PPG Aerospace Industries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Oct 19, 2007

10-CA-036530 (N.L.R.B. Oct. 19, 2007)

JD(ATL)—20—07
- 1 -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
ATLANTA BRANCH OFFICE
5
PPG AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES, INC.
and Cases 10-CA-3653010
10-RC-15611
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED
AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND
AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT15
WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO
Gregory Powell, Esq.,
for the General Counsel.
George N. Davies, Esq.,20
for the Charging Party,
Petitioner.
John J. Coleman, III, Esq., and
Amy K. Jordan, Esq.
for the Respondent, Employer.25
DECISION
Statement of the Case
30
LAWRENCE W. CULLEN, Administrative Law Judge: This consolidated
complaint and representation case was heard before me on April 30, May 1 and 2, 2007 in
Huntsville, Alabama. The complaint in Case 10-CA-36530 is based on a charge filed by
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, AFL-CIO (“the Charging Party,” “the Petitioner” or “the Union”) on November 3, 35
2006. The Charging Party Union has alleged and it is alleged in the complaint that PPG
Aerospace Industries, Inc., (“the Respondent,” “the Employer” or “PPG”) violated Section
8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (“the Act”). The complaint is joined by the
answer filed by the Respondent wherein it denies the commission of any violations of the Act.
40
On January 23, 2007, the Regional Director of Region 10 of the National Labor
Relations Board (“the Board”) filed in Case 10-RC-15611 his Report on Challenged Ballots
and Objections, Order Directing Hearing, Order Consolidating Case 10-RC-15611 with Case
10-CA-36530 and Order Transferring Cases to the Board and Notice of Hearing.
45
JD(ATL)—20—07
- 2 -
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
I. The Business of the Respondent
The complaint in Case 10-CA-36530 alleges, Respondent admits, and I find, that at all 5
times material herein, Respondent has been a Pennsylvania corporation with an office and
place of business located in Huntsville, Alabama, where it has been engaged in the
manufacturing of aircraft transparencies, that during the past twelve month period,
Respondent sold and shipped goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located
outside the State of Alabama, and that at all material times Respondent has been an employer 10
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. The Labor Organization
The complaint further alleges, Respondent admits, and I find, that at all times material 15
herein, the Union has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. The Report On Challenged Ballots And Objections
Pursuant to a Stipulated Election Agreement approved by the Regional Director on 20
September 8, 2006, an election by secret ballot was conducted on October 18, 2006, among
the employees in an appropriate unit1 to determine a question concerning representation raised
by a petition filed by the Petitioner on August 30, 2006.
Upon conclusion of the balloting, a tally of ballots was made available to the parties 25
showing that of approximately 474 eligible voters, 210 cast valid votes for and 214 cast valid
votes against the Petitioner. In addition there was 1 void ballot and 32 challenged ballots.
The challenged ballots are sufficient in number to affect the results of the election. On
October 25, 2006, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the
election.30
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 102.69 of the Rules, an investigation was
conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director who concluded that
the issues raised by the Challenges and Objections 1, 3, 5, 8 and 10 can best be resolved by a
hearing. Accordingly, the Regional Director directed that the issues raised by the Challenges 35
and by Petitioner’s Objections 1, 3, 5, 8 and 10 be resolved by a hearing.
IV. The Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
The complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act as follows:40

1 The appropriate unit as set forth in the Stipulated Election Agreement is: “All production and
maintenance employees employed by the Employer at its Huntsville, Alabama facility, but excluding all
technicians, senior technicians, office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, step-up
supervisors and all other supervisors as defined by the Act.”
JD(ATL)—20—07
- 3 -
Paragraph 7 of the complaint – Since on or about September 1, 2006, and continuing
thereafter, Respondent, acting through its supervisors and agents, Sue Cooper, Greg Campbell
and Paul Rigsby at its facility, more closely scrutinized and monitored the movements and
conversations of employees because they supported the Union’s organizing campaign.
5
In his report on objections, the Regional Director found that Paragraph 7 of the
complaint alleges conduct which purportedly occurred during the critical period2 preceding
the election and is substantially coextensive with the conduct alleged in Objection 1.
Paragraph 8 of the complaint – On or about September 1, 2006, Respondent, acting 10
through its supervisor and agent Sue Cooper, at its facility, threatened its employees with loss
of benefits because they supported the Union.
In his Report on Objections the Regional Director found that Paragraph 8 of the
complaint alleges conduct which purportedly occurred during the critical period preceding the 15
election and is substantially coextensive with the conduct alleged in Objection 3.
Paragraph 9 of the complaint – Alleges that Respondent acting through its supervisor
and agent, Greg Campbell engaged in the following conduct:
20
(a) On or about the week of September 25, 2006, at its facility, threatened
employees with the inevitability of a strike if they selected the Union as their bargaining
representative.
(b) On or about the week of September 26, 2006, at its facility, threatened 25
its employees with replacement if they went on strike in support of the Union.
(c) On or about the week of September 25, 2006, at its facility, informed
employees that it would be futile for them to select the Union as their bargaining
representative because the Union would never get a contract from the Respondent.30
In his Report on Objections the Regional Director found that Paragraphs 9(a), 9(b) and
9(c) of the complaint allege conduct which purportedly occurred during the critical period
preceding the election and is consistent with the conduct alleged in Objection 5.
35
Paragraph 10 of the complaint – Alleges that Respondent acting through its supervisor
and agent Sue Cooper and other agents presently unknown on or about October 16 and 17,
2006, in the finishing department, created the impression among employees that their union
activities were under surveillance.
40
In his Report on Objections, the Regional Director found that Paragraph 10 of the
complaint concerns conduct which allegedly occurred during the critical period preceding the
election and is substantially coextensive with the conduct alleged in Objection 8.

2 The critical period in this matter is the period between August 30, 2006, the date the petition was filed,
and October 18, 2006, the date of the election. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., 138 NLRB 453 (1962).
JD(ATL)—20—07
- 4 -
In Objection 10 petitioner asserts that the Employer abused the election process by
harassing employees about how and when they were to vote. The employer denies engaging
in any misconduct. The Regional Director found that in light of the conflicting evidence and
positions of the parties, this objection raises substantial and material issues of fact which can 5
best be resolved through record testimony.
In light of the conflicting evidence and positions of the parties, the Regional Director
found that the issues raised by the challenges and by Petitioner’s Objections 1, 3, 5, 8 and 10
can best be resolved through record testimony and directed a hearing be held to resolve these 10
issues.
The Challenged Ballots
The Report on Challenged Ballots by the Regional Director shows that the ballots of 15
Timothy Bragg, Lea Anne Collins, Denise Gossett, Kenny Grant, Morgan Jensen, David
Kimbrough and Jennifer Newman were challenged by the Petitioner on the ground that they
were hired after the cutoff date of August 27, 2006. The Employer contends these employees
were hired and commenced orientation on August 21, 2006 and that they were ineligible to
vote in the election.20
The Report on Challenged Ballots shows that the ballots of Leroy Green, Michael
McAllister, Beverly Moon and John Reed were challenged by the Petitioner on the ground
that they are process monitors and supervisors excluded from the unit. Petitioner contended
that they are process monitors who oversee the work of the GCA temporary employees. At 25
the hearing the Petitioner withdrew the challenges to the process monitors. The Petitioner
originally challenged the ballot of Joe Simpson on the ground that he was a supervisor.
The Petitioner has challenged the ballots of Donnie Black, Tim Childers, Jimmy
Cloud, Kenneth Dawson, Manda Dupree, Bill Everett, Denny Franchiseur, Morris Hill, 30
Michael Hill, Bill Hopper, James Holder, David Knoer, Jackie Lackey, Monty Little, Vivian
Lyle, David McNeal, Peter Mullen, Ronnie Steakley, Curtis Wales and Clarence Zimmerman
as supervisors. The Report shows that the Petitioner contends they are lead persons who
instruct employees, correct improper performance, move employees when necessary, decide
the order in which work will be performed and effectively recommend discipline. The Report 35
shows that the Employer contends that these employees do not possess any supervisory
authority and that the Petitioner did not challenge all persons working as lead persons, that it
is picking and choosing employees to challenge on the basis of their perceived support for the
Petitioner.
40
At the hearing the charging Party withdrew the challenge to the ballot of Joe Simpson
and the challenges to the ballots of the process monitors and the challenge to the ballot of Ken
Dawson. Charging Party did not withdraw its challenge to the ballot of Morris Neal Hill who
Respondent showed was a lead person, at the hearing. Respondent contended that Clarence
Zimmerman is a process monitor whereas Petitioner contended he was a lead person.45
JD(ATL)—20—07
- 5 -
Respondent offered unrebutted testimony from Step Up supervisor Kevin Bailey that
Clarence Zimmerman was a process monitor over the strip buff area, which testimony I credit.
The Union has challenged the ballots of two categories of employees whom it refers to
as “temporary employees,” whom are not eligible to vote because they were not permanent 5
employees, and “lead employees,” whom it contends are not eligible to vote because they are
supervisors under the Act. In its brief, with respect to the “temporary” or “new employees”
the Union contends that Timothy Bragg, Lea Anne Collins, Denise Gossett, Kenny Grant,
Morgan Jensen, David Kimbrough and Jennifer Newman were hired after the cutoff date of
August 27, 2006, and were thus not eligible to vote in the election held on October 18, 2006. 10
The Union contends that these employees must have successfully completed a thirty-day entry
level training period before they will be considered for permanent hire. It notes that they are
referred to as “production temporary” employees on the employer’s payroll records and that
they are only hired for a permanent position if they successfully complete the training
program. The production temporary employees were paid $10.00 per hour, but had to 15
complete the training program before they received the higher “entry level” wage rate.
Personnel Manager Michael Willey, testified that this group of production temporary
employees was only the second group whose seniority dates and probationary dates were co-
extensive with the date they began the training program. Prior to this group and one in July of
2006, the employees’ probationary period and seniority date did not take effect until they had 20
completed the training program. The Employer contends that although the names and
pictures of these employees were posted on the bulletin board as new employees, this is not
determinative. In July 2006, the employer hired all new production employees into trainee
positions at $10.00 per hour. They completed the paperwork within a day of their hire and
from that date forward, were directed by supervisors in their work, schedules and work hours. 25
Their payroll taxes were cut. They began their probationary period and worked in the training
positions the first month of the six month probationary period. The Union did not challenge
anyone hired into the training positions in July but did challenge those hired on August 21,
2006. One of these individuals who did not successfully complete the training program was
terminated whereas another’s employment continued and he was assigned to a different area 30
of the plant. The remaining individuals were probationary employees until the completion of
six months. They received a raise at the end of the four week training program and at the end
of their probationary period. The Employer contends that these employees are employees at
will as are all other of its employees. I credit the foregoing testimony of Willey which was
unrebutted.35
The newly hired employees who were hired on August 21, 2006, were employees
before the August 27, 2006, cutoff date as every aspect of PPG employment attached to these
individuals the date they were hired. In Regency Services Carts, Inc., 325 NLRB, 617, 627
(1998) The Board held that the “party seeking to exclude an individual from voting has the 40
burden of establishing that the individual is, in fact, ineligible to vote.” These employees
were placed on PPG’s payroll and earned wages beginning on August 21, 2006 and worked
under the supervision of PPG supervisors who controlled the details of their work prior to the
August 27, 2006 cutoff date. The Employer contends that the thirty day training period in the
instant case did not involve mere “preliminaries.” The Employer asserts that the challenged 45
ballots were not merely orientation and preliminaries. In CWM, Inc., 306 NLRB 495, 496
JD(ATL)—20—07
- 6 -
(1992), the Board held that employees in a one week training program were eligible. In
Fireside Builders, Inc., 57 NLRB 1803, (1944) five day training program members were held
to be eligible voters. In Dynocorp/Dynair Services, Inc., 320 NLRB 120, 121 (1995), the
Board distinguished between mere orienting and preliminaries. The fact that the employees
were erroneously shown on a poster as “new hires” on September 15, 2006, does not make 5
them ineligible to vote.
I find that the challenge to the “temporary” or “new” employees should be overruled.
In Golden Fan Inn, 281 NLRB 226, 230 fn. 24 (1986) the Board held that “the burden of
proof rests on the party seeking to exclude a challenged individual from voting.” I find the 10
Union has not sustained its burden of proof. The evidence adduced at the hearing does not
support a finding that these employees are ineligible to vote. There is no evidence that the
hiring of the employees on August 21, 2006 was a sham designed to pack the unit with
recently hired employees whom the Employer might consider to, be more supportive of the
employer’s position and thus designed to defeat the Union in the upcoming election. Rather,15
they were hired prior to the cutoff date of August 27, 2006 and had all the indicia of
“employees” and were not excluded from the unit. Accordingly I find that these employees
were properly included in the unit and eligible to vote and their votes should be counted.
I find that the “lead persons” are supervisors under the Act and should properly be 20
excluded from in the unit as ineligible to vote and that their ballots should not be counted.
The Union has challenged a number of employees classified as lead persons who it contends
are in reality supervisors and ineligible to vote in the election. In Oakwood Healthcare, Inc.,
348 NLRB No. 37 (2006) Croft Metals, Inc., 348 NLRB No. 39, (2006) and Golden Crest
Healthcare, Inc., 348 NLRB No. 39 (2006) referred to as the “Oakwood Trilogy”, the Board 25
determined to “refine the analysis to be applied in assessing supervisory status … and
endeavors to provide clear and broadly applicable guidance for the Board’s regulated
community.” Oakwood, 348 NLRB No. 37 Slip Opinion at 1. The Board adopted definitions
for the terms “assign,” “responsibly to direct” and “independent judgment” as those terms are
used in Section 2(11) of the Act Id. at 3. In Oakwood the Board construed the term “assign” 30
“to refer to the Act of designating an employee to a place (such as a location, department or
wing), appointing an employee to a time (such as a shift or overtime period), or giving
significant overall duties, i.e. tasks, to an employee.” Id. at 4. The Board held the term did
not encompass “choosing the order in which the employee will perform a discrete task” or “ad
hoc instruction that the employee perform a discrete task.” With regard to “responsibility to 35
direct,” the Board in Oakwood, supra, held “if a person on the shop floor has ‘men under him’
and if that person decides ‘what job shall be undertaken next or who shall do it,’ that person is
a supervisor, provided that the direction is both ‘responsible’ … and carried out with
independent judgment” Id. at 6. The Board also held that in order to be responsible direction,
the alleged supervisor “must be accountable for the performance of the task by the other, such 40
that some adverse consequence may befall the one providing the oversight if the tasks
performed by the employee are not performed properly.” Id. at 7. The Board also said, “It
must be shown that the employer delegated to the putative supervisor the authority to direct
the work and the authority to take corrective action, if necessary. It must also be shown that
there is a prospect of adverse consequences for the putative supervisor if he/she does not take 45
these steps.” Further the exercise of that authority must not be routine or clerical in nature but
JD(ATL)—20—07
- 7 -
requires the use of “independent judgment.” In Oakwood the Board held that for the
judgment to be independent, it must be “free of the control of others” and not be “dictated or
controlled by detailed instructions, whether set forth in company policies or rules, the verbal
instructions of a higher authority, or in the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement.”
5
The lead persons in the instant case before me have the ability to and do make changes
to work assignments, and prioritize these work assignments to assure production needs are
met. Lead person Tim Childers testified that the company’s written job descriptions
accurately reflect what he does including changing work assignments when necessary. All
parties stipulated as testified by Childers that the lead employees did so only after receiving 10
approval from their supervisors. The Employer concedes that lead employees assign work to
groups of employees and may from time to time change work assignments with the approval
of their supervisor. The Employer contends that although the lead persons may change the
assignment of a particular employee they do so only after checking with their supervisors.
The lead persons have the authority to prioritize work and change work assignments to meet 15
production needs. In USF Reddaway, Inc., 349 NLRB No. 32 (2007) the Board held that lead
persons who made changes in job assignments based on the employer’s needs were
supervisors. In American River Transportation Co., 347 NLRB No. 93 (2006) the Board held
that authority to change and prioritize work assignments required a finding of supervisory
status. The Union contends that the lead persons are supervisors and that the challenges to 20
their ballots should be sustained. I find that the lead persons “assign” work to employees
under their direction and control. Although they may frequently check with the supervisors,
lead employees do assign work to groups of employees. I thus find that under Oakwood
Healthcare, Inc., supra, and related cases, the assignment of work and the prioritizing of these
assignments, establishes that the lead employees are supervisors under 2(11) of the Act. 25
Background of the Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
In August 2006, the Union commenced a campaign to organize Respondent PPG’s
production and maintenance employees at its Huntsville, Alabama facility where it 30
manufactures airplane “transparencies” (windows and windshields for airplanes). The Union
filed a petition for an election in Case 10-RC-15611 on August 30, 2006, to represent the
Employer’s production and maintenance employees. The election was held on October 18,
2006 and the Region issued a tally of ballots on that date. The Union filed Objections to
Conduct Affecting the Results of the Election on October 25, 2006. The Regional Director 35
issued his Order Directing Hearing, Order Consolidating Cases, Order Transferring Cases to
the Board and Notice of Hearing on January 23, 2007.
The complaint allegations are as follows:
40
Paragraph 7 of the complaint - More closely scrutinizing and monitoring movements
and conversations of employees because they supported the Union’s organizing campaign
General Counsel contends that on the day following the filing of the Petition for an
election on or about September 1, 2006, the Respondent began closely scrutinizing and 45
monitoring the activities of its production and maintenance employees because of their
JD(ATL)—20—07
- 8 -
support of the Union. Respondent does not operate an assembly line. Its work is performed
by small groups of individual employees who work in designated areas, referred to as “cells”
in the finishing department. There are several employees assigned to each cell. There are two
principal areas in the assembly area, the “autoclave” and the Assembly room.” Employees
place units of product in the autoclave area. The “assembly room” is a sealed “clean room” 5
which is entered through an “airlock” and contains a number of 10 foot by 10 foot plastic
curtain booths with a single employee assigned to each one. “Clean room attire” must be
worn by all persons entering the assembly room. Those persons outside the booths cannot
hear conversations within the booths. The Respondent contends that employees began to
more frequently gather and engage in conversations of non-work related matters which 10
required the supervisors to break up groups of employees near the assembly room booths and
finishing cells. Iva Jayne Mayes, a twelve year employee who worked in the finishing
department between August and October 2006, testified that on about September 1, 2006, she
saw employees Jeff Lindsey and Rodney Brownfield engaged in a lengthy conversation in
Brownfield’s “cell.” She was aware that Lindsey was not a Union supporter and that 15
Brownfield was a Union supporter. Neither of these two employees were engaged in work or
on break at that time. Mayes walked over to where the two men were talking. At that time
she was approached by supervisor, Sue Cooper, who told her to return to her cell and
personally escorted her back to her cell and also told Mayes that she (Cooper) could not allow
“two union people to gang up on a non-union person.” Mayes testified that this was the first 20
instance in which supervisor Cooper had personally escorted her back to her workstation.
Mayes testified that during this same period of time she saw Lindsey engaged in other
uninterrupted conversations with both union and antiunion supporters in the presence of
Supervisor Cooper which lasted up to 30 minutes. Mayes testified that when conversations
were led by union supporters such as Jay Balcerek, the supervisors interrupted these 25
conversations. On September 27, 2006, Supervisor Cooper broke up a conversation between
Mayes and Balcerek and told them to go back to work. Finishing Department employee Gary
Dwayne Sims testified that in the August to October time frame, the supervisors and
managers on his shift closely watched the individuals in the assembly department because of
their support for the Union. Sims was employed as an assembler. Sims testified that some of 30
his projects could be accomplished in thirty minuets whereas others would take a day and a
half to complete. He testified that there would be “a little down time” between obtaining or
receiving parts and receiving assignments and that during these periods, the employees would
help each other and would engage in general conversation.
35
Sims further testified that he attended union meetings. At a union meeting held in
September 2006, Union Organizer Harvey Durham asked Sims and several other employees
to pose for a picture with a sign stating “Union Yes.” They did so and held up their clenched
fists. The picture was posted on the Union’s Internet web site. Some of Sim’s co-workers
told him that they had seen the picture on the Union’s web site. During the same time period 40
Supervisor Greg Campbell, in the presence of Sims and Supervisor Paul Rigsby, put his fist in
the air and asked Sims what it was. Sims told Campbell he did not know what he was talking
about. Campbell again made a fist, held it in the air and asked Sims what it was. Sims again
said he did not know. Campbell then turned to Supervisor Rigsby and asked if he had seen
this before and Rigsby replied that he thought he had seen it before. Supervisors Campbell 45
and Rigsby, denied at the hearing in this case that this incident had occurred. Sims testified
JD(ATL)—20—07
- 9 -
that he noticed a change in Campbell’s attitude toward him after this incident. Campbell
denied that his attitude toward Sims had changed. Sims testified that after this incident he
noticed Campbell walking up and down the aisle and that whenever he (Sims) would leave his
workstation to help a co-worker or to discuss an issue, Supervisor Campbell would fold his
arms and stare at him. Sims also testified that during this same time period, he was aware that 5
two of his co-workers, Mike Martin and Mary Mathis, did not support the Union and that
while they had previously communicated only with each other, after the commencement of
the Union campaign, they began “talking to everybody . . . (in) all the booths and talking to
everybody, just really outgoing.” Sims also observed that the supervisors did not interrupt the
conversations of Martin and Mathis nor order them back to their workstations. The 10
Respondent contends that during the campaign employees began to gather in groups by
finishing cells and assembly room booths and discuss non-work related subjects during work
time.
I find that the evidence supports the conclusion that Respondent has by its supervisors 15
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by disparately closely scrutinizing and monitoring the
conversations of its production and maintenance employees. I credit the testimony of Mayes
and Sims who were current employees at the time they testified in this regard. I find that the
Respondent through its supervisors was more closely monitoring and scrutinizing the
movements and conversations of its pro-union employees while permitting antiunion 20
employees to engage in lengthy conversations without interruption.
Paragraph 8 of the complaint - Threatening its Employees with Loss of Benefits Because of
their Support of the Union
25
Mayes testified that on about September 1, 2006, Supervisor Cooper told her, she
would probably lose her “Salary Continuance” benefit if she and her co-employees voted to
elect the Union as their collective bargaining representative. Cooper also asked Mayes if she
had ever missed a paycheck. This was a meaningful threat as Mayes testified that because of
knee problems, she had made extensive use of the “Salary Continuance” benefit and was then 30
currently on a partial disability status. Although Cooper denied having made such a threat, I
credit Mayes’ testimony who was a current employee at the time she testified and was not an
alleged discriminatee. Her testimony was likely to be true. I find that this threat was violative
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and destructive of the employees’ Section 7 rights to engage in
protected concerted activities. This was a threat of reprisal for engaging in protected 35
concerted activities. It was not tempered in any manner by tying it to the give and take of
collective bargaining. It was not a mere factual statement of the realities or stated as an
opinion but clearly was a threat of loss of a benefit if the employees chose union
representation. See Overnite Transportation Co., 329 NLRB 990, enforced 240 F.3d 325 (4th
Cir. 2001). RE: threat of loss of future pay increases; Abramson, LLC and the United 40
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, 325 NLRB No. 8 at p. 4 (2005) Re: threat
of loss of benefits and that the company would probably close its doors if the employees
voted in favor of union representation; International Harvester Company, 222 NLRB 377
(1976) Re: threat of loss of healthcare benefits, sick pay and vacation. In the instant case
before me, Supervisor Cooper’s threat of loss of benefits because of the employees’ support 45
of the Union was violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
JD(ATL)—20—07
- 10 -
9(a), 9(b) and 9(c) of the complaint
Complaint Paragraph 9(a) – Threatening employees with the inevitably of a strike if
they selected the Union as their bargaining representative5
Complaint Paragraph 9(b) – Replacement of striking employees, and
Complaint Paragraph 9(c) – Futility of supporting the Union
10
Sandra Lingo Hansen has been an assembler the last two years. She inspects and
installs windows and windshield’s internal components. Her supervisor is Greg Campbell.
She testified that during the last week of September 2006, Campbell approached her with anti-
union literature in hand and issued a number of threats if the Union won the election. He told
her he had spoken to fifty (50) of her fellow workers and that they had told him that they 15
would not cross a picket line if the Union called a strike. He also told her that if the Union
won the election she would need to go on strike as a strike was the Union’s only power and
that she could be replaced if she went on strike. He also told her that the Union would be
forced to go on strike as the Respondent would not give the Union a contract. He also told
her that if she went on strike, she would be permanently replaced and thus, lose her job. He 20
ended the conversation by telling Hansen to be prepared to strike. Later on October 17, 2006,
he told her he hoped the Union lost the election.
Campbell denied having made these threats. However, I credit Hansen’s testimony
and find that he did in fact make these threats as testified to by Hansen. I found Hansen to be 25
a credible witness and note that she is a current employee who is not involved in this case as
an alleged discriminatee and find that it is likely that her testimony is truthful. The threats
made by Campbell to Hansen were not protected under the Act. Rather they were inherently
destructive of Hansen’s right to engage in protected concerted activities under Section 7 of the
Act. They were unlawful interference with the election. NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 30
U.S. 515 (1969); Gold Kist, 341 NLRB No. 135 (2001); Flexisteel, 316 NLRB 745 (1995).
Complaint Paragraph 10 – Creating the impression among employees that their union
activities were under surveillance
35
On October 16 and 17, 2006, the Respondent increased the number of supervisors on
the second and third shifts in anticipation of the possibility of a need for greater supervision as
the result of tension among the employees at the plant concerning the upcoming election set
for October 18, 2006. The increase in supervision was modest. Whereas the first shift was
normally staffed with 260 to 275 employees and 15 to 20 supervisors; there was no increase 40
in supervision on this shift. Rather two supervisors from the first shift were assigned to
supplement the supervision on the second shift and on the third. The second shift had a
complement of 140 employees and 1 to 2 supervisors, the third shift normally had a
complement of 70 to 75 employees and 1 supervisor. Respondent’s witnesses Operations
Manager Mitchell Bruce and Director of Human Resources John Faulds testified that there 45
was tension in the plant concerning the upcoming election which was contributing to a loss of
JD(ATL)—20—07
- 11 -
production. They also testified to three instances of suspected sabotage in which product had
been intentionally damaged and of the serious safety concerns about the infliction of damage
to its products which could threaten the life and safety of airplane crews and passengers if the
integrity of the windshields and windows were compromised. Additionally Bruce testified
that he was informed by an employee that the employee had been threatened with damage to 5
his property and physical harm if he did not support the Union. They also testified that there
was tension on the plant floor as groups of employees were gathering together to discuss the
upcoming election.
I find that the General Counsel did not make a prima facie case of the creation of 10
unlawful surveillance among the employees by Respondent. As noted above the increase of
supervision on the second and third shifts was modest. There was no increase in supervision
on the first shift. I credit the testimony of Respondent’s witnesses Bruce, Willey, and Faulds
concerning the loss of production and the sabotage of its products. I credit the testimony of
Bruce and Faulds that there were reports received from an employee of the threat of property 15
damage and violence made by another employee. In Crowley, Milner and Co., 216 NLRB
443, 444 (1975) the Board held there was no objectionable evidence of surveillance because
of the Employer’s increase in supervision in a two week period prior to the election. It is
undisputed that sabotaged products could cause an airplane disaster if they were installed in
an airplane. Clearly the Respondent had the right and responsibility to ensure that there was 20
no interference with the production of safe products in the operation of its business and in
view of the threat to all who were affected by their installation in airplanes. I find this
allegation of the complaint should be dismissed.
With regard to Objection 1, I find that the Employer engaged in objectionable conduct 25
as well as a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, by more closely securitizing and
monitoring the movements and conversations of employees because they supported the
Union’s organizing campaign. This conduct occurred during the critical period.
With regard to Objection 3, I find that the Employer engaged in objectionable conduct 30
as well as a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening its employee with loss of
benefits if she supported the Union. This conduct also occurred during the critical period.
With regard to Objection 5, I find that the employer engaged in objectionable conduct
as well as violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, by threatening employees with the 35
inevitability of a strike if they selected the Union as their bargaining representative, and by
threatening its employees with replacement if they went on strike in support of the Union, and
by informing employees that it would be futile for them to select the Union as their bargaining
representative because the Union would never get a contract from the Employer. These
threats occurred during the critical period. 40
Objection 8 shall be overruled as the evidence did not establish tht the Employer
engaged in the creation of unlawful surveillance.
Objection 10 shall be overruled as no evidence was submitted at the hearing in support 45
of this objection.
JD(ATL)—20—07
- 12 -
Conclusions of Law
1. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Sections 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act.5
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by:10
(a) More closely scrutinizing and monitoring the movements and
conversations of its employees because of their support of the Union.
(b) Threatening loss of benefits because its employees supported the 15
Union.
(c) Threatening its employees with the inevitability of a strike if its
employees selected the Union as their collective bargaining representative.
20
(d) Threatening its employees with replacement if they supported a strike
by the Union.
(e) Informing employees it would be futile for them to select the Union as
their collective bargaining representative because the Union would never get a contract from 25
the Respondent.
4. The Respondent did not violate the Act by creating the impression that the
employees’ union activities were under surveillance.
30
5. The Employer did not engage in objectionable conduct as alleged in Objection
10.
In view of my finding of a violation of the Act as alleged in complaint paragraph 7, I
find that objection 1 should be sustained.35
In view of my finding of a violation of the Act as alleged in complaint paragraph 8, I
find that objection 3 should be sustained.
In view of my finding of a violation of the Act as alleged in complaint paragraph 9(a), 40
9(b) and 9(c) I find that objection 5 should be sustained.
In view of my finding of no violation of the Act as alleged in complaint paragraph 10,
I find that Objection 8 should be overruled.
45
JD(ATL)—20—07
- 13 -
I find that the Charging Party failed to establish that the employer abused the election
process as asserted in Objection 10 and accordingly find that Objection 10 should be
overruled.
The Remedy5
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in the above violations of the Act, it
shall be recommended that Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative actions designed to effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act and post the
appropriate notice.10
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended:3
ORDER15
The Respondent, PPG Industries, Inc., its officers, agents, successors and assigns
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:20
(a) More closely scrutinizing and monitoring the movements and
conversations of its employees because of their support of the Union.
(b) Threatening loss of benefits because its employees support the Union.25
(c) Threatening its employees with the inevitability of a strike if they select
the Union as their collective bargaining representative.
(d) Threatening its employees with replacement if they support the Union.30
(e) Informing employees it would be futile for them to select the Union as
their collective bargaining representative because the Union would never get a contract from
the Respondent.
35
(f) The allegation that Respondent unlawfully violated the Act by creating
the impression that the employees’ union activities were under surveillance shall be
dismissed.
(g) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining or coercing 40
its employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations
Act.

3 If no exceptions are filed as provided by § 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in §102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
JD(ATL)—20—07
- 14 -
2. Take the following affirmative actions to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix”4, at its facility in Huntsville, Alabama. Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 10, after being signed by the 5
Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon
receipt and maintained for 60 days in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted and shall mail a copy of the notices to all employees who
were employed at its Huntsville facility during the period August 1 to October 18, 2006.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered, 10
defaced, or covered by any material. In the event that, during the pendency of these
proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice
to all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since
August 2006.15
(b) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional
Director a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region
attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.
20
It is further ordered that the proceeding in Case 10-RC-15611 be severed and
remanded to the Regional Director5 for appropriate action. I recommend that the challenged
ballots of the temporary employees be counted. I recommend that the challenged ballots of
the lead men be set aside and not counted. In the event that the challenged ballots and the
revised tally show a majority in favor of the Union, I recommend that the election be certified 25
by the Regional Director, as there will be no need for a second election. In the event that the
challenged ballots and the revised tally do not show a majority in favor of the Union, I
recommend that the election be set aside as the aforesaid finding of the objections has
destroyed the laboratory conditions of the first election and the Employer should not benefit
therefrom. An employer’s pre-election conduct must not contain any threat of reprisal. NLRB 30
v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575 (1969). See Dominion Engineered Textiles, Inc., 314
NLRB 571 (1994).
Dated at Washington, D.C., October 19, 2007.
35
_______________________
Lawrence W. Cullen
Administrative Law Judge40

4 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of the 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 JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
ENFORCING AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.
5 Under the provisions of Sec. 102.69 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations,
Exceptions to this Report may be filed with the Board in Washington, DC
within 14 days from the date of issuance of this Report and recommendations.
Exceptions must be received by the Board in Washington by [date].
JD(ATL)—20—07
- 15 -
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by the Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to
post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
WE WILL NOT more closely scrutinize and monitor the movements and conversations of our employees
because of their support of the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, AFL-CIO (“the Union”).
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with loss of benefits because of their support of the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with the inevitability of a strike if they select the Union as their
collective bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with replacement if they support the Union.
WE WILL NOT inform our employees it would be futile for them to select the Union as their collective
bargaining representative because the Union would never get a contract from us.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain or coerce our employees in the exercise of
your rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
PPG AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES, INC.
(Employer)
Dated: By:_______________________________________________
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National
Labor Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union
representation and it investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more
about your rights under the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any
agent with the Board’s Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s
website: www.nlrb.gov.
233 Peachtree Street NE, Harris Tower, Suite 1000, Atlanta, GA 30303-1531
(404) 331-2896, Hours: 8 a.m. To 4:30 p.m.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE.
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING
AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY
QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE
DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (404) 331-2877.