Poloron Products of Mississippi, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 2, 1975

217 N.L.R.B. 704 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

704 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Poloron Products of Mississippi , Inc. andUnited Rub-
ber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of
America, AFL-CIO,CLC. Case 26-CA-5090
May 2, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND KENNEDY
On December 18, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
Max Rosenberg issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief.
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 con-
clusions of the Administrative Law Judge, as herein
modified, and to adopt his recommended Order.
We hereby correct the following inaccuracies in the
Administrative Law Judge's Decision:
1. The Administrative Law Judge inadvertently
found,that Kemp Brown's real name is Cloyce Allen
Brown, whereas the record shows that his real name is
Cloyce Alan Kemp.
2. In referring to the "Progress Report" of employee
Levon Flowers the Administrative Law Judge makes
mention of the following March 23, 1974, notation of
Respondent's personnel manager, Ray Adcock:
"Cooper-This employee must improve or action
needs to be taken." The particular exhibit from which
this comment is quoted clearly shows that it belongs to
employee Jane Goodson, and not Levon Flowers. We
have considered these "Progress Reports" and agree
with the Administrative Law Judge that they do not
establish any serious job performance shortcomings on
the part of either Goodson or Flowers. Thus, Good-
son's report shows that she was evaluated in 10 catego-
ries, ranging from "attitude toward job" to "quality of
work," on March 9 and 23 and April 9. Employees are
rated as "poor," "fair," "good," or "excellent." In the
first evaluation she scored "fair" in six categories
and "good" in four other categories. In the second
evaluation she was checked "fair" in all but one
category, "compatibility," in which she rated "good."
In the final report on April-the day of her
I The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge It is the Board's established policy not to over-
rule 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 Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91
NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (CA 3, 1951). We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
discharge-Goodson was rated "poor" in "housekeep-
ing," "good" in "compatibility," and "fair" in the re-
maining eight categories.
was "compatability," evaluated for the periods end-
ing February 16 and March 2 and 9.-He rated "fair"
nine times and "good" once in his first report; "poor"
twice, "good" once, and "fair" seven times in his sec-
ond report. Indeed, his final report, prior to discharge,
showed a substantial improvement, with "good" in one
category and "fair" in the remaining nine categories.
3. Finally, the Administrative Law Judge found that
during his speeches the Respondent's president had not
threatened reprisals against employees who signed au-
thorization cards. In reaching his conclusion, he relied
"primarily" upon the testimony of Maude Robison
which contradicted the testimony of the General Coun-
sel's other witnesses, Eugene Taylor, Russell Morris,
and Don Wright. We note, however, that Robison was
assigned to a different shift than the other employee-
witnesses and thus did not hear what was said to Mor-
ris, Wright, or Taylor. But it appears that the Adminis-
trative Law Judge also relied, at least in part, upon the
specific denial of President Hoffman, and, since no
exception was filed, we see no reason to disturb his
conclusion.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of
the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that
Respondent, Poloron Products of Mississippi, Inc.,
Batesville, Mississippi, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said
recommended Order, except that the attached notice is
substituted for that of the Administrative Law Judge.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT discharge our employees, thereby
discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of
employment, in order to discourage their member-
ship in United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plas-
tic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, CLC, or any
other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our em-
ployees about their union activities.
WE WILL NOT ask our employees to report to us
the identity of the union sympathizers.
217 NLRB No. 114
POLORON PRODUCTS OF MISSISSIPPI, INC.
WE WILL NOT warn our employees- to stop engag-
ing in activities protected by the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended.
WE WILL NOT spy on our employees' union activi-
ties. -
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL make Jane Goodson and Levon Flow-
ers whole for any loss of pay they may have suf-
fered as a result of our discrimination practiced
against them, and WE WILL reinstate them to their
old jobs or, if they no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent ones.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or
refrain from becoming or remaining members of the
above-named or any other labor organization.
POLORON PRODUCTS OF MISSISSIPPI,
INC
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MAX ROSENBERG, Administrative Law Judge: With all par-
ties represented, this proceeding was tried before me on Au-
gust 13 and 14, 1974, in Batesville, Mississippi, on an
amended complaint filed by the Geneial Counsel of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board and an answer interposed
thereto by Poloron Products of Mississippi, Inc., herein
called the Respondent.' The issues raised by the pleadings
related to whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by discharging
employees Jane Goodson and Levon Flowers, and whether
Respondent further independently violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act by certain conduct to be detailed hereinafter. Briefs
have been received from the General Counsel and the Re-
spondent, which have been duly considered.
Upon the entire record made in this proceeding, including
my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses as they
testified on the stand, I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
I THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Respondent, a Mississippi corporation with its principal
office and place of business in Batesville , Mississippi, is en-
gaged in the manufacture of ice chests and coolers. During
the annual period material to this proceeding, Respondent
purchased and received products valued in excess of $50,000
directly from points located outside the State of Mississippi
and, during the same period, sold and shipped from its Bates-
villle, Mississippi, installation, products valued in excess of
$50,000 directly to points located outside the State of Missis-
sippi. The complaint alleges, the answer-admits, and I find
The complaint, which issued on June 20, 1974, is based upon charges
and amended charges filed and served on May 7, 1974, and June 10, 1974,
respectively
705
that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, CLC, herein called the Union, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(3) of the Act by discharging Jane Goodson on April 9,
1974,2 and Levon Flowers on April 12, because they joined
or assisted the Union.' It further alleges that Respondent
offended the provisions of Section 8(a)(1) of the statute dur-
ing the period from April 22 to May 10 when its agents and
supervisors engaged in a series of acts designed to thwart the
exercise by its employees of rights guaranteed to them under
Section 7 of the Statute. For its part, the Respondent denies
the commission of any labor practices proscribed by the con-
trolling Federal legislation.
It is undisputed and I find that, in late March or early
April, the Union embarked upon a campaign to enlist the
collective support of some 550 employees at the Respondent's
plant. -
Jane Goodson testified that she had been employed by
Respondent on February 28 as a machine operator in the
water hold department where she made styrofoam boxes for
ice coolers. During her employment stmt which ended on
April 9, she worked on the 4 p.m. to midnight shift under the
supervision of Superintendent Cooper Williams and Lead-
man Major Wrenn, Sr., both admittedly statutory supervi-
sors. On April 3, Goodson obtained some authorization cards
from the Union, one of which she executed on that date. On
April 5, while at work, she solicited employees Levon Flow-
ers and a Kemp Brown to sign designations .4 Flowers did
so, but Brown declined and returned the blank card to Good-
son. It is uncontroverted and I find that none of Respondent's
supervisors observed Goodson 's engagement in union activi-
ties on this date. It is also undenied and I find that Goodson
was the sole solicitor on behalf of the Union at that time.
At 5 p.m. on April 9, Superintendent Cooper Williams
approached Goodson at her machine and beckoned her to
accompany him to the office of Ray Adcock, Respondent's
personnel manager. When they arrived, Adcock informed her
that "Miss Goodson, I am sorry-that I regret this will be
your last day with us." Adcock then asked whether Goodson
had any questions regarding her separation, and the latter
inquired as to the reason for her discharge. Adcock replied
that he was dissatisfied with her work performance and, with
that, the conversation terminated and Goodson left the plant.
Levon Flowers began his employment with Respondent on
February 1, as a machine operator in the water hold depart-
2 All dates herein fall in 1974
3 The complaint also alleged that employee Willie Thornton was illegally
discharged on May 10 by Respondent At the hearing, the General Counsel
dropped this averment from the pleadings.
4 Kemp Brown's correct name is Cloyce Allen Brown. He is the stepson
of Lawson Brown, a leadman in another department at Respondent 's plant
and an acknowledged supervisor
706 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ment, worked on the same shift as did Goodson , and had the
same supervisors . He testified that, on the evening of April
5, while Kemp Brown was at Flowers' work station , Goodson
distributed authorization cards to them for signature Flow-
ers executed his card and handed it to Goodson. Brown
perused the card and returned it to Goodson unsigned.
When Flowers reported for work on the afternoon of April
12, he noticed that his timecard was not in the rack . Flowers
apprised Leadman Major Wrenn, Sr., of this circumstance,
and Wrenn referred Flowers to Superintendent Cooper Wil-
liams. Flowers sought out Williams , and together they pro-
ceeded to the office of Personnel Manager Adcock. Upon
their arrival, Adcock remarked that he had checked Flowers'
employment file and discovered that the employee had not
progressed at his work in an acceptable fashion . Adcock
added that he did not believe that Flowers was satisfied with
his duties , and-that Flowers was being discharged . Flowers
received a paycheck and left the plant.
It is Flowers' testimony that, on or about April 19, he
returned to the shop to pick up his final paycheck and en-
countered Leadman Wrenn . After discussing the purpose of
Flowers' mission , Wrenn told Flowers that "Jane Goodson
was a good worker and he didn't fire her, Cooper Williams
did because of all the trouble with the [union] cards. He asked
me [Flowers] did she have any cards and I told him yes. Then
he said he heard that Kemp Brown told Cooper Williams that
I had cards and that was the reason I was fired."
To confront the foregoing testimony of Flowers and Good-
son, and to thwart the General Counsel 's contention that
Respondent gained -knowledge of the union activities of these
employees and discharged them therefor, Respondent drew
upon the testimony of Kemp Brown , Kemp's stepfather and
supervisor, Lawson Brown, Leadman Major Wrenn , Sr., Su-
perintendent Cooper Williams, and Personnel Manager Ray
Adcock.
Kemp Brown , in his testimony , denied that he had ever
observed Jane Goodson with union authorization cards; de-
nied that he had seen Levon Flowers in possession of those
designations ; denied that he had ever reported to any of
Respondent's officials that he had observed employees in his
department who were possessed of the cards ; denied that he
had at any time discussed the subject of the Union in any
manner with Cooper Williams and Major Wrenn, Sr.; denied
that he had ever mentioned the topic of designation cards to
his stepfather, Lawson Brown , and, denied that he had ever
discussed any union activities of Goodson and Flowers with
Lawson Brown . When called to the witness stand, Lawson
Brown insisted that his stepson had never discussed the mat-
ter of the possession of union cards by employees with him
and denied that Kemp ever mentioned the names of any
employees who were active in soliciting on behalf of the
Union.
Major Wrenn , Sr., who served as a leadman in the water
hold department under Superintendent Cooper Williams,
steadfastly denied in his testimony that he had told Levon
Flowers on April 19 that Jane Goodson had been a good
machine operator and that she had been discharged for dis-
tributing union cards, and that he had had any discussion
with Flowers concerning the possession or distribution of
union designations by either Flowers or Goodson . Further-
more, Wrenn disclaimed any knowledge that either Flowers
or Goodson was a union adherent prior to their discharge.
Superintendent Cooper Williams testified that he.was to-
tally unaware that Flowers and Goodson had become in-
volved with the Union prior to their separation from Respon-
dent's employment rolls; and Personnel Manager Ray
Adcock testified in the same vein.
I do not credit the testimony of Kemp Brown , Lawson
Brown , Major Wrenn , Sr., Cooper Williams, or Ray Adcock,
not only because their demeanor and the manner in which
they testified did not impress me, but also because the reasons
which Respondent advanced for the terminations were not
persuasive and because of the serious acts of interference,
restraint, and coercion in which Respondent indulged, fol-
lowing the discharges , to inhibit its employees freely to accept
or reject the Union as their bargaining agent.
With respect to Goodson 's work qualities, she testified that
on only three single occasions , all of which occurred approxi-
mately 3 weeks before her discharge on April 9, Superintend-
ent Cooper Williams told her to perform housekeeping chores
around her machine, not to leave her work station, and to
keep her machine closed at all times . However, these direc-
tions by Williams were not in the nature of warnings and no
notations were made or placed in Goodson 's personnel folder
regarding any dissatisfaction by Respondent with Goodson's
work performance. Goodson further testified that she had
been complimented on three occasions during her employ-
ment by Leadman Major Wrenn . Thus, she testimonially
related that on March 13, Wrenn visited her work station and
Wrenn "told me [Goodson] I was doing a good job and asked
me if I liked my work ." Again, on March 28 , Wrenn told
Goodson that "There is not a machine I can put- you on that
you don't work at well ." On the same date, Wrenn volun-
teered to Goodson that "Cooper Williams had asked him
how I was doing on my job and he told him I was doing a
good job." -
Major Wrenn , Sr., testified that he had been critical of
Goodson 's job performance on only two occasions, all of
which occurred about 3 weeks before her separation, and he
admitted that he had never made any written notation of any
asserted shortcomings for her personnel file.' Moreover,
Wrenn conceded , when questioned concerning the quality of
Goodson's work, that "when she started off, she was real
brilliant. She did real good work." He further acknowledged
that he had informed Goodson that "if she kept on continuing
like she was doing, she was going to make a full hand."
Wrenn also confessed that he "probably gave her
[Goodson] more" compliments, but could not recall the exact
dates on which these occurred.
Superintendent Cooper Williams executed a personnel
"write-up" for Goodson, her first , on March 18 , which was
addressed to Personnel Manager Ray Adcock and in which
he stated that "I have talked to Major [Wrenn] about J.
Goodson (822), about not keeping her work area clean &
keeping the 721 Ins machine runing [sic]. This is her first
5 Wrenn related on the stand that , 3 weeks before Goodson's discharge
on April 9, he had a conversation with Cooper Wilhams in which- the latter
inquired into Goodson's progress Wrenn told Williams that Goodson's
performance was at times satisfactory and at other times below par. This was
the last and only occasion on which Wrenn apprised Williams of Goodson's
capabilities
POLORON PRODUCTS OF MISSISSIPPI, INC.
wright [sic] up." Despite the fact that Wrenn's testimony
does not disclose that he had any further complaints about
Goodson's work which he conveyed to Williams, the latter
again "wrote-up" Goodson for the same alleged-misconduct
on April 5, the very day on which she solicited the union
membership of Levon Flowers and Kemp Brown, the stepson
of Lawson Brown, Respondent's supervisor.
According to Respondent, Flowers was discharged solely
because of poor work performance, predicated upon his fail-
ure to keep his machine running, taking extended rest peri-
ods, and excessive absenteeism. In his testimony, Flowers
stated that he was never told, during the period of employ-
ment, that he was not making progress at the plant, and
Superintendent Cooper Williams admitted that he never noti-
fied Flowers of any work deficiencies or cautioned the em-
ployee of the penalty of discharge if Flowers failed to cut the
mustard at his job. Leadman Wrenn testified that Flowers'
work performance was below expectation from the very out-
set of Flowers' employment, and that Wrenn had spoken to
Flowers on a few occasions about these deficiencies. Never-
theless, Flowers was permitted to retain his job despite these
shortcomings until shortly after he had signed a union au-
thorization card at the behest of Goodson. Indeed, as early
as ]February 23, Superintendent Cooper drafted a "Progress
Report" for Flowers on which Personnel Manager Ray Ad-
cock commented, "Cooper, what is the problem with this
employee-Is he trying?" Again, on March 9, after Williams
prepared another Report, Adcock noted, "You need to take
action on this." Moreover, on March 23, Adcock inscribed
the following on a report: "Cooper-This employee must
improve or action needs to be taken." Once more, despite
these asserted admonitions by Adcock reaching up to March
23, Respondent nonetheless retained Flowers on its payroll
for almost 3 more weeks before it discharged him on April
12, 7 calendar days after he signed a union designation.
Based upon the testimony of Jane Goodson and Levon
Flowers, which I have heretofore credited, I find that, on
April 3, Goodson obtained authorization cards from the
Union and that, on April 5, she proffered one of them to both
Flowers and Kemp Brown, the stepson of Respondent's
Supervisor Lawson Brown, for signature. I find that Flowers
executed the designation but that Kemp Brown, declined to
do so. I deem it both plausible and reasonable to infer, as I
do, that, following Goodson's solicitation of Flowers and
Kemp Brown, the latter informed his stepfather of this hap-
penstance, and that Lawson Brown thereupon brought this
intelligence to the attention of Cooper Williams, Major
Wrenn, Sr., and Ray Adcock. I further find that, on or about
April 19, Wrenn told Flowers that Goodson had been a good
worker, and that both Goodson and Flowers had been dis-
charged because they possessed and/or had signed union
authorization cards. Accordingly, I find and conclude that
Respondent terminated Jane Goodson on April 9, and Levon
Flowers on April 12, not because of any shortcomings in their
work performance, but because they had joined and assisted
the Union. By the foregoing conduct, I conclude that Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Statute.
I turn next to a consideration of the General Counsel's
contention that Respondent indulged in other acts and con-
duct which inhibited its employees ' freedom to choose or 7 Bank of St Louis, 191 NLRB 669, 673 (1971).
707
reject a collective-bargaining representative, in violation of
Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
The complaint alleges that, on April 22, Supervisor Billy
Joe Matthews coercively interrogated an employee concern-
ing union activities at the plant. Employee James Robert Ray
testified without contradiction that, prior to leaving his em-
ployment with Respondent on April 22, he learned that the
Union had embarked upon a campaign to obtain exclusive
representation among the employees.6 While at work on
that date, Ray engaged in a conversation with Matthews
during which Matthews "telled me they was fixing to change
me around, and asked me had I heard anything about the
union...." When Ray responded in the negative, Mat-
thews "laughed and walked away." In the context of this
case, and when viewed against the backdrop of the incidents
to be chronicled hereinafter, I conclude that Matthews' inter-
rogation of Ray was violative of Section 8(a)(1).
The General Counsel asserts that Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act by a speech which Vice President and
General Manager Harlon Hoffman delivered to his assem-
bled employees on April 26, a copy of which is attached to
this Decision and marked Appendix B. In that address, Hoff-
man stated:
Let me say again that we do not believe a union is needed
here and we are dead set against a union coming into this
plant. We don 't need union problems on top of all the
other problems we have. Our parent company lost over
$ 8 million last year, and we contributed to that loss.
Now is not the time to add union troubles. If someone
tries to get you to sign a card , my advice to you is to tell
them that you want no part of the union and for them
to go away and leave you alone. If they won't leave you
alone, let us know about it and we will see that something
is done. If he comes to your house, you don 't have to let
him in if you don 't want to. Don't sign a card just to get
somebody off your back , because you may find that you
have them on your back for the rest of your working life.
Don't jump in and make a mistake that you could live
to later regret. [Emphasis supplied.]
I find, in the context of this entire letter and the Respondent's
other conduct herein , the Respondent 's request that any em-
ployee subjected to constant badgering by union proponents
to sign a union card should report the incident to Respon-
dent 's officials may reasonably be interpreted as a not too
subtle attempt by Respondent to persuade its employees to
inform management as to the identity of the Union 's adher-
ents, and tended to restrain and coerce employees in their
right to engage in protected union activities . I therefore con-
clude that , by Hoffman's foregoing statement to his em-
ployees, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1).'
In his complaint, the General Counsel also charged that
Hoffman violated Section 8(a)(1) when he warned the assem-
bled employees in his speech of April 26 that they would lose
their employment with Respondent if they executed union
authorization cards. Employee Eugene Taylor testified that,
during his address, Hoffman stated that "if he found out
anyone was signing union cards it could cost them their jobs"
6 Matthews was not called as a witness in this proceeding
708 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
because "he wasn't going to have a union ." Employee Russell
Morris was also present at the meeting at which Hoffman
spoke to the employees . It is his testimony that, in the course
of Hoffman's speech, the latter remarked that "we didn't
want, a union and some of you may have signed one of these
cards . . . if you have, and we find it out about it, that you
may as well as find you another job." In his testimony, Hoff-
man maintained that he steadfastly adhered to the written
text of the speech which contains no reference to any threat
of discharge if employees signed union designations . I accept
his testimony in this regard, primarily because Maude Robi-
son, another employee who attended the meeting and who
was called as a witness on behalf of the General Counsel,
explicitly denied that she heard Hoffman utter such a threat
in his address. I shall therefore dismiss this allegation from
the complaint.
The complaint further alleges that, on April 26, after Vice
President and General Manager Harlon Hoffman's speech to
the assembled employees , Production Manager Bill Still un-
lawfully interrogated an employee concerning the latter's
union activities and warned that employee to steer clear of the
Union's-campaign . The employee involved, William Turner,
testified that, on April 26, Still inquired whether Turner had
been present at the meeting at which Hoffman delivered his
talk to the work complement. Turner answered in the affirm-
ative. Still asked what Turner thought about the speech and
the union matter, and Turner replied that "it was nice either
way it goes." Still then warned that "if I was you I would stay
out of this mess," an obvious reference to the Union's organi-
zational drive . Still was not summoned as a witness and,
hence, Turner's testimony stands undenied. Based thereon, I
find and conclude that Still's questioning of Turner and the
concomitant warning uttered in their conversation offended
the provisions of Section 8(a)(1).
Employee Turner also testified that, on May 6, Leadman
Lawson Brown entered the blow mold department in which
Turner worked. In an ensuing discussion, Brown inquired
whether Union Representative Howard Underwood had vi-
sited Turner's home. Underwood was well known to Respon-
dent's officials as the Union's most active organizer, as evi-
denced by the contents of the speech which Harlon Hoffman
delivered to his employees on April 26. Turner replied that
Underwood had not called upon him, whereupon Brown an-
nounced that if Underwood came to Brown's abode, Brown
proposed to beat "his damned ass." Brown denied that any
such colloquy occurred. I do not credit his denial. Accord-
ingly, by the foregoing interrogation of Turner,- I conclude
that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The General Counsel contends that Respondent unlaw-
fully surveilled the union propensities of its employees when,
on May 3, its officials monitored the employees' receipt of
union handbills as they entered and departed the plant gate.
At the hearing, Respondent conceded that, on the day in
question, Personnel Manager Ray Adcock, Superintendent
Bill Elmore, Superintendent Sammy Everett, and Quality
Manager Matt Shankle positioned themselves on the plant
parking lot near the gate and observed Union Representative
Howard Underwood, employee Alberta Taylor, Jane Good-
son, and Mrs. Madlock distribute union circulars to the em-
ployees. However, Respondent seeks to justify the legality of
its supervisory presence in the parking lot on the ground that
it was designed to keep peace and to identify any individual
who might indulge in violence or other misconduct .,In this
connection , Respondent explained that , in 1970 , another la-
bor organization, the United Steelworkers of America,
AFL-CIO, embarked upon an organizational campaign
which culminated in a Board-conducted election on Decem-
ber 23, 1971, in which the Steelworkers was decisively de-
feated at the polls. During that campaign , a strike ensued and
the Steelworkers engaged in a variety of acts of misconduct
which found their way into a complaint which the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued
against that union . Hence, Respondent argues that the pres-
ence of its supervisors near the plant gate was legally privi-
leged because it was simply a "spontaneous reaction to the
reappearance of Union people at the entrance to the parking
lot," which constituted a plausible reason for positioning the
officials in the area. I find no merit in this argument . Respon-
dent's surveillance of the handbilling occurred hard on the
heels of the Union's open organizational efforts. No work
stoppage had been precipitated or had been threatened. Re-
spondent offered no evidence to demonstrate that the distri-
butions had in any manner disrupted traffic at Respondent's
installation, or that they had indulged in any acts of violence
or vandalism. In sum, I find and conclude that Respondent's
action in stationing supervisors near the plant entrance was
for the purpose of discouraging and deterring employees from
engaging in handbilling activities , a right guaranteed to them
by Section 7 of the Act, and that the Respondent thereby
offended Section 8(a)(1) of the Statute.'
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above,
occurring in connection with Respondent 's operations de-
scribed in section I , above, have a close and intimate relation-
ship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States,
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow thereof.
V THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is en-
gaging in certain unfair labor practices, I shall order that, it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
I have found that Respondent discharged Jane Goodson on
April 9, 1974, and Levon Flowers on April 12, 1974, for
reasons proscribed by the provisions of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act. I shall therefore recommend that Respondent make
them whole for any loss of pay which they may have suffered
as a result of the discrimination practiced against them. The
backpay provided for herein shall be computed in accordance
with the Board's formula set forth in F W Woolworth Com-
pany, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest thereon at the rate
of 6 percent per annum computed in the manner prescribed
in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). I shall
also recommend that Respondent offer Jane Goodson and
Levon Flowers immediate and full reinstatement to their for-
8 Tex Manufacturing Company, 180 NLRB 808 (1970)
POLORON PRODUCTS OF MISSISSIPPI, INC. 709
mer jobs or, if they norlonger, exist, to substantially equivalent
employment.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclu-
sions, and upon the entire record in this case, I hereby make
the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discharging Jane Goodson and Levon Flowers,
thereby discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of
employment , in order to discourage their engagement in ac-
tivities on behalf of the Union , Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
4. By interfering with , restraining , and coercing employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices banned by Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law
and the entire record , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended , I hereby issue the
following recommended:
ORDERS
(a) Offer to Jane Goodson and Levon Flowers immediate
and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if they no
longer exist, to substantially equivalent employment and
make them whole for any loss of pay which they may have
suffered as a result of the discrimination practiced against
them, in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision
entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon, request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll
records, social security records and reports, and all other
records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
herein.
(c) Post at its facility in Batesville, Mississippi, copies of the
attached notice marked Appendix A.10 Copies of said no-
tice, on forms to be provided by the Regional Director for
Region. 26, after being duly signed by Respondent's author-
ized representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter , in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 26, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have
been taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed as
to those allegations not specifically found herein.
10 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
Respondent, Poloron Products of Mississippi, Inc., Bates-
ville, Mississippi , its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging employees, thereby discriminating in re-
gard to their hire and tenure of employment, in order to
discourage their engagement in activities on behalf of United
Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, CLC. -
(b) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their
union activities.
(c) Requesting employees to report the identity of union
proponents to officials of the Company.
(d) Warning employees to refrain from engaging in pro-
tected,- concerted activities.
(e) Engaging in the surveillance of its employees' union
activities.
(1) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
9 ] n the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes
APPENDIX B
POLORON PRODUCTS OF MISSISSIPPI, INC
REMARKS BY HARLAN HOFFMAN
I am going to read this speech and in the back there some-
one will read along with me-this is so that no one can come
along later and say I said something else.
I have called you together today because something has
come up which is of very serious concern to you and our
company. It has been brought to my attention that within the
past several days, some of you have been approached by
outside union organizers and a few union pushers right here
in the plant in an attempt to get you to sign a union card. So
that there is no mistake about the company's position in this
matter, let me say right here and now we do not want you to
sign a union card and we do not want a union in this plant.
We have more than our share of union troubles in the last few
years, and believe me, we don't want any more of it.
In March of 1970, a union tried to get into the plant. They
succeeded in getting some of our employees out on strike for
several weeks. All the time, those strikers went without their
paychecks, and they could not draw unemployment money.
During the strike, the union, and some of the strikers shouted
and harassed our employees as they came to work. Tacks and
nails were put in the driveway, and many of our employees
were threatened. A striker carried a gun , and we believe that
710 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cars were shot at and tires slashed by strikers. The strike and
the bitterness went on-for several weeks. Following an investi-
gation, the National Labor Relations Board issued an official
complaint-against the union. The Federal Government was
prepared to prove- before a trial judge that the union was
guilty of threatening and coercing employees, throwing tacks
and nails in our driveway, pushing and shoving employees
and even carrying guns on the picket line. The union agreed
to a secret ballot election to be held by the government so that
they would not have to go through a trial. In that election,
the union was smashed by a vote of better than two to
one-that election was just before Christmas of 1971.
Many of you weren't here at that time, but those of you
who were with us then will remember. Some of our employees
learned a bitter lesson that has been learned by thousands of
other union members in the State of Mississippi. Some of the
strikers lost their fobs-even permanently. -
That's just one of the reasons we don't want a union in
here. The reason-the union called a strike to begin with was
because we wouldn't knuckle under. And we never gave in.
We dragged them through the Labor Board investigation and
we pushed them into an election until they were beaten so
badly we never heard from them again.
Now, another outside organizer from a different
union-the Rubber Workers Union-is working on you. His
name is Howard Underwood. This Mr. Underwood has come
here to Batesville with the same sales pitch and pie-in-the-sky
promise to try to fool you again where the other union lost
out before. I was told this morning that he either gets in here
or goes back to work for a-living.
There was many good reasons why we are taking a strong
stand on this umon issue. You see on television and read the
newspapers every day about the strikes and trouble that
unions cause. We have already had more than our share of
union trouble, and we don't want to run the risk of union
strikes, strike violence, or other trouble here again . We feel
that outside interference by this union could be a very danger-
ous thing, and we don't want to run the risk of a union strike
or other trouble here. Things are tough enough right now
with the energy crisis and all the other problems we have
facing us. If there is one time that we do not need to run the
risk of union trouble and the uncertainty that goes along with
it, the time is now. We do not want a union.
This Rubber Workers Union is famous for the strikes it has
called. A couple of years ago, this same Rubber Workers
Union called a strike at Walker Manufacturing Company
over in Aberdeen, Mississippi. That strike lasted for four
months-over 400 employees were out of work without, pay
and without unemployment money all that time. The very
next year some Rubber Workers Union called a strike at
KBH Company in Clarksdale, Mississippi. That stake lasted
for 9 months. All the time, the company continued to operate
and replaced many strikers. Just think what would happen to
you if you had to stay-out on strike with this Rubber Workers
Union and go without your paycheck for 9 months.
Mr. Underwood and the, people pushing the union will tell
you anything you want to hear in order to get you -to sign a
card. A card such as this-(held up card). They will promise
you anything-they will lie to you-they will sweet talk
you-but my- advice to you is DON'T SIGN- A CARD.
Those cards are dynamite . Signing a union card is just like
signing a blank check to the Union. Those cards can give the
umon the power to take all sorts of dues, fees, and assess-
ments out of your paycheck without you ever seeing the
money. Ask Mr. Underwood to sign a contract guaranteeing
you the wages he had promised. I'll bet he won't do it. Some-
one told me this morning that some people had been offered
up to $100 if they could get 50 cards signed. Now, why would
it be worth that much to the union?
On top of that, signing a union card could put you under
the control of the union where they could slap union fines and
penalties on you. I know of one case where the Rubber Work-
ers Union fined a woman member over $500 because she
didn't go along with the union bosses and went, to work
during a strike. Not only could the union fine you, but they
could go into court to collect those fines and garnish your
wages to get the money. So the next time you hear this sweet
talk from the union pushers, just ask yourself one
question-"what's in it for him-what's he getting out of
this." Why is Mr. Underwood willing to come into town on
a big fat expense account, use up a lot of gasoline and stay
at the Skyline Motel here in Batesville? His salary and ex-
penses are coming out of the paychecks of Rubber Workers
members somewhere else. Why is he willing to spend that
money here? The one reason and the only reason this man
wants to get control over you is because he knows you get a
regular paycheck every week and he wants part of it. The
company doesn't pay the union-you do. In short, the union
is after your money. You can protect your money and your
freedom if you DON'T SIGN A CARD.
The union pushers may say they only need a few more
cards. They may tell you that you are the last person in your
department to sign-up-this is a lie they often use to try to
trick people into signing union cards. They may also tell you
that if you get $2.50 an hour now-they'll get you $3.50 an
hour or $4.50 an hour or even $5.50 an hour. Don't be fooled
by that kind of talk The company pays your wages-not the
union. The company signs your paychecks, and for as long
as you work here, it will be because the company keeps you
on the payroll, not the union.
The union pushers may even threaten you to get you to sign
a card. They may tell you that you will be fired if you don't
sign one. This is another lie. You will not be fired for refusing
to sign a card. If any of you are threatened about this union
thing, I want you to tell me about it We're not going to stand
for threats or intimidation by anyone. We have no intention
of standing by and seeing our people coerced by union push-
ers or anyone else. The only way you can make them go away
is to tell them. Refuse to sign a card-hand it back to
them-tear it up if necessary, but don't sign it.
POLORON PRODUCTS OF MISSISSIPPI , INC 711
Let me say again that we do not believe a union is needed
here and we are dead set against a union coming into this
plant. We don 't need union problems on top of all other
problems we have. Our parent company lost over $8 million
last year, and we contributed to that loss. Now is not the time
to add union troubles. If someone tries to get you to sign a
card, my advice to you is to tell them that you want no part
of the union and for them to go away and leave you alone.
If they won't leave you alone, let us know about it and we will
see that something is done. If he comes to your house, you
don't have to let him in if you don't want to . Don't sign a card
just to get somebody off your back , because you may find that
you have them on your back for the rest of your working life.
Don't jump in and make a mistake that you could live to liter
regret.