Quaker Oats Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1981

258 N.L.R.B. 797 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

QUAKER OATS COMPANY
Quaker Oats Company and American Federation of
Grain Millers, AFL-CIO, CLC. Case 26-CA-
8086
September 30, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
ZIMMERMAN
On September 9, 1980, Administrative Law
Judge J. Pargen Robertson issued the attached De-
cision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent
filed exceptions 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,2 and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge, as
modified herein, and to adopt his recommended
Order.
The Administrative Law Judge found that Re-
spondent had violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act by discharging its employee James Savage. Al-
though the Administrative Law Judge omitted
from his Decision certain facts pertinent to a con-
sideration of Respondent's conduct, we agree with
the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion on the
Savage discharge for the following reasons.
On September 27, 1979, 3 Respondent discharged
James Savage. Savage had worked for Respondent
as a mixer-operator at its Jackson, Tennessee, facili-
ty for the preceding 7-1/2 years. Respondent con-
sidered Savage to be an excellent employee.
Between October 1977 and the date of his dis-
charge, Savage participated in Respondent's pro-
gram allowing employees to purchase excess bread
heels from the plant. A contract between Respond-
ent and Savage permitted Savage to remove the
amount of bread heels he chose at a cost of 15
cents per pound. Respondent sold any remaining
excess bread heels to a nonemployee contractor.
Following each removal, Savage was to complete
an invoice bill of lading provided by Respondent
' Consistent with the provisions of Sec. 10246(d)(1) of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the General Counsel's answering brief, submitted
after the date on which it was due. is not before the Board for considera-
tion.
2 Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi-
bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con-
vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products.
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
3All dates are 1979 unless otherwise indicated.
citing the weight of the load taken. Respondent
then picked up Savage's invoices and billed him at
the end of each month.
On several occasions, Savage neglected to com-
plete an invoice. He sometimes added the omitted
load to a later invoice. On two occasions, Savage's
supervisor, Steve Favere, reminded Savage that he
had failed to complete an invoice. Following each
reminder and without further action by Respond-
ent, Savage submitted an invoice.4 Prior to the inci-
dent which ended in Savage's discharge, Respond-
ent neither disciplined nor warned Savage in any
way for failing to submit an invoice.
On September 19, a representation election held
among Respondent's employees produced a union
defeat. During the course of the election campaign,
Respondent's Aunt Jemima department manager,
Robert Hoefling, heard rumors that Savage had
handed out authorization cards for the Union.
The events directly related to Savage's discharge
began in the early morning hours of September 26.
At 4 a.m., Savage, who worked the 12 to 8 a.m.
shift, removed approximately 178 pounds of bread
heels. He did not complete an invoice since, at the
time, no invoice forms were available. Several
hours later, Department Manager Hoefling asked
Supervisor Favere whether Savage still purchased
Respondent's excess bread heels. Favere told him
that Savage still had the contract, and that he had
removed a load that morning without completing
an invoice. Hoefling instructed Favere to place
blank invoices at the receiving desk before the end
of Savage's shift. 5
At 8 a.m., the end of the third shift, Supervisor
Albert Bell, the production foreman for the Aunt
Jemima department, addressed the third-shift em-
ployees on general production problems. 6 After
Bell commented that he knew that some of the em-
ployees had voted for the Union in the recent elec-
tion, Savage stepped out and warned that, if man-
agement did not straighten things out, the Union
would prevail the next time. Bell then requested
Savage to see him in his office when he reported to
work that evening.
Shortly after his meeting with the employees,
Bell spoke with Hoefling. Bell described Savage's
statements at the meeting concerning the Union,
In its exceptions to the Administrative Law Judge's Decision, Re-
spondent admits that, on the occasions when Favere reminded Savage
that he had failed to submit an invoice, Savage completed a separate hill
of lading or "doubled-up" the previous load with the load he was taking
the day of the reminder
; The Administrative Law Judge failed to specifically mention or pass
on the testimony describing this discussion between Hoefling and Favere
The Administrative Law Judge found certain of Bell's statements
during this meeting and the one he held v'ith Savage in his office that
evening inlaltive of Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act. We adopt the Administrative
l.av Judge', findings sith respect to Bell's statements at the meetings
258 NLRB No. 106
797
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and Hoefling stated that Savage had failed to
submit an invoice for the load of bread heels that
he had taken that morning. Hoefling added that the
Company might have to suspend Savage that night
pending an investigation. He promised to leave Bell
a message on further actions to be taken.7
During the daytime hours of September 26, Hoe-
fling discussed with several of Respondent's man-
agers Savage's failure to submit a bread heel in-
voice. Hoefling reported the matter to the person-
nel manager, an administrative superintendent, and
the plant manager, Chuck Dunham. These compa-
ny officials allegedly stated that the Company dis-
charged employees caught stealing its property. 8
Hoefling left Bell a note stating that he wanted to
meet with him and Savage the next morning con-
cerning the bread heels.
After reporting to work at 12 a.m. on September
27, Savage met with Favere and Bell in Bell's
office pursuant to Bell's earlier instruction given at
the September 26 employee meeting. They briefly
discussed Savage's comments at the morning meet-
ing and Savage assured Bell that everything was
fine. As their meeting concluded, Bell instructed
Savage to report to personnel at the end of his shift
for a meeting with Hoefling and other management
officials concerning bread heels.
At approximately 4:30 a.m., Savage removed an-
other load of bread heels and submitted an invoice
reflecting only the amount he took at that time. 9
' The Administrative Law Judge failed to mention this conversation
between Bell and Hoefling. Bell did not testify to the conversation. Hoe-
fling testified that he informed Bell fully of Savage's conduct regarding
the bread heels and the possibility of Savage's suspension before Bell in-
formed him of Savage's statements at the meeting about the Union. Hoe-
ning's testimony, however, cannot support a finding of the sequence of
statements as he described it. The Administrative Law Judge found Hoe-
ning's demeanor as a witness unimpressive and discredited certain state-
ments by Hoefling concerning another meeting described below (see fn. 5
of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision). Moreover, Hoefling's ac-
count is implausible on its face. Two factors render it improbable that
Hoefling stated that the Company might suspend Savage before he
learned of Savage's statements concerning the Union. First, Hoefling did
not mention the possibility of severe consequences during his earlier con-
versation with Favere when he first learned of Savage's conduct. So
sudden a change in Hoening's attitude toward the incident. otherwise un-
explained, is implausible. Second, the contrast between Respondent's
treatment of similar transgressions by Savage in all incidents prior to this
one and Hoefling's statement demands explanation. On previous occa-
sions, Respondent had reminded Savage to turn in an invoice or permit-
ted much more time to pass without taking disciplinary action before
Savage submitted a later invoice combining the earlier load with the sub-
sequent. Therefore, although the Administrative Law Judge failed to spe-
cifically discredit Hoefling's testimony concerning his conversation with
Bell, the Administrative Law Judge's general findings on Hoefling's
credibility, Hoefling's unexplained turn in attitude between his conversa-
tions with Favere and with Bell, and the sudden change in Respondent's
general treatment of Savage's lapses render Hoefling's account implausi-
ble. From the foregoing, it is clear that Department Manager Hoefling
did not. before he learned of Savage's statements, declare to Bell that
Savage faced suspension for failing to turn in an invoice.
I The Administrative Law Judge omitted any description of Hoefling's
discussions during the daytime hours of September 26
9 The Administrative Law Judge failed to mention that Savage took
the second load of bread heels.
When Savage reported to personnel at 8:20 a.m.
for his meeting, Hoefling asked him why he failed
to submit an invoice for the load of bread heels he
had removed on the morning of September 26.
Savage replied that there were no weight sheets at
the receiving desk at that time. Hoefling responded
that that was no excuse and Savage should have
gotten his supervisor to locate them. According to
the credited testimony, Douglas Dean, Respond-
ent's personnel manager, then remarked that, while
he did not know whether Savage voted for the
Union, the reports he had received indicated that
Savage "tied in" with the group of employees
threatening that, next time, the Union would pre-
vail. Hoefling also referred to the election and then
commented on Respondent's financial difficulties.
The meeting ended as Hoefling told Savage he
would contact him later on as to what they would
do with him. At 5 p.m. that day, following discus-
sions among Hoefling, Dean, and Dunham, Hoe-
fling informed Savage that he was discharged for
theft.
Based on the above, we conclude that Respond-
ent discharged James Savage in response to his
open expression of support for the Union at the
September 26 employee meeting and not, as Re-
spondent asserts, because he failed to submit an in-
voice bill of lading for the load of bread heels he
removed on September 26. That the latter ground
is pretextual is amply demonstrated by the record.
An examination of the statements by Hoefling and
Dean on September 27 reflecting their concern
with Savage's sympathy for the Union, and Re-
spondent's sudden turnabout in attitude toward Sa-
vage's failure to record a load of bread heels, re-
veals that Respondent discharged Savage for pro-
tected activity. When Bell requested Savage to
report to a meeting on the morning of September
27, he alleged its purpose was to discuss the bread
heels taken. The subject of the meeting, however,
quickly shifted to Savage's support for the Union.
Dean's statement that Savage tied in with the em-
ployees' threatening a future union victory demon-
strates Respondent's concern with the Union and
Savage's involvement in it. The coincidence of Sa-
vage's open expression of support for the Union at
the September 26 meeting, and the timing of his
discharge in light of these comments, warrants a
finding that Respondent dismissed Savage for his
support of the Union.
Respondent's otherwise unexplained shift in atti-
tude toward Savage's transgressions also supports
the finding that Respondent unlawfully discharged
Savage. Prior to September 26, Respondent tolerat-
ed Savage's occasional failure to submit an invoice.
As the record makes clear, Respondent never
798
QUAKER OATS COMPANY
warned Savage that this conduct would lead to dis-
cipline of any sort. Rather, when Savage had failed
to turn in an invoice, Respondent reminded Savage
to turn in one or permitted him to double the load
recorded on a subsequent invoice.
We note that Savage testified that he had never
previously removed and recorded a second load of
bread heels without noting an unrecorded earlier
load. Nevertheless, that this precise scenario never
took place is not critical to any consideration of
Respondent's discharge of Savage. Thus, in some
of the instances when Favere reminded Savage to
submit an invoice, Favere spoke just as Savage
loaded up or recorded a second load of heels.
Savage then submitted an invoice reflecting both
loads only after being reminded of his obligation to
do so. Moreover, even if the record disclosed that
Savage never before had acted similarly with re-
spect to the second removal of a load of bread
heels, any distinction between the present situation
and others in the past lends no credence to Re-
spondent's rationale for Savage's discharge. Indeed,
long before Savage removed the second load of
bread heels, Hoefling had acted on Savage's failure
to turn in a first invoice and Hoefling did so in a
manner completely unlike Respondent's treatment
of identical conduct in the past. Approximately 19
hours before Savage took the second load, Hoe-
fling commenced the investigation of the "theft."
Under the same circumstances on earlier occasions,
Respondent had reminded Savage to turn in an in-
voice or had permitted time to pass without inves-
tigation or the commencement of predisciplinary
procedures before Savage submitted an invoice.
Thus, the record shows that Respondent's actions
which culminated in Savage's discharge com-
menced long before the second removal of bread
heels.
Of course, as long as union animus does not mo-
tivate the change in policy,'° an employer is privi-
leged to punish employee misconduct that it previ-
ously chose to permit. The record here, however,
offers no support for the contention that Respond-
ent changed its attitude generally toward employee
failure to adhere strictly to invoice submission pro-
cedures. Rather, Respondent changed its policy
toward Savage's behavior only after he had ex-
pressed strong support for the Union. In light of
the coincidence of Savage's prounion statements
and his discharge," and Respondent's statements
'o E.g., Vogt-Conanl Co., 248 NLRB 500 (1980).
" Contrary to Respondent's contention, we find that Savage's com-
ments. made during the morning meeting of September 26. reflect his
support for the Union. In addition, we find that, although Respondent
previously had heard rumors that during the election campaign Savage
handed out authorization cards for the Union. Savage's prounion state-
ments, made at Supervisor Bell's department meeting on the morning of
September 26. precipitated Respondent's dismissal of Sasage.
concerning Savage's union support, we conclude
that Respondent's disparate treatment of Savage's
conduct reflects, not a legitimate change in policy,
but rather Respondent's attempt to discourage pro-
tected activity by ridding itself of a union propo-
nent. Accordingly, we conclude, in agreement with
the Administrative Law Judge, that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by ter-
minating Savage.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Quaker Oats
Company, Jackson, Tennessee, 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.
1 Member Jenkins would provide interest on the backpay award to
Savage in accordance with his partial dissent in Olympic Medical Corpora-
tion. 250 NLRB 146 (1980).
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees
about their activities on behalf of American
Federation of Grain Millers, AFL-CIO, CLC,
or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT solicit grievances from our
employees and promise to help rectify those
grievances in order to induce our employees
not to support the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with
more strict enforcement of work rules if they
select a union as their bargaining representa-
tive.
WE WILL NOT discharge or refuse to rein-
state our employees because of their union ac-
tivities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ-
ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act.
WE WILL offer immediate and full reinstate-
ment to James Savage to his former job or, if
that job no longer exists, to a substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to his
799
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
seniority or other rights and privileges previ-
ously enjoyed.
WE WILL make whole James Savage for any
loss of earnings he may have suffered by
reason of our discrimination against him, with
interest.
QUAKER OATS COMPANY
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
J. PARGEN ROBERTSON, Administrative Law Judge:
This case was heard on April 3, 1980, in Jackson, Ten-
nessee. The charge was filed on October 10, 1979, and
the complaint issued on November 14, 1979. The com-
plaint alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by inter-
rogating employees concerning their union membership;
soliciting grievances from its employees, and promising
to rectify such grievances in order to induce its employ-
ees not to support the Union; and threatening its employ-
ees with more strict enforcement of work rules because
of its employees' union activities. The complaint also al-
leges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act
by discharging employee James Savage.
Upon the entire record, my observation of the wit-
nesses, and after due consideration of the briefs filed by
the General Counsel and Respondent, I hereby make the
following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
A. The Alleged 8(a)(3) Discharge
On September 19, 1979, a representation election was
held among Respondent's employees at Jackson, Tennes-
see. 2 Alleged discriminatee James Savage actively en-
gaged in union activity during the organizing campaign.
Respondent admittedly learned of Savage's union activi-
ties.
On September 27, 1979, Savage was discharged. The
General Counsel alleges that Savage was discharged be-
cause of his union activities. Respondent denies this alle-
gation and contends that Savage was discharged because
he removed a load of bread heels without accounting for
their removal.
I find that substantial evidence in the record supports
the General Counsel's allegation.
Neither the allegations regarding commerce nor the status of the
Charging party are in dispute. The complaint alleges, Respondent admits,
and I find that, at all times material herein, Respondent, while engaged in
its business as a manufacturer of food products at its Jackson, Tennessee,
facility, purchased and received goods valued in excess of $50.000 direct-
ly from points located outside the State of Tennessee, and sold and
shipped from its Jackson, Tennessee, facility products valued in excess of
$50,000 directly to points outside the State of Tennessee. during a repre-
sentative -year period. The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I
find that, at all times material herein, Respondent has been an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec. 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I find that the Charging
Party is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec. 2(5) of the Act.
2 The parties stipulated that the election resulted in 150 votes for the
Union and 264 against.
Prior to his discharge, Savage benefited from a pro-
gram under which employees were allowed to purchase
excess materials from Respondent. Since October 1977,
Savage, pursuant to a contract with Respondent, would,
on occasion, remove excess bread heels from Respond-
ent's facility. Savage paid Respondent 15 cents per
pound for the bread heels which he used to feed his
hogs. The practice was for Savage to load as much of
the excess heels as he wanted and to weigh the load.
Savage would then complete a bill of lading invoice,
citing the weight of his load. He would leave the invoice
where it would be picked up by Respondent. At the end
of each month Savage was billed for the heels he had
taken.
Savage testified without rebuttal that he occasionally
neglected to complete the bill of lading invoice. Occa-
sionally, after Savage failed to complete an invoice, he
combined the omitted load into a later invoice. On two
occasions Supervisor Steve Favere reminded Savage that
he had failed to complete an invoice. On those occasions
Savage completed an invoice after being reminded. On
none of those occasions when Savage neglected to com-
plete an invoice was he disciplined until the incident
which resulted in his discharge. In fact, no supervisor
said anything to him other than to remind him that he
had not completed an invoice.
On September 26, Savage loaded 178 pounds of bread
heels on his vehicle but neglected to fill out an invoice.
Savage testified that he did not fill out an invoice be-
cause there were no invoice forms available. That fact
was confirmed by management when they investigated
Savage's failure to fill out a September 26 invoice.
Savage also attended a meeting called by his supervi-
sor, Albert Bell,3 on September 26. Bell testified that he
addressed the third-shift employees in his department on
that date-some 14 to 18 employees, including Savage.
Bell testified that he told his employees during the
September 26 meeting that he knew that some of the em-
ployees had voted for the Union. Upon hearing that
statement, Savage stepped out and pointed his finger at
Bell and said, "You recall how many people voted for
the Union? Next time they'll get in if management don't
get the things straightened out." Bell asked Savage what
he meant and Savage replied, "You know, management."
Bell asked, "Would you like to tell me what you are
talking about? What do you mean?" Savage seemed to
attempt to say something but then stepped back. Bell
then asked Savage to come by and see him that night
when Savage came in to work.
Upon coming in to work that night, Savage met with
Bell.4 Supervisor Steve Favere was also present in Bell's
office. Bell said to Savage, "I would like to hear what
you had to tell me this morning." Savage replied that he
did not have anything to say; he assured Bell that every-
thing was fine. As their meeting was concluding, Bell
told Savage to report to personnel at the end of his shift
:' Bell testified that he is general foreman of production in the Aunt
Jemima department.
' Savage next reported for work at midnight on September 26. The
meeting with Bell occurred after midnight in the early hours of Septem-
ber 27.
800
QUAKER OATS COMPANY
to meet with the manager of Aunt Jemima products,
Robert Hoefling. Bell, and Personnel manager Douglas
Dean. Bell told Savage that he was not sure what the
meeting would involve but it was something about bread
heels.
Savage testified that he met with Bell, Hoefling. and
Dean in the personnel office at or about 8:20 a.m. on
September 27. Savage testified' that Hoefling said to
him, "James, you don't have any weight sheet on your
bread heels from the 17th until now; in fact I know you
took bread night before last and did not record it.
Why?" Savage replied that it was because he did not
have any weight sheets. Hoefling replied, "Well, that's
no excuse, you should have got your supervisor or some-
one to do it." 6 Dean said, "James, I don't know how you
voted in the union, but there seem to be a bunch of peo-
ples going around saying 'Dammit, we didn't get you
this time; we'll get you next time."' Savage replied that
he did not know anything about that. Dean said. "But
from the reports we been getting on you, seem to tie in
with what you said in the meeting the other morning."
Hoefling said, "Well, what's burning me up is that every-
body seems to think that Chuck Dunham [plant man-
ager] was too drunk to come down and count the votes
after the election, but the fact is, he was in Chicago
trying to save our necks and his job and everything else.
People just don't know how hard it is for us to try to
keep this place going. Production is cut from 374,000
cases back to 154. Right now we have spent over
$26,000 on labor and everything, we just are in a bind.
We usually try to find work for people to do when we're
down and have them cleaning and doing things, but I
just don't see how we [are] going to do it for the next
three months. We [are] going to be in a critical situa-
tion." Hoefling then said, "Well, what should we do
about your case?" He told Savage that they would get
back to him.
At 5 p.m., Savage met with Dean and Hoefling and
was discharged. They told Savage that he was a good
worker and that they would do everything they could to
help him find employment. Dean told Savage to sign up
for unemployment insurance.
Under the circumstances I am convinced that Savage
was discharged because of the prounion views he ex-
pressed during the September 26 meeting. Respondent
did not attempt to overcome the testimony of Savage
that he had previously neglected to fill out weight sheets
without being disciplined. In fact, there was no evidence
offered which would demonstrate that either Savage or
I find Savage to be a straightforward witness and I credit his testimo-
ny. I was not impressed with the demeanor of either Dean or Hoefling
Although both testified contrarily to Savage. I do not credit their testi-
mony. While their testimony conflicted with Savage's, there were also
conflicts between their versions of the September 27 incidents. Hoefling
recalled that Dean had commented that he had seen an "awful change"
in Savage lately. When Dean asked Savage if there was anything they
could do to help him, Savage responded that if Dean as talking about
the Union he had had nothing to do with it. Howeecr. although Dean
was questioned in a manner which should have prompted similar testimo-
ny to that of Hoefling, he testified differently
' The evidence reflects that Savage had never been informed. before
September 27, that it was his responsibility o maintain he suppyr of bills
of lading (uweight sheet) frms
any other employee was ever cautioned that they could
be disciplined for neglecting the weight sheets.
Respondent admitted that Savage was an excellent em-
ployee. Hoefling testified, "I had good relations with
James [Savage]. I trusted James. He was a good employ-
ee. We could always count on him to come in any time
if we needed somebody extra. He was a good man."
I find it incredible that an employer would discharge
such an employee because he neglected to fill out a
weight sheet on $2.67 worth of excess bread heels. In
view of Respondent's failure to take any action whatso-
ever for similar omissions during the past, I am con-
vinced that its drastic action immediately after Savage
took his prounion position during Supervisor Bell's meet-
ing was precipitated by those prounion comments. The
comments by Dean during the meeting with Savage on
the morning of September 27 clearly demonstrate the
true basis for Respondent's action.
B. The Independent 8(a)(1) Allegations
Supervisor Albert Bell admitted making to the assem-
bled employees in his department during the September
26 meeting the following remarks, which form the basis
for the General Counsel's 8(a)(l) allegations. Bell told
the employees that he knew that some of the employees
had voted for the Union. Bell testified that he also tried
to bring out the differences they had in the situation in-
sofar as the one-on-one type thing. He testified that, re-
garding the "recurrence of a situation that happened ear-
lier," he told the employees, "This kind of performance,
if there was a union or a third party, it could be a major
offense. You could be disciplined for this." Bell admitted
that he said to the employees, "Many of our people
voted for the Union. What for?" Bell then asked, "Do
we have a problem that a third party can help you
with?" He then asked the employees if what they wanted
was more sleep and a better place to sit and prop their
feet.
As indicated above, James Savage responded to Bell's
statements. In their subsequent meeting, after midnight
on the following work shift, Bell asked Savage if he had
a problem and told him that, if he did, he (Bell) would
like to help him. Savage then told Bell that "the state-
ment [during the September 26 meeting] he made he was
sorry about." Bell told Savage that he did not have to be
sorry about it, that it was all right.
Bell testified that, by posing the questions mentioned
above, he did not expect the employees to respond.
However, he admitted that, in addition to Savage, the
other employees also responded to his statements regard-
ing the Union. Bell testified, "Well, it was sort of in a
group, and they said that the union activity is over; the
union thing is over-they used that term: the union thing
is over-and no one in this room voted for the union.
We do not want one, and let's not even talk about it
again."
Under the circumstances I agree with the General
Counsel that Bell's comments during the speech consti-
tute illegal interrogation and a threat to enforce work
rules more strictly. His comments to Savage in their sub-
sequent meeting (see above) constitute solicitation of
801
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL L.ABOR REI.ATIONS O()ARD
grievances and an expression that he would help correct
those grievances. Therefore, I find that Bell's comments
constitute violations of Section 8(a)(I) of the Act.
CONCUSIONS OF LAW
1. Quaker Oats Company is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6). and
(7) of the Act.
2. American Federation of Grain Millers, AFL-CIO,
CLC, is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
3. By the conduct found violative herein, Respondent
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7
of the Act, and thereby engaged in, and is engaging in,
unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
4. Respondent, by discharging James Savage on Sep-
tember 27, 1979, and thereafter refusing to reinstate
Savage because of his union activities, has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE RElMEI)Y
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease
and desist therefrom, and to take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. My
recommended Order will require Respondent to offer
James Savage immediate and full reinstatement to his
former job or, if his former job no longer exists, to a sub-
stantially equivalent position, and to make Savage whole
for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason
of Respondent's discrimination against him, and that Re-
spondent post an appropriate notice. Loss of backpay
shall be computed and interest thereon shall be added in
the manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corporation, 231
NLRB 651 (1977). 7
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER s
The Respondent, Quaker Oats Company, Jackson,
Tennessee, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
7 See, generally. Usi Plumbing d Healing Co.. 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 10)2.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National abor Relations Board, the find-
ings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall. as provided in
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interfering with, restraining, and coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in
Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act by interrogating its employees about their union ac-
tivities: threatening its employees with more strict en-
forcement of work rules if they select the Union as their
bargaining representative: and soliciting grievances from
its employees and telling its employees that it will help
them with those grievances in order to induce its em-
ployees not to engage in union activities.
(b) Discharging and thereafter refusing to reinstate its
employees because of its employees' union activities.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
deemed to be necessary to effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Offer immediate and full reinstatement to James
Savage to his former job or, if that job no longer exists,
to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice
to his seniority or other rights and privileges.
(b) Make James Savage whole for any loss of pay he
may have suffered as a result of the discrimination
against him in the manner set forth in the section of this
Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other re-
cords necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its Jackson, Tennessee, facility copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 9 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 26, after being duly signed by Respondent's au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent
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. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 26, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and
become its findings, conclusions. and Order, and all objections thereto
shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
' In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals. the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
anlt to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National ;lhabor Relations Board."
102