New Process Gear, Div. of Chrysler Corporation

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 27, 1979

245 N.L.R.B. 554 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
New Process Gear, Division of Chrysler Corporation
and Michael Allen. Case 3-CA-8358
September 27, 1978
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND MURPHY
On June 13, 1979, Administrative Law Judge
George Norman issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed
cross-exceptions.
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 brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified be-
low, and hereby order that Respondent, New Process
Gear, Division of Chrysler Corporation, Syracuse,
New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the said recommend-
ed Order, as so modified:
1. Substitute the following for paragraph (c):
"(c) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act."
2. Insert the following as paragraph 2(a) and re-
letter the remaining paragraphs accordingly:
i Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule
an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless
the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the
resolutions are incorrect. Standard 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.
2 The General Counsel has excepted to the Administrative Law Judge's
failure to order Respondent to remove any references to suspension and
discharge from Michael Allen's personnel file. We find merit to this excep-
Lion and shall modify the recommended Order accordingly.
In par. (c) of his recommended Order, the Administrative Law Judge
used the broad cease-and-desist language, "in any other manner." Inasmuch
as Respondent has not shown a proclivity to violate the Act or to engage in
egregious or widespread misconduct demonstrating a general disregard for
employees' fundamental statutory rights, we shall modify the recommended
Order to provide the narrow injunctive language. "in any like or related
manner." See Hickmolu Foods, Inc, 242 NLRB 1357 (1979).
"(a) Remove from the personnel file of Michael
Allen any reference to his suspension and discharge."
3. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(e):
"(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 3, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps Respondent has taken to comply here-
with."
4. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
11 IS FURTHER ORDERL) that the complaint herein
be, and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges
violations of the Act not specifically found herein.
APPENDIX
NOIICE To EMPI.OYEES
POS'IED BY ORDER OF TIHE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all parties had the opportu-
nity to present evidence, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board has found that we violated the law. We
have been ordered to take steps to correct our viola-
tions and have been ordered to post this notice.
The National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
give all employees the rights:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing
To engage in activities together for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection
To refrain from the exercise of any or all
such activities.
WE WIlIl. NOI suspend, discharge, or otherwise
discriminate against employees in regard to their
hire or tenure of employment or any term or
condition of employment because they engage in
union protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten unspecified reprisals
against Michael Allen, or any other employee,
because of his or her activities as acting chief
steward, or threaten to tear up any grievance
that Michael Allen, or any other employee.
would file in his or her capacity as acting chief
steward.
WE WIL. NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the Act.
WE WIIL. pay to Michael Allen, whom we
have suspended, discharged, and subsequently
reinstated, all money lost, with interest, as a re-
245 NLRB No. 92
554
NEW PROCESS GFAR. DIVISION OF CIIRYSLER CORP.
suit of such suspension and discharge from em-
ployment with us.
WE Wll.l. remove from the personnel file of
Michael Allen all references to his suspension
and discharge.
NEW PROCESS GEAR, DIVISION OF CHRYS-
LER CORPORATION
DECISION
STATFMFNT OF TIFF CASE
GEORGE NORMAN, Administrative Law Judge: This case
was heard at Syracuse. New York, on September 14, 15.
and October 3. 1978.1 The charge was filed by Michael Al-
len, an individual. on February 21, and a complaint based
on that charge was issued on April 7. alleging that Nesw
Process Gear, Division of Chrysler Corporation. herein
called Respondent, has engaged in and is engaging in cer-
tain unfair labor practices affecting commerce as set forth
and defined in the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, 29 USC, § 151, et seq., herein called the Act. The
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board.
on behalf of the Board, by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 3 issued the complaint and notice of hearing pursuant
to Section 10(b) of the Act and the Board's Rules and
Regulations, Series 8, as amended, Section 102.15.
Respondent's answer denies the commission of the al-
leged unfair labor practices. All parties were afforded full
opportunity to participate, to present relevant evidence, to
argue orally. and to file briefs. Briefs were filed on behalf of
the General Counsel and Respondent.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observa-
tion of the witnesses, and having considered the briefs sub-
mitted by the parties. I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACI
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is a corporation authorized to do business in
the State of New York. It maintains its principal office in
Detroit, Michigan, and various plants, warehouses, and
other facilities in various states of the United States, includ-
ing the New Process Gear Plant at 6600 Chrysler Drive,
Syracuse, New York. Respondent is engaged in the manu-
facture, sale, and distribution of automobiles, trucks. and
related products. During the past year, in the course and
conduct of its business operation, Respondent manufac-
tured and distributed at said New Process Gear Plant,
products valued in the excess of $50,000 which were
shipped from said plant directly to States of the United
States other than the State of New York. Respondent ad-
mits, and I find, that it is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVFD
Local 624, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricul-
tural Implement Workers of America, herein called the
I All events herein occurred in 1978, unless otherwise indicated
Union. is a labor organization within the meaning o Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
111. 1111 ISS'U S
I. Did Respondent violate the Act bh suspending the
Charging Party. Michael Allen, on Februarx 15 and then
discharging him on Februar' 177
2. Did Respondent violate the Act hb (a) threatening re-
prisals against Allen because of his acti ities as acting stew-
ard on Januaro 13 and 31: (b) threatening to refuse to give
information necessar\ for the administration of the collec-
tive-hargaining contract to the U'nion if' Allen persisted in
asking for information: (c) threatening on l)ecember 5
1977. to tear up any grievance that Allen would file in his
capacit? as acting steward?
ix. ttiE t1 IS
Respondent's New Process Gear Plant emplos hourly
rated employees who are represented by the Union and are
subject to the provisions of the National Production and
Maintenance Agreement between Chrysler and the LUAW.
The New Process Gear employees have been represented
by the ULAW since 1957. The agreement provides for chief
stewards throughout the plant. Each chief steward (and his
alternate steward) is responsible for a district consisting of
several departments. The contract does not provide that the
chief steAwards at New Process Gcar are not required to do
production work. However. in practice. chief stewards de-
vote their entire worktime to handling grievances and oth-
erwise administering the collective-bargaining agreement.
The contract provides that the union representatives are
subject to the same discipline as other employees in the
plant. The chief stewards are assigned to a particular de-
partment and are required to punch in and out as are other
employees. They are technically under the provision of the
department foreman but, inasmuch as they do not perform
production work, they are pretty much free to go from de-
partment to department within their jurisdiction to handle
union business without seeking special permission of the
foreman on each occasion. However. if the chief steward
has reason to leave the plant during working hours he is
required to notify his foreman of his intended departure.
Upon the departure of the chief steward, for ans reason, or
the absence of the chief steward. the designated alternate
steward takes on the duties of the chief steward, hut there is
no set procedure to follow in such circumstances. The con-
tract does not contain nor is there any established practice.
It is clear, however, that the alternate steward is recognized
by management as the designated representative of employ-
ees in the absence of the chief steward.
On February 15 Neal Falcone, who had been assigned to
department 174 on the second shift under the supervision of
foreman Ray Patrick as the chief steward for his district
which included department 174. received a call from home
at approximately 6:30 p.m.. advising him of an emergenc.
Without notifying, and/or even attempting to notif'%. an 5
member of management. Falcone left the plant and went
home. Michael Allen. also a second-shift employee in de
partment 174 under the supervision of fireman Patrick. was
555
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the designated alternate steward for Falcone's district.
Allen's job was finished grind operator. The particular part
Allen was grinding was a high volume part requiring a 7-
day operation.
At about 6:45 p.m. while Allen was on his job running a
machine, another chief steward, Bob Sacco, approached
him and informed him that Neal Falcone left on an emer-
gency basis and that there were problems in department
186 (Falcone's district) and that Allen better handle them.'
Allen looked for Foreman Patrick, who was not in the de-
partment at the time, presumably to notify him that he was
going on steward duty. Allen then washed and went to
lunch. While at lunch he saw an employee from department
186 who informed him of a safety problem. Allen finished
lunch and went to the union office located in the plant: got
his briefcase which contained union contract books, pencils,
and papers: walked back through his department, still not
seeing the foreman: went to department 186 where the
problem was, and on the way there ran into someone who
reported another problem in department 182. After taking
care of the safety problem in department 186, he went to
department 182 and then went back to his own department.
At about the time he arrived at his own department it
was about 8:10 p.m. He located Foreman Patrick and ex-
plained to him that Falcone had to leave on an emergency
and that he was on as steward. Foreman Patrick's version
of what occurred is as follows: Patrick returned from lunch
at 7:30 p.m. and, as was his practice, went through his de-
partment to make sure everybody was back. He discovered
that Michael Allen was not there at about 7:35 or a little
later and he continued to look for Allen, asking employees
if they had seen him. At about 8:10 p.m., Patrick saw Allen
carrying his briefcase. Allen told him "I am the steward
now because Neal Falcone went home." Patrick asked
"why did Neal go home," and Allen replied that he did not
know. Allen told Patrick that Mr. Sacco said that he went
home and repeated that he was steward then. Patrick said
nothing and then proceeded to General Foreman Dennis
Phonehouse's office.
On his way to Phonehouse's office Patrick met Phone-
house and asked him if he was aware that Neal Falcone left
the plant. Phonehouse said he did not know anything about
it. Then Patrick went into Leo Falter's office, Falter being
superintendent on the second shift, and asked Falter if he
knew why Falcone was not there. Falter said he did not
know. They then decided to find Allen to ask him what was
going on. Patrick paged Allen, who called back and upon
being asked by Patrick said he was on the green side in the
pit. Allen told Patrick that he was on a union related prob-
lem to which Patrick replied "I would like to talk to you."
Allen said "OK, I will be down as soon as I get a chance."
Patrick said "Alright."
Allen then came into the office at about 8:20 p.m. Present
were Falter, Patrick, and Allen. They all sat down, accord-
ing to Patrick's testimony, and Patrick said, "Mike, now
what happened to Neal." Allen replied, "I don't know. I
don't give a damn. He is not here. All I know is my people
are out there and they need representation. I am here to
2 The second shift that Allen was then on started at 3 p.m. and ended at I
p.m. The lunch period was from 7 p.m. to approximately 7:20 p.m.
give it to them. I am steward." Patrick said, "Wait a min-
ute, Mike, wait a minute, Mike. That is not the way you do
it. First of all, Neal Falcone should have notified me or
anyone in management within his district." Patrick contin-
ued, "First of all, he should have told me he was leaving
and secured a pass from me, and got authorization for
leave. In turn I would have come to you and told you that
Neal was gone and that, if anyone need any representation
from the union, you would be notified and you would go on
as steward. Now, no one followed procedure here. So, the
best thing you can do is go back and get on the job and go
up there and go to work and wait until somebody needs a
steward. And I will come over and relieve you, and I will
get someone to cover your job." According to Patrick, Al-
len replied, "Fuck you, I don't have to do that. I don't have
to do a damn thing. If my people want representation and
need it, I am going to give it to them." At this point Falter,
according to Patrick, entered the conversation and said,
"Wait a minute, Mike. Do what Patrick told you to do.
Follow procedure and go back to your job." And Allen
replied, "I don't give a damn." Falter repeated that Allen
should go back to work and that he would call him if "we"
needed a steward. Patrick testified that Falter said "Go
back to your job, and I bet in 5 minutes we will tell you that
you're going to be a steward, because somebody needs rep-
resentation." Allen replied, "You can kiss my ass. I am
going to stay on as steward. I don't have to go back to
work." Patrick then said to Allen, "Look Mike, Neal Fal-
cone may be suspended depending on what we find out as
to what happened to him, tomorrow or whatever, but you
are suspended." Allen then left.
The next day Allen met outside the plant with commit-
teeman Jay Morse and steward Neal Falcone. Allen gave
Morse a detailed explanation of what happened the night
before. Morse advised Allen to go home and wait for a call,
and later that afternoon Allen received a call from Morse.
Morse asked Allen to report for work. Morse called later
and told Allen to report to the conference room. When
Allen arrived at work, he punched in, went down to the
conference room and met Morse outside the room, at which
time Morse informed Allen that "You are going to receive a
one day D.L.O suspension." Allen said "Jay, I don't feel I
did anything wrong. I don't feel I did anything." They then
proceeded into the conference room.
Before that meeting, Acting Union President Richard
Anderson and Acting Plant Shop Chairman Tony DeFran-
cisco talked to Personnel Manager Richard Parks about the
Falcone and Allen matters. Parks testified as follows,
"What they wanted us to do was to bring the two back to
work. I recall saying to them that it didn't seem to me there
was any possible way to take that action because of the
seriousness of it; that employees had been discharged at
New Process Gear Plant for leaving without proper autho-
rization or for insubordination, and that the steward had a
special responsibility to comply with the rules, because of
their capacity. And that we certainly couldn't treat them
differently than we could others. Mr. Anderson said that he
felt, that in the best interest of the relationship between the
I According to Allen, DLO means the record shows that he was suspended
for the day but Allen actually reports for work and gets paid for it.
556
NEW PROCESS GEAR, DIVISION OF CHRYSLER CORP.
Union and the Company, that it would be a good thing to
bring them back to work. And I said to him and this
meeting went on for a long time. We did a lot of talking and
we must have been in there, I guess an hour, maybe an hour
and maybe longer. We discussed this whole situation very
thoroughly and we discussed for example how impractical
it is to operate without some reasonable guideline for peo-
ple to proceed by, if we're going to have one employee
replacing another as steward. So finally I said to them, 'Al-
right. I will tell you what we will do. Why don't we have a
meeting this afternoon before the start of the shift, and if
the two of you-that would be Anderson, DeFrancisco,
Brownie and that is Mr. Brown who we call Brownie,
Brownie and I, Leo Falter and Patrick....Let's discuss this
whole situation of how we should proceed in relieving stew-
ards. And if we have a meeting of the mind, and everybody
understands what the situation is and the way we are going
proceed. And if we can get an agreement, that is what is
going to happen. Then we will return Falcone and Allen to
work with one day's disciplinary layoff and suspension for
whatever time they had been paid for-would have worked
during that shift.' And we agreed to that period and this
meeting, as I recall, was scheduled for 2:30 and we were
there....And finally I asked if Mr. Allen were going to
come to the meeting. And the Union responded, as far as he
knew about it he was to be there. I said 'why don't we go
ahead and hold our conversation, discuss the arrangement
and what we want him to get into about how stewards
would be relieved. And take care of our discussion with Mr.
Falcone.'" Parks testified that Allen came into the room
and to the conference table where the others were seated.
He put his jacket, which he had in his hand, on the back of
his chair and waved his arm over the table as though to
interrupt what was going on. At the time Parks was talking
with Falcone and, upon completing his statement, said, "I
understand that I have brung [sic] my card in, and I under-
stand that I have been reinstated." Parks replied "No you
are still suspended. You have not been reinstated." To
which Allen responded, "In that case, I have personal busi-
ness to attend to and I don't have time to be in this meeting.
My committeeman, Mr. Morse, can speak for me." Where-
upon, Allen turned and left the room. Parks testified, "we
all were a little flabbergasted by it, to tell you the truth. As
I recall, I think Dick Anderson said, 'what the hell is this all
about?' and he addressed that comment to Jay Morse. And
he said, 'get him back in here.' And Jay Morse said, 'He's a
grown man. I can't control him. He does what he wants to.'
At that point the meeting broke up."
Parks was asked (while testifying) if Allen was reinstated
at that time. Parks replied, "No. As a matter of fact, we
proceeded to convert that suspension he was on to a dis-
charge." Asked why the suspension was converted to a dis-
charge, Parks replied, "Well because it seemed fairly clear
at the time, that Mr. Allen was taking a position that he
was not going to comply with the established procedures for
relief of a steward with an alternate going on."'
4 Allen grieved. The Union, at the second step of the procedure, made an
offer to management to withdraw without prejudice the grievance if manage-
ment would reinstate Allen without backpay. Management accepted the of-
fer. That ook place the sixth week after the initial suspension of Allen. Allen
did not participate in that resolution of the grievance.
The Alleged 8(a)(I) Violations
Paragraph VI alleges three separate violations of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. They will be treated separatel b below.
Paragraph Vl(c) alleges that on December 5, 1977. Fore-
man Dick Zellar threatened to tear up any grievances that
Michael Allen would file in his capacity as acting steward.
Michael Allen testified that on that date. while acting as
chief steward, he and another alternate steward, Randy
Ladd. were discussing oral grievances with foreman Zellar,
during which Allen told Zellar that if they could not
straighten out the problems that he would file (written)
grievances. According to Allen, Zellar replied, "Any griev-
ances you file I will rip up, or do away with." As a result of
that conversation Allen filed a grievance with Zeller for
making that statement. Zellar did not "rip up" that griev-
ance. Randy Ladd testified that Zellar did indeed state that
he would tear up any grievance filed by Allen and further
testified that the discussion between Zellar and Allen was
fairly loud.
Respondent argues that the statement came in the con-
text of a loud argument between Zellar and Allen and that,
despite the comment, Zellar subsequently accepted Allen's
grievances and processed them in accordance with proce-
dure. Respondent contends that such a statement in context
of a disagreement over the merit of grievances and the fact
that subsequent grievances filed by Allen were accepted by
the foreman is an isolated incident which is de minimis. In
the total context of Respondent's treatment of Allen in this
case, I do not find such an incident as de minimis. It was an
integral part of Respondent's general behavior towards Al-
len.
Paragraph VI(a) of the complaint alleges that Respon-
dent, by Foreman Patrick, on or about January 31, threat-
ened unspecified reprisals against the charging party (Allen)
because of his activities as acting steward, and that Richard
Parks, on January 13, did the same.
Concerning that allegation, the record shows that Fore-
man Patrick became upset with the action of Superinten-
dent Santini concerning his removal of a written warning
issued to Dennis Lipkowski for excessive absenteeism in
January. Patrick testified that he was upset with Santini
because of Santini's unilateral action in removing the disci-
pline without having consulted with Patrick. The sequence
of events leading to removal of the discipline by Santini is
as follows: On January 31 Allen discussed with Foreman
Patrick Lipkowski's absentee problem. When Allen told
Patrick that he felt the discipline meted out to Lipkowski
was unjust, Patrick disagreed. Allen then went to General
Foreman Phonehouse and discussed with him what he had
discussed with Patrick. Phonehouse also disagreed with Al-
len that the punishment was unjust. Allen then went to see
Leo Falter, superintendent on the night shift, who told Al-
len, "I'll look into it." Allen then went to see the superinten-
dent on the day shift, Santini, who then called Lipkowski,
General Foreman Phonehouse, and foreman Patrick into
his office, and after a discussion Santini removed the pun-
ishment from Lipkowski's record.
The uncontroverted evidence establishes that Foreman
Patrick became upset with the action of Superintendent
Santini. Patrick explained that he was upset with Santini
557
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
because of Santini's unilateral action removing the disci-
pline without having consulted with Patrick. Allen testified
that following the meeting in Santini's office he met Patrick
and said to him, "Gee, Rays, I hope you are not mad." and
Patrick responded, "I don't get mad; I just get even." On
the other hand, Patrick testified that Allen asked him if he
was mad, and after he advised Allen that he was not mad,
Allen stated, "You don't get mad, you just get even." Pat-
rick advised Allen that he had not made such a statement. I
credit Allen and not Patrick and I disagree with Respon-
dent that the statement is isolated and de minimis. I find
such a statement to be an 8(aX)() violation.
Paragraph Vl(b) of the complaint alleges that Respon-
dent has violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act by threatening
to refuse to give information necessary for the administra-
tion of the contract to the Union if the charging party per-
sisted in asking for the information. The allegations names
Richard Parks as having engaged in that conduct on Janu-
ary 13. In 1973 management of New Process Gear insti-
tuted a computerized absentee-control program to provide
a means of quickly checking on individual employees' ex-
cessive absenteeism. In 1976 management agreed with the
Union to provide the Union with a copy of the printout of
any employee that management felt was subject to disci-
pline for excessive absenteeism.
Sometime prior to January 13, Allen made a request for
his own absentee printout. At the time of the request Allen
was not subject to any discipline for absenteeism. His re-
quest was denied by Labor Relations Supervisor Erwin
Browne. On January 13 Allen made the same request of
Personnel Manager Richard Parks. Parks told Allen of the
purpose of the printouts and explained that Respondent
could not afford to provide printouts for all employees
upon request of the Union and that if the Union's position
was that it could have any printout on request, regardless of
the employee's potential for discipline for excessive absen-
teeism, that management could not comply with such a de-
mand. When told that Respondent could not supply the
printout Allen requested, he became angry and started to
leave Parks' office. Parks called Allen back to his desk and
told Allen in effect that cooperation was a two-way street
and that Allen could expect better cooperation from Re-
spondent if he did not try to deal with Respondent in a
tough manner.
I do not consider Parks' remarks to Allen as constituting
a threat, considering the understanding reached by the par-
ties concerning the issuing of printouts. There being no evi-
dence that Allen was about to be disciplined for excessive
absenteeism, Respondent had no obligation to provide him
with his printout. Accordingly, I do not feel that such infor-
mation on an employee such as Allen, who was not at the
time of the request subject to discipline for excessive absen-
teeism, was necessary to administer the contract. Therefore,
I shall recommend the dismissal of that allegation of the
complaint.
Discussion and Conclusions
It is undisputed that Michael Allen was an aggressive
alternate steward and that his manner, when engaged in the
functions of the chief steward in the absence of the chief
steward, irritated representatives of Respondent including
his immediate foreman, general foreman, plant superinten-
dent, personnel manager, and the labor relations supervisor.
On the night of February 15 Allen received word that the
chief steward in his department, Neal Falcone, had left the
plant and that he, Michael Allen, was called upon to act as
chief steward for the remainder of the shift that day. As the
elected chief steward for his district, Falcone did have a job
assignment but was free to devote full worktime to process-
ing grievances. Allen, also a second-shift employee in the
same department, under the supervision of the Foreman
Patrick, was the designated alternate steward for Falcone's
district. On February 15 at approximately 6:30 p.m. Fal-
cone received a call from home advising him of an emer-
gency. Without notifying anyone in management, Falcone
left the plant and went home. Falcone's actions were admit-
tedly improper and he received a -day suspension as pun-
ishment.
At approximately 7:35 p.m., 17 minutes after the end of
the lunch period, Foreman Patrick observed that Michael
Allen was not present at his job assignment. Approximately
one half hour later, Patrick observed Allen in the aisleway
in the plant. Allen advised Patrick that chief steward Fal-
cone had gone home and that he (Allen) was now the stew-
ard and that he was on steward business. Patrick asked
Allen if he knew why Falcone had gone home and Allen
stated that he did not. Without saying anything further,
Patrick went in search of other supervisors to determine if
Falcone had told anybody that he was leaving the plant. On
determining that Falcone had failed to advise anyone in
management that he was leaving the plant, Patrick paged
Allen. Allen responded to the page by calling Patrick in the
superintendent's office. Patrick instructed Allen to report to
the office. Allen responded that he would come to the office
as soon as he was finished with the problem he was dealing
with. At approximately 8:20 p.m. Allen came to the office
of Superintendent Leo Falter. On his way to the office Allen
discovered yet another safety problem, which he mentioned
on entering the office, but Patrick told Allen to get off union
business and get back on the job. When Allen told him he
could not because he was in the midst of a grievance, Pat-
rick suspended him for alleged insubordination.
Patrick told Allen that should a need arise for a steward,
Patrick would relieve Allen from his job at that time. Allen
refused to return to work stating that if his people wanted
representation and needed it he was going to give it to
them. At that point Falter intervened and instructed Allen
to return to work assuring Allen that if one of his constituents
should call for a steward Allen would be allowed to act as
chief steward. Allen again refused, at which time he was
notified that he was suspended.
Both Patrick and Falter were aware as early as 7:35 p.m.
that the chief steward had left and that Allen would be
acting chief steward, and they were also aware that Allen
was actuall on union business at the time that he was called
into Falter's office. For Falter to have required Allen to go
back to his work station with the assurance that if one of his
constituents should call for a steward that he would be al-
lowed to act as chief steward when Allen was already acting
as chief steward, and Falter was well aware of it, was an
unreasonable requirement on Falter's part. It appeared that
558
NEW PROCESS GEAR, DIVISION OF CHRYSLER CORP.
both Falter and Patrick were annoyed with Allen and made
unreasonable demands of him at a time when they knew
that he was acting chief steward and was actually on union
business.
This unreasonable treatment towards Allen was com-
pounded the following day when Personnel Manager Parks
and Labor Relations Supervisor Browne met with R. An-
derson, local union vice president and then acting pres-
ident, and T. DeFrancisco, acting union plant shop chair-
man, and discussed in detail the prior night's incident.
Parks, Browne, Anderson, and DeFrancisco were in agree-
ment that the proper procedure and the one consistently
followed at New Process Gear for an alternate steward to
replace a chief steward was that the alternate steward must
give notice to the supervisor before he leaves his job. I find
that the alternate steward, Allen, did give notice. When he
came back from lunch he could not find Foreman Patrick.
When he did see Patrick about one half hour later, after
having tended to steward's business, he notified Patrick.
who voiced no objection whatsoever at the time. Parks,
Browne, Anderson, and DeFrancisco agreed to hold a
meeting that afternoon to assure that all the parties, includ-
ing Allen, fully understood the proper procedure when a
chief steward left the plant and an alternate steward re-
placed the chief steward.' The parties further agreed that
"upon a meeting of the minds on proper procedure regard-
ing alternate stewards replacing chief stewards who absent
themselves from the plant,"6 Allen and Falcone would each
receive I-day disciplinary layoff with the time off to be
waived. The only lost time would be the 2 hours lost by
Allen from the prior night shift.
A meeting was held that afternoon at which Parks,
Browne, Falter, and Patrick were present for Respondent,
and Anderson, DeFrancisco, union committeeman Jay
Morse, and Falcone were present for the Union. At this
meeting the prior night's incident was discussed in detail,
and Falcone accepted a I-day disciplinary layoff, acknowl-
edging that he had left the plant without authorization. Al-
len was not present at the start of the meeting but arrived
an hour later. Upon his arrival, Allen waited for an oppor-
tunity to speak and then stated "I understand that I have
been reinstated." Parks advised Allen that he had not yet
been reinstated, to which Allen answered, "In that case I
have personal business to attend to and I don't have time to
be in this meeting. My committeeman can speak for me."
Allen then walked out of the meeting.
Respondent contends that as a consequence of Allen's
refusal to participate in the meeting it was determined that
Allen was taking the position that he did not have to com-
ply with established procedures and that it was determined
that Allen would be discharged. Allen was in fact dis-
charged at that point.
Prior to that agreement there was no "proper" procedure for an alternate
steward to leave his job to replace the chief steward. The contract is silent on
that point.
6 The quote is from Respondent's brief which is an acknowledgement that
"a meeting of the minds on the proper procedure regarding alternate stew-
ards replacing chief stewards who absent themselves from the plant" was
required because prior to that time there was no "meeting of the minds" or
an agreed upon procedure.
' At this time Allen was on his own time and received no formal invitation
or instruction directly from Respondent to attend the meeting.
With respect to Respondent's contention, the following in
noted: (1) Allen was on his own time and had not received
instructions from Respondent to attend the meeting. (2)
The meeting was called to "reach a meeting of the minds on
the proper procedure regarding alternate steward replacing
chief stewards who absent themselves from the plant." It
was not necessary for Allen to be present inasmuch as his
named representative, union committeeman Jay Morse,
was present and so were others above Allen in the union
hierarchy. In the circumstances, Allen's input would have
been minimal at best, and whatever was decided could very
well have been decided without him and communicated to
him through his representative, union committeman Jay
Morse, per Allen's request. Therefore, I find that Allen's
suspension and discharge were unreasonable. Respondent's
stated reason, "insubordination" is pretextual. The real rea-
son for his suspension and discharge was Allen's agressive
actions in attempting to enforce the collective-bargaining
agreement to discourage membership and/or activity on
behalf of the Union, as alleged in the complaint. Pittsburgh
Press Company, 234 NLRB 408 (1978); General Motors
Corporation, Inland Division, 233 NLRB 47 (1977): Colum-
bus Foundries Inc., 229 NLRB 34 (1977).
V. THE EFFEC(T OF IHE UNFAIR I.ABOR PRA('I(CS UPON
COMMER(E
The activities of Respondent set forth above, occurring in
connection with its operations, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead, and have led, to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
VI. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act by certain alleged conduct and Section 8(a)(3)
and (I) of the Act by having suspended and discharged
Michael Allen, I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative actions to remedy
the unfair labor practices and effectuate the policies of the
Act. As I have found that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(3) and (I) by suspending and discharging Michael Al-
len, though he was subsequently reinstated to his former
position, I shall recommend that Respondent make him
whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as a
result of the discrimination, with interest thereon to be
computed in the manner described in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corpora-
tion, 231 NLRB 651 (1977)A
As I have found that Respondent interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in violation of Section
8(a)(l) of the Act by a variety of conduct, the Order will
provide that Respondent cease and desist from threatening
unspecified reprisals against the Charging Party because of
his activities as acting steward and threatening to tear up
any grievances that the Charging Party would file in his
capacity as acting steward.
'See. generally. Isis Plumbing & Heating Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
559
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Having found that Respondent did not violate Section
8(a)(l) of the Act with regard to the alleged threat to refuse
to give information necessary for the administration of the
contract to the Union if the Charging Party persisted in
asking for information, I shall recommend that that par-
ticular allegation be dismissed.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclu-
sions, and the entire record, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. New Process Gear, Division of Chrysler Corporation,
is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 624, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agri-
cultural Implement Workers of America, is a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By suspending Michael Allen on February 15 and by
discharging him on February 16 because of his actions in
attempting to enforce the collective-bargaining agreement,
and in order to discourage membership and/or activity on
behalf of the Union, Respondent discriminated against em-
ployees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
4. By threatening on December 5, 1977, to tear up any
grievances that Michael Allen would file in his capacity as
acting steward and by threatening on January 31 to "get
even" because Acting Steward Allen had succeeded in pro-
cessing a grievance to successful conclusion, Respondent
interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the
exercise of their Section 7 rights in violation of Section
8(a) 1) of the Act.
5. Respondent did not threaten to refuse to give informa-
tion necessary for the administration of the contract to the
Union if the Charging Party persisted in asking for infor-
mation in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Upon the above findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 9
The Respondent, New Process Gear, Division of Chrys-
ler Corporation, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
9 1n 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 by 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.
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Suspending, discharging, or otherwise discriminating
against employees in regard to hire or tenure of employ-
ment or any term or condition of employment because they
engage in union or protected, concerted activities;
(b) Threatening to tear up any grievances that Michael
Allen or any other employee would file in his capacity as
acting steward:
Threatening unspecified reprisals against Michael Allen
or any other employee because of his activities as acting
steward:
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make Michael Allen whole for his loss of earnings,
with interest thereon to be computed according to the for-
mula described hereinabove in section VI entitled "The
Remedy."
(b) Preserve and upon request make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records neces-
sary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms
of this Order.
(c) Post at its location in Syracuse, New York. copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." ' ° Copies of the no-
tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 3, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized
representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that the
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 3, in writ-
ing, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegation of unlawful
threat to refuse to give information necessary for the ad-
ministration of the contract to the Union if the Charging
Party persisted in asking for information in paragraph
Vl(b) of the complaint is dismissed.
0 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 Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board."
560