According to Thomas nothing else was said by
anyone. Thomas testified she had no reason to and did
not state that people could get killed crossing picket
lines.
I am persuaded that on an occasion after the Company
had shown slides to its employees about strikes that
Thomas discussed with her fellow crewmembers wheth-
er she would come to work if a strike occurred at the
Company. I credit Thomas' testimony that she said she
would not and it is uncontradicted that Jean Harrison
said she would come to work. The critical question of
credibility that arises is whether Thomas told Jean Harri-
son that people could get killed crossing picket lines. I
carefully observed the witnesses testify -and I am per-
suaded Thomas did not make any such statement. The
following factors convince me that my observations are
correct. The other two employees,. Cloud and Railey,
who, according to Jean Harrison, were present when
Thomas allegedly made the statement did not -support
Harrison's testimony. Both Cloud and Railey are still em-
ployed by the Company. Additionally Railey testified,
and I credit his- testimony, that he had never heard
Thomas threaten anyone and did not believe she ever
would. The evidence is clear that Thomas was not a
union supporter and as such I simply find it unbelievable
that a nonunion supporter would threaten a fellow em-
ployee about whether that employee would cross some
future picket line. I find nothing in the credited facts as
outlined above that would instill fear and anxiety in the
employees such that a fair election could not be conduct-
ed. Accordingly, I therefore recommend that the Com-
pany's Objection l5e be overruled in its entirety.
5. Subparagraph 15f
The Company's Objection 15f reads as follows:
During the morning of the election, on November
6_1980, immediately prior to the opening of the
polls in the fiberglass and aluminum plant area at
10:15 a.m., employees in the fiberglass area were
talking about their obligations regarding union dues
when UBC adherent and supporter Clemmie Lam-
bert said to the employees: "After the union comes
in, the people that don't join the union won't be
here very long." .
Jean Harrison testified that on November 6, 1980,
prior to the employees in the area she worked going to
vote, some of them had a conversation about union dues.
Jean Harrison- testified employee Earlene Watson asked
her something about union dues. Jean Harrison told
Watson she had no idea about union dues, that she
would have to-ask someone else. According to Jean Har-
rison , Watson left the area and proceeded to where em-
ployees Lambert, Johnson, and Holdcraft were. Jean
Harrison stated she could not hear what was being, said
among those employees; however, she asserts that as
Watson left the other area, Lambert turned in Watson's
direction which was somewhat in Jean Harrison's direc-
tion and said , "People that don't•join the Union won't be
here very long after it comes in. Or pretty much like
that." Jean Harrison stated Lambert spoke loudly and
there were six or seven employees in the area at that
time who had not gone to vote.
Clemy Lambert, as noted elsewhere in this decision,
testified she was not on the Union's in-plant organizing
committee and did not attend any union meetings. Lam-
bert testified she never at any time made any statement
to anyone that after the Union came in people that did
not join the Union would not be there very long. Lam-
bert also testified she never used any words to that effect
or words that would convey that meaning in any con-
versation she had with anyone Lambert testified she
could not recall any conversation with any of her co-
workers about going to vote prior to their actually doing
so on November 6, 1980. Lambert testified she knew em-
ployee Earlene Watson but she never "discussed much of
nothing with [her]." Lambert stated she never heard
Watson ask any question about union dues and she never
made any statement to her about what would happen to
those who did not join the Union if it came in at the
Company.
In deciding credibility with respect to this aspect of
the case, I have not given any weight to the testimony of
employee Earlene Watson. At the time she testified'
Watson had a total failure of recall. with respect to the
matters in conflict that pertain to this particular objec-
tion. Likewise, Watson could not testify with any cer-
tainty that she had recalled any of the matters in conflict
at the time she gave her pretrial affidavit to the Board. I
am therefore unwilling to place any reliance on her testi-
mony. I credit Lambert's testimony wherein she denied
making the statement Jean. Harrison attributes to her.
Lambert impressed me as an individual making every
reasonable effort to tell the truth. On the other hand,
Jean Harrison exhibited a degree of uncertainty in her
testimony that cast a shadow of disbelief over it. I there-
fore 'conclude and find that the allegations contained in
the Company's Objection 15f have no basis in fact and as
such I recommend it be overruled in its entirety.
6. Subparagraph 15g
The Company 's Objection 15g reads as follows:
On the day of the election, November 6, 1980, im-
mediately prior to the polls opening in the work
boat rigging area at 11 :15 a.m., the unit employees
began lining up to vote except one employee named
Robert White. The unit employee White ap-
proached hi`s supervisor Keith Taylor and stated:
"What am I supposed to do, since I'm not going to
vote?" The supervisor stated: "Why don't you want
to vote?" At this time, Pat Barnett, union supporter
and adherent, who was standing in the line of all of
the other employees waiting to vote, turned and
stated: "Just do what- I told you, Robert!" This
statement was made in the area near the polls and at
a time immediately preceding the voting. During
the examination of the ballots after the election, one
ballot was found which had no marks in either the
1150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"yes" or "no" blocks. Another ballot contained a
large X approximately in the middle between the
"yes" and "no" blocks.
Former employee Robert White testified he had been
employed by-the Company on the day of the Board-con=
ducted. election -in 1980. White stated his immediate su-
pervisor at that, time was Keith Taylor. White testified
he was aware of the union campaign and that no- one in- -
cluding Pat Barnett threatened him during the campaign.
White stated that on the day of the election the employ-
ees in his group got ready to go vote but he did not be-
cause he "didn't want no part of either side . ... [he] ,
just wanted to be left out of it." White stated em-
ployee Pat Barnett called out to him from over by the
timeclock and said, "Just come on and do like I told you
to do." White estimated the distance between him and.
Barnett was about 70 feet. White estimated there were
approximately 14 'employees in the area at the time.
White testified Supervisor Taylor was standing beside
him trying to get him to go vote at the time Barnett
called for him to come on. White testified he went to
vote. White stated' lie did not immediately get in line to
go vote after. Barnett called to him because Supervisor
Taylor was still talking to him trying to persuade him to
go vote. White stated Taylor had told. him earlier that
same day that if he had known that he [White] was not
going to support the Company and go against the Union,
he would never have moved him up to,a welder's posi-
tion .' 2 White testified Barnett's "hollering across" had
no effect on the decision he made. White stated he was
not afraid of Barnett and did what Barnett told him be-
cause of "what the supervisor had done told [him]."
White testified Supervisor Taylor's comments had an
effect on him because he had "just got tired of listening
to him and was going to go [vote] anyway."
Pat Barnett testified he strongly supported the„Union
during its campaign 'and had tried to speak to- all the em-
ployees at the Company about the Union. Barnett stated
he wore a union T-shirt during the campaign and had
been a member of the Union' s in-plant organizing com-
mittee . Barnett testified he never threatened White in
any manner . Barnett corroborated the testimony of
White in all essential aspects.
Keith Taylor testified he had been a supervisor during
the time of the 1980 union campaign but was currently
employed as a leadman . Taylor stated the employees in
his area were given-a note on the day of the election tell-
ing them it was time to go 'vote. According. to Taylor
everyone got in line to go- vote except employee White.
Taylor testified White asked him what he was supposed
to do because he was not going to vote. Supervisor
Taylor testified: "I told him he needed to go vote, re-
gardless of what he done, he needed to go vote. It was
his right to vote." Taylor stated he did not, tell White
how to vote nor did - he threaten him. Taylor-testified
that Barnett told White "just to do what he told him."
12 White testified - that after Taylor spoke with- him, he talked to Bar-
nett (earlier that same day) about Taylor's comments. According to
White, Barnett told him he ought to go vote, that he did not care how he
voted, but he ought to vote -
Taylor stated that thereafter White got-in the line to go
vote. 13
Although- I am persuaded that White would 'rather
have not testified in this proceeding, I -am just as per-
suaded that he did so truthfully and I credit his testimo-
ny. White's testimony was corroborated by that of Bar-
nett. Supervisor Taylor, whose testimony in some re-
spects differed from -that of White, was uncertain as to
what had been said and` appeared to be somewhat less
than- candid and forthright. At one point in testifying,
Taylor acknowledged changing his testimony. Therefore,
I am persuaded that, where in-conflict with the testimo--
ny of others, Taylor's testimony must-be discredited and
Ido so
Based on the credited facts contained- in White's testi-
mony, it is clear no unlawful pressure was applied on -
White by Barnett or anyone else associated with the
Union in an attempt to persuade him to vote in the
Board-conducted election held on November 6, 1980. I
find it unnecessary to decide whether company pressure
through Supervisor Taylor caused White to vote in the
election. L recommend that- the Company's Objection 15g
be overruled in its entirety.
B. The Relevant Subparagraphs of the Company's
Objection 23
The introductory portion of the Company's Objection
23 will only-be set forth once. It is as follows:
The UBC, by and through its supporters and adher-
ents, engaged in a purposeful pattern and practice
of destruction, damage and sabotage of company
property which affected the free laboratory condi-
tion[s] for a secret election as -required by the
Board, to wit.' '
1. Subparagraph 23a
The Company's Objection 23a reads as follows:
On three separate occasions, UBC adherent and
supporter Harry Densmore destroyed, damaged,
and sabotaged company property resulting in over a
thousand dollars of damages . . . .
Harry Densmore testifed he'worked for the Respond-
ent as a forklift or tow motor operator during the
Union's 1980 campaign at the Company.- It was his job to
lift, pull, or move any objects the Company wanted
moved. Specifically, Densmore's duties involved moving
large and small boats about the plant as well as any parts .
needed in the construction of the boats. Densmore was
school- trained at company expense in the safe operating
of a tow motor. Densmore stated he had -a safe tow
13 'During cross -examination by the Union , Taylor first stated he-did
not think he told White that if he had known he was not going to vote
that he never would have gotten him the raise the Company gave him
Upon further questioning , Taylor agiun testified he did not think he had
said that ; however, Taylor then testified he had not said any such thing
to White Taylor stated on cross-examination that White told him he was
feeling pressure from both the Company and the Union. Taylor later tes-
tified that he guessed he was changing his testimony with respect to
White feeling pressure from the Company.
MONARK BOAT CO
motor operator's permit and a tow motor operator's li-
cense. Densmore testified he operated a tow motor for
the Company for approximately 2 years. Densmoie testi-
fled he was supervised at relevant times herein by James
Vance and E. G Dendy.
Densmore testified he was an active supporter' of the
Union during the 1980 campaign and was a member of
the Union's in-plant organizing committee. Densmore
stated that during the campaign employees came to him
with questions about the Union which he attempted to
answer but if he could not he referred those with ques-
tions to Union Representative Edward Fortson.
Densmore testified he was told by supply 'personnel in
July 1980 they needed a Detroit diesel engine moved out
of an engine slot where it was stored. Densmore stated
the engine slot building was approximately 40 feet long
and 14 feet wide. According to Densmore, there was dust
enough room to ease a forklift in and lift the motors out
with only about 2 feet of spare space on either side of
the tow motor. Densmore testified he had to drive the
tow motor into and back out of the engine storage area.
According to Densmore, two fellow employees assisted
him in sliding the forks of the lift onto the motor so he
could pick the motor up. Densmore testified he picked
the motor up and backed it to the door of the building
where he had to set it down in order to grip it again so
he could back up a small incline out of the storage area.
Densmore stated that going up the incline, always caused
whatever was being moved to vibrate on the forklift.
Densmore stated he went to set the engine down and in
doing so it shifted on the lifts and tumbled on its side.
When the motor tumbled over, it damaged a blower
intake and a valve cover and he thought it also damaged
a governor on the engine.
Densmore testified he told Supervisor Dendy about
the incident when Dendy came over to him. Densmore
stated Supervisor Dendy told him, "Don't worry about it
because accidents will happen." Densmore testified Su-
pervisor Dendy had him load the engine on a flatbed
truck and transport it from Monticello to Little Rock,
Arkansas, that day for repair . Densmore stated he re-
turned from Little Rock, Arkansas, with the repaired
engine later that same day. Densmore testified he did not
receive any discipline as a result of this incident.
Densmore testified that about August 10, 1980, he
pulled a large boat from the work boat rigging area onto
a concrete slab-type driveway at the Company. Dens-
more testified he had to pull the large boat around a
smaller utility boat that was sitting in the area and in
doing so he dropped the front wheel of the steel-wheeled
dolly that the boat was on into a -graveled area where
the wheel became stuck. Densmore stated that in an
effort to free the stuck wheel and move the boat, one of
the wheels on the dolly was broken. Densmore asserts
Supervisor Dendy asked him why he had pulled the boat
off the pavement. Densmore testified he explained to
Dendy why he had to.do so and in telling him, he"just
erupted in aggravation." Densmore stated, "I think I just
flat told him that I was so damn tired of this shit, of ev-
erybody having so many. bosses." Densmore testified he
cursed in frustration because of the harassment he had
1151
received during the involvement of the Union. 14 Dens-
more testified that Supervisor James Vance had told him
or he had misunderstood Vance to tell him to pull the
boat around to the area where he moved it. Densmore
acknowledged he had been told by Supervisor Vance not
to pull the boat over the gravel area and stated he took
the written reprimand he was given because of the mis-
understanding between him and Vance. Densmore stated
he knew he was wrong. 15
Densmore testified about another incident he was in-
volved in that took place prior to the election. Densmore
stated the Company had built a huge steel jig approxi-
mately 50 to 60 feet long and 14 to 20 feet wide. Dens-
more testified the huge steel jig was parked outside the
plant in an area next to the work boat rigging shop.
Densmore stated he had always parked boats in that
area. Densmore testified he was asked to park a utility
boat in that same area and , in maneuvering the utility
boat to where he could park it, the outdrive hit the jig
and broke the rudder causing some damage. i 6
Densmore testified about an additional incident when
two supply clerks asked him to move three gimble hous-
ings from storage. Densmore testified he was asked to
load the gimble housings onto a truck. Densmore stated
the gimble housings were stacked one on top of the
other, three high, on the forklift for moving. Densmore
stated that when he got to the truck and started to raise
the lift, the gimble housing on the bottom shifted and fell
between the forks on the lift knocking the top two
gimble housings to the ground. Densmore stated that
when 'the gimble housings fell some things were broken.
According' to Densmore, Supervisor Dendy asked what
happened. Densmore stated he felt very badly about the
accident. Densmore asserts he performed his job "in as
much [of] a safe manner ,as [he] could."
Densmore testified he was given a verbal warning the
same evening of the gimble housing accident and was
transferred to the supply area.
Densmore testified he did not plan, intend, or design
to have any of the accidents that he was involved in and
he also stated that none of the incidents were in any
manner related to the Union's campaign. '
Densmore testified other employees had damaged "
company property. Densmore stated employee David
Ricks took an air sander and held it to the windshield of
a boat being repaired for one of the Company' s custom-
ers, Harry Ludlow. The windshield was destroyed and
Densmore reported the incident to Ricks' supervisor,
Grant. Densmore testified Grant said he would speak to
Ricks about the incident.
14 Densmore stated Company President Lee and two company'cus-
tomers were present in the yard at the-time.
15 The warning Densmore received stated the discipline was for his
failure to follow direct instructions which failure resulted in damage to
company property , and for using abusive language in the presence of the
company president and his guests The disciplinary form reflected, under
the comments section, that it was the third incident that had resulted in
damage to company property since August 6 'The form was signed by
Densmore . and Company Representatives Vance, Dendy, and Personnel
Director Brasel (R Exh 10)
16 Densmore could not recall exactly when the incident occurred or
how much damage was done in this particular mcident
1152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ricks testified he intentionally held a .sander to the
windshield of the Ludlow boat resulting in the wind-
shield having ' to . be replaced. Ricks testified Densmore
reported him to his supervisor and that Supervisor, Grant
told him it was the wrong thing to do-and it was a good'
way to get fired. Ricks testified that as far as he knew he
was not given a warning slip or anything in writing for
the incident with the Ludlow boat.
Densmore testified that employee Charles Collins was
responsible for transporting boats "from Monticello to-
Pine Bluff, Arkansas, for testing in the Arkansas River.
Densmore stated that when Collins would return- to the
plant area he would drive into the area across a dip in
the road too fast and on several occasions had damaged
outdnves on the boats. Densmore testified with respect
to Collins' actions: "On several occasions he'd do that
because a lot of people would read him out because he'd
destroy the outdrives on the motors."
Densmore testified employee Taylor' would execute
turns too sharply with the trailers he pulled resulting in
damage to the wheel bearings or'other parts on the trail-
ers. Densmore stated Taylor was constantly reprimanded
about it but he would just laugh it off.
Welding Supervisor Dendy testified he had been pro-
duction manager at the Company during the time of the
Union's campaign in 1980. Dendy'stated he gave Dens-
more a verbal warning when Densmore dropped the De-
troit diesel engine . Dendy testified Densmore told him
he dropped the engine because he was in a hurry. 17
Dendy testified he could not recall 'what Densmore had
to say after the incident in which he backed into the
dolly containing a large jig on the boat yard.18 Dendy
testified he again gave Densmore a verbal warning.
Dendy testified, after having his memory refreshed by
his pretrial Board affidavit, that Densmore had damaged
a dolly wheel while pulling a boat in the 'yard at the
Company and he had been given a written warning for
that incident.
Dendy at first denied having said that other employees
had been involved in similar type incidents; however,
when confronted with his pretrial Board affidavit, he ac-
knowledged it stated, "Employees have been involved in
similar incidents in the past." Dendy stated that what
was contained in his pretrial Board affidavit was correct.
Dendy testified that no other employee had as many ac
cidents in as short a period of time as Densmore. Dendy
testified he had no evidence Densmore purposely dam-
aged the Company's equipment in order to sabotage the
Company during the Union' s campaign.
Personnel Director Richard Brasel testified, Densmore
did approximately $500 damage to the Detroit diesel
engine . Brasel estimated the Company moved approxi-
mately 200 engines annually and stated he did not have
any reports of damage to engines by Densmore other
than- those incidents that occurred from approximately
August to September 1980. Brasel stated • he could not
17 Dendy at first could not recall anything else being said but after
being asked a leading question asserted Densmore also told him he did
not have the engine properly secured
ie In response to a -leading question Dendy stated Densmore had said
he did not know the dolly with the jig on it was behind him
recall Densmore offering any explanation for any of the
incidents he had been involved in.
I am persuaded and find that the Company has failed
to establish that -Densmore engaged in any purposeful
pattern and practice of destruction, damage, and sabo-
tage,of its property so as to affect the laboratory condi-
tions required by the Board.for a secret election.
Densmore testified in a forthright and unreservedly
honest manner and I credit his testimony. I specifically
credit Densmore's testimony that he never planned or in-
tended to have any of the accidents he was involved in. I
also conclude Densmore told the truth when he stated
none of the -accidents were in any manner related to the
Union's campaign. There are a number of factors that
persuade me that my observations regarding Densmore's
truthfulness are correct. For example, Supervisor Dendy
acknowledged others had similar accidents though not as
many in as short a period of time. Densmore's ' credited
testimony establishes that Dendy told him not to worry
about the 'damage to the Detroit diesel engine because
accidents happen. 19 It is clear that at that time all con-
sidered the Detroit diesel incident to be an accident and
not any purposeful pattern or practice of destruction of
company property on the part of Densmore. Supervisor
Dendy testified he had no evidence Densmore purposely
damaged any of the Company's property. The incidents
involving damage to the dolly wheel, the steel jig, and
the gimble housings do not in my opinion amount to any
more than accidents of a like nature that had from time
to time occurred at the Company. For example, Collins
had caused damage to outdrives on engines by driving
too fast across a dip in the road at the Company's facili-
ty. Likewise, employee Ricks had intentionally damaged
some property that was being repaired for a customer of
the Company These type incidents had occurred from
time to time in the • past and I find the Company has
failed to establish the incidents involving Densmore were
any different.20 Finally, I find the Company has totally
failed to establish that any employee was or could have
been intimidated or coerced in any manner by Dens-
more's accidents. Accordingly, I recommend dismissal of
the Company's Objection 23a in its entirety.
2. Subparagraph 23b
The Company's Objection 23b reads as follows:
On a separate occasion, in a separate area of the
plant, other employees who were supporters- and
adherents of the UBC purposefully attempted to de-
stroy, damage, and sabotage company property.
The following facts are compiled from a composite of
the credited testimony of employees Lambert, Trotter,
and Johnson relating to an incident that involved their
work crew, which incident took place at the Company's
18 I discredit Dendy's testimony that he gave Densmore a verbal
warning for the Detroit diesel incident Dendy had a poor memory of
events.and had to be led in his testimony I am: persuaded that at any
place where Dendy's testimony is in conflict with that of Densmore it
should not be"and I do not credit it
20 I find this to be particularly so inasmuch as Densmore credibly
denied he had deliberately or intentionally damaged company property.
MONARK BOAT CO.
facility in October 1980.21 In 1980 Lambert, Trotter,
Johnson,- and Holdcraft formed a work crew with Hold-
craft serving as chopper gun operator and crew.-leader.22
Bill Bennett supervised this particular work crew. Lam-
bert, Trotter, and Johnson were laminators, with Lam-
bert also having an additional duty as patcher for the
crew. The crew's-function was to roll out fiberglass onto
the hulls and decks of boats after they had been sprayed
with fiberglass by chopper gun operator Holdcraft. After
each boat had been sprayed the crewmembers then
rolled out the fiberglass with each rolling a specific area
of every boat.23 Each of the four crewmembers rolled
out fiberglass on one-fourth of each boat.24 The fiber-
glass had to be rolled out immediately after it was
sprayed onto each boat so as to remove air bubbles from
the fiberglass and to ensure a good bond of the fiberglass
to each boat's hull and/or deck. - -
As has been discussed elsewhere in this decision, this
particular work crew had at one time or another talked
about the Union during the Union's 1980 campaign at the
Company. Lambert, Trotter, and Johnson supported the
Union and talked about it among themselves. 25 It was
stipulated by the parties that Holdcraft had ties with Su-
pervisor Harrison's family and she was not a supporter
of the Union. -
About October 22, 1980, Holdcraft sprayed fiberglass
on a boat hull that was then ready for the crew -she
worked with to roll out the fiberglass. Holdcraft left the
area and did not at that time roll out her normally as-
signed portion of the hull. Lambert testified Holdcraft
left the area because she was upset that the other three
crewmembers were discussing the fact that Holdcraft
made 75 cents per hour more than they did.26 The three
21 -The testimony of Personnel Director Brasel taken in conjunction
with G C Exhs 6, 7, and 8 establishes the date of the incident as October
22, 1980 -
22 As noted elsewhere in this decision, crew leader Holdcraft was not
a supervisor within the meaning of Sec. 2 ( 11) of the Act Likewise, as
noted elsewhere in this decision , she voted in the November 1980 Board-
conducted election
23 The parties agreed that work on. each boat was performed in the
same manner each time
24 1 do not credit the testimony of Holdcraft when she stated she
helped roll out the fiberglass on some but not all ,.the boats I am persuad-
ed that each crewmember performed one-fourth of the rolling out of the-
fiberglass on each boat as testified to by employees Lambert, Trotter, and
Johnson.
zs It appears that - Lambert, Trotter, and Johnson's support for the
Union may have been in varying degrees For example , Lambert stated
she was not on the Union's in-plant organizing committee and never at-
tended , any union meetings Lambert ' stated she did not consider herself
as strong of a union supporter as the others Trotter testified she was not
necessarily a strong supporter of the Union , but she did talk about it after
the Company showed some slides to its employees Trotter stated she did
not know anything about the Union 's in-plant organizing committee and
never attended any union meetings Johnson testified she wore a union
sticker during the campaign
26 Holdcraft contends she left because she had to do patchwork on the
next boat that was to be sprayed with fiberglass I find this testimony of
Holdcraft suspect because Lambert was the crewmember who regularly
performed patchwork Additionally , no other boats were going to be
sprayed that day because the employees had been asked by the Company
to attend a meeting that was being held that afternoon. Boats were nor-
mally patched just before they were 'sprayed because otherwise the
patches could come loose Lambert credibly testified that Supervisor
Bennett had told them to only patch the boats immediately before they
were to be sprayed
1153
'remaining crewmembers, Lambert, Trotter, and Johnson,
rolled out the fiberglass on their assigned portions of the
boat and-then all three, at least for a brief period of time,
ceased to roll out the remaining portion which normally
would have been rolled out by Holdcraft. Lambert
rolled the portion of the boat she was normally assigned
to roll and stopped. Trotter rolled somewhat more than
the area she was assigned to roll and then she stopped.
Johnson rolled her assigned area and a part of the area
that was assigned to Holdcraft. Holdcraft returned to the
area and rolled out the fiberglass on a portion of the boat
-that she was normally assigned to roll.27 Johnson helped
Holdcraft roll the remainder of Holdcraft's normally as-
signed area .- The boat was finished and sold as a regular
boat without damage. Trotter and Lambert credibly tes-
tified the work stoppage, to the extent there was one,
had nothing to do with the Union or the union cam-
paign.
It is undisputed that this was the first occasion that
this crew had not finished a boat in the normal fashion
that it finished boats, that is, without any work stoppage.
I find from the composite credited testimony of Lambert,
Trotter, and Johnson that this was also the first occasion
that Holdcraft had not performed her portion of rolling
out the fiberglass onto the hull of a boat.
Holdcraft testified she reported the incident to fiber-
glass Plant Manager Frank Kirchartz and that she later
met with Personnel Director Brasel about the incident.
Holdcraft told Kirchartz she thought the other crew-
members were trying to make trouble for her. Holdcraft
testified she did not know why the other crewmembers
did not finish the boat in the normal -fashion. Holdcraft
stated on - cross-examination she did not think about
whether the crewmembers stopping their work was re-
lated to the Union's campaign or not because the crew
had not been talking about the Union on that day. Hold-
craft stated she had no facts that would establish that the
employees' - actions were related to the union campaign.
The day after the incident Lambert, Trotter, and John-
son met with Vice President of Engineering Bob Francis,
Plant Manager Kirchartz, and Personnel Director Brasel
where they told the Company's officials what had hap-
pened. Personnel Director Brasel testified the three
crewmembers stated in the meeting that they were
"mad" at Holdcraft and felt she should do her part of
the lamination work. Trotter told Personnel Director
Brasel and the others that she stopped rolling out fiber-
glass on the boat because she felt "`[Holdcraft]- was mad
and [she] wasn't going to do [Holdcraft's] part when
[Holdcraft] was mad." Lambert, Trotter, . and Johnson
were given final warnings signed by Kirchartz, Brasel,
and Francis, which read as follows:
After a thorough investigation by the under-
signed of the incident that occurred Wednesday
afternoon in the Lamination area of the fiberglass
21 I simply find unbelieveable Holdcraft 's testimony that she asked the
other crewmembers three or four times why the boat had not been fin-
islied and that she got no answer I am persuaded Holdcraft knew what
the problem was, namely that she had left the area angry-and had not
performed her portion of the job •
1154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
plant, a decision was reached to issue you a final
warning notice.
By your own statement, you participated in an
attempt to leave one-fourth of the total area of a
hull unrolled which would have resulted in the
ruination of a $1500 boat hull. -
It is understood by all parties concerned, we will
.follow past practice which is problems within the
work group will be handled by the supervisor at the
earliest time when product will not be damaged or
lost.
It is felt this behavior was not justified irregard-
less of any circumstances and if behavior of this se-
rious nature occurs again, dismissal will be automat-
ic. [G.C. Exhs. 6, 7, and 8.]
This was the only warning Lambert, Trotter, or Johnson
ever received while-employed by the Company. -
Based on the credited testimony as outlined above it is
clear and I find that the incident about October 22, 1980,
was not related to the Union or the Union's campaign.
The final warning given the three crewmembers clearly
supports a finding that there was a problem or disagree-
ment among the crewmembers that was not related to
the Union. It appears that the level of support that Lam-
bert, Trotter, and Johnson had for the Union was not of
such a degree that it would cause them to cease work in
an effort to embarrass -or harass a fellow crewmember
because the fellow member was not for the Union.
I conclude and find that the Company has failed to es-
tablish that any supporters or adherents of the Union en-
gaged in any purposeful pattern and/or practice of de-
struction, damage, or sabotage to any of the Company's
property as contended by it in Objection 23b.28 Accord-
ingly, I recommend that the Company's Objection 23b
be overruled in its entirety.
-C. The Last Assertion in Company Objection 11
The last assertion in the Company's Objection 11 reads
as follows:
On or about the last week of July, 1980, the UBC
adherent Mark Huff approached a stipulated super-
visor Mack Harrison at his home, presented the su-
pervisor with numerous UBC organizing materials,
including a "UBC in-plant committee" book, urged
and solicited this supervisor to pass out UBC au-
thorization cards and to generally assist the UBC in
its organizing campaign. The union adherent Mark,
Huff requested that the supervisor's wife, Jeanie, a
unit employee of the employer, also assist the UBC
in passing out. UBC authorization cards and to help
the UBC to organize the company. The supervisor
refused to assist the union or participate in the orga-
nizing campaign of the union. In addition , the wife
of the supervisor refused to participate in organizing
efforts. Shortly after this family's refusal to aid the
union , the Doberman Pinscher dog owned by, the
28 The boat was not in fact damaged and any brief delay in work on
the boat was occasioned by matters unrelated to the Union
supervisor and his wife, valued at over $1;000, was
killed by a massive dose of rat poisoning.
Mark Huff testified he was employed by the Company
from January 28, 1980, until February 17, 1984. Huff
stated he worked as a fabricator in the work boat divi-
sion where the larger boats were built. Huff testified he
was a member of the Union's in-plant organizing com-
mittee and stated he spoke to fellow employees encour-
aging them to support the Union in its 1980 campaign at
the Company. _
Huff testified he knew Supervisor Mac Harrison and
had seen him at church a time or two but did not consid-
er him a close personal friend.29 Huff testified he was
never supervised-by Mac Harrison. Huff stated he knew
that Mac Harrison had certain relatives working at the
Company. -
Huff testified he visited with Mac Harrison about the
Union at Harrison's home in August 1980.30 Huff stated
he had not had any contact with Mac Harrison at the
plant prior to his visiting the Harrison's home.3 i Huff
and Mac Harrison exchanged pleasantries and Huff then
told Mac Harrison the purpose. of his visit. Huff stated
Mac Harrison's wife, Irma Jean Harrison, was present
elsewhere in the home (in the kitchen area) at the time of
his visit with Mac Harrison.32 Huff testified he told Mac
Harrison about the- Union forming at the Company and
told him that one of the reasons-it was forming was that
the Company had taken holiday pay away from its em-
ployees. Huff testified Mac Harrison said he would like
to have the 'holiday pay back himself. According to
Huff, after a short conversation, Mac Harrison told him
he did not feel he could help because he was a supervi-
sor. Huff told Mac Harrison he was sorry and asked to
be excused and started to put -everything back into his
pockets that he had brought with him.33 According to
Huff, Mac Harrison told him his wife (Irma Jean Harri-
son) was not a supervisor and that maybe she could help
and then added that he also was interested in the situa-
tion. According to Huff, Mac Harrison asked him more
about the Union so he could talk it over with his wife.
Huff testified Mac Harrison asked him if he had anything
he could leave with him. Huff stated he gave Mac Harri-
son a copy of the Union's in-plant committee booklet.
Huff testified he and Mac Harrison walked across the
street to where his truck was parked and while they
were talking Irma Jean Harrison appeared in' the door-
29 The correct spelling of Supervisor Harrison 's name is reflected as
established at the trial
so Mac Harrison placed the date of Huffs visit as July 30, 1980 I find
it unnecessary to make a finding as to the exact date of the visit
31 It is not disputed that Huff visited Mac Harrison's home Therefore,
I find it unnecessary to make a finding relating to Huffs assertion that he
had a telephone conversation with Irma Holdcraft (Mac Harrison's
mother-in-law) regarding his visiting Mac Harrison prior to his actually
going to the Harrison 's home Huff contended he called Holdcraft be-
cause Mac Harrison did not have a telephone at the time I am, however,
fully persuaded that Mac Harrison did have a telephone at the time Huff
visited him -
32 The correct spelling of Irma Jean Harrison's name is reflected as
established at the trial
ss Huff testified he had "Join the UBC In-Plant Committee " literature
with him at the time of his visit with Mac Harrison
MONARK BOAT CO. 1155
way of the home and called to him telling him that his,
Huff's, mother was on the, telephone and needed him to
come home. Huff stated he thanked Irma Jean Harrison
and left. Huff testified he had never been to Mac Harri-
son's home prior to that visit nor had he ever been back
since then.
Mac Harrison's version of Huff's visit differs,in certain
respects. Mac Harrison testified Huff came to his home
and asked him if he would pass out cards for the Union
and if he. was interested in becoming a member of the
Union. Mac Harrison stated he told Huff he was satisfied
with the way he was treated at the Company, that he
had no complaints, and did not wish to be involved with
the Union. Mac Harrison stated Huff then asked if his
wife, Irma Jean Harrison, would be interested in passing
out cards for the Union. Mac Harrison testified he told
Huff his wife was also satisfied with the way the Compa-
ny treated her and she had no reason,to be involved with
the Union. Mac Harrison testified Huff continued to talk
about the importance of the Union and that a union
would help increase wages and the employees would
have better benefits. Mac Harrison stated he finally told
Huff he was a supervisor and would prefer not to get in-
volved with the Union. Mac Harrison testified that after
he told Huff he was a supervisor Huff "really didn't
have that much more to say." Mac Harrison stated Huff
asked him to accept some booklets that might help clear
up any questions he had about the Union. Mac Harrison
testified he accepted the booklets and Huff then left.
Mac Harrison stated Huff was not angry when he left his
home. Mac Harrison testified:
Once I told him [Huff] that' I was a supervisor; I
could feel that he felt uncomfortable about that, just
my personal feelings because after that, our talk
became fairly limited and he offered me the book-
lets and then left.
Although it may not seem necessary to resolve the
conflict between the two witnesses with respect to their
meeting at Mac Harrison's home, I nevertheless do so
because I am of the opinion-it helps to shed light on
other credibility resolutions that are more essential to de-
ciding the merits of this particular objection to the elec-
tion. Huff impressed me as an honest witness and as such
I -credit his testimony. He generally had good recall of
the facts and testified about those facts without hesita-
tion. I am persuaded that Huff's testimony more accu-
rately reflects what occurred in his meeting with Super-
visor Mac Harrison. Therefore, at any place where Har-
rison's testimony is in conflict with Huff's about the
meeting , I credit Huff's version.
On September 12, 1980, Supervisor Mac Harrison's
dog, a Doberman pinscher named Roscoe, died. Mac
Harrison testified he always kept his dog on a chain in
the back yard at his home and the dog was never al-
lowed to freely roam the neighborhood. Mac Harrison
testified he " went to feed his dog on the evening before
the dog died and noticed the dog was bleeding at the
mouth. Harrison thought the dog might have had a bone
lodged in its jaw. Harrison testified he checked the dog's
mouth and found no lodged bones. Harrison stated he
checked the dog later that same day and-determined the
dog was very ill. Harrison took his dog to Doctor Tom
Sartain, a veterinarian in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. Mac Har-
rison testified that after Doctor Sartain began examining
the dog he stated to him that he was going to treat the
dog for rat poisoning. Harrison testified Doctor Sartain
told him the dog had either been given one massive dose
of rat poisoning or several smaller doses over a period of
time. Harrison testified he told Doctor Sartain he be-
lieved his dog had been poisoned by the Union. Harrison
testified the dog died the next morning while still in the
care of Doctor Sartain. Harrison directed Doctor Sartain
to dispose of the dog.34 -
Mac Harrison- testified that his entire family was upset
and saddened by the death of the dog. Mac Harrison tes-
tified his wife was so upset and fearful about the death of
their dog that she thereafter had their two small children
sleep in the room with them. Mac Harrison testified that
the death of his dog was talked about at the Company
for "a long, long time."
Doctor Sartain testified that, in his • opinion the dog
died of a massive dose of rat poisoning either given in
one large dose or in smaller doses over a period of 5 to
10 days. Doctor Sartain testified the dog exhibited "text-
book" symptoms of rat poisoning that a second-year vet-
erinarian student would have , easily recognized. Doctor
Sartain stated the Harrison's dog was bleeding from the
mouth when he examined it and that it had petechia on
the lips. He also stated the whites of the dog's eyes were
-red and bruised looking and that the dog had ecchymosis
on the skin of the abdomen. Doctor Sartain acknowl-
edged that no necropsy was performed on the dog and
no clinical tests were run to determine what poisoning
the dog died from .35
Doctor Sartain stated there are only a few diseases
that can mimic the symptoms of rat poisoning. He testi-
fied two other types of illnesses might cause bleeding
symptoms of this nature in a, dog; however, in his opin-,
ion, neither of the other two diseases was the cause of
the Harrison's dog's death. The first of, the other diseases
was hemophilia which Doctor Sartain described as a ge-
netic disease which would have showed up earlier in the
dog's life. The other disease was thrombocytopenia pur-
pura which is caused by a dog being on tranquilizers for
an extended period of time. There was no indication the
Harrison's dog had been on tranquilizers. The evidence is
persuasive that Roscoe died of rat poisoning.
Mac Harrison testified that after his dog died he was
visited by a second employee who wanted him to help
the Union in its campaign. Mac Harrison testified Robert
Sumpter visited him at his home during the week of Oc-
tober 6, 1980. Mac Harrison stated-Sumpter did not enter
his home but rather came only to the street at his home.
Mac -Harrison testified he went to where Sumpter had
' The parties stipulated that there were no reports of Roscoe bother-
ing anyone and no reports of other dogs being poisoned in the Monticel-
lo, Arkansas area even though the next door neighbor of the Harrison's
had 10 dogs The parties also stipulated that Mac Harrison did not keep
rat poison in his home because of his small children
as Doctor Sartain stated a necropsy would have cost approximately
$16 and laboratory work related thereto would have cost an additional
$12.
1156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
parked in the street and told him he was sorry to hear of
the death of Sumpter's wife. Mac Harrison stated Sump-
ter asked him how he felt about the Union at the Com-
pany. Mac Harrison testified he told Sumpter he really
did not have any comment that the Company had treat-
ed he and his wife fairly. Mac Harrison stated Sumpter
told him:
[T]he Union would be good for Monark Boat Com-
pany, that it would help the employees . . . then he
told me that I could be a very important asset to
the Union if I would become-if I would, you
know, work for the Union, basically, or take inter-
est in the Union and try to push it into the plant.
Because, basically, of my time at the plant and my
position as being a supervisor, I could have quite a
bit of influence on the employees.36
Mac Harrison testified he told Sumpter he was not inter-
ested and did not want to get involved. Mac Harrison
stated that to his knowledge Sumpter had not been back
to his home since that visit.
Sumpter testified he was laid off in 1979 and did not
thereafter return to work at the Company. 37 Sumpter
testified he worked as a janitor and was supervised by a
Mr. Gardner. Sumpter also stated he thought Mac Harri-
son was his supervisor during that same time period.
Sumpter testified he knew where Mac Harrison lived
and may possibly have visited the Harrison's home in
1979, but he did not recall visiting their home in 1980.
Sumpter testified he never asked Mac Harrison to sup-
port the Union and he never told Mac Harrison he could
be a big help to the Union.
Sumpter testified he had not heard that Mac Harrison's
dog had been poisoned or that the dog had died.
It is necessary to resolve the credibility conflict re-
garding whether Sumpter visited Mac Harrison in 1980.
After observing Sumpter testify, I am persuaded no such
meeting took place. Sumpter simply did not impress me
as an individual that would suggest that a supervisor act
as an inside informer for the Union. Accordingly, I find
31 On cross-examination , Mac Harrison testified Sumpter told him that
he could be very helpful to the Union as an inside informer.
37 Sumpter testified he was aware of the Union's campaign at the
Company in 1980.
Sumpter did not visit with Mac Harrison in 1980, nor did
he make the comments Mac Harrison attributes to him.
The issue becomes one of whether there was any con-
nection between anyone associated with the Union and
the death of Supervisor Mac Harrison's dog. I find no
such connection has been established on this record. Em-
ployee Huff visited the Harrison's home where he solicit-
ed support for the Union but as Mac Harrison indicated
Huff was surprised when he learned that Harrison was a
supervisor and wanted to leave the Harrison's home im-
mediately thereafter. It is undisputed that Huff left Mac
Harrison's home in a friendly manner with no hostility
exhibited. As outlined elsewhere in this decision, it was
Mac Harrison who asked for union literature during
Huff's visit at the Harrison's home. There is no evidence
to suggest that Huff was in any way involved in the
death of the Harrison's dog.38 There was no second visit
to the Harrison's home by anyone associated with the
Union.
Any attempt on this record to establish a connection
between the death of the dog and the Union (or its sup-
porters) is nothing more than empty speculation. Mere
speculation of this nature standing alone cannot form the
basis for objectionable conduct to a Board-conducted
election. Accordingly, I recommend dismissal of the last
assertion in the Company's Objection 11.
I am persuaded the evidence fails to establish that a
coercive environment existed at the Company such that
it could have intimidated any portion of the work force
during the time of the union campaign in 1980. As such I
recommend dismissal of all objections to the election
held on November 6, 1980.39
ORDER
It is recommended that the Company's Objections
15b-g; 23a and b, and the last assertion in Objection 11
be overruled.
38 1 am persuaded Huff testified truthfully when he said he did not di-
rectly or indirectly poison or attempt to poison the Harrison's dog.
39 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.