Reeves Brothers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 13, 1986

277 N.L.R.B. 1568 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

1568 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Reeves Brothers, Inc. and Amalgamated Clothing
and Textile Workers Union , AFL-CIO, CLC
and Kathy Fidler . Cases 11-CA-7824, 11-CA-
7939, 11-CA-8051, 1 1-CA-8082, 11-CA-8475,
11-RC-4592, and 11-CA-9157
13 January 1986
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF SECOND ELECTION
By CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
DENNIS AND JOHANSEN
On 30 March 1982 Administrative Law Judge
Richard L. Denison issued the attached decision.
The General Counsel filed exceptions and a sup-
porting brief, and the Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief. The Respondent also filed a
brief in response to exceptions filed by the General
Counsel.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,' and
i The General Counsel and the Respondent have excepted to some of
the judge's credibility findings. The Board's established policy is not to
overrule an administrative law judge's credibility resolutions unless the
clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they
are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd.
188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir 1951) We have carefully examined the 'record and
find no basis for reversing the findings
In adopting the judge's findings of threats and surveillance by the Re-
spondent's director of employee relations Mary Wilhelm, we do not pass
on the issue raised by the General Counsel in her brief, whether, in the
same sequence of events on which these allegations are based , Wilhelm
violated Sec. 8(a)(1) by instructing off-duty employees to move from the
parking lot where they were distributing literature to the entrances of the
parking lot. Although Wilhelm did testify that she had given such an in-
struction, we find that this matter, which was not alleged in the com-
plaint, has not been fully and fairly litigated
In finding that the Respondent promulgated and enforced an unlawful
no-solicitation policy, the judge concluded, under then applicable Board
precedent, that the policy was overly broad partly on the ground that it
did not limit solicitation to working time After the judge's decision, the
Board held in Our Way, Inc., 268 NLRB 394 (1983), that rules prohibiting
solicitation during working time are presumptively lawful In this case,
however, we find, in agreement with the judge, that the Respondent's
rule was promulgated as a response to union organizing and for the pur-
pose of inhibiting union activity . It thus violates Sec 8 (a)(1) Member
Dennis sees no need to comment on the judge 's finding
We agree with the judge's finding that the General Counsel did not
establish that the Union represented a majority in the appropriate unit on
20 September 1978, or any time thereafter within the scope of this deci-
sion. In so finding, however, we find merit in some of the General Coun-
sel's and the Respondent's exceptions concerning the disposition of cer-
tain authorization cards offered in support of a union majority First, we
note six cards held invalid by the judge because they were either left un-
dated or only partially dated by the employees whose signatures they
bore Ronnie Barrett, Ronnie Cowan, Berle Hayes, Cynthia Howard, and
Julia Baker each testified that, although dates prior to 20 September 1978
appeared on their authorization cards when they identified them at the
hearing, they did not personally place the date on them In addition, a
witness called to authenticate the authorization card signed by Bill Cor-
bett testified that he could not identify who entered the partial date on
Corbett's card. It is well settled that even an undated authorization card
may be counted to establish a union's majority in an 8(a)(5) proceeding,
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order2
as modified.
provided it is established that the card was signed at a time relevant to
the majority status Each of the six disputed cards displayed a date prior
to 20 September 1978 and was time-stamped 21 September 1978 on the
reverse side by the Regional Office for Region 11 According to his un-
contradicted testimony, Union Representative John Kissack, on 20 Sep-
tember 1978, mailed to the Regional Office the representation petition,
the authorization cards supporting the petition and letter, to which was
attached an alphabetized list of card signers The letter, received in evi-
dence, was dated 20 September 1978, and the attached list contained the
names of each of the six above-mentioned employees The cards them-
selves are dated and time-stamped between 10 34 and 10-40 a.m , 21 Sep-
tember 1978 In the normal operation of the United States mail, cards re-
ceived and time-stamped by the Regional Office on the morning of 21
September 1978 would have been mailed no later than 20 September
1978 Thus, there can be no doubt that the cards were signed prior to the
date of the Union's demand for recognition. We are satisfied, on the basis
of Kissack's testimony and an examination of his letter and the time-
stamped cards, that these six cards were signed on or before 20 Septem-
ber 1978 and therefore should be counted in determining whether the
Union had attained majority status by that date See Gordonsville Indus-
tries, 252 NLRB 563, 597 (1980), enfd sub nom Textile Workers v.
NLRB, 673 F.2d 550 (D.C. Cir. 1982); ! P Stevens & Co, 179 NLRB
254, 278 (1969), enfd. 441 F 2d 514 (5th Or 1971).
Second, the Respondent has argued that numerous cards solicited by
individuals whom the judge found, and we agree, are statutory supervi-
sors, are invalid because of improper supervisory involvement In this
regard, the judge found that supervisory participation in the union cam-
paign , was substantial, but that the active supervisor participants in the
campaign did not direct the work of the vast majority of the Respond-
ent's rank-and-file employees and thus had limited opportunity to influ-
ence employees' choice of whether to sign authorization cards. However,
the record contains testimony by 10 employees that their immediate su-
pervisor either solicited their cards directly or was present when they
signed their cards To include the cards of at least these 10 employees-
Mane Hart, Stephen Chastain, Wilbur Caldwell, Leonard Cantrell,
Harold Fleming, Oscar Sturgess, Arnold R Withers, Steve Knox, James
Shelton, and Hermon Davis-in determining the Union's majority status
is at odds with the Board's longstanding policy of rejecting cards directly
solicited by supervisors See Sarah Neuman Nursing Home, 270 NLRB
663 fn. 2 (1984). We therefore shall not count these 10 cards Because
other cards challenged on the grounds of alleged supervisory participa-
tion are not determinative of the Union's majority status, we find it un-
necessary to pass on the validity of those cards
Third, we note that, in his subtallies of valid authorization cards, the
judge counted but did not report the names and card numbers of the fol-
lowing employees. Bobby Joe Rasar (G.C. Exh 28); McConnie Gaston
(G.C Exh. 46), Lester Brice (G.C Exh. 59); Carl Childers Jr. (G.C Exh
114); and Albert B Sellers (G.C Exh 119).
Finally, the Respondent has excepted to the counting of the authoriza-
tion card signed by Pansy Burns on the ground that she was no longer
employed by the Respondent on 20 September 1978 On the basis of doc-
umentary evidence contained in the record, we find merit in this excep-
tion and shall invalidate Burns' card
In view of these revisions to the judge's tally of valid authorization
cards, we find that, out of an appropriate unit of 607 eligible employees
on 20 September 1978, the Union had secured only 287 valid cards of the
304 needed for a majority. Both the General Counsel and the Respondent
have excepted to the judge's findings with respect to misrepresentations
allegedly made to employees while they were being solicited to sign au-
thorization cards Each party has requested the tally of valid cards be re-
vised accordingly . Because the cards which these exceptions concern are
not determinative in establishing the Union's majority status, we find it
unnecessary to pass on these contentions Having concluded that the
Union's majority status has not been demonstrated, we find a bargaining
order unwarranted Gourmet Foods, 270 NLRB 578 (1984) (Member
Dennis, concurring)
2 Consistent with our decision in Sterling Sugars, 261 NLRB 472
(1982), we shall require the Respondent to expunge from its records any
reference to employee Kenneth Gray Wiggins' unlawful discharge We
shall also require the Respondent to notify Wiggins in writing of such
expunction and to inform him that the Respondent's unlawful conduct
will not be used as a basis for future personnel actions against him. We
have modified the Order and notice accordingly.
277 NLRB No. 153
REEVES BROS
The judge found that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discharging employee
Kenneth Gray Wiggins and denying work to em-
ployee Fred Wright because of their union activi-
ties, and that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) by threats of plant closure, including threats
made to at least one group of assembled employees;
various threats of discharge, withholding of pay in-
creases, more rigid enforcement of company rules,
and other disciplinary action; threats of inevitable
strikes if employees selected the Union as their des-
ignated representative; promulgating, maintaining,
and enforcing rules prohibiting the lawful distribu-
tion of union literature and solicitation of employ-
ees on behalf of the Union; more rigid enforcement
of workbreak rules; promises and conferral of bene-
fits to discourage union support; solicitation of and
offering to remedy employee grievances to discour-
age support for the Union; interference with Board
processes; interference with lawful union activities;
and interrogation of employees concerning their
union sentiments and activities. We find merit to
some of the Respondent's exceptions as discussed
below.
1. The judge found that Corporate Vice Presi-
dent Warren Pollack threatened supervisory main-
tenance leadmen, and the special project crew in
particular, with discharge after the union campaign
was over. The judge found that Pollack accused
the special projects crew leadmen at this meeting
of starting the union campaign and stated, "I can
assure you when this whole thing is over, the very
ones that started it will be somewhere else." Find-
ing the leadmen to be supervisors, the judge rec-
ommended dismissal of portions of the complaint
alleging that Pollack's remarks to the assembled
leadmen created an impression their union activities
were under surveillance. He found, nonetheless,
that because Pollack's remarks extended to the
entire special projects crew, including rank-and-file
employees, they were intended for repetition to
those employees and therefore constitute a viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(1). We disagree with the latter
finding.
At the 23 August 1978 meeting3 Pollack ad-
dressed five "leadmen," all of whom we find, in
agreement with the judge, are supervisors within
the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. Only su-
pervisory leadmen attended the 23 August meeting.
There is no suggestion Pollack's discharge threat
was overheard by employees or that Pollack spe-
cifically instructed supervisors to carry his threat-
ening message back to their crews. Credited testi-
mony by Supervisors David J. Cook and Julius
3 All dates are 1978 unless otherwise indicated
1569
Craton concerning this meeting supports a conclu-
sion to the contrary. Cook specifically recalled
Pollack as targeting the supervisors as instigators of
the union activity. Although Cook stated that Pol-
lack singled out the special project crew, he also
quoted Pollack that "the maintenance leadmen was
[sic] the very ones that had started this campaign."
According to Craton, "People [who] had started
this union mess was in the room, especially the spe-
cial projects crew, and that after this mess was
over they would all be gone." It is evident from
this testimony that Pollack's statements were di-
rected principally at those present- the mainte-
nance supervisors-and not at, projects crew's rank-
and-file.
In Parker-Robb Chevrolet, 262 NLRB 402, 404
(1982), which issued after the judge's decision in
this case, the Board held that supervisors are gen-,
erally excluded from the Act's coverage. Specifi-
cally, the Board found that no "incidental or sec-
ondary effects" of discharge or discipline of a su-
pervisor are so chilling to employee rights to,war-
rant an exception to the statutory exclusion. We
find this reasoning to apply here. Consistent with
our holding in Parker-Robb, we shall not infer dele-
terious secondary effects on employees' statutory
rights from the threats Pollack made at the 23
August meeting. We therefore reject the judge's ra-
tionale for finding Pollack' s discharge threats in
violation of the Act because they were intended
for repetition by supervisors to employees. Rather,
we adhere to the reasoning of Parker-Robb that
"[n]o matter what the employer's subjective hope
or expectation, that, circumstance cannot change
the character of its otherwise lawful conduct." Id.
We shall therefore dismiss that portion of,the com-
plaint.4
2. Under a contract the Respondent has with a
uniform rental service, certain employees in the
Respondent 's maintenance and foam department
are eligible to have half their uniform rental fees
paid by the Respondent. Prior to October 1978 the
Respondent's contribution applied to a maximum of
seven uniforms, but under a new contract executed
12 October, nine uniforms were available to eligible
employees under the shared-cost arrangement, The_
judge found that the additional uniform allowance
conferred a benefit on employees to discourage
them from supporting the Union. We disagree.
In finding that the Respondent increased uni-
forms benefits, the judge compares the terms of the
4 The judge found that Plant Manager James Van Hooser unlawfully
interrogated employee Nelson McDaniel and that Supervisor Larry vine
unlawfully interrogated employee Harold Mills We find it unnecessary
to decide whether these interrogations violated the Act as the findings
would be cumulative and not affect the remedy or the Order
1570 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
new service agreement, which contains a provision
for employer-employee rate allocation, with the
prior agreement which does not. The absence of a
rate-sharing provision in the prior service agree-
ment does not, however, imply that the Respond-
ent increased its pro rata contribution when it re-
negotiated with the supplier. It is the uncontrovert-
ed testimony of Administrator Howard Grote that
the Respondent was continuing a practice that had
been in effect for at least 7 years of contributing
one-half of the rental fee for eligible employees.
Moreover, both the Employer and employee were
required to pay a higher fee per rental. Thus, the
only additional allowance an eligible employee re-
ceived under the new contract was a one-half em-
ployer contribution for two uniforms, if he chose
to order those additional uniforms-this was offset
to some extent by his own increased contribution
to the total rental fee.5 We find, contrary to the
judge, that such a nominal subsidy does not rise to
the level of a "benefit" to influence employees'
freedom of choice in an election. Accordingly, we
shall dismiss that portion of the complaint.6
3. Having found, in agreement with the judge,
that the General Counsel failed to demonstrate the
Union's majority status, we find a bargaining order
inappropriate. Accordingly, we shall direct a
second election and issue an Amended Conclusion
of Law, a Remedy, and a new Order and notice to
employees.
AMENDED CONCLUSION OF LAW
Substitute the following for paragraph 5.
"5. By threatening employees with discharge,
plant closure, withholding pay increases, more
rigid enforcement of company rules, and other dis-
ciplinary action; by informing employees that the
Company would not negotiate with the Union, and
threatening them that a strike was inevitable if the
employees selected the Union as their bargaining
representative; by promulgating, maintaining, and
enforcing rules prohibiting the distribution of union
literature and solicitation on behalf of the Union on
company time and property for the purpose of in-
hibiting employees' lawful union activities; by more
stringently enforcing workbreak rules, including
prohibiting employees from sending out for food
during workbreaks; by promising employees bene-
5 For example, under the prior service agreement , the Employer and
employee contributed equally to a rate of $3 30 for seven suits, but the
employee paid an additional $1 10 for two more suits ordered for the
same week Under the new contract, the Employer and employee con-
tribute equally to a $3 45 rental fee for seven suits and an additional $1 15
for two more suits The net gain to the employee under the new contract
is $ 45, realized only if the employee orders nine uniforms per week
6 Member Dennis, dissenting, would affirm the judge's finding of an
unlawful grant of benefit
fits to discourage union support; by soliciting and
offering to correct grievances from employees to
discourage their participation in union activities,
and by soliciting employees to persuade others to
vote against the Union; by informing employees to
persuade others to vote against the Union; by inter-
fering with the processes of the National Labor
Relations Board by informing employees that they
did not have to meet with agents of the Board; by
interfering with the lawful union activities of its
employees and those of the union representatives;
and by interrogating employees concerning their
union sentiments and activities; the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act."
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged
in certain unfair labor practices, we find it neces-
sary to order the Respondent to cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action de-
signed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having discriminatorily discharged Kenneth
Gray Wiggins and having unlawfully denied work
to Fred Wright on 6 December 1978, we find it
necessary to order that the Respondent offer Wig-
gins immediate and full reinstatement and offer
Wiggins and Wright backpay computed on a quar-
terly basis, plus interest as prescribed in F. W.
Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida
Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977).' We shall also
order the Respondent to remove from its files any
reference to the unlawful discharge of Kenneth
Gray Wiggins and to notify him in writing that it
has been done and that the discharge will not be
used against him in any way.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge as modified below and orders that the Re-
spondent, Reeves Brothers, Inc., Cornelius, North
Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall take the action set forth in the Order as
modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(a).
"(a) Threatening employees with discharge, plant
closure, withholding pay increases, more rigid en-
forcement of company rules, and other disciplinary
action; informing employees that the Company
would not negotiate with the Union, and threaten-
ing them that a strike was inevitable if the employ-
ees selected the Union as their bargaining repre-
sentative; promulgating, maintaining, and enforcing
rules prohibiting the distribution of union literature
' See generally Isis Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962)
REEVES BROS.
and solicitation on behalf of the Union on company
time and property for the purpose of inhibiting em-
ployees' lawful union activities; more stringently
enforcing workbreak rules, including prohibiting
employees from sending out for food during work-
breaks; promising employees benefits to discourage
union support; soliciting and offering to correct
grievances from employees to discourage their par-
ticipation in union activities, and soliciting employ-
ees to persuade others to vote against the Union;
interfering with the processes of the National
Labor Relations Board by informing employees
that they did not have to meet with agents of the
Board; interfering with the lawful union activities
of its employees and those of the union representa-
tives; and interrogating employees concerning their
union sentiments and activities."
2. Insert the following as paragraph 2(b) and re-
letter the subsequent paragraphs.
"(b) Expunge from its files any reference to the
discharge of Kenneth Gray Wiggins and notify him
in writing that this has been done and that evi-
dence of this unlawful action will not be used as
the basis for any future actions against him."
3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
administrative law judge.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election con-
ducted 6 December 1978 in Case 11-RC-4592 is
set aside and that a new election be held as direct-
ed below.
[Direction of Second Election omitted from pub-
lication.]
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT discharge employees, deny them
work, discipline, or otherwise punish or discrimi-
nate against them because of their union sympa-
thies, activities, or protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with plant
closure if Amalgamated Clothing and Textile
Workers Union, AFL-CIO, CLC should win a Na-
tional Labor Relations Board-conducted election,
nor will we threaten them with discharge, more
rigid enforcement of company rules, the withhold-
ing of pay increases, or other disciplinary action
because they supported the Union, engaged in
union activities, or attended union meetings.
1571
WE WILL NOT threaten employees that the Com-
pany will not negotiate with the Union, or that a
strike is inevitable if our employees select a union
as their bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT promulgate, maintain, or enforce
rules prohibiting union solicitation or the distribu-
tion of union literature on company time and prop-
erty for the purpose of inhibiting our employees'
lawful union activities.
WE WILL NOT more stringently enforce our rules
concerning workbreaks, nor will we promulgate
new rules for the purpose of inhibiting or prevent-
ing our employees' lawful union activities.
WE WILL NOT promise our employees benefits
for the purpose of discouraging them from support-
ing the Union or withdrawing their union support.
WE WILL NOT solicit grievances from our em-
ployees for the purpose of discouraging their par-
ticipation in union activities, nor will we unlawful-
ly solicit them to persuade other employees to vote
against the Union in an election.
WE WILL NOT interfere with the processes of the
National Labor Relations Board, an agency of the
United States Government, by informing employ-
ees that they do not have to meet with agents of
the Board.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our emloyees concern-
ing their union sympathies or activities, nor will we
interfere with the lawful union activities of our em-
ployees or union representatives.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, to engage in other protected concerted activi-
ties for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from
any and all such activities.
WE WILL offer Kenneth Gray Wiggins immedi-
ate and full reinstatement to his former job or, if
that job no longer exists , to a substantially equiva-
lent position, without prejudice to his seniority or
other rights or privileges and WE WILL make Ken-
neth Gray Wiggins and Fred Wright whole for any
loss of earnings they may have suffered as a result
of our discrimination against them less any interim
earnings, plus interest.
REEVES BROTHERS, INC.
Paris Favors Jr., Esq., Steven Kennedy, Esq., and Ann
Wall, Esq., for the General Counsel.
George B. Smith, Esq., and E. Bruce Mather, Esq. (Con-
stangy, Brooks & Smith), of Atlanta, Georgia, for the
Respondent Employer.
1572 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Henry N. Patterson Jr., Esq. (Smith, Patterson, Folhn,
Curtis' & dlarkavy), of Raleigh, North Carolina, John
Kissack and Willie J. Smith, of Charlotte, North Caro-
lina, for the Charging Party Petitioner.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RICHARD L. DENISON, Administrative Law Judge.
This consolidated proceeding was heard at Statesville,
North Carolina, on September 17-21 and 24-28 and Oc-
tober 15-16, 1979; April 7-9, 1980; and January 26 and
27, 1981. The result was a transcript of approximately
3000 pages and 400 exhibits.
The charges in Cases 11-CA-7824, 1l-CA-7939, 11-
CA-8051, 11-CA-8082, 11-CA-8475, and 11-CA-9157
were filed on August 24, October 25, and December 21,
19,78;-January 5 and 13, 1979; and May 20, 1980, respec-
tively. The charges in Cases 11-CA-7824, 11-CA-7939,
11-CA-8051, and 11-CA-8082 were subsequently
amended on October 18 and November 8, 1978; and Feb-
ruary 1 and 28, 1979, respectively. The initial complaint
in Case 11-CA-7824 was issued on October 31, 1978.
The consolidated complaints, as amended, alleged viola-
tions of Section 8(a)(1), (3), (4), and (5) of the Act set in
the context, and aftermath, of the Charging Party-Peti-
tioner's organizational drive and election campaign in the
summer and autumn of 1978.1 This organizational effort
culminated in a representation election conducted under
the supervision of the Regional Director for Region 11
on December 6, which the Charging Party-Petitioner
lost On December 11 the Union filed timely objections
to conduct affecting the results of the election. On
March 6, 1979, the Regional Director issued a Supple-
mental Decision, Direction and Order Consolidating
Cases, which consolidated Case 11-RC-4592 with the
unfair labor practice cases listed above. He also directed
a consolidated hearing with respect to the overlapping
issues raised by Petitioner Objections 1, 4, 7-13, 15, 17-
19, 22, 24, 25, 27, and 31, and other acts, which at the
hearing the General Counsel contended directly corre-
spond in each instance with certain allegations of unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint. The General
Counsel further contends that the Respondent's allegedly
unlawful conduct, undermined and destroyed, the majori-
ty status allegedly achieved by the Union, thereby war-
ranting, as part of the remedy sought, the setting aside of
the December 6 election and the issuance of a bargaining
order in accordance with the United States Supreme
Court's decision in Gissel Packing Co., 395 U S. 575
(1969)
The Respondent's answers, as amended, deny the alle-
gations of unfair labor practices alleged in the consolidat-
ed complaints and the allegedly objectionable conduct
attributed to the Respondent by the Charging Party-Peti-
tioner's objections.'
i All dates are 1978 unless otherwise specified
2 The Respondent's answers to the second and third consolidated com-
plaint raise for the first time a "second defense" and "third defense"-the
alleged failure of the Board's representatives to properly investigate the
allegations of the complaint and allow the Respondent sufficient opportu-
nity to respond, and the contention that no charge was filed and the Re-
On the entire record in the case, including my obser-
vation of the witnesses ' and consideration of the argu-
ments and briefs, totaling approximately 350 pages, I
make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
The complaints, as amended, allege, and the answers,
as amended, admit that at all times material herein the
Respondent is, and has been, a New York corporation
with two plants located in Cornelius, North Carolina,
where it is engaged in the manufacture of chemical foam
products. During the past 12 months, a representative
period, the Respondent received goods and raw materials
valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside
the State of North Carolina. During the same period of
time the Respondent manufactured and shipped, directly
to points outside the State of North Carolina, products
valued in excess of $50,000. The Respondent is now, and
has been at all times material herein, an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION
The Charging Party-Petitioner , the Union , is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the
Act.
III. SUPERVISORY STATUS
A. Stipulated or Admitted Supervisors
By reason of admissions in the Respondent's answers
and admissions and stipulations at other points in the offi-
cial record, I find that at all times material herein the fol-
lowing persons occupied the positions set opposite their
names and have been, and are now, agents of the Re-
spondent acting on its behalf and are supervisors within
the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.
John Reeves
Warren Pollock
Mary Wilhelm
Gerald Reott
Jim VanHooser
Richard Gibbs
Eric Christenbury
President
Carolina Group President,
and Corporate Executive
Vice President
Director of Employee
Relations, Curon Division
Plant Manager, Cornelius
Plant
Plant Manager, Carolina
Plant
Automotive Production,
Manager
Assistant Personnel
spondent had no opportunity to respond with respect to certain specified
allegations Thereafter , however, the Respondent` did not renew these ad-
ditional defenses in its answers to the fifth order consolidating cases,
amended consolidated complaint and notice of hearing , a cumulative doc-
ument containing all the General Counsel 's allegations as of August 24,
1979 Nor did the Respondent renew these defenses in its answer to the
complaint in Case 11 -CA-9157 or at any other subsequent time I there-
fore find Respondent 's second and third defenses, referred to above, to
have been abandoned
REEVES BROS.
John Blakeley
Gary Barrett
Bill Overcash
Bob Stancil
Wayne Atkins
Thad Blackwelder
Larry Buie
Ray Childress
Jep Hooper
Marvin Johnson
Dean Middleton
Bill Moser
Willie Pryor
Alvin Rivers
Joe Smart
Gary Stewart
Russell Thomas
Norman Williams
Manager
Manufacturing
Superintendent
Department Manager
Maintenance Department
Manager
Department Manager
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor, Rebonding and
Molding
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor, Block Storage
Supervisor
Supervisor
B. Leadmen
The resolution of a threshold issue, whether or not the
Respondent's 37 leadmen are supervisors within the
meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act, is crucial to the res-
olution of some of the more important issues in this case.
This question was litigated to a limited extent at the Oc-
tober 16, 1978 representalion hearing in Case I1-RC-
4592. Subsequently, in a decision and direction of elec-
tion dated November 9, 1978, the Regional Director
found, based on that R case record, that leadmen were
not supervisors and were eligible to vote in the election.
The Respondent's request for review of the Regional Di-
rector's decision was denied by the Board. Since the in-
stant proceeding contains issues unrelated to the issues in
the representation case, the status of the leadmen is a
proper subject for relitigation. Serv-U-Stores, 234 NLRB
1143, 1144 (1977).3 In such situations, "the Board may
accord a certain persuasive relevance, a kind of adminis-
trative comity to the prior representation case findings
subject to reconsideration and to any additional evidence
adduced in the unfair labor practice case."4 Consequent-
ly, in the instant proceeding the Respondent-Employer
has renewed its contention that the leadmen are supervi-
sors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act, and
it is therefore necessary to examine in considerable detail
all the evidence concerning their status.
In the instant case the transcript of the representation
hearing in Case 11-RC-4592 was introduced into evi-
dence as Joint Exhibit 1. This document contains the fol-
lowing evidence on which the Regional Director based
his decision that leadmen were not supervisors.
Reeves Brothers, Inc. manufactures chemical foam
products at two plants located in Cornelius, North Caro-
lina, utilizing approximately 650 hourly employees. The
a See also Air Transit, 256 NLKB 278 ( 1981), Hedison Mfg Co., 249
NLRB 791 (1980), Stanley Air Tools, 171 NLRB 388 , 389 (1968 ), Clothing
Workers (Spruce Pine) v NLRB, 365 F 2d 898 , 904-905 (D.C Cir 1966)
4 Air Transit, and Clothing Workers, supra
1573
operations at the Carolina plant are directed by Plant
Manager James VanHooser, with the assistance of three
subordinate levels of management: department managers
(foaming, traffic, manufacturing, maintenance, and
rebond), 11 supervisors, and 30 leadmen. No classifica-
tion of foreman exists. Gerald Reott, plant manager of
the Cornelius plant, testified that the management struc-
ture there is the same, where seven leadinen exercise the
same authority over their crews as that possessed by
their counterparts at the Carolina facility.
James VanHooser further testified that although only
the departent managers had authority to terminate em-
ployees, leadmen were responsible for their crews, and
initiated discipline, pay changes, and bidding procedures.
Leadmen could order an employee to clock out and go
home pending a final discipline decision. They also initi-
ated leaves of absence, which were ultimately approved
or disapproved by the department manager and the plant
manager. He stated that leadmen were considered first-
line supervisors and management throughout the Compa-
ny, as illustrated by the fact that leadmen attended and
participated in the management course on the Company's
policy book, designed to ensure uniform interpretation of
policy throughout the Company. The Carolina plant oc-
cupies about 300,000 square feet. Consequently, the de-
partment managers depend heavily on the leadmen to
direct the work of their employees at widely separated
stations. Supervisors are salaried . Leadmen are paid
hourly and receive the same insurance , hospitalization,
and vacation benefits as the rank-and-file employees. Su-
pervisors' benefits differ. Leadmen attend supervisors'
meetings called by the department managers. Some" lead-
men and supervisors are selected to attend outside
courses. Openings for the job of leadman are posted,
while supervisors' jobs are not. Leadmen interview pro-
spective employees and make recommendations concern-
ing hiring. A leadman's recommendation concerning
hiring, firing, discipline, and promotions would usually
be followed. Normally an employee could not be hired
or promoteld without being recommended for such by
his leadman.
The only other witness who testified for the Company
at the representation hearing was Julius Craton, who had
been a leadman in the maintenance department of the
Carolina plant for about 4 years under Department Man-
ager Bill Overcash. There were no foremen in the main-
tenance department. Craton was paid hourly . His superi-
ors were salaried. There were a total of six leadmen in
the maintenance department. Craton selected and as-
signed the men in his crew to specific jobs, deciding
whether one or more persons would be used for a par-
ticular job. If necessary to get the work done, based on
his independent judgment, he had authority to reassign a
member of his crew from a job on which he was work-
ing to another job. He interviewed applicants for jobs
and approved or disapproved them after the interview.
Two persons whom he approved were hired. One person
whom he had not approved was also hired. He testified
that leadmen conducted safety meetings in rotation with
supervisors and gave specific instructions to employees
concerning safety. He also gave specific instructions to
1574 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
his employees on how they should or should not perform
their work and the employees were expected to follow
these instructions. Craton attended periodic meetings
with Department Manager Overcash, where work that
needed to be done was discussed, planned, scheduled,
and where problems relating to equipment were re-
viewed. These meetings took place approximately once a
month. Craton participated in a management course on
the Company's policies book, attended by approximately
20 leadmen and supervisors, lasting, about a week. Craton
had authority to recommend promotions and did so in
three instances. He issued a written warning to employee
Steve Knox, after cautioning Knox that Reeves fired
people for "laying out." Although Overcash had author-
ized the issuance of the warning on Craton's recommen-
dation, he was not present during the conference with
Knox at which Craton counseled Knox and gave him the
warning. Craton also cited an instance where one of his
employees requested and received a transfer to the third
shift following Craton's favorable recommendation to
Overcash, Craton further stated that he did not need to
get approval from Overcash on routine matters, but did
need Overcash's approval on more important matters
such as procuring parts for repairing a major breakdown.
When he first became a leadman , Craton was told that
his job responsibility was to keep the equipment running.
He obtained his leadman's job by bidding for it on a
posted bid sheet, while supervisors obtained their pos-
tions by a different procedure. He received the same va-
cation, hospitalization, and insurance benefits as other
employees in his department. Supervisors had different
benefits. He testified that he wore the same clothing and
had the same lunch period as the other mechanics, while
supervisors received a full hour. He did not fill out goal
reports, as did supervisors. -He claimed he did not have
authority to adjust grievances, but also testified that he
helped employees adjust problems. Craton did not pre-
pare employee evaluations or appraisals, but keep a
record of his employees' time which he was required to
turn in weekly to Overcash. Craton received 50 to 60
cents an hour more than his crew members. He had on
several occasions recommended promotions of employ-
ees in his crew. Some were promoted and some were
not.
David' Cook, one of the Charging Party-Petitioner's
leading- activists and authorization card solicitors, testi-
fied as the Petitioner's only witness at the representation
hearing.- In many instances his responses were pursuant
to leading questions. Cook was also a leadman in the
maintenance department under Overcash. When he ac-
ceded to this, position he was not told in so many words
whether or not it was a supervisory position, but was in-
structed that it was his job to make sure the assigned
work was done.-' Cook testified that although he had no
5 Cook attempted to explain why he did not really want the leadman's
job, but was interrupted by counsel before he could state his reasons
Cook's testimony as a'whole, including that given during the unfair labor
practice proceeding, as subsequently discussed, strongly suggests that
Cook's reason may have been a dislike of exercising authority over those
employees with whom he had previously worked as an equal
authority to hire or fire, he did recommend who should
be hired or fired. He stated that he had no authority to
discipline and never gave any of his crew members writ-
ten warnings or granted them time off. He was once rep-
rimanded by Overcash for undertaking a job without
Overcash's instructions. He did not have authority to
transfer employees, give them or promotions, or excuse
absences or lateness. He attended supervisors' meetings,
but the supervisors also held other meetings among
themselves. He did not have an office or an assigned
desk and did not schedule his own hours. Supervisors
had assigned parking places. Leadmen did not. Supervi-
sors received 1 hour for lunch, while leadmen were
given 20 minutes. Although he did not have authority to
clock an employee out, grant a leave of absence, or
excuse lateness, he did keep and submit a record of his
employees' time and reported to Overcash on the
progress of new employees assigned to his crew. Cook
testified that the first occasion on which he was told spe-
cifically that he was a supervisor was 3 weeks before the
representation hearing in a meeting with Company At-
torney Smith, Plant Manager VanHooser, and Supervi-
sor Overcash.6 However, Cook also testified that 2 years
before, Project Crew Supervisor Marlow (for whom
Cook worked as a leadman) left Respondent's employ,
and was not replaced, leaving only one supervisor in
maintenance (Overcash), where before there had been
two. Most supervisors, he stated, wore dress pants and a
tie, while he wore work pants and a work shirt. Both the
shirts he wore and those wom by the supervisors, unlike
the rank-and-file employees, have their names embroi-
dered on them. Cook held safety meetings and signed ac-
cident reports. Cook was in charge of the special
projects crew responsible for various types of special as-
signments, including plant alterations and conversions.
The nature of this work required Cook and his crew, on
occasion, to make trips to other plants and facilities. One
such trip, accompanied by a plant engineer, occupied his
crew for 6 to 8 months. Some of these projects necessari-
ly involved the use of considerable independent judg-
ment. Cook admitted that he attended monthly planning
sessions with Overcash and the other leadmen to discuss
work plans and problems. He recalled recommending
one of his employees for a raise, which the employee re-
ceived. Cook was paid 50 to 60 cents per hour more than
his crew members. He was left completely in charge of
his operation when Overcash was out of town. However,
in the case of an emergency or major breakdown he
would consult the assistant plant manager or VanHooser
himself before directing the-repairs. He could requisition
routine supplies but did not order large quantities of sup-
plies on his own and would not order tools on his own
when Overcash was out of town. When Overcash was
present Cook would be told which jobs to perform'iand
the order in which they were to be performed. When it
was necessary to work overtime Overcash made the' de-
cision, but Cook selected the employees. If he needed
extra men he had independent authority to obtain them
5 This conference is the subject of further extensive discussion at other
points in this decision
REEVES BROS.
from leadman Craton's crew. Toward the end of his tes-
timony Cook stated that he did not attend the superviso-
ry training session which Craton attended, but did attend
a session for leadmen and supervisors with respect to the
company insurance program in order that he. could
answer his employees' questions about it.
The above discussion concludes the summary of the
abbreviated testimony offered at the representation hear-
ing with respect to the leadman issue . At the conclusion
of that hearing the parties stipulated that there were 37
leadmen at the two plants, and that they perform essen-
tially the same duties, had the same authority, and that
the testimony presented concerning their status applied
equally to all leadmen . The following paragraphs contain
a comprehensive review of the evidence offered con-
cerning this issue during its relitigation in the subsequent
unfair labor practice proceeding now before me.
When called as a witness by counsel for the General
Counsel, David Cook testified further, and in greater
detail, that he has worked for Reeves Brothers for 10
years. He is a leadman over the special projects crew in
the maintenance department which handles special as-
signments at other company locations , including other
States. An example of one such assignment was an occa-
sion in which Cook's crew was sent to remove machin-
ery from a plant in New Jersey. After Overcash talked
to Cook about what he wanted done, Cook selected the
men who would accompany him, went to New Jersey,
and independently directed the completion of the work.
Cook conceded that his duties as a leadman include di-
recting the inspection of equipment and facilities and
scheduling and organizing of work. However, he had to
get the supervisor's approval to install or fabricate new
equipment, or to relocate or modify existing equipment.
He insisted that he did not order anything without Over-
cash's approval, nor did he have the responsibility of
"supervising" the maintenance employees on his shift. He
agreed that he kept his employees' time and wrote down
the number of hours each of his crew members worked,
which form he signed and gave to Overcash. He agreed
that he had the responsibility of ensuring the safe' work
habits of his crew and that he would verbally warn them
of safety hazards. He stated that he expected his crew to
follow his instructions concerning safety and that they
did so. He assigned them up to 2 hours' overtime. When
an employee was entitled to a pay raise, it was Cook's
responsibility to notify the supervisor that the employee
had served a sufficient period of time to be considered
for the raise. Cook testified that his supervisor then de-
termined whether that raise was to be granted.
According to Cook, 20 to 30 people in the mainte-
nance department work on three shifts. Overcash nor-
mally works from 8 to 5 p.m. daily and does not come in
for the second or third shift. Usually Overcash would
meet with Cook and give him an assignment , after which
Cook would meet with his crew and tell them what was
to be done. When something happened in the plant while
Overcash was not on duty, if it involved a lot of time or
money, Cook would call Overcash's home, wake him up,
and ask him what he wanted done. Cook had as many as
five employees in his normal crew. He had the key to
the supply room. He also had access to Overcash's office
1575
for the purpose of filling out reports and utilized Over-
cash's secretary for that purpose . As shown 'on Respond-
ent's Exhibits k-i and R-2, Cook signed these reports on a
line entitled, "Immediate Supervisor." Pursuant to author-
ity granted by Overcash, Cook held safety meetings. He
filled out accident reports. He could not remember
whether or not he had ever warned a crew member
about his performance in relation to company rules. He
testified that he could order small tools and supplies
without Overcash's approval, but could not recall there
being any dollar limit on this authority . Cook remem-
bered that one employee on his crew , at one time, did
not want to work overtime, and that after Cook told
Overcash he did not want the man on his crew , in a con-
ference in Overcash's office the employee was given the
choice of quitting or being fired . Further , Cook contra-
dicted his earlier representation case testimony to the
effect that he had authority to borrow men from other
crews. He stated that Overcash gave the job assignments
to the leadmen , indicating which jobs he wanted per-
formed. Cook insisted that he had nothing to do with the
vacations of his crew members and that it took about 10
minutes per week to perform the leadman responsibilities
with respect to his employees ' timecards . Cook stated
that he would ask Overcash whether he wanted employ-
ees to work more than 1 hour 's overtime. This statement
contradicts Cook's earlier testimony that he had inde-
pendent authority to assign up to 2 hours' overtime.'
Furthermore, according to Cook 's version, which
varies somewhat from the testimony of other witnesses,
on September 22, 1978, he was called to the conference
room by Overcash, where he also encountered James
VanHooser and Company Attorney George Smith. Ac-
cording to Cook, Smith asked if Cook , knew he was a su-
pervisor , to which Cook responded no he was a lead-
man. Smith answered no, in his case they spelled super-
visor with a small "s," and in Overcash 's case they
spelled it with a large "S." Smith asked if Cook was for
the Union and Cook said he was. Then Smith asked how
many union meetings he bad attended, and Cook an-
swered he had gone to all of them but did not know
how many. Smith asked how many signed cards Cook
had solicited and Cook answered he did not know. Smith
did not ask for employees ' names. Smith questioned
Cook concerning whether he had solicited card signa-
tures on company time and property, or at people's
homes. Cook replied at "various places." The conversa-
tion with Smith ended when Cook became angry over a
remark by Smith , which Cook interpreted as impugning
his intelligence for going around the plant getting cards
signed. Then VanHooser stated that he wanted to
remind Cook again that Cook was a supervisor and was
not allowed to attend union meetings , solicit cards, or
' Cook frequently attempted to downplay his authority by the use of
qualifying phrases, e g, "sometimes ," "at times." In my view, he clearly
was attempting to tell a "winning story" on the Leadman issue because he
realized its importance to the interests of the Charging Party I am per-
suaded that, unlike his testimony on other issues , he was not candid in
important areas of his testimony on the leadman question, as emphasized
by the previously noted contradictions and the testimony of other more
credible witnesses For these reasons I do not credit his testimony, when
disputed , on this issue.
1576 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
have anything to do with the Union on penalty of dis-
charge. Cook insisted that this was the first occasion in
which the term "supervisor " was used in connection
with a description of his job.
On September 27, 1978, Overcash paged Cook to
come to VanHooser 's office. When the two men arrived,
VanHooser stated he wanted once again to warn Cook
that he was a supervisor and could not have anything to
do with the Union. VanHooser reiterated this theme on
October 17, 1978, the day after the representation hear-
ing, when he took Cook to his office and admonished
Cook that he had said some things at the hearing he
should not have said , and left out some things he should
have said. Cook answered that he had told the truth, but
that VanHooser had left out and added things. Van-
Hooser again reminded Cook that he was a supervisor.
The conversation was continued on November 16, 1978,
after the Company had received the Regional Director's
decision and direction of election . VanHooser told Cook
that he guessed Cook knew about the Labor Board deci-
sion. Cook said , "yes." Van Hooser remarked that the
matter was far from resolved , and that he did not care
what the Labor Board said because Cook was still a su-
pervisor in his opinion.8
Julius Craton also gave additional evidence as a wit-
ness for the General Counsel . He reiterated his earlier
testimony concerning having attended a weeklong set of
sessions on the Company 's policies in which leadmen, su-
pervisors , and managers participated . He stated that he
had authority to authorize overtime up to 2 hours. If a
breakdown occurred , he did not send his men home, but
kept them at work until the machine was repaired. He
remembered signing two warning notices concerning em-
ployees who had caused him difficulty, but in only one
such instance had it been necessary for him to have prior
authorization from Overcash . This was an incident in-
volving Steve Knox.
He further testified that on September 26, 1978, Over-
cash instructed him to report to the conference room
where he found Company Attorney George Smith,
James VanHooser , and a man identified as Smith's son,
waiting to interview him in Overcash 's presence. Over-
cash did not speak Smith began the interview by asking
if Craton had signed a card and attended meetings.
Craton said he had. Then Smith asked if Craton had
handed out cards to people, or received cards from
anyone. Craton replied he passed out cards, but had not
received any. Smith did not ask for the names of any em-
ployees who had received cards or attended meetings.
Then VanHooser told Craton at that time that the Com-
pany considered him to be a supervisor, and if he went
to another union meeting he would be terminated.
Craton insists that he had never been called a "supervi-
sor" prior to that date. He further stated that around the
first of August 1979, VanHooser offered him a job classi-
5 The conversations between company officials and leadmen concern-
ing the Respondent 's view of their status and obligations toward the
Company not to engage in union activities are the subject of certain
unfair labor practice allegations to be discussed in a later section of this
decision and are included here only for consideration with respect to the
leadman issue.
fled as supervisor over his crew at which time the main-
tenance department leadman classification was abolished.
Jepty Hooper, manager of Respondent 's rebound pro-
gram until June 1979 when he accepted a position with
one of Respondent 's competitors , credibly testified that
he had been the immediate supervisor of leadman
Warren Brandon, who supervised a crew of 11 employ-
ees. Hooper 's credited testimony reveals that Brandon
had independent authority to grant time off, assign over-
time, assign work , transfer, and issue written warnings to
his employees . Brandon also made recommendations
concerning the hiring of personnel , which were fol-
lowed .9 Hooper testified that Brandon had had a couple
of employees fired . Hooper summarized his description
of Brandon 's duties as being responsible for production
and the quality of work on his crew.
Hank Childers was a leadman in the Respondent's
shipping department until he was promoted to supervisor
in 1978 He worked on the second shift from 4 p.m. to 12
a.m. His immediate supervisor was Mack Rivens.
Childers reported for work an hour early each day in
order to review what had to be done. He had authority
to grant time off to employees on his shift and issued
verbal and written warnings to the employees under him.
He interviewed applicants for employment and made
recommendations concerning hiring which were fol-
lowed He showed prospective employees the work in
the department for which they were being considered
and talked with them in the shipping office to see wheth-
er or not they were capable . His signature on the person-
nel card constituted a recommendation that he thought
the person could perform the job. Childers made up
work orders in the scheduling office and directed the
work of employees on his crew , who would not have
known what to do without his directions . In one instance
Childers hired an employee without any further approval
from Rivens. He also reviewed and made recommenda-
tions concerning whether or not an employee deserved a
raise.
Bill Burgess , who had been employed by the Company
for approximately 7 years, was originally called as a wit-
ness by the General Counsel. Subsequently, he credibily
testified that for 5 years prior to August 1979 he had
been a leadman in the electrical department over about
seven employees . He stated that he had authority to hire,
fire, assign work schedules, and grant time off. He could
issue verbal and written warnings and had done so. His
authority included the power to recommend promotions
or pay raises , and his recommendations were followed.
He attended meetings at which only supervisory person-
nel were present . He directed the work of his employees
placing them on specific jobs throughout the day. He
would independently assign them work, in accordance
with whomever he wanted on a particular job or ma-
chine. He assigned overtime and selected the crew mem-
bers who were to perform it. He prepared the mainte-
9 Brandon, who testified for the General Counsel on other aspects of
this case, was not questioned about his status by the General Counsel On
cross-examination he described how at times he stood by a railing in his
work area and watched his crew work Thus , Hooper's testimony about
Brandon is undisputed
REEVES BROS.
nance schedule. At times he conferred with Supervisor
Overcash concerning his duties, but at other times he
acted independently. Be remembered one instance 5
years before (thus at the very outset of his period of em-
ployment as leadman) when he recommended to Over-
cash that an employee be fired. That employee was fired
later on the day the recommendation was made without
any independent investigation by Overcash. Burgess
hired employee Swann McClure, following an employ-
ment interview by Burgess. Burgess had the authority to
assign any amount of overtime he desired in order to get
the job done. He stated that he would go from machine
to machine supervising his employees, but did not
engage in any physical work.
Clifford Sloop, an employee of the Respondent for 17
years, is a leadman in the maintenance department over a
crew of about 1 i employees. Sloop credibly testified that
when he was first made a leadman 16 years before, his
supervisor told him that, if anything came up, he was in
charge. Pursuant to that broad grant of authority, he had
independently allowed employees to take time off, grant-
ed vacations, assigned jobs, recommended hiring and
raises, issued verbal and written warnings , and hired and
fired employees. As a specific illustration of his hiring
authority, he testified that he hired -employee Hillard
Freeze, after interviewing him alone in his office. On
other occasions his supervisor has asked for his opinion
about other prospective employees, following which
Sloop would make a recommendation that was followed
"just about every time." Sloop also insisted that a lot of
his worktime was spent standing over members of his
crew watching and directing their work, rather than per-
forming work himself.
Bufford Howell, an employee with 8 years' experience,
bad been a leadman in UBK maintenance in Respond-
ent's Carolina plant for 6-1/2 years prior to August 1979.
Howell directed the work of a crew of four. He recom-
mended raises , gave warnings, ordered supplies up to a
value of $500, adjusted employees' grievances, set over-
time work, granted time off, and approved employees'
timecards. He testified that he never had occasion or
reason to fire anyone, but had authority to make recom-
mendations on hiring and firing. When a machine break-
down occurred, he had authority to order his men to
stay, there and fix it no matter how long it took. In
August 1979 Howell became a supervisor. He testified
that the only difference in his supervisory job now and
his former leadman's position was that at the time he
became a supervisor he received a key to the front door
and was assigned a parking space in front of the building.
Roy Wylie, a leadman with over 8 years' service with
the Company, credibly testified that he had authority to
give warnings, grant time off, and instruct employees
concerning their jobs. Be made recommendations con-
cerning hiring. He also had independent authority to
assign workers to work in other departments. He stated
that he would obtain the needed number of workers for
these reassignments by giving them the choice of work-
ing in the other department or going home. He also re-
called one occasion in which he exercised his authority
to grant time off.
1577
Ray Turner has served as a leadman for the Respond-
ent for approximately 6 years on the cutting line. This
operation is Respondent 's production line which turns
200-foot blocks of foam into finished furniture pieces. In
his credited testimony Turner described his job as being
"totally responsible" for producing quality foam to fill
the orders in the most efficient time wil h the help he had
available. He stated that he was the last to see the foam
and was responsible for any mistakes in an order which
left the plant. He had an exercised authority to repri-
mand employees, let them work in another department if
work was slack, and give them time off. Only if an em-
ployee desired to be off for 2 or more days did Turner
consult his supervisor before taking action. Turner testi-
fied that he made recommendations concerning hirings
and firings and that in every case all such recommenda-
tions were followed. Likewise, he made recommenda-
tions concerning raises and promotions, all which were
followed . He possessed and exercised the authority to in-
dependently grant employees overtime. He testified that
although his department manager never specifically told
him he had authority to independently hire, Turner was
told that he was totally responsible for "everything that
happened on the line-quality, people, everything, and
that he was in control."
Billy Overcash, who is employed by Reeves as the
maintenance manager of the Carolina plant for the past 5
years, testified concerning the Company 's maintenance
operations . During the period of the union campaign
Overcash was the immediate superior of six leadmen,
whose responsibilities and authority he described. Julius
Craton directed the work of 10 to 12 employees who
performed day-to-day maintenance, troubleshooting, and
repairs on breakdowns . Bill Burgess ' crew of four men
performed the installation , troubleshooting , and repair of
all electrical equipment on all three shifts. Bufford How-
ell's crew of three to five men were responsible for day-
to-day maintenance and upkeep in the foam department.
David Cook's crew of three to five men performed spe-
cial projects which included the installation and modifi-
cation of equipment. Tim Reid's crew of five to seven
men repaired breakdowns and performed preventive
maintenance and repairs on the second shift. Bobby Wil-
cox's crew of three to five men performed the same
duties as Reid's crew, but worked on the third shift. Ac-
cording to Overcash, there was no difference among the
leadmen concerning their authority or basic responsibil-
ities. He stated that they had the responsibility of orga-
nizing , assigning, and supervising the work of the em-
ployees on their shifts. As representatives of management
in dealing with the employees , they had independent au-
thority to supervise their day-to-day work, schedule the
work, hire and fire, discipline, and grant overtime. They
also had authority to give disciplinary written warnings
and grant time off without pay. Pursuant to this author-
ity the leadmen performed paperwork with respect to
raises and work schedules and initialed their approval of
employees' timecards. He stated that he, knew that lead-
man Wilcox had in fact exercised his authority to termi-
nate an employee. He insisted that except for once or
twice a week, when he would meet and review the work
1578 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
schedule with the leadmen, they independently super-
vised the work of their crews consulting with Overcash
only when they deemed it necessary. He testified that
the leadmen can assign overtime even up to 10 or 15
hours, if necessary. According- to Overcash, all the six
leadmen referred to above were promoted to those jobs
during his tenure as maintenance manager, and that on
their accession to these positions he specifically told
them the scope of their responsibilities and authority, as
described above, including the fact that they were re-
sponsible for disciplining and supervising their employ-
ees.
Concerning the meeting he attended in late September
with each of the leadmen and Attorney Smith and Plant
Manager VanHooser in the conference room, Overcash
testified that the election campaign in 1978 was not the
first time the leadmen had been told they were part of
management and were not to participate in union activi-
ty. Overcash testified that during the 1978 meeting in
issue in this case leadmen were called to the conference
room one at a time and simply told by both Smith and
VanHooser that they were considered to be part of man-
agement and therefore could not participate in union ac-
tivities. VanHooser then added that the Company con-
sidered the leadmen part of management, but that a hear-
ing was coming up on the leadman situation after which
things might change. He recalled that only David Cook
had any response, which was that he would like to have
his lawyer present. Overcash noted that following the
conclusion of the union campaign leadmen , ceased being
called "leadmen" and are now called "supervisors." 10
Close analysis of the credible evidence concerning the
leadmen 's status reveals that this issue is really not a
close one. The problem presented stems, in my view,
from several factors including the fact that this issue has
now been litigated twice, once fully, once not. As noted
earlier the Board has held that in cases containing issues
similar to the instant case, supervisory status may be reli-
tigated and where the evidence as a whole justifies a
change, a contrary result is warranted. Thus, the parties
are not estopped in such situations, even if a comprehen-
sive record had-been made in the representation case.
Likewise, the Board has held that the Regional Direc-
tor's decision and direction concerning supervisory status
is entitled to "persuasive relevance." In Case 11-RC-
4592 the Regional Director found 'that the Respondent-
Employer's leadmen were not supervisors within the
meaning of the Act. This result is not surprising in view
of the testimony in the abbreviated record made in the
representation proceeding. Also, in many plants the clas-
sification "leadman" is a term utilized to designate an ex-
perienced employee whose responsibility is to work with
his crew, give them the benefit of his broad experience,
and relay to them orders from their actual supervisor.
Thus, there may be a tendency to view all employees
classed as "leadmen" as nonsupervisory. However, the
Board has held that nomenclature is not controlling, and
'0 VanHooser's testimony in the unfair labor practice case generally
corroborated that of Overcash Overcash impressed me as an honest wit-
ness whose testimony is supported by other witnesses who testified for
each side His testimony is credited except where otherwise indicated
that an employee's supervisory status depends on the
possession and exercise of the authority described in Sec-
tion 2(11) of the Act. It has also been held that the em-
ployee in question is a supervisor if he possesses and ex-
ercises only one of the attributes referred to in that sec-
tion of the statute.
Turning to an examination of the representation case
record introduced into evidence as Joint Exhibit 1, one
immediately notices that only 4 witnesses testified con-
cerning the status of some 37 leadmen in 2 plants com-
posed of approximately 650 employees. Two of these
witnesses were Plant Managers Reott and VanHooser,
who, although technically responsible for everything that
occurs in their respective plants, testified generally and
were clearly not familiar with the details of the hour-by-
hour, day-by-day responsibilities delegated to their first-
line supervision. The testimony of the Respondent's re-
maining witness, Craton, was inconclusive. Thus, in the
final analysis, the Regional Director's decision hinged on
the testimony of David Cook, the Petitioner's only wit-
ness, and one of its most ardent activists. Indeed, Cook's
was the only really detailed testimony in the entire rep-
resentation proceeding. Since representation hearings are
considered investigatory rather than adversary, Regional
Directors usually do not make credibility findings in de-
cisions and directions of election. Given this fact, and the
other circumstances mentioned above, it is understand-
able that the Regional Director here reached a result dif-
ferent from that which I now find to be appropriate. I
also note that the Regional Director did not have the
benefit, as I do, of Cook's later testimony on this issue,
clearly revealing his bias as illustrated by inconsistencies
and his progresively increasing downplay of his author-
ity, which I am persuaded was intentional. Nor did he
have available for his consideration the testimony of
Hooper, who now works for a competitor of the Re-
spondent, or of Overcash, Cook's immediate superior.
I realize that it may be suggested that the considerable
difference between the tenor of the representation case
record and the evidence presented at the unfair labor
practice hearing was caused by an alleged awareness on
the part of Respondent toward the importance of the
status of leadmen to the issues now before me, particular-
ly as they affect the Union's majority status. In my view,
such a contention does not withstand scrutiny. Had the
Respondent raised the leadman issue for the first time in
the unfair labor practice proceeding, its motive for doing
so might be suspect. However, the Respondent has con-
sistently maintained throughout that leadmen were super-
visors under the Act. There is credible evidence that this
status was acknowledged both orally and in writing prior
to the campaign. Accordingly, the Respondent had the
right to insist that its supervisors not participate in union
activity, and its meetings held between VanHooser and
Smith and the invidivual leadmen were designed to
attain that legitimate aim, not simply to set the stage for
litigation of the leadmen's status in the unfair labor prac-
tice case. No inquiry was made concerning the identity
of other active employees.
In summary, I am persuaded that the considerable dif-
ference in the tenor of the testimony in the representa-
REEVES BROS.
tion case from that in the unfair labor practice case
before me lies simply in the fact that the number of wit-
nesses presented in the latter proceeding reflects a truly
representative sampling , a true cross-section , of the re-
sponsibilities of the Company's first -line supervision;
while the quantity and quality of testimony presented in
the representation hearing does not. Just as public opin-
ion polls sometimes reach an erroneous consensus be-
cause of the lack of a representative sampling , I am con-
vinced that through no particular fault of anyone the
small number of witnesses presented in the representation
case where no burden of proof exists , coupled with the
bias of Cook, caused an incorrect result in the Regional
Director 's decision and direction concerning the lead-
men's status.
Section 2(11) of the Act defines a supervisor as
any individual having authority , in the interest of
the employer, to hire , transfer, suspend , lay off,
recall , promote , discharge, assign, reward, or disci-
pline other employees , or responsibly to direct
them, or to adjust their grievances , or effectively to
recommend such action , if in connection with the
foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of a
merely routine or clerical nature , but requires the
use of independent judgment.
Although it is well settled that the possession of only one
of these indicia is enough to justify a finding of supervi-
sory status , the credible evidence from the record as a
whole, as discussed above , shows that the Respondent's
leadmen possess a number of these indicia , including
some of those sometimes viewed as having greater sig-
nificance . Thus, Respondent 's leadmen direct the work
of their crews using considerable independent judgment
to accomplish the assigned tasks. Leadmen assign the
Work, assign overtime , grant time off and vacations, hire
and fire employees , and effectively recommend hiring
and firing , raises, and discipline, in accordance with the
exercise of their independent judgment . Their responsi-
bility is not limited to acting as mere conduits for trans-
mitting orders to their crews from higher supervision.
Thus, the more recent change in nomenclature redesig-
nating them "supervisors" instead of "leadmen " is simply
a reflection of their true status, not an effort by the Re-
spondent to "bootstrap" this issue. Because the parties
have stipulated that all leadmen had the same authority,
I find that all the Respondent 's 37 leadmen are supervi-
sors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. i 1
IV. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
John Kissack, assistant southern director for the
Union, testified concerning the origin of the Union's
campaign and about a number of significant events that
I have considered the question of the ratio of Respondent's supervi-
sors to employees in making this finding In the past the Board has some-
tunes found this factor to tip the scales one way or the other in close
cases. In my view , however , for the reasons previously stated, the issue is
not close, since on the basis of all the credited evidence leadmen possess
many of the indicia of supervisory authority delineated in Sec. 2(l1)
1579
occurred thereafter . His testimony, corroborated general-
ly by David Cook, Charles "Buddy" Martin , Douglas Pi-
guerra, Dexter Wilson , Julius Craton , William Steven
Knox, and others, is credited except where otherwise
noted. According to Kissack , the union campaign started
in mid-July 1978 when several Reeves employees called
Kissack's office for assistance in organizing a union. Kis-
sack dispatched International Representative Tom Barker
to the Cornelius area to talk with these people on July
10. Although Barker held a number of small group meet-
ings at the Tabor Inn and other locations, the first big
union meeting open to all employees was held on August
6 at the American Legion Hall in Cornelius . Barker, who
chaired the meeting , spoke first . 12 In his 20- to 25-minute
address he concentrated, generally, on the benefits of or-
ganization . He said that the Union felt that the product
made by Reeves was much more related to the automo-
bile industry, and they should think of themselves and
their earnings in terms of becoming more in line with
what the automobile workers earned and received as
fringe benefits. Barker explained the various methods of
organizing , including that of petitioning for a National
Labor Relations Board election if the Company would
not voluntarily recognize the Union or agree to a card
check.
Kissack was the second and final speaker. He told the
assembled employees that if they wanted to organize a
union, they should expect a very, very hard campaign.
He predicted that the Company would oppose the Union
strongly, and that normally in the southeastern area com-
panies employed one of four or five law firms who he
described as "very skilled and very ruthless" in cam-
paigning against the Union . He stated that in his experi-
ence they probably would be exposed to statements that
the plant would close or move , and that a concerted
effort would be made to create the impresion in their
minds that the only results of organizing would be to go
out on strike . He stated that in most union campaigns,
companies would say that the union members were out-
siders who were only there to get their dues money, and
that rumors might be created that the initiation fee
would be $10, $50, or $100. Kissack explained that the
Union's policy concerning initiation fees was that none is
charged during the campaign and even after the first
contract is signed with respect to the original employees.
After that , he said , a newly organized local union might
adopt bylaws which would set up an initiation fee up to
$35. Then, in response to a question by an employee con-
cerning whether union cards would be signed to get an
election , Kissack responded , "No, not at all. You are
signing these cards to obtain a union, to be represented
by a union , and we do not want anyone to sign a card
just to get an election ." Kissack continued , saying he
would prefer they not sign a card under those circum-
stances because it was the Union's intention to use the
cards to offer proof of their majority status to the Com-
pany for the purpose of obtaining recognition . 13 If nec-
12 Barker did not testify
is Kissack 's credited testimony about what he and Barker said about
the purpose for obtaining authorization card signatures is generally cor-
roborated by the testimony of the employee witnesses who attended this
meeting
1580 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
essary, he said, the cards would be shown to the Compa-
ny or, in case a card check was agreed to, to some out-
sider such as a minister or politician . At the conclusion
of Kissack's address , he asked the employees if they de-
sired to continue to organize and received approval from
the crowd through shouts of assent and applause. He
then directed their attention to a table containing stacks
of authorization cards. Those employees interested in
signing a card proceeded to the table and filled out the
cards as Kissack and Barker circulated among them pass-
ing out pens and pencils . Various employees requested
and received supplies of blank authorization cards for the
purpose of soliciting further signatures from fellow
workers not present. Then the meeting adjourned.
Kissack testified that there were several other meet-
ings after August 6, some of which he attended , but that
for much of the remainder of the campaign he was pre-
occupied with other union business . He did make occa-
sional appearances at the plant to assist in the distribution
of union leaflets . On September 20, 1978 , Kissack sent a
letter to the Company demanding recognition, and on
September 21 filed a petition in Case 11-RC-4592 seek-
ing a NLRB election in a unit of the Company's produc-
tion and maintenance employees.
B. Allegations Relating to Warren Pollock
The Company 's first major response on learning of the
existence of an organizational drive among its employees
was to hold a series of meetings with its employees for
the purpose of stating its position about the Union. At
each of these meetings the speaker was Carolina Group
President Warren Pollock, who is also an executive vice
president of the corporation . Thus, Fred Wright, a
member of David Cook 's first-shift special projects main-
tenance crew at the Carolina plant , remembered attend-
ing two company meetings , the first of which was held
on August 10 in the new canteen area of department 50.
Although Wright concedes that he did not remeber all
the many things Pollock said, he specifically recalled
Pollock walking back and forth beating the table as he
stated that he did not like the Union and was not going
to stand behind the door and watch the Union come in
and drive a wedge between the workers and manage-
ment. He also remembered that at a meeting in the con-
ference room of the plant on August 17 Pollock wanted
to know what was bothering the people , and "how come
we wanted a union." Pollock stated that he was going to
try and get it straightened out if he could . Then the em-
ployees raised complaints about their benefits claiming
their insurance plan was no good and that they had no
sick leave . Pollock wrote down the items the employees
mentioned and stated that he would try to get them
straightened out.
Donald Hager , who unloads chemical tank trucks on
first shift at the Carolina plant, testified that late in
August he attended a meeting in the conference room at
which the Union was mentioned , but most of the meet-
ing was devoted to Pollock's request that the employees
tell him their complaints . Some of the items raised were
the employees ' insurance and a request for 15-cent-per-
hour dirty pay for working in the UBK area. Hager
raised a complaint concerning a prior incident in Hager's
work history , and Pollock responded that Hager still had
his job. There were about 20 UBK employees present.
Julius S. Craton Sr . the leadman over the first-shift
conversion crew of nine employees , whose testimony
concerning the status of leadmen has been discussed ear-
lier, stated that he attended one company meeting exclu-
sively for the maintenance leadmen. At that time Pollock
stated the people who had started the union mess were
in the room , especially the projects crew, and that after
this mess was over they would all be gone. Pollock
talked further about the damage the Union could do to
the Company . Pollock was angry and started to leave
the room when leadman Bufford Howell handed Pollock
a list of grievances from his men. Pollock returned and
started going down the list , which included safety shoes
and uniforms . He said there was nothing he could do
about it at the present time, but he would look into the
matter . David Cook , the projects crew leadman also in
attendance at that meeting, remembered Pollock accus-
ing the leadmen of starting the Union. He specifically re-
called Pollock stating, "I can assure you when this
whole thing is over , the very ones that started it will be
somewhere else." Like Craton, Cook also remembered
Pollock making a specific reference to the projects crew
in identifying the group that started the Union.
Nelson McDaniel attended two meetings at which Pol-
lock spoke . The first was during the week of August 10
for the first- and third -shift maintenance and rebond em-
ployees. Pollock stated then he would fight the Union
any way he could , but McDaniel does not remember
anything else Pollock said at that time. A week later at a
meeting for the maintenance employees on August 17,
which McDaniel attended , Pollock said that he was
there to take their grievances and see what he could do
about them . McDaniel raised "about ten" grievances,
which Pollock wrote down and said he would check to
see what could be done about them. Charles "Buddy"
Martin also remembered Pollock asking for and writing
down employees' complaints at a meeting in the confer-
ence room on August 17.
Vernon McGraw, a UBK department employee at the
Carolina plant , attended a company meeting for employ-
ees in August held in front of the interline department,
attended by five or six departments , including UBK and
interline. Pollock stated then that they did not have- a
union in any of his plants and would not have and, if it
came to it they would close down and move elsewhere.
Burley Draughn, Kenneth Wiggins , and Vivian Batche-
lor also attended meetings in August at which they re-
member Pollock threatening plant closure or removal.
Batchelor remembered Pollock stating that "he would
hate to see Cornelius without a Reeves." Draughn and
Wiggins also remembered that Pollock's statements about
plant closure were made in conjunction with a - remark
about the foam business being very competitive.
Fred Wright further testified that about August 9 Pol-
lock called him and summoned him to his office at the
Cornelius plant where he told Wright, in the presence of
Curon Division Vice President Hubble, that he knew
Wright was the headman over the Union and was threat-
ening people. When Wright denied having made any
REEVES BROS
threats, Pollock told him to shut up and stated that
Wright thought he was a "big man," but that he was not.
David Cook further testified that he had seen a notice
signed by Pollock, dated May 22, 1979, posted on plant
bulletin boards advising employees that they were not le-
gally required to appear for pretrial interviews with
counsel for the General Counsel, because the letter some
employees had received from counsel for the General
Cousnel (reproduced on the top portion of the notice)
was not a subpoena. 114
Warren Pollock testified that during the month of
August he spoke at many meetings with various groups
of employees, beginning with an initial large group meet-
ing about August 3, within 2 days of first learning about
the commencement of the union campaign . This was a
large group meeting at which Pollock read a company
policy statement , not in evidence , explaining in no uncer-
tain terms that Reeves did not want a union in the plant.
Thereafter two series of smaller group meetings were
held among various groups of employees beginning
about August 10 and 17. The August 10 series of meet-
ings did not provide for employee response, as did those
held beginning about August 17. The meetings were
completed by the end of August or the first of Septem-
ber, During this time Pollock talked on an impromptu
basis with all the employees who worked at Reeves in
both plants. In some of the meetings the leadmen were
included but, in addition, about August 23 he held a sep-
arate meeting only for the leadmen.
Concering the August 10 series of meetings, Pollock
spoke without a text or notes for about 20 to 25 minutes.
He stated that he could not recall specifically what he
said, but that it was an educational, informational type
talk at which he reemphasized the Company's position
and acquainted the employees with certain facts he felt
they should know about the Union, together with his
"personal opinion on the various subjects." Pollock was
likewise unable to distinguish the statements he made at
one of these meetings from those made at another, al-
though he concluded that "they were very very substan-
tially the same." He said that the Company was, as a
matter of policy, not in favor of a unionized plant, and
that they would do everything that they legally could to
resist the Union. He said that many people were very
unknowledgeable with regard to the Union, and had no
contacts with unions . He explained the meaning of
checkoff, and that the employees had the right of free
choice. He mentioned that signing a union card was not
necessarily to ask only for an election but could be a le-
gally binding contract. He said that his experience in the
past with the Union was that the basic problem was they
created a wedge between management and the people,
which made it difficult to deal with the people and for
them to bring their problems to management . He also
said that the Union "wedged" between the people them-
selves because there were those in favor of the Union
and those who were not. He said that such dissension
had already arisen and that it was a conflict which exist-
ed in many plants.
14 In evidence as G C Exh 2
1581
With respect to the August 17 series of meetings, ac-
cording to Pollock, he told the employees, "There is
union activity taking place, which we are all aware of
and there are apparently problems that we are not aware
of, and while I cannot, since we are aware there is union
activity, I cannot make any promises or make any
changes in most areas, I would be interested in hearing
what your problems seem to be and what problems you
are having with our system." However, Pollock stated
that he could not recall anything else he said in this
series of meetings which took place over the next several
days. Following Pollock's opening remarks, the meeting
was thrown open for the employees to raise their prob-
lems and ask questions. He estimated that the number of
meetings held was more than 12 and less than 20. He re-
membered that the employees complained that reim-
bursement for insurance claims was being delayed exces-
sively. Pollock promised to investigate and do every-
thing they could to expedite that. Another complaint
concerned the bidding system in the plant and the fair-
ness in the way it was being administered, and he prom-
ised to look into that. As the complaints were raised,
Pollock wrote them down. Thereafter Pollock investigat-
ed the insurance matter and alerted the personnel depart-
ment to look into it. No changes were made in the bid-
ding procedure.
Pollock agreed that he held a meeting exclusively with
the maintenance leadmen in the conference room of the
Carolina plant about August 23. The meeting was exclu-
sively for the leadmen. Pollock emphasized that as of
that time he proceeded on the basis that the leadmen
were a part of management and directed the work force.
He noted that a majority of the complaints they were
having were coming from the maintenance area. He
agreed it was a fair characterization that he was angry
with the leadmen as a group and emphatically stated his
firm conviction that the maintenance leadmen were per-
forming acts to the detriment of the employees and at-
tributing those as orders coming from their supervisors.
Pollock expressed his displeasure with this and said that
he felt it was a great disloyalty. He accused the leadmen
of underhanded methods, which undermined not only
their supervisors but the Company and said that they had
misused their position of leadership to do that. He stated
that he did not think very much of their moral character
or their loyalties. According to Pollock, the meeting
lasted about 20 minutes during which time he did most
of the talking. He did not recall the exact words he used,
but did not deny referring to the leadinen as "back stab-
bers." He stated that most of the problems they had in
the past appeared to have been caused by this group of
people.
Thus, Pollock admitted soliciting employees' griev-
ances and complaints during the August 17 series of
meetings. By this conduct I find that lie, violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act as alleged in paragraph 8(a) of the
complaint. Likewise, Pollock did not deny threatening
the leadmen and the special projects crew in particular,
with discharge after the union mess was over. Although
I have found the leadmen to be supervisors within the
meaning of the Act, I nevertheless find that Pollock vio-
1582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lated Section 8(a)(1), as alleged in paragraph 8(j) of the
complaint, by making this statement . Because the record
shows that the leadmen attended the earlier series of
company meetings , along with rank-and-file employees,
and because Pollock 's threat of discharge specifically
was extended not just to the leadmen , but to the entire
special projects crew , I am persuaded that his remarks
were intended for repetition to the rank -and-file employ-
ees with the expectation that the threat would be re-
layed . However, I do not find that Pollock 's remarks to
the assembled leadmen constituted the creation of an im-
pression that their union activities were under surveil-
lance, as alleged in paragraph 8(k) of the complaint.
Pollock denied threatening the employees with plant
closure or plant removal during this series of meetings,
but admitted to making statements in which he "talked
about the competitiveness of the market." He denied
holding any employee meetings in October or December,
as testified to by Batchelor and Wiggins , respectively.
He also denied stating that he would hate to see Corne-
lius without a Reeves. I find that Wiggings and Batche-
lor were mistaken about the dates on which they attend-
ed company meetings . It is clear , however , from Pol-
lock's testimony that these employees attended at least
one meeting at which he spoke. It is likewise certain that
Pollock's memory concerning what he said at these
meetings is unclear , except in the most general terms. He
freely conceded and that he could not remember every-
thing he said . To have testified otherwise would have
defied credulity . On the other hand , Wiggins, Draughn,
Batchelor, and McGraw did not claim to remember ev-
erything Pollock said during the meetings they attended.
Thus, resolving the issue of credibility in this instance is
difficult and is , for the most part , a matter of judgment. I
am persuaded that it is more likely that each of these
four mutually corroborative witnesses remembered accu-
rately the single statement of Pollock to which they testi-
fied (especially a remark as devastating to them as a
threat of plant closure), than it is that Pollock could re-
member with assurance that at none of the many meet-
ings he held did he ever threaten to close the plant. Pol-
lock's voluntary remark on direct examination that he
did, however , talk about the competitiveness of the
market, reinforces this conviction . I find that the Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threaten-
ing plant closure , as alleged in paragraph 8(n) of the
complaint.
Pollock agreed that he had a 5-minute conference with
Fred Wright in his office in the presence of Hubble at
which he told Wright he would not tolerate his threaten-
ing an employee . According to Pollock, this alleged inci-
dent was reported to him by Employee Relations Direc-
tor Wilhelm . Pollock agreed that Wright denied having
engaged in this misconduct . Pollock asserts he also told
Wright he had the right to conduct any union activities
he chose , as long as they were legal . Pollock did not
deny telling Wright to shut up, or making the statement
that Wright was the head of the Union, or Wright
thought he was a big man but he was not. Pollock avoid-
ed addressing himself to these remarks by simply testify-
ing that he could not recall anything else being said. The
complaint does not allege this conversation as a violation
of the Act and, consequently, I find none. However, the
conversation ' has some significance as evidence concern-
ing other allegations in the complaint relating to Wright,
as discussed elsewhere in this decision.
I also find that the notice posted by the Respondent
over Pollock's signature , dated May 22, 1979, constitutes
unlawful interference with the Board 's procedures as al-
leged in paragraph 8(bb) of the complaint, because in my
view, it is clearly designed to convey to employees the
impression that the letter originated with the Union, not
with the Government , and that the Company discour-
ages their participation in the General Counsel 's pretrial
preparation.
Finally, employee William Steven Knox testified he
believed that prior to the union campaign employees
only had six holidays , but that sometime between Memo-
rial Day and the election he saw a notice posted on the
bulletin board stating in the future employees would re-
ceive Memorial Day . According to Knox, the notice also
said because the employees had missed receiving Memo-
rial Day that year, they would, for that year only, re-
ceive it at Christmas. Knox states he saw the notice on
the bulletin board next to the "old canteen ." Although
Knox was unable to identify a document showned to him
by counsel for the General Counsel as being the notice
to which he referred , the Respondent introduced into
evidence a notice dated July 27, 1978, signed by Pollock,
which precisely fit Knox's description . Pollock testified
the agreement to grant employees an additional holiday
was made just prior to the last corporate wage change,
which Pollock believed was July 1. In contradiction of
his earlier testimony concerning the Company's employ-
ee meetings, when he stated he first learned about the
Union a day or two prior to the August 3 meeting when
he read the policy statement, Pollock said that he first
gained knowledge of union activity at Reeves in Corne-
lius during the first week in July. According to Pollock,
the decision to grant employees an additional holiday
was a corporate decision , but that each division of the
corporation was permitted to select the holiday of its
choosing because of divisional and areas differences.
Thus, while the majority of the divisions selected the
day before Christmas , the Curon division selected Me-
morial Day. According to Pollock, the management
meeting, at which this selection took place, occurred
shortly after the agreement was made to grant a holi-
day.ts
Respondent Corporate President John Reeves and
Chairman of the Board Joe Moore, the participants in
that meeting, did not testify. Nevertheless, the burden of
establishing a violation of the Act rests with the General
Counsel . When faced with Pollock' s largely unrefuted
testimony concerning the circumstances which gave rise
to the additional holiday, the General Counsel made no
further effort to establish the precise date of the holiday
selection meeting . Thus, he has failed to prove that both
the decision and the selection of the holiday occurred
after the Respondent learned of the existence of the
15 That would place the time of the selection of Memorial Day very
close to the date on which Pollock testified the Company first learned of
the existence of the Union 's organizational drive
REEVES BROS.
union campaign . If both the decision and selection of the
holiday occurred prior to that knowledge , under the law
the Respondent was obliged to proceed with the grant-
ing and announcement of the holiday as - if the union
campaign had never occurred. On the other hand, if the
decision or selection of the holiday had occurred after
knowledge of " the union campaign , the Respondent
would have been legally obliged to postpone announcing
and granting the holiday, pending the outcome of the
election and , depending on the result , negotiations.
Therefore, I find that the General Counsel has failed to
meet its burden of proof on this issue, and paragraph 8(c)
of the complaint will be dismissed.
Paragraph 8(m) of the complaint alleges that the Re-
spondent conferred benefits on its employees in early Oc-
tober 1978 in an attempt to discourage them from sup-
porting the Union. This allegation has its origins at the
meeting held by Warren Pollock with the maintenance
leadmen, at the end of which Bufford Howell handed
Pollock a list of grievances , which Pollock then re-
viewed. Among the complaints which Pollock promised
to look into was the subject of uniforms . According to
Cook, thereafter he began receiving nine changes of uni-
forms for the same price he had been previously paying
for seven.
Howard Grote, Respondent 's, manager of administra-
tion , testified that the uniform rental service company,
which supplies the Respondent with its uniforms, ap-
proached the Respondent in October 1978 and said that
because of increased costs it was necessary to negotiate a
new service agreement . According to Grote, the Compa..
ny continued to pay one-half the uniform costs for "eligi-
ble employees ," which included the maintenance, foam,
block storage , and rebond employees. Other employees
paid 100 percent of the cost. This arrangement was con-
tinued under the terms of the renegotiated contract, but
the number of uniform changes per week for eligible em-
ployees was increased from seven to nine . A comparison
of Respondent 's Exhibit 12 with Respondent's Exhibit 13
shows that, aside from increased uniform rental rates, the
chief difference reflected on Respondent's Exhibit 12 is
item No . 10, a provision that Reeves Brothers would
henceforth share one-half the cost of nine suits for eligi-
ble employees . Respondent's Exhibit 13 does not contain
any such clause. It therefore appears, and I find, that the
eligible employees referred to above received increased
uniform benefits during the union campaign . In view of
Pollock's statement that he would look into the matter of
uniforms and other items contained in the maintenance
leadmen 's list of grievances, I find that the Respondent
did confer a benefit on certain of its employees in an
effort to satisfy their complaints and thereby discourage
them from supporting the Union in its organizational
drive, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
1583
C. Allegations Concerning Company Attorney George
Smith and Carolina Plant Manager James
VanHooser's
The testimony of leadmen David Cook and Julius S.
Craton Sr., relating their versions of separate interviews
on September 26 in the conference room of the Carolina
plant with Company Attorney Smith and Plant Manager
VanHooser, in the presence of Maintenance Supervisor
Bill Overcash, is set forth in detail in section III ,B of this
decision . According to Smith , he talked with Craton and
Cook and two other leadmen after he became convinced
that they were supervisors within the meaning of the
Act. During the interviews with Craton and Cook, Van-
Hooser and Overcash were present , but only Smith and
VanHooser spoke . With respect to Craton , Smith intro-
duced himself as the Company 's lawyer and stated he
was there for the purpose of looking into the question of
whether or not there had been supervisory participation
in the securing of union card signatures, which had been
submitted to the Labor Board in support of the Union's
petition for an election . Smith stated that this was the
first occasion that he had talked with Craton personally,
and that he did not tell them they had a right to leave or
remain or that no reprisals would be taken against them
for refusing to answer questions. Then Smith stated that
he was convinced Craton 's status as a leadman fell
within the definition of a supervisor under the control-
ling Federal law, and he asked if Craton had participated
in securing signed union cards. Craton responded he had,
and Smith asked how many signatures or signed cards he
had secured . Craton answered , "Two, four, six, eight, a
few." Smith thanked Craton and asked him if he had any
questions . Craton said he had none . Then VanHooser
stated , "Jude , as a member of management , and we con-
sider you a member of management; it's illegal for you to
participate in union activities, these union activities. If
managerial employees, and that includes you, do so, you
are subject to discipline up to and including discharge.
However, if you are found not to be a supervisor, then
forget all this, because it doesn 't apply to you." This
ended the interview.
Smith testified that the conversation with Cook was
the same concerning what both he and VanHooser said
to Cook, except for the following . Cook asked at the
outset of the interview if he could have his lawyer
present, and Smith replied that because they were talking
with him as a member of the Company's management
team , for the purposes of labor law he was Cook's
lawyer . In response to Smith's question concerning how
many union cards Cook had secured „ Cook responded,
"Oh, a few." Then Smith asked, "Ten? Tweleve?" and
Cook answered; "Something like that." Smith agreed
that Cook became irritated when Smith used the word
"stupid" in connection with his going around the plant
securing card signatures, and that he apologized for the
remark. The remainder of the interview , including Van-
Hooser 's comments , was the same as the statements made
to Craton.
16 At the time of his testimony in the unfair labor practice case, Van-
Hooser occupied the position of manufacturing manager
1584 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Both VanHooser 's version of these conversations and
that of Overcash concerning the interview with Cook
generally corroborates Smith 's account. To the limited
extent that Smith's testimony differs from Cook's, I
credit Smith 's somewhat more detailed account . In sec-
tion III ,B of this decision I have found that the Respond-
ent's leadmen have been , and are at all times material
herein, supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11)
of the Act. It is well settled that because, as part of man-
agement , supervisors owe allegiance to their employer,
they are excluded from the protection the Act affords
rank-and-file employees from discipline for engaging in
union activities . The sole exception to this principle is
when either supervisors are disciplined for refusing their
employer's demand to engage in unlawful activities
under the Act, or when the discipline or other action
taken toward the supervisor is otherwise designed to
clearly serve as an example to employees for the purpose
of inhibiting their lawful activity. I find that the conduct
of the Respondent , including specifically Attorney
George Smith , does not fall within this exception to the
general rule. The undisputed evidence shows that the
interviews with Craton and Cook were conducted pri-
vately in the conference room on a individual basis. Both
Attorney Smith and Plant Manager VanHooser clearly
avoided any references to the rank -and-file employees
and concentrated only on their concerns about the union
activities of the interviewee in the context of a cautiously
worded explanation of their views concerning his status.
Unlike Pollock 's angry and unguarded remarks to the
meeting of all the assembled leadmen , which contained a
threat to discharge the entire special projects crew when
the campaign was over , Smith 's questions and Van-
Hooser 's admonishment were clearly intended for the in-
terviewee 's ears alone . Nor was any reference made to
the fact that other leadmen had been or were being inter-
viewed in a similar manner . Under all these circum-
stances, I find that Attorney Smith did not violate the
Act by interrogating Cook and Craton 'on September 26,
as alleged in paragraph 8(h) of the complaint . The com-
plaint does not allege VanHooser 's remarks at the Sep-
tember 26 meeting as an unlawful threat of discharge for
engaging in union activities . In any event , for the reasons
discussed above, I likewise find that, under the circum-
stances presented , VanHooser 's remarks at this meeting
were also not unlawful.
Paragraphs 8(j) and (1) of the complaint allege that
VanHooser threatened to discharge employees on Sep-
tember 28, October 17, and November 16. Cook's testi-
mony concerning these incidents is set forth in section
III,B of this decision . In his testimony , VanHooser had
difficulty in remembering the details of each of these in-
dividual conversations . Nothing in his testimony, howev-
er, contradicted Cook's more detailed account. However,
for the reasons set forth above with respect to the Sep-
tember 26 conversations involving Attorney Smith, I
likewise find that VanHooser's remarks made in private
were intended only as private admonishments to a super-
visor to refrain from engaging personally in union activi-
ty and, as such, are not violations of the Act as alleged
in the complaint. ,
J. C. Williamson, a paper operator in the UBK depart-
ment of the Carolina plant, testified that about a month
before the election VanHooser made a speech to the
UBK, lock storage , bonding room, and crane operating
employees in the canteen above the fabrication depart-
ment . According to Williamson , Van Hooser said that
pay raises would be frozen if the Union got in until ne-
gotiations were settled . He also said that if the Union
came in , if they could not negotiate in good faith, they
could move the plant or shut it down . Williamson
claimed that VanHooser further talked about a couple of
small plants in Mississippi in which , after the Union
"messed them up" concerning employees ' insurance and
pay, the employees did not get any more than they al-
ready had. Dexter Wilson, another paper operator, also
attended this talk and remembered VanHooser telling. the
assembled employees that all labor grades and wages
would remain the same until the union situation was
cleared up . VanHooser not only denied having made the
remarks Williamson and Wilson attributed to him, but
also strongly insisted that he never addressed employee
meetings at any time during the campaign . In Poll'ock's
very extensive testimony concerning the Respondent's
program of employee meetings , concerning which it is
undisputed that Pollock was the only speaker, there was
no reference whatsoever to any other group meetings
being held during the campaign at which VanHooser or
anyone else spoke . I further note that when, in' the case
of Pollock's speeches , numerous employee witnesses
came forward to give their accounts , the General Coun-
sel was able to produce only 2 witnesses , out of approxi-
mately 150 to 200 employees, to testify about Van-
Hooser's alleged remarks at this meeting out of approxi-
mately 280 witnesses who testified for the General Coun-
sel. All these considerations lead me to believe that
Wilson and Williamson are mistaken . Because there is no
evidence to attribute the alleged threats to anyone else in
Respondent 's management , I find the General Counsel
has failed to prove Respondent threatened these employ-
ees with withholding pay increases because they engaged
in union activities, as alleged in paragraph 8(w) of the
complaint.
Lon Barker, an employee at the Carolina plant, testi-
fied that 5 to 10 days before the election , at a location
between the guardhouse and the rebond office, alone,
VanHooser asked him if he would head up anonunion
committee, and Barker refused . VanHooser specifically
denied ever having had a conversation with Barker in
which they discussed organizing an antiunion committee.
I credit his denial . An examination of VanHooser 's testi-
mony as a whole reveals that out of numerous incidents
involving conversations with individual employees, this
is the only instance in which-he denied or expressed a
total lack of recollection of the conversation. I am per-
suaded that the conversation never occurred. I find that
VanHooser did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, as
alleged in paragraph 8(o) of the complaint.
According to Nelson McDaniel, on August 15 he was
told by his leadman, Bill Burgess, to go to VanHooser's
office for a talk. Alone with VanHooser in the office,
VanHooser said that because McDaniel and he had
REEVES BROS.
played ball together and were pretty good friends, he
figured that they could talk about the Union. VanHooser
continued, "I hear that you are the big daddy trying to
get the Union in." McDaniel denied being the "big
daddy" but admitted that he was for the Union all the
way and was going to help it all he could. VanHooser
responded that he had tried to get the Company to go
along with bringing a credit union in, and that he did not
blame the employees for trying to organize because he
was raised in a union family. VanHooser remembered
having a conversation with McDaniel in his office in
which they discussed being friends, playing ball together,
and the Union. According to VanHooser, they talked
about the Union "in generalities." He admitted he asked
McDaniel why he was for the Union. I find that Van-
Hooser 'unlawfully interrogated McDaniel on August 15
as alleged, in paragraph 8(h) of the complaint.
Paragraphs 8(cc), (dd), and (ee) of the complaint as
amended allege that on October 3, 1979, VanHooser
threatened William Steven Knox with more rigid en-
forcement of company rules, discipline, and discharge be-
cause he testified in the instance case . At the time of the
alleged threats, the hearing in this matter had been re-
cessed until October 15, 1979, According to Knox, on
Wednesday, October 3, he went to VanHooser's office to
thank him for the birthday card and flowers the Compa-
ny had sent to him while Knox was in the hospital for
appendicitis.` After expressing his appreciation, Van-
Hooser asked Knox how he was feeling and stated he
was glad that Knox was doing better. Knox commented
that he had also had a troublesome wisdom tooth re-
moved and had finished testifying in order that he would
not have to be out of work. Then VanHooser asked how
"that thing" was going. Knox answered that they had a
"good-majority of the cards" when he was there, but
just did not know-they would have to wait and see
how things turned out Knox added, "I hope it comes
in." Then VanHooser asked, "Have you heard anything
throughout the plant about people being run off or being
fired for being in this union activity and all of this?"
Knox responded that he.was one of them and felt like
that himself. Then VanHooser answered, "We are not
going to do this. We are not going to hold a grudge
against people for this. We could make the rules more
rigid, and enforce the rules-make this more rigid. or
more flexible to regulate getting rid of people and things
like that, but we are not going to do that." VanHooser
continued that as far as getting rid of people, they could
follow a person around and there could be enough viola-
tions of breaktimes and other minor violations, which
would enable them to get rid of a person if they wanted
to, because everyone made mistakes throughout the day.
He said that if a state highway patrolman followed a
person down the highway long enough, he would catch
him doing something wrong. Then VanHooser said that
some people were waiting around to see if he got run off
and that he knew Dave Cook wanted to see him leave.
VanHooser said to tell Cook for him that if he was wait-
ing around for him to leave, he was wasting his time.
The conversation ended with Knox saying that when he
testified, he told the truth as he saw it, and VanHooser
answering that he was not concerned with people who
1585
told the truth, but that people who colored the situation
and exaggerated or lied would, have a hard time with the
Company. He said the Company would be after them
whether or not the Union got in.
VanHooser remembered talking to Knox on October 3
when Knox came to his office for his paycheck. He re-
membered talking about Knox's operation and inviting
him to sit down and talk. During the course of the con-
versation, Knox raised the subject of having testified at
the hearing, insisting that he had told the truth. Accord-
ing to VanHooser, he commented that he expected that
of Knox and asked specifically if Knox thought some, of
the maintenance people "would go on up there telling
lies." According to VanHooser, he said that he was not
out to get anybody and, referring to the example of the
highway patrolman, stated, "if-I wanted to be after you I
could chase you enough to find something you were
doing wrong." VanHooser continued, "That is not the
way we are going to do business and if anybody feels
like it is, then I want you to take the word back to them
and tell them that is not the case. We are not out to get
anybody. That is not the way we operate" VanHooser
stated that although the conversation lasted 10 or 15
minutes, he did not recall anything further although "we
again talked some small talk about his health and how he
was feeling, and so forth."
A close examination of the testimony of both Van-
Hooser and Knox concerning this 'incident reveals no
major disagreement between the two witnesses. Conse-
quently, no reason exists to discredit one and credit the
other. Both witnesses agree that VanHooser specifically
disavowed any intention on the part of the Respondent
to enforce more rigidly company rules, discharge, or
otherwise discipline employees. However, VanHooser
did not deny Knox's testimony that he qualified his dis-
avowal of retaliation at the end of the interview by
saying that employees who had colored their testimony
or exaggerated or lied would have a hard time with the
Company and that the Company would be after them
whether or not the Union got in. I find that this remark
constitutes an unlawful threat of retaliation against em-
ployees who testified in the unfair labor practice hearing.
VanHooser made no reference to a Board or court deci-
sion . In the context in which the remark was made, he
made it clear that the Company would determine for
their own purposes who had colored, exaggerated, or
lied in their testimony, and those. persons could expect a
"hard time." Under all these circumstances I find that
VanHooser's remark was intended to discourage employ-
ees from testifying or giving further testimony in this
proceeding and therefore violated the Act, as alleged in
the complaint as amended.
Knox further testified that on November 28 he ap-
proached VanHooser and asked when he would be pro-
moted from mechanic B to mechanic A. Knox had first
asked his leadman and then Bill Overcash, but was re-
ferred to VanHooser. VanHooser responded that he
thought Knox should be in for a raise but could not
make any promises because of the union campaign. He
said they had a policy about the amount of time neces-
sary before an employee was eligible for consideration,
1586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
but was not exactly sure what it was. He promised to
check and talk to Knox the next day about the matter.
According to Knox, the following morning he saw Van-
Hooser and asked if he was going to see him as he had
promised. VanHooser stated that he was not going to
have time to talk to Knox and asked what Knox wanted
to see him about. When Knox reminded him it was about
his raise , VanHooser answered that he was a man of his
word, but could not make any promises or tell Knox
anything because he had not yet checked on their policy
concerning the time interval between raises . Then Van-
Hooser stated that he had seen Knox passing out leaflets
at the gate, after having told him that he was against the
Union and was going to vote against it. Knox denied
having made that statement and VanHooser said he was
not going to talk with Knox any more then.
VanHooser remembered talking to Knox on two occa-
sions prior to the election. He agreed that the first con-
versation started with Knox asking about his promotion
to the next pay grade . His response was that the Compa-
ny had specific time requirements , and he was not aware
how Knox fit into those at that time. According to Van-
Hooser, Knox then brought up the subject of the Union,
stating that he did not feel Reeves needed a union and
that "we could solve these kinds of problems without a
union." VanHooser agreed, after which Knox asked if he
would be able to "move up." VanHooser answered if
Knox met the requirements "on paper" he could, but
that VanHooser would have to check into the matter. A
few days later Knox stopped him as he was exiting the
office area and asked what had been done about his raise.
VanHooser was preoccupied and told Knox he had not
had a chance to look into the matter and moved on. He
insists he did not say anything else. In this instance
Knox's and VanHooser's versions differ considerably.
VanHooser conceded that the discussion about the raise
to which Knox thought he was entitled was conducted
in the context of a conversation concerning Knox 's union
sympathies. I credit Knox and find that VanHooser's re-
marks in their conversation on November 29 constituted
an implied threat to withhold Knox's pay increase be-
cause of his union activities , as alleged in paragraph 8(w)
of the complaint.
Fred Wright testified that on December 6, the day of
the election, he came to work early in order to assist the
Union in passing out leaflets at the gate that morning
before work. Wright first went into the plant to the can-
teen to get a cup of coffee and put on some union but-
tons. As he was engaged in this activity, VanHooser
walked up to him and asked what he was doing in the
plant. When Wright answered that he worked there,
VanHooser stated , "Not today, you don't." At this time
Department Manager Bill Overcash approached them.
VanHooser stated that Wright was supposed to be work-
ing for the Union that day, and was to meet him at per-
sonnel at 6 a.m. (to be briefed as an NLRB observer).
Wright replied that no one had told him that he was sup-
posed to be working for the Union. Then VanHooser
suggested that Wright go find out what he was supposed
to be doing, and Wright left the plant and proceeded to
the gate where he discussed the matter with Union Rep-
resentative Kissack who was distributing leaflets.17
Shortly thereafter VanHooser drove out of the parking
lot and stopped beside Kissack and Wright. Kissack com-
mented he had heard VanHooser let Wright off for the
day, and VanHooser responded he understood Wright
was supposed to be working for the Union. At this point
Wright began passing out leaflets and heard no more of
the brief conversation between Kissack and VanHooser
before VanHooser left in his car.
Kissack testified that after Wright informed him of the
conversation in the plant, Kissack stopped VanHooser in
his car and told him Wright was not working for the
Union, was available, and was offering to go to work
then. According to Kissack, VanHooser replied, "No,
we don't need him. He can stay out for the day."
Kissack further testified that as of the time of his road-
side conversation with VanHooser, the Company had
not yet been notified of the identity of the employees the
Union intended to use as election observers. A preelec-
tion conference had been scheduled for early that morn-
ing at which the Board agents in charge of the election
were to instruct the observers and prepare to open the
polls. The Union had prepared a letter, in evidence as
General Counsel's Exhibit 129, listing the observers,
which it intended to hand to the Company at the outset
of that meeting. However, the meeting was not held as
scheduled because the Board agents were delayed. Thus,
at the time of both Wright's and Kissack's conversations
with VanHooser, the identity of the observers was un-
known to the Company. Kissack's explanation is unchal-
lenged.
VanHooser testified that the Company had assumed
Wright would be an observer, based on a report from
Wright's leadman, David Cook, to Maintenance Supervi-
sor Overcash. Consequently, VanHooser stated, Wright's
timecard had already been pulled from the clock rack on
the assumption that they would be paid by the Union
that day. VanHooser remembered telling Wright, in the
presence of Overcash, in the plant that Wright should
check to find out what he was supposed to do that
morning. He also remembered talking briefly to Kissack
at the gate as he was leaving the plant in his car. He tes-
tified that they exchanged greetings, and that Kissack
"said something" about Wright working, to which Van-
Hooser responded that he did not know 'anything about
it and that Wright was supposed to have gone and
checked about the matter. However, VanHooser quali-
fied his testimony by stating that he did not remember
the exact conversation.
The end result of this incident is that Fred Wright lost
1 day's work. I credit Kissack's testimony concerning his
conversation near the gate with VanHooser and that
VanHooser did state that Wright should take the day off
in response to Kissack's statement that Wright was avail-
able to work. This portion of their conversation is not
specifically denied by VanHooser, whose memory was
admittedly faulty. Furthermore, to find otherwise leaves
19 Overcash's testimony concerning this conversation was similar to
that of Wright and VanHooser, except, according to Overcash, Van-
Hooser ended the conversation by instructing Wright to return to work if
he was not going to serve as an observer
REEVES BROS. 1587
completely unexplained the fact that Wright made no
further efforts to go into work that day. As an employee
union leader, whose activities were well known to the
Company, and to whom sound advice on how to pro-
ceed was readily, available, such an aberration would
have been foolish and, in my view, unlikely. I find the
Respondent denied Wright work on December 6, as al-
leged in paragraph 11 of the complaint.
Paragraph 8(aa) of the complaint alleges that Van-
Hooser told David Cook on July 6, 1979, that he lacked
an 'interest in management because of his activities for
the Union. An examination of the' record fails to reveal
any such conversation between VanHooser and Cook on
that date. In his brief, counsel for the General Counsel
instead refers to a conversation between VanHooser and
Cook in VanHooser's office in June 'of 1975. A careful
reading of Cook's testimony concerning that conversa-
tion fails to reveal any remark by VanHooser resembling
that alleged in the complaint.- Instead, VanHooser stated
that, in the light of Cook's involvement in the past cam-
paign, he felt the decisions he had made for the supervi-
sors he had chosen were the right decisions for the Com-
pany and was going to stick with it. This remark is not
alleged as unlawful, Furthermore, it is a lawful state-
ment, in any event, because at the time it was made,
leadmen were clearly supervisors within the meaning of
the Act.
D. Allegations Concerning Maintenance Supervisor
Bill Overcash, Including the Alleged Assignment of
More Arduous and/or Less Agreeable Work and the
Denial of Overtime to the Special Projects Crew-
Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Complaint
Maintenance mechanics Charles `Buddy" Martin and
Fred Wright , maintenance electrician Nelson -McDaniel,
and leadmen David Cook and, Julius Craton each testi-
fied that on August 8 they were called to the office of
Maintenance Supervisor Bill Overcash and admonished
for passing union literature in the plant. Overcash told
each- of them that he had heard rumors that they had
been handing out union literature on company time, on
the premises and warned them that this was against com-
pany policy and , grounds for termination . None of the
four men had ever heard of this policy before.1 s Over-
cash testified that on August 8 he had separate conversa-
tions lasting about 3 minutes with each of these men and,
in addition, Bobby Waugli. He told each of them that it
was rumored that they had been soliciting during compa-
ny worktime and wanted to advise them that this was
against company policy . Nothing else was said . Although
Overcash testified that his remarks related to solicitation,
the mutually corroborative testimony of`Craton , Wright,
McDaniel , and Cook , which I credit, attributed to Over-
cash a broad prohibition against both ' solicitation and the
distribution of literature. These men were all active in
the distribution of union literature . It is also clear from
the credited evidence concerning Overcash 's remarks
that the prohibition against the distribution of literature
was not limited to working areas of the plant, nor was
solicitation limited only to working time. Therefore,
under well-settled Board law "the policy," as described,
is unlawfully broad. Furthermore, the enforcement of the
policy by Overcash' s warning that any infraction thereof
was grounds for termination, also violates the Act. Final-
ly, because there is no evidence, documentary or other-
wise, that the policy as stated was in existence prior to
the union campaign, in the face of credited evidence that
these men first heard of it on August 8 in Overcash's
office, I am persuaded and find that these rules were un-
lawfully promulgated for the purpose of inhibiting union
activities .19 I therefore find that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1), of the Act as alleged in paragraphs 8(e)
and (i) of the complaint.
According to the testimony of David Cook, on No-
vember 30 he and his special projects crew, which in-
cluded Fred Wright, Charles "Buddy" Martin, and
Bobby Waugh, were assigned by Overcash to a cleanup
and inventory job involving equipment at a facility
known as the old Davidson warehouse, a.storage facility
some 4 to 6 miles from the Carolina plant. Both Reeves'
plants in the Cornelius area used this building to house
obsolete machinery, such as spare motors and gear boxes.
Overcash informed Cook that the Company's Spartan-
burg office needed the inventory information right away,
and that they were to report to the warehouse on the
following day. He said to stay there until the work was
finished and not return to, the plant at all.20 He told
them to eat out and the Company would pay for their
expenses . Cook testified that in order for his crew to
start this project immediately, it was necessary to discon-
tinue work on their current job of installing internal
steam heaters and piping on some 10,000- or 15,000-
gallon tanks , which assignment had been given them by
Overcash as a rush project about 2 weeks before. Cook's
testimony was corroborated by that of Martin and
Wright. The warehouse was described as a building
about 300 feet long and 100 feet wide. The ceiling was
about 20 feet high. The building was dirty and cold and
there was no bathroom facilities or water. Occasionally,
as the work progressed, Overcash would come to the
warehouse to check on their progress, and at times gave
instructions. At the end of the workday at the warehouse
Friday, December 1, when Cook returned to the plant
he asked Overcash if his crew was supposed to work at
the plant or at the warehouse the following day. Prior to
that time, Cook testified, it was frequently the practice
for his crew to work overtime on Saturday. Overcash re-
sponded no, that he did not want them anywhere in the
plant at all. Cook did secure two electric space heaters
which the crew kept in their immediate work area to
provide some warmth. All four men worked at the ware-
house on December 1, 4, and 5. Martin and 'Waugh
worked there December 6, election day, aSaturday. The
assignment was completed on December 7 with all four
men working.
11 Although I have found David Cook and Julius Craton Sr as lead-
men to be supervisors within the meaning of the Act, it is undisputed
as The policy manual , concerning which the leadmen had attended a 20 The record shows, however , that at times individual employees did
training course, was never introduced. return to the plant -
1588 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
James VanHooser testified that sometime in the early
summer of 1978 the corporate auditors made one of their
regular visits to Reeves' plants in the area. One of the
recommendations which resulted from the completed
audit was to inventory, tag, and properly assign the
parts, motors, and other equipment located in the David-
son warehouse. Since this project was "one of the less
priorities, at that point," it was delayed, but in November
it was decided to proceed with the task, and assign it to
the special projects crew because '.'at that time `projects'
really weren't doing too -much in the way of projects."
According to VanHooser, when he first came with
Reeves in 1975 the warehouse was in "deplorable condi-
tion" and had been used as a dumping ground for obso-
lete equipment. Although in 1976 he had been directed
by his superior to "get that place cleaned up," nothing
had been done toward tagging or identifying the equip-
ment. On one occasion a crew of maintenance people
under the direction of a supervisor named Ed Webb per-
formed organizational and cleanup work at the Davidson
warehouse. On one other occasion between 1976 and
1978 another maintenance crew performed maintenance
and restoration work there. However, a thorough inven-
tory had never been made. Thus, VanHooser decided
that Cook, Wright, Waugh, and Martin should undertake
this Job because they were performing only "routine
maintenance work in the plant" involving "welding on
,some tanks in the foam department, insulation and bundle
heaters, specifically." According to VanHooser, "there
was no particular rush to get that finished because we
had sufficient time for the material that we didn't have in
the other tanks, so we weren't pressed to get that job
.done." He stated that it would have taken from 1 to 3
weeks to have completed the work on the tanks.
Overcash testified that he averaged sending men to the
warehouse at least once and sometimes two or three
times a week. Usually this was to, take equipment there
for storage. However, on one previous occasion Over-
cash had sent members of Dave Cook's crew to the
warehouse for a 6- or 7-day period to build fences inside
the building,to form two separate storage areas, one for
each plant.
After making the assignment in question, Overcash
checked on the progress two or three times a day. When
he discovered that Cook had only one space heater, he
instructed Supply Room Supervisor Hobbs to purchase
another heater specifically for the use of the crew at the
warehouse. During Overcash's visits he observed the
work of the crew and, on occasion, joined them while
they were warming themselves in the area of the heaters
drinking coffee and eating during breaks. Overcash testi-
fied that he told Cook to continue working at the ware-
house until the job was completed. He specifically dis-
puted Cook's suggestion that the job was actually fin-
ished around December 3 or 4 and that thereafter only
Martin and Waugh continued working. Overcash testi-
fied that all four men worked at the warehouse every
day, except election day. He testified that Martin and
Waugh worked at the warehouse on election day. He in-
sisted that when they reported to him before proceeding
to the warehouse that morning, they did not tell him that
everything was finished, nor did he tell them to go back
to the warehouse and do it over. To the contrary, Over-
cash states he visited the warehouse on December 6 and
found a day and a half to 2 days' work remaining to be
done. Overcash was specific in his description of this re-
maining work. As of election day the equipment had
been tagged, but remained to be moved into the areas as-
signed to the various departments of the Carolina plant,
after which it had to be inventoried. Then, the final task
was a rubbish removal and a general cleanup of the area.
I am persuaded that VanHooser and Overcash were
telling the truth concerning the assignment of the special
projects crew to the warehouse inventory 'project. The
testimony of VanHooser concerning , the origins and ne-
cessity of the inventory project are undisputed . Likewise,
the testimony of VanHooser and Overcash concerning
previous maintenance employee assignments to work at
the warehouse from time to time is also unrefuted. Under
these circumstances Overcash's instructions to Cook to
continue working at the warehouse until the project was
completed is not surprising . Furthermore, Cook's testi-
mony that Overcash told him in so many words not to
return to the plant "at all" during this time is not credi-
ble, because it is clear that these employees reported to
Overcash during the week of their assignment before
proceeding to the warehouse. In addition, other testimo-
ny in the record , including the activities of the projects
crew, discussed in detail in connection with the issue of
the status of leadmen, shows that the work of these men
frequently involved a number of unique assignments.
Under all these circumstances, discriminate treatment
concerning these events is virtually impossible to prove
in the absence of a clearcut statement of an unlawful
motive by a responsible management official. There is no
such evidence here. I have considered the fact that the
special projects crew had been specifically identified by
Carolina Group President Warren Pollock in his August
address to the maintenance leadmen as the group that
had started the Union and who would be "somewhere
else" when the campaign was over. I have also' consid-
ered that Cook and his men were taken from another job
on which they were working during the week immedi-
ately preceding the election, and sent to the warehouse
to work, although the importance of the original project
is disputed. These factors certainly raise suspicions con-
cerning the old Davidson warehouse assignment . How-
ever, suspicions do not constitute proof. Only by piling
inference upon inference and assumption upon assump-
tion, and by overlooking or discounting credible and, in
some important instances, undisputed testimony by Van-
Hooser and Overcash, can a violation of the Act with re-
spect to this assignment be found. I find that, the General
Counsel has failed to prove the allegations of paragraphs
8(u) and 9 of the complaint. Likewise, on the basis of the
record testimony, concerning this issue and Respondent's
Exhibit 6, 1 find no pattern of discriminatory conduct
with respect to the failure to assign overtime to the spe-
cial projects crew on December 2, as alleged in para-
graph 10 of the complaint. Respondent's Exhibit 6 shows
that although Saturday overtime work was a frequent
occurrence with Cook's crew, there were a number of
REEVES BROS.
other previous occasions, as shown by the Company's
records, when overtime was not worked by these men.
E. Allegations Concerning Mary Wilhelm and Eric
Christenbury
August 16 was the date on which union supporters
first handed out leaflets at plant entrances . About 2:30
p.m. that day, David Cook, Julius Craton, Bobby
Waugh, Steve Knox, Charles "Buddy " Martin, and
Nelson McDaniel assembled in the parking lot of the
Cornelius plant and began distribution during the shift
change on company property not far from the actual en-
trances to the plant. Soon Plant ,Manager Gerald Reott
appeared and a discussion began between Reott and
McDaniel over whether the employees had a right to
distribute literature on company property . No violation
of the Act is alleged in connection with this conversa-
tion, in which Reott prevailed and the men began walk-
ing in the direction of the entrances to the parking lot.
It is evident from the record that at this point the six
men split into two groups for the purpose of covering
each entrance since there are references in the employ-
ees' testimony to Fred Wright and Charles "Buddy"
Martin being "on the other side" of the lot. It is not
clear from the General Counsel 's evidence , however,
which employees composed each group . The separation
does explain, however, why witnesses Martin and Pi-
guerra heard none of the following conversation which
gave rise to the allegations in paragraphs 8(f) and (g) of
the -complaint . According to Cook , McDaniel, and
Wright, as the employees were proceeding across the
parking lot in the direction of the entrances , Curon Divi-
sion Director of Employee Relations Mary W ihlem and
Assistant Personnel Manager Eric Christenbury drove up
in Christenbury 's Ford pickup truck . Wilhelm testified
that she had been summoned to the scene by a telephone
called from Reott , who informed her that there was a
problem in the parking lot around the employee entrance
to the Cornelius plant. Based on a composite of the cred-
ible testimony of all witnesses , I find the following
events occurred . Christenbury stopped his truck next to
one group of the employees and rolled down the
window . Wilhelm asked what the problem was, and
someone in the group replied that they were leafletting
to which Wilhelm responded , "Not in the parking area."
She also asked Nelson McDaniel if he thought that was
fair, and he replied he thought it was . Then one employ-
ee in the group remarked that Reott had asked them to
move and Wilhelm agreed that they needed to go down
to the road . At this point McDaniel observed that Wil-
helm's hand was bandaged , and Wilhelm - said, "that is
where I hit a union man in the face ." Wilhem asked
McDaniel for a leaflet and when McDaniel gave her one
she asked if she could have them all. Then Wilhelm con-
cluded the conversation by telling them that they were
going to have to conduct their activities down at the
road or else it would be necessary for her to call the au-
thorities. That was the end of this conversation . The em-
ployees headed toward the street.
Christenbury and Wilhelm drove to a parking space
next to the plant and entered the building . It was ap-
proximately 3 o'clock. Although a few employees were
1589
leaving the plant at this time , the main shift change was
scheduled to begin about 3:45. According to Wilhelm,
she became concerned about traffic congestion at the en-
trances to the parking lot caused by the leafletting activi-
ty. She called a policeman who assured her that the flow
of traffic would be maintained . Then, having satisfied
herself that "my responsibility was taken care of," she
and Christenbury went to the truck for the purpose of
returning to their offices at the Carolina plant . As they
reached the parking lot exit they were stopped by Fred
Wright. Wilhelm told Wright that she was ashamed of
him and that she did not think he would do something
like that.21 Then, according to Wright, he asked Eric
Christenbury "what about going to get us something
cold to drink, a beer or something of that sort?" Chris-
tenbury answered that he could not, because he was on
company time . Then he added that Wright had better
get someone to buy his beer "because we wasn 't going to
be able to buy it ourselves. That wasn't a threat. That
was a promise." However, David Cook attributes this
remark to Wilhelm . Wilhelm's version is that Christen-
bury said, "You mean on company time?" in answer to
Wright's request. She then said, "As hot as it is you're
going to need it and Eric will have to buy it for you."
Christenbury testified that he stated that he could not
buy the beer since Wright was off the clock and he was
not, but could not recall whether or not Wilhelm said
anything . Thus, all four witnesses ' accounts of this con-
versation differ in important respects . I credit Wilhelm's
version . A close examination of the testimony of all of
the witnesses concerning the entire parking lot incident
reveals that much of what was said took place in a jocu-
lar vein, although hindsight might suggest that some of
the banter could be characterized as unwise. Thus, Wil-
helm honestly admitted making the remark about hurting
her hand as the result of hitting a union man and telling
Wright that she was ashamed of him for attempting to
hand out literature in the parking lot. She was also
candid in admitting that pursuant to questions from em-
ployees who were exiting the plant about what to do if
they did not want to receive the Union 's leaflets , that she
had told them if they wished , they could simply roll up
their windows . More importantly , however, Wilhelm's
version is more logical when considered in the context of
the situation , i.e., the likelihood that the employees
became thirsty while handing out leaflets in the street on
a hot afternoon in mid-August , although Wilhelm and
Christenbury were not in favor of going on an errand
during their working time , for which they could be ac-
cused of dispensing benefits to curry favor with the
Union 's chief adherents . Furthermore, Wright's testimo-
ny does not support Cook 's assertion that Wilhelm got
out of the truck to urge employees not to accept union
literature . I find that the Respondent did not threaten
Wright and the assembled employees with retaliation for
engaging in union activities , as alleged in paragraph 8(g)
of the complaint . I likewise find that under all the cir-
cumstances presented , the entire parking lot incident did
21 On the basis of the evidence concerning the entire incident, I find
this remark to be an obvious reference to the employees' attempt to
engage in leaflet distribution in the parking lot
1590 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not, considered in context, constitute surveillance of
union activities as alleged in paragraph 8(1) of the com-
plaint.22
Kathy Fidler, a packing department employee at the
Cornelius plant, testified that during the last part of July
or the first part of August she received a phone call at
home after work from Eric Christenbury, in which she
was asked for information about the Union. He asked if
she knew about the union meeting that was supposed to
take place that afternoon, who was pushing the Union,
and the names of the people involved. He stated that he
had told Mary Wilhelm that Fidler would tell him if she
knew anything about it. Fidler answered that the girls in
her department knew Christenbury was her brother-in-
law and consequently would not have said very much to
her in the first place. 23'
Later that day, following the union meeting, Christen-
bury phoned Kermit Fidler, Kathy's husband, and stated
that he knew Kermit had gone to the meeting because he
had driven by there and saw his car. Christenbury asked
if certain employees he named were there, but Fidler an-
swered that he had not been working for the Company
very long and did not know anyone. Then Christenbury
ended the conversation saying, "Don't you know you are
on a 90-day trial and you can lose your job?"
On November 28 Kathy and Kermit Fidler went to
Christenbury's office to ask for a letter of recommenda-
tion, which they hoped would help Kermit retrieve his
driver's license. Both Kathy and Kermit Fidler testified
Christenbury told them he could get into a lot of trouble
writing Kermit a reference when he was for the Union.
Christenbury said he was getting a lot of criticism from
his superiors for hiring them both. He told Kermit that
he was prounion when he hired him, and every damn
time he wanted something, Kermit came to him. Chris-
tenbury continued, saying that if the Union got in, he
was going to lose his job, and if it did not get in "you
may as well make new plans because you are going to
lose your job." Christenbury concluded, "I can't do that,
but I can send word to your department and can make it
so rough for you and have you rode, that you are going
to have to quit sooner or later."
Christenbury admitted calling Kathy Fidler in early
August, seeking to talk to Kermit about some tires. He
denied talking to her about the Union. He admitted
having a telephone conversation with Kermit later that
afternoon in which he asked Kermit if he had been to a
meeting of the Reeves employees, but denied that he
knew the meeting to which he referred was a union
meeting. He also remembered talking to Kermit and
Kathy in his office on November 28, at which time he
gave them a typed letter recommending the return of
Kermit Fidler's' driver's license. He conceded that he ex-
pressed his irritation with Fidler because it seemed to
22 Because the General Counsel's witnesses Cook and Wright did not
agree concerning who made the alleged threat, the General Counsel's
offer of proof, which was rejected, that Julius Craton Sr. and Steven
Knox would testify the same as the General Counsel's "other witnesses"
on this incident , is meaningless
23 t find the date of this conversation to be the afternoon of August 6,
because the record clearly establishes that as the date of the first major
union meeting open to the public
him that "every time I saw them they wanted some-
thing." According to Christenbury, Kermit Fidler raised
the subject of the Union by asking if Christenbury was
going to have him fired because of his union activities.
Christenbury testified that he answered "that my under-
standing of what the Company could do, and the people
that were associated with the Union, that he could not
be fired because of his union activity, that his work
record spoke for itself, that-he wouldn't have to worry
about it." Christenbury, added that he was referring to
Kermit Fidler's attendance record. He further stated
that, due to Kermit's work record, if he should get into
trouble with his supervisor, not to call on him for assist-
ance because he was through with them and did not
want to have anything more to do with them. I am con-
vinced from both the consistency of Kermit and Kathy
Fidler's testimony and from the admissions of Christen-
bury that the three conversations occurred as testified to
by the Fidlers. I credit their testimony and find that
Christenbury interrogated Kermit and Kathy Fidler on
August 6 and threatened Kermit Fidler with discharge
on August 6 and November 28, as alleged in paragraphs
8(h) and (1), respectively, of the complaint.
F. Allegations Relating to Rebonding and Molding
Supervisor Jepty Hooper
J. C. Williamson lives within walking distance of the
Carolina plant. On the morning of December 4 he left
his house about 6:30 a.m. and walked down Highway
115 to the plant, where he was scheduled to begin ,work
at 7 a.m. When he arrived at the point where the drive-
way to the plant gate joins the road, he found John Kis-
sack and Douglas Piguerra distributing leaflets. The two
men were standing in the middle of the driveway, to the
left of the incoming traffic, in order to be in a position to
hand leaflets to the driver of each vehicle. It was raining.
As Williamson was in the process of accepting a leaflet
from Kissack, a jeep-type vehicle driven by Rebonding
and Molding Supervisor Jepty "Jep" Hooper, with Bill
Overcash as a passenger, exited the plant gate and
swerved in their direction as it left the plant property.
The three men quickly jumped out of the way. Kissack
described the maneuver as "awful close " Piguerra testi-
fied that the vehicle missed' them up to "about 10 feet."
Overcash and Hooper remembered the incident. Accord-
ing to Overcash, Hooper had agreed to drive him to the
old Davidson warehouse to check on the inventory work
being performed by David Cook's crew during the
course of that week, as discussed earlier in this decision.
As the plant gate began to open, Hooper did not wait to
make his exit until it was fully open, but swerved to the
left to get through when the gate was only half to three-
quarters open. Hooper also agreed that he exited the par-
tially opened plant gate on 'the lefthand side of the road.
He denied that he raced his motor and spun his tires,
claiming that his Bronco, vehicle would not spin its
wheels because it did not have enough horsepower.
Later, when Hooper and Overcash returned to the plant,
Kissack testified that Hooper stopped and called to him,
"Hey, I scared the hell out of you." Kissack angrily re-
sponded, "That is an awfully serious thing to do," to
REEVES BROS
which Hooper shot back, "Hey, you-in your pants,
didn't you?" Then the two men drove on into the plant
parking lot. Piguerra , who was still present, corroborated
Kissack 's version . Williamson was no longer present.
Hooper testified that it was Kissack that made the
remark about being scared , to which he answered, "You
are kidding ." Overcash testified that Kissack accused
Hooper of trying to run him down and that Hooper
simply denied such an intention . I am persuaded that
Kissack's and Piguerra 's version of the incident is more
nearly correct , and their testimony is credited . Hooper's
haste to exit the partially opened gate on the lefthand
side of the road is explained only by an intention to
harass Kissack and Piguerra. Furthermore , Overcash
conceded that Hooper raced his engine immediately
before swerving in the direction of the leaflet distribu-
tors. Finally, Charles "Buddy" Martin and Fred Wright
both testified that when Overcash arrived at the old Da-
vidson warehouse where they were working that morn-
ing, he told them that Hooper had swerved his car at the
people at the gate, and that he did not blame them for
running because the road was wet and slick. I credit
their testimony and find that Hooper's conduct constitut-
ed interference and harassment of Kissack and Piguerra
because they were engaging in union activities, as alleged
in paragraph 8(v) of the complaint.
Warren Brandon worked as a leadman under Hooper
in the rebond area of the Carolina plant. According to
Brandon, Hooper threatened him about the Union on
two occasions while they were alone. About a month
before the election , near Hooper 's office, Hooper told
Brandon "that Reeves was no fool and that if the Union
got in, they would move to Canada or to Orlando, or
something like that ." Around the first of December in
Hooper's office Brandon was asked what he had heard
about the union campaign . When Brandon replied that
he did not know anything , Hooper responded , "Well, if I
find out you are downing Reeves for the Union, you can
kiss your job goodbye."' According to Brandon, this con-
versation lasted from 20 to 30 minutes, but he was able
to remember nothing further . Hooper remembered
having two conversations with Brandon about the sub-
ject of the Union, which topic, he claimed, was raised by
Brandon on both occasions. He conceded mentioning the
possibility of Reeves moving their local operations to
Florida or Canada if the Union got in and went on
strike. I credit Brandon's version of the two interviews,
but find that Hooper 's remarks did not violate the Act
because, as a leadman, Brandon was a supervisor. The
two men were alone during both of these conversations,
and there is no indication whatsoever that Hooper's re-
marks were intended to be conveyed to rank-and -file em-
ployees. Thus, Respondent did not violate the Act with
respect to Hooper 's conduct , as alleged in paragraphs
8(n) and (t) of the complaint.
Joel Cook, a mechanic in the rebond department under
Hooper, testified that about a week before the election
Hooper called him to his office. They were alone. In the
office Hooper told Cook that if he would turn and go
the other way against the Union, Hooper could not
promise him anything, but that "I would be putting my
feet on solid ground and that there would be a star in my
1591
crown ." Hooper denied making this statement , but he re-
membered Cook coming to his office to inquire about a
welding machine Hooper had for sale . He agreed that a
conversation about the Union ensued , but insisted it was
Cook who commented that "the guys were messing up,
you know , with the Union," to which he :xesponded, "If
they do, that 's their problem ." Hooper's version of how
Cook came to be in his office is um •ebutted . I am per-
suaded that Hooper 's version , which is more detailed, is
more logical . It is credited . I find therefore that the Re-
spondent did not violate the Act , as alleged in paragraph
8(p) of the complaint.
William Steven Knox testified that he had two conver-
sations with Jep Hooper about August 23 , in which the
subject of the Union arose. On the first occasion Hooper
came to Knox's house to see a boat Knox had for sale.
According to Knox , `Hooper stated that the Union was
no good . He said he realized there were some good
unions, but this was not one of them . Hooper stated that
Knox could get his card back . Hooper offered to get it
back for him , said no one else would find out about it,
and promised that it would be just between Hooper and
Knox. Hooper continued , saying that the Company
would look out for Knox. He said they would take care
of their own and would forgive and forget . He said they
were going to start an incentive program for the me-
chamcs like they had for the production people. Also
they were going to put a mechanic in his department,
and most likely Knox would be the one chosen . Hooper
told Knox he had done a good job, and if he got his card
back, he was sure everything would work out that way.
He stated that the Company was going to make some
changes and , since he had a lot of influence with some of
the higher -up management , it would'be to Knox 's advan-
tage to get his card back and he would be forgiven for
leafleting and campaigning for the Union.
On the following day, according to Knox, Hooper
called him to his office where, alone , he showed Knox
the company policy manual page by page. He called
Knox's attention to the listed benefits for hourly employ-
ees, including paid holidays , vacation pay, and education
pay. After they completed looking through the policy
manual, Hooper continued telling Knox that he could be
forgiven by the Company. He concluded the conversa-
tion by saying the Union would never get anything
agreed on in negotiations , and that they would not nego-
tiate.
Hooper remembered visiting Knox's home for the pur-
pose of looking at his boat. Then the two men drank a
few beers and talked about the price and , according to
Hooper, "later on the conversation came up as to what
did I think about the Union ." However , Hooper did not
specifically state that it was Knox who brought up this
topic. Hooper insisted that he told Knox he did not dis-
cuss company business off company premises, but admit-
ted talking about the Company's benefits and whether or
not the Union involved at Reeves was "a good union."
He agreed that he promised to show Knox the company
policy manual in his office the next day , and that he did
so, including the provisions setting forth the retirement
program, paid holidays, and scholarship funds. I credit
1592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Knox's very detailed testimony about his long conversa-
tion with Hooper. Knox displayed a much better
memory concerning what transpired than did Hooper.
Consequently, I find that Hooper violated the Act, as al-
leged in paragraph 8(b) of the complaint.
0. Miscellaneous Allegations of 8(a)(1) Violations
Attributed to Supervisors Bob Stancil, Marvin Johnson,
Cornelius Plant Manager Gerald Reott, Gary Barrett,
Dean Middleton, President John Reeves, Joe Smart,
Russell Thomas, Norman Williams, Richard Gibbs,
Bill Moser, Ray Childress, Larry Buie, John Blakeley,
and Wayne Atkins
Fred Wright testified that one morning, during the
second or third week of August, Shipping Department
Supervisor Bob Stancil saw Wright attempting to return
a union card to employee Jerry Lee Davis, who had
asked for the card back. Stancil told him he could be
fired for violating the Company's rule against solicitation
on company worktime. Douglas Piguerra, Bobby Lee
Fleming, and Samuel Umbarger testified that they were
jointly warned by Stancil in the conference room around
August 17 that some of the long distance truckdrivers,
who parked their cars in the area where the Company's
trucks and trailers were parked, complained about find-
ing union literature in their personal vehicles. He said if
the practice persisted and the Company found out who
had done it, they were going to do something about it.
Stancil admitted "explaining" to Wright the Company's
rule against solicitation on worktime. He conceded that
he had never seen a posted rule against solicitation, but
insisted there was a company policy restricting solicita-
tion. Stancil also conceded he had warned the switchers
that the Company was going to take action if the drivers
continued to find literature in their cars. Thus, these inci-
dents strongly resemble those discussed in section IV, D
of this decision with respect to parallel conduct by Main-
tenance Supervisor Bill Overcash. In neither instance
was any documentary evidence presented to show the
existence of a lawful no-solicitation and no-distribution
rule prior to the advent of the union campaign. I am per-
suaded from the testimony of the witnesses, including
that of Stancil, that these rules were first promulgated,
maintained, and enforced after the union campaign
began. Thus, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act through the conduct of Bob Stancil, as alleged in
paragraph 8(e) of the complaint.
Kathy Fidler testified that in late November, a day or
two after she and her husband Kermit had talked with
Eric Christenbury in his office, as described in section
IV, E of this decision, she went to see her supervisor,
Marvin Johnson, in his office. Fidler was concerned
about Christenbury's threats and she asked Johnson if he
was going to cause her trouble and ride her off her job.
Johnson replied that no one was going to tell him how
to run his department, but he did say that Reeves had
plants in the North which were already union and asked
if it would not be sensible for them to move to the
North. He asked Fidler if she understood what he meant.
Although Fidler was alone with Johnson at the time of
their conversation, credence is added to Fidler's testimo-
ny by the similar testimony of Edna Elliott concerning
three conversations she had with Johnson. The first of
these took place about the first of September, when
Johnson came to her machine and said that the Company
did not want the Union, and that other companies would
not do business with companies who had unions in them.
He stated that Pollock had worked for a company which
had closed because of the union, and that Reeves would
go out of business because they would not have any
work to do when people did not want to trade with
people who had unions.
One evening in October, as she was handing in her
daily worksheet, Johnson said that work had slowed
down, and that other companies would not work with
them because they would know that Reeves employees
were out on strike. He said that they would not have any
work to do, and that, "It looked real bad for them be-
cause the Union was really messing them up."
Just before the election in November, as Elliott was
handing in her worksheet, she asked Johnson what was
going to happen at the plant because work was slow.
Johnson said that things really did look bad. He said
they had the same machinery in Albany, Indiana, and
that it looked like the plant would just move up to Indi-
ana if the Union came in. Elliott mentioned that she was
going to have to borrow some money. Johnson said that
it looked like a recession was coming, and that times
were really getting bad. He said that the plant would
move up to Albany, and they would not have a plant
there and she would not have a job if things kept going
like they were.
Marvin Johnson did not testify in this proceeding.
Kathy Fidler's and Edna Elliott's undisputed testimony is
credited. I find that the Respondent, through Johnson's
conduct, violated Section 8(a)(1), of the Act as alleged in
paragraphs 8(n) and (q) of the complaint.
John Kissack and Douglas Piguerra testified that on
the afternoon of December 5, while distributing leaflets
at the Carolina plant entrance, they observed Depart-
ment Manager Gary Barrett standing on the 100-foot
long loading dock with his secretary for 15 to 20 min-
utes, during which time they looked in the direction of
the leaflet distributors, Barrett, who no longer worked at
Reeves at the time of his testimony, explained that the
south shipping area was one of his areas of responsibility,
and that he was taking his secretary on a plant tour
which she had requested. Barrett was showing her the
shipping dock operations, including the loading platform
which could accommodate six tractor trailers. He agreed
that he saw some individuals at the gate distributing
handbills by the road, but could not identify those he
saw. He denied making any reports of any of his casual
observations to management. Barrett's testimony con-
cerning his reason for being on the loading dock in his
area of jurisdiction are unrebutted. In the absence of
other evidence to show an unlawful purpose, I find that
the General Counsel has failed to prove Barrett was en-
gaging in surveillance. I find that the Respondent did not
violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, as alleged in paragraph
8(f) of the complaint.
Douglas Piguerra testified that for a long time prior to
the beginning of the union campaign, employees had
REEVES BROS.
been allowed to go to their cars in the parking lot at
breaks. However, he testified that in mid-August he was
called to the office of Dean Middleton, then second-shift
superintendent, and told that there would be no more
food brought into the plant during breaks or lunch and
that a guard would be posted in the parking lot. Middle-
ton remembered talking to Piguerra because it had been
reported to him by another supervisor that "Doug did
not understand why we had policies concerning the
bringing of food and stuff into the plant, why we had
no-solicitation rules, why we could not distribute litera-
ture and stuff on the premises." Middleton testified that
he showed Piguerra in the policy manual the Company's
no-solicitation policy and instructed Piguerra that he
would not be allowed to solicit in other areas of the
plant because he thought Piguerra was passing out litera-
ture. In addition , the Respondent introduced into evi-
dence , through Middleton, Respondent 's Exhibits 9, 10,
and 11. Respondent 's Exhibit 9, dated July 16, 1976, per-
mits employees to go to their cars during working hours
and return provided they have secured the approval of
their immediate supervisor. Respondent 's Exhibit 10, a
memorandum dated August 18, 1976, addressed to all
managers (and to leadmen by means of a handwritten ad-
dition) from VanHooset , alludes to the taking of manu-
factured products by employees, and instructs supervi-
sors to again inform employees that they are not to go to
the parking lot during periods of time when they should
be at work. Respondent 's Exhibit 11, a memorandum
from VanHooser to plant security employees , including
the receptionist and the guards , dated January 21, 1977,
shows the institution of a rule that all hourly employees
returning to the plant during nonworking hours for their
shift would not be allowed to come into the plant with-
out being personally " accompanied by a supervisor or
manager . None of these documents, however, prohibits
the bringing of food into the plant during breaks or
lunch, or makes any reference whatsoever to solicitation
or distribution . I find that Middleton's admitted refer-
ences to solicitation and distribution during his conversa-
tion with Piguerra constitutes another specific example
of the type of conduct I have already found violative of
the Act, as alleged in paragraph 8(e) of the complaint
with reference to Supervisors Overcash and Stancil. I do
not credit Middleton 's qualified denial that "I don't think
we specifically discussed bringing food into the plant,"
and find that he made the remarks attributed to him by
Piguerra , in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, as al-
leged in paragraphs 8(x) and (y) of the complaint.
Margaret Cole testified that she had been introduced
to Corporation President John Reeves by Mary Wilhelm
sometime before the election. In December , after the
Union had filed objections to the NLRB election, Reeves
came by where Cole was working and stated that he
wanted her to work for the Company. When Cole an-
swered that she was working for the Company, Reeves
replied , "I don't mean that , Margaret , I want you to
work to go around and tell people to vote no for the
Union." When Cole responded , "Mr. Reeves , you have
already won-the Union is over," Reeves explained,
"But the government filed an objection to our election. I
might get into trouble for giving you all a raise." The
1593
conversation ended with Cole stating that she could not
tell the employees to vote no for the Union because she
had to work with them , to which Reeves answered,
"You want a job, don't you?" Reeves did not testify. I
credit Cole and find that the Respondent , through John
Reeves, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, as alleged in
paragraph 8(o) of the complaint as amended.
Whitfield Gaston, a fabrication department employee
under the supervision of Joe Smart, testified that on elec-
tion day, December 6, as he was leaving the cafeteria he
met Smart coming down the steps from the office. As
they reached the bottom of the stairs, Smart said , "Well,
if the Union wins, I am going to see that you get fired."
This brief conversation occurred about 3:45 p.m. be-
tween polling periods . According to Gaston, he went di-
rectly to Manufacturing Superintendent John Blakeley,
complained about Smart 's threat, and received an apol-
ogy from Smart later that day. An employee named Al
Day was present during the Gaston-Blakeley conversa-
tion, but was not called to testify. Gaston signed a union
card but was not otherwise overtly active on behalf of
the Union. Smart 's and Blakeley's versions of their con-
versations with Gaston corroborate one another. Ac-
cording to Smart , it had previously been necessary to ad-
monish Gaston for drinking. On this occasion when he
met Gaston it appeared to Smart that Gaston had been
drinking again , and he testified "I jumped on him again
and told him he had better straighten up." "That is all I
said ." Blakeley agreed that Gaston stopped him on De-
cember 6 and reported that Smart had threatened to fire
him because he was involved-with the Union. Blakeley
replied that that was not the Company's policy , and that
he would get with Smart and find out what was going
on, stating that nobody was going to fire Gaston for any
activity such as that . However, when Blakeley consulted
with Smart, Smart insisted that the conversation was
solely over Gaston's appearing to be under the influence
of alcohol and specifically denied threatening Gaston
over the Union. Then Blakeley, not Smart, located
Gaston and told him that he had misunderstood. Smart
insisted that he had seen Gaston in an intoxicated state
on four or five occasions before. On this occasion he was
watery-eyed and talking gibberish immediately before
Smart admonished him. There was no rebuttal evidence
to counter the accusation that Gaston had a prior history
of intoxication on the job,, or that he was intoxicated
during the incident in question . I credit the mutually cor-
roborative testimony of Blakeley and Smart and find that
the Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
by threatening Gaston with discharge if he selected the
Union as his bargaining representative, as alleged in para-
graph 8(s) of the complaint.
Louise Neal worked in the rebond department of the
Carolina plant under Supervisor Russell Thomas. She
testified that a week or so before the election , alone in
Thomas' office, he asked her whether she thought the
Company or the Union could do more for her. Neil an-
swered she did not know since she had never been in a
union. Then Thomas said that if the employees got the
Union, they could go on strike, which could last a week
or two or maybe a month . He asked, "If it lasted that
1594 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
long what would you do?" Answering his own question,
he said that the employees would not have any food on
the table.
Thomas testified that he has monthly employee rela-
tions meetings , sometimes with individuals and some-
times with groups . At these meetings employees' job
problems are_discussed . It was in this context that he re-
memb'a' ed talking to Neal . He denied talking to her
about strike or about the union election . However,
when asked if he recalled what he and Neal discussed in
their meeting, he answered, "Nothing specifically more
than what I said . We just talked about the production as
a whole . We asked her if there was any problems she
was having . . . . The only thing I remember , the meet-
ing only lasted about 5 minutes . I asked her if she had
any problems and she didn 't have any, and that was
about the conversation . We did talk about the Company
.. I asked her if she was satisfied ." Thus, Thomas ex-
hibited a much poorer memory about the incident than
did Neal . Neal is credited, and I find that the Respond-
ent, through Thomas, violated Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act
by interrogating Neal, as alleged in paragraph 8(r) of the
complaint.
Wilda Ladda , a first-shift employee in the automotive
department of the Cornelius plant under Supervisor
Norman Williams , testified that on the day of the elec-
tion Williams approached her, alone, at her machine and
told her to vote no because they did not need a union.
He said if the Union got in , they probably would close
the plant or have a strike. Williams' testimony was con-
fused and contradictory . After twice specifically stating
that he could not recall having a conversation with
Ladda about the Union , Williams denied making the
statements attributed to him by Ladda . However, on
cross-examination , he reversed himself and testified, "I
told her that she was going to vote that day." He then
testified that the remark was made to Ladda at her ma-
chine , but that it was not on the day of the election. I
credit Ladda 's testimony and find that Williams threat-
ened her with plant closure , as she claimed , in violation
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act , as alleged in paragraph 8(n)
of the complaint.
William Richard Gibbs is automotive production man-
ager at Reeves. One of the employees who work under
his supervision is Jean Karriker . Karriker testified that
shortly after 2 p.m., on August 21, following her break,
Gibbs approached her and said ' he was shocked by
rumors he had heard that she was for the Union and
asked her why she was for it . Karriker answered that the
reason was because of some of the supervisors and some
of the job promotions and similar things. He responded
that he did not think she wanted a union . He talked to
her for about 45 minutes about the matter. During the
course of the conversation he asked her how the situa-
tion looked to her, and how many people were for the
Union. She replied that she thought about 90 percent of
the new plant and a lot of employees in the Cornelius
plant were for it.
Gibbs, who is Karriker 's brother -in-law , conceded that
he had heard Karriker was passing out cards. However,
although he remembered having a conversation with her,
in which he asked her what her problems were and if
she felt the Company was able to handle them, or "do
you feel like somebody else is?" He testified that he did
not remember all the conversations . Even after further
probing by counsel for Respondent , he insisted , "I don't
recall too much of it at the time, no." He denied making
some of the specific statements attributed to him by Kar-
riker, but each time couched his answers in terms of not
being able to remember his making the specific remark. I
credit Karriker's testimony and find that Richard Gibbs
unlawfully interrogated her, as alleged in paragraph' 8(h)
of the complaint.
Bill Moser was fabrication supervisor at the Carolina
Plant during the period of the Union's campaign. Ac-
cording to William Steven Knox, on November 29,
while Knox was working in Moser 's area, Moser said to
him that the Union was no good and, if it got in, the
plant would be phased out. He said the Company would
close it down, and eventually move "their stuff' to other
locations . He stated that he did not want to go through
any shop steward because he had a good rapport with
his people . Moser said that Reeves was a good company.
He talked about the holiday and vacation benefits and
said those who did not like the way things were should
leave. The conversation ended with Moser stating that
the Company would not negotiate with the Union and
would eventually just phase out the plant by moving the
machines from one plant to another . Moser remembered
having "some discussions" with Knox about benefits,
pay, and the Company in general . He admitted discuss-
ing his rapport with people in the department and his
view that he did not need a shop steward in his area. He
denied telling Knox that the plant would be phased out
or closed if the Union got in, and that the Company's
equipment would be moved to other locations . On cross-
examination he testified that he had only one conversa-
tion with Knox concerning the subject of the Union. I
credit Knox's testimony and find that the Respondent,
through Moser, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, as al-
leged in paragraphs 8(n) and (z) of the complaint.
Brenda Hager testified that about the end of Septem-
ber or the first of October she was working on the third
shift in the Cornelius plant under Supervisor Ray Chil-
dress. Childress was supervisor over the dye press area.
One day during this time period, while Hager was work-
ing assisting the dye press operator, Childress came by
and asked her how she felt about the Union. He wanted
to know whether she was for it or against it. Hager an-
swered that she did not ask him about his sex life or the
balance of his checkbook , and she did not consider her
feelings about the Union to be any of his business. Then
she observed Childress leave her and go on to another
employee. He was carrying a tablet that resembled a
ledger on which she had seen a list of employees in the
department and some writing across the top of the page
separated into three columns. Childress testified he su-
pervised about 39 employees at that time , and that it was
not unusual for him to talk to any one of them during
the course of a workday . He denied ever interrogating
Hager about her union sympathies , but testified , "I gath-
ered she was for the Union." Childress had no other ex-
planation for this conclusion other than "she seemed to
REEVES BROS.
me like the type that would be for the Union ." I am per-
suaded that - it -is more -likely that Childress ' conclusion-
was based on his interrogation of Hager and find Hager's
testimony to be credible . I therefore find that the Re-
spondent , through Childress , violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act , as alleged in paragraph 8(h) of the complaint.
Larry Buie is round block machine supervisor at the
Carolina plant. About November 20 one of his employ-
ees, Harold Mills , and Buie had a conversation about the
Union . According to Mills, Buie asked him how he felt
about the Union, to which Mills replied that he had not
made up his mind and would like to hear both sides
about the Union-the good things and the bad things.
The conversation ended with Buie offering to help him
with the matter in any way he could . Buie admitted talk-
ing to Mills about the Union at the round block machine,
but claimed the conversation arose from Mills' asking
him if he thought they would have a strike if the Union
got in . Buie replied that there was no way to tell but that
it was a possibility . He denied questioning Mills about
how he felt about the Union . However, he admitted
asking Mills if Mills "would be glad when all this mess
was cleared up and over with." It is therefore clear that
Buie did question Mills about the Union. I credit Mills'
testimony and find that during the course of the conver-
sation Buie engaged in unlawful interrogation , as alleged
in paragraph 8(r) of the complaint.
Bobby Lee Fleming, a switcher in the shipping depart-
ment of the Carolina plant, testified that on August 19, in
the office of Manufacturing Superintendent John Blake-
ly, alone, Blakeley said that although Tucker had told
them that they were going to get a raise because they
had heard about the Union prior to the date of the letter
of recommendation, they would not give a raise because
it would "look bad later on." Blakeley said the Company
had received word about the union campaign on July 29.
Blakeley testified that prior to 1978 Fleming's job had
been reevaluated downward from pay grade 5 to pay
grade 4. However, Fleming had insisted the reevaluation
was not correct and the switchers deserved more pay.
Blakeley had agreed to try to regard the job upward at
an opportune moment, when "the vibes were right with
the management group ." Thereafter, the union campaign
started and management told Blakeley he could not make
changes either up or down while the campaign was on
because no decision had yet been made with respect to
the reevaluation . Blakeley then called Fleming into his
office and told him, because they were in the middle of a
campaign, his position could not be changed either up or
down until everything was resolved and for him to tell
the employees involved . Blakeley's testimony concerning
how his conversation with Fleming came about is logical
and unrefuted . Although it is well settled that an em-
ployer may not confer or deny benefits during the course
of a union campaign for the purpose of influencing em-
ployees' sentiment on the union question , it is likewise
well established that scheduled raises and benefits may
not be denied if they normally would have been given.
The unrebutted portion of Blakeley's testimony shows
that a management decision on whether or not to re-
evaluate the switcher's job with respect to pay had not
been made . Consequently „ no resulting raise could law-
1595
fully have been scheduled . Under all these circum-
stances , I find that Blakeley 's more detailed version of
the conversation with Fleming is more complete and log-
ical than Fleming 's account . I find that the Respondent,
through Blakeley , did not unlawfully withhold a salary
increase from Fleming or inform him unlawfully that the
Company could not confer employee benefits during a
union campaign as alleged , resepctively, in paragraphs
8(d) and (ff) of the complaint as amended.
Donald Hager worked - at the Carolina plant on the
first shift unloading chemical tankers . He testified that on
August 9 Supervisor Wayne Atkins took Hager to his
office and, alone , asked him if he had heard any rumors
about the Union. Hager said he did . Then Atkins said
that he had heard Hager was a blue card pusher , and his
name was on the list. Hager 's affidavit, utilized in cross-
examination, varied very little from Hager 's testimony.
Atkins testified that he had learned in a management
meeting from John Blakeley that Hager was soliciting in
the plant. Immediately after the meeting he called Hager
to his office "to explain the no-solicitation rule that we
had, and went over that rule with him, and told him that
he could not solicit in the plant during regular work
time." He acknowledged that he did not show Hager the
Company 's purported no-solicitation rule, which was not
posted on the bulletin boards anywhere in the plant to
his knowledge. I do not credit Atkins' claim that his ad-
monishment of Hager for solicitation made no reference
to union cards. I credit Hager 's testimony and find that
Atkins' conduct not only constituted unlawful interroga-
tion as alleged in paragraph 8(h) of the complaint, but
also constituted a further violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act as alleged in paragraph 8(e) of the complaint.
H. The Alleged Discriminatory Discharge of Kenneth
Grey Wiggins on December 7
Kenneth Wiggins worked for Reeves Brothers from
1963 until December 7, 1978. As of the time of his dis-
charge he was a development technician in the engineer-
ing department under the supervison of Caron Division
Chief Engineer A. C. Findlay. Wiggins was responsible
for designing and building machines for special purposes.
He was a salaried employee . Wiggins did not read the
posted election notices which , in any event, did not spe-
cifically exclude or, for that matter, make any reference
whatsoever to his particular job classification . When it
came time for the employees in his area to vote on No-
vember 6 , he also went to the polls . There he was in-
formed by the election observers that his name was not
on the list of eligible voters . He consulted with the
Board agent in charge of the polling place and, in ac-
cordance with standard Board procedure, was permitted
to vote a challenged ballot. As he was returning from
the polling place, he passed Plant Manager Reott's
office. Reott invited him into the office, slammed the
door, and asked , "I want to know what it is with you
and the Union?" When Wiggins said he did not know
what Reott meant, Reott responded, "Just like the in-
stance just now when you were going up there to vote."
Wiggins explained that he thought he was supposed to
vote. Then Reott stated that he did not want any part of
1596 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a union , and did not want anybody in his plant with any
part of the Union . He said he liked Wiggins and his
family very much and that Wiggins -was a member of his
church. He told Wiggins to sit down and then asked him
why he could possibly be in favor of a union . Wiggins
explained that he and Jack Reid were the only two men
in the plant to do major projects and there were men in
the shop who made fun of him. He said he had talked to
Reott about this problem before , but Reott had never
done anything about it. Wiggins also complained that he
did not get any cooperation from the maintenance super-
visor and gave specific examples of what he meant. The
two men talked about an hour and a half, alone , accord-
ing to Wiggins.
Gerald Reott testified that early on the morning of the
election, while the employees were voting , he was in-
formed by an employee that Wiggins was in the voting
area where, in Reott 's view , Wiggins was not supposed
to be because he was a managerial employee and a super-
visor . According to Reott, he decided to call Wiggins
into his office and talk to him about his job performance.
Reott acknowledged that he did not have any formal
records of poor performance by Wiggins , but relied on
his memory concerning incidents which "occurred a
couple of times , probably 3 or 4 months after he came to
work with us and again probably 5 or 6 months later."
Nevertheless , Wiggins did not report to Reott. Instead,
he reported directly to Engineering Manager Findlay.
Reott watched for Wiggins and called him into the
office. He claimed he asked - Wiggins what he was doing
up in the polling area because "he had been instructed,
as had all the salaried people, not to go into that area,
because that ran the risk of throwing the whole election
against us with salaried employees or managerial em-
ployeesgoing up ." Reott also stated that he talked to
Wiggins about his apparent inability to get along with
some people whom he was from time to time assigned to
work with, and "that was basically the conversation."
Reott described the conversation as lasting about one-
half hour.
It is clear from their descriptions of the conversation
that neither Wiggins nor Reott remembered everything
that was said . Wiggins' description is more detailed, and
his explanation how the conversation turned into a dis-
cussion about problems with respect to his job is more
logical . His version is credited . I find that the Respond-
ent, through Gerald Reott , violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act by interrogating Wiggins on December 6, as alleged
in paragraph 8(r) of the complaint.
At 8:10 the following morning Wiggins was called to
the office of Curon Division Vice President Don Hubble,
where he found Engineering Manager Findlay and
Hubble waiting for him . Neither of these supervisors tes-
tified. Wiggins' description 'of his discharge interview is
unchallenged and credited . Findlay began the interview
stating, "Ken , we have - been talking about you and this
incident yesterday . On the grounds of the way things
went, we are going to have to terminate you." Findlay
also said they had already contacted Grote, Respondent's
manager of administration , and that they were almost
sure he would be getting severance pay through Febru-
ary 15 , but that some further checking was required.
Wiggins was told he could come to the plant and get' the
papers the following day or-if he preferred , they-would
mail them to him. Wiggins said to mail them . Then he
asked if he could say something and he proceeded to ex-
plain that he had not known what he was supposed to do
the day before and had only followed the government
official 's instructions about voting . Hubble retorted,
"That didn't make any difference , the incident yesterday
is really what topped it off, but you have been pushing
the Union all along ." Wiggins insisted he had not been
pushing the Union , to which Hubble responded , "That is
not what we have heard . It is final ." Hubble also said
that if he wanted to take the matter further , he could see
Pollock, but that it would not do any good because Pol-
lock felt the same way. Under those circumstances, Wig-
gins agreed that there was no need for pursuing the
matter further . Then, on Findlay 's request , Wiggins sur-
rendered his I . D. card , after which Findlay escorted him
to get his tools and then to the gate. Findlay expressed
his regrets , stating that Wiggins had always done good
work for them and offered to help him get another job.
Wiggins noted that only approximately 3 weeks before
he was terminated Findlay had called him to the office
and informed him that he was to receive a raise of $1300
a year beginning January 1, 1979.
Gerald Reott testified Wiggins was fired because he
was in the voting area on December 6. However, Wig-
gins' testimony shows that he was also discharged be-
cause the Company believed he "had been pushing the
Union all along ." Even so, the Respondent contends that
Wiggins' discharge is not unlawful because he was a
managerial employee and a supervisor . On cross-exami-,
nation Wiggins testified that he received a salary of
$15,500 per year and the benefits received by salaried
employees. He had originally been employed by Reeves
at the Cornelius plant but had, for a period of time,
worked at the Company 's research and development
center in Charlotte as process engineer and supervisor.
However , as shown by Respondent 's Exhibit 3, and an-
nouncement posted on the Respondent 's Cornelius plant
bulletin board over the signature of A. C. Findlay, Wig-
gins rejoined the divisional engineering group effective
March 1 , 1976, as a "development technician." The
second paragraph of the posted notice states , "Ken is
currently with the Reeves Research and Development-
Center in Charlotte where he is engaged in the develop-
ment of special equipment . Prior to that, he did similar
work at the Cornelius Plant . He will continue with the
same type of work for the Curon Division in his new po-
sition." There is nothing in the notice which proves that
Wiggins was a supervisor or managerial employee. The
reference in the notice to "the same type of work" is, at
most, ambiguous . More significantly , however, the notice
clearly shows that Wiggins ' job title changed from proc-
ess engineer and supervisor in Charlotte to "development
technician" at Cornelius.
Wiggins agreed that he supervised two people at Char-
lotte, but also testified that Reid , who worked with him
at Cornelius , reported directly to Maintenance Supervil
sor Benefield. Wiggins testified that only about five times
in 2-1/2 years was he called into planning meetings for
REEVES BROS. 1597
consultation, and then it was about a specific problem
with a machine or the possible development of new
equipment which he might be called on to design. It was
Wiggins' main task to develop machinery to accomplish
the production of a particular product. In that connec-
tion he worked with engineer Brian Blennis, the Compa-
ny's project engineer. He also was called on to consult
with Engineering Manager Findlay, Maintenance Super-
visor Benefield, and, at times, some of the maintenance
leadmen. Wiggins was a skilled machinist and, at times,
actually made machine parts for replacements or modifi-
cations. He was assisted in this work by Reid, a class A
mechanic from Benefield's maintenance crew. Gerald
Reott insisted that Wiggins was a supervisor, but agreed
that Wiggins spent the majority of his time actually
building new machinery, assisted by Reid, who reported
to a supervisor in another department.
I find that the evidence in the record concerning Wig-
gins' job functions, responsibilities, and authority fails to
show that Wiggins was either "managerial" or a supervi-
sor within the meaning of the Act. Although Wiggins
concedes that he was a supervisor while working at
Charlotte, the evidence clearly shows that authority was
not maintained when he became a technician on his
return to Cornelius. Moreover, there is really no evi-
dence to show that Wiggins either possessed or exercised
any of the authority described in Section 2(11) of the
Act. Even his assistant, Reid, reported to another super-
visor. I therefore conclude that Wiggins' duties more
nearly resemble those of a skilled salaried technical em-
ployee or professional employee. As such, whether or
not he was included in the voting unit is immaterial to
the question of his right to the protection of the Act.
The cases cited on page 214 of the Respondent's brief, in
support of the contention that its sole consideration was
the possible filing of an unfair labor practice over allow-
ing a nonunit employee to vote, are inapposite. The
Board has long upheld an employee's right to access to
polling areas for the purpose of clarifying the employee's
eligibility status, including the voting of a challenged
ballot, if so permitted by the Board agent in charge. Any
attempt to impede such access, or retaliation for asserting
this right, constitutes unlawful interference with the
processes of the Board. Therefore, if Wiggins had in fact
been discharged for this reason, the Respondent's con-
duct would have been discriminatory in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act. However, I' find that the Re-
spondent's asserted reason was a pretext, and that Wig-
gins was actually discharged because the Respondent
became convinced that he was a union sympathizer. This
true motive is clearly shown by the unchallenged testi-
mony of Wiggins concerning the conversation in Rub-
ble's office. Hubble specifically stated that the fact that
Wiggins had simply followed the instructions of the
Board agent in voting did not make any difference, and
that, although the voting incident "topped it off," Wig-
gins had been "pushing the Union all along." I find that
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act by discharging Wiggins on December 7 because of
his union sympathies and activities, as alleged in para-
graphs 12, 13, 20, and 21 of the complaint.
I. The Discharge of Kathy Fidler-Case 11-CA=9157
Kathy Fidler worked in the packing department of the
Cornelius plant under the supervision of Frances Kar-
riker. After the union campaign began, she became
active in the organizational drive, signing a card, passing
out pamphlets, and attending union meetings. As de-
scribed in section IV,E of this decision, she and her hus-
band, Kermit, who also worked for the Company, were
interrogated by Kathy's brother-in-law, Assistant Person-
nel Manager Erick Christenbury, immediately following
the August 6 union meeting . In addition, on November
28, Christenbury threatened Kermit Fidler, in Kathy's
presence, with discharge because of his union activities.
Kathy and Kermit Fidler both testified in this proceeding
on September 19, 1979, concerning these incidents. At
that time, as described in section IV,G, Kathy Fidler
also testified about a conversation she had a day or two
later with her supervisor, Marvin Johnson, during the
course of which she expressed her concern over Chris-
tenbury's threat by asking if Johnson was going to cause
her trouble and ride her off her job. Johnson vigorously
denied any such intention, insisting that no one was
going to tell him how to run his department.
Despite the events described above, Fidler applied for
and was granted five 30-day leaves of absence beginning
in July 1979. The first' of these arose out of Fidler's
desire to extend her vacation for 2 additional weeks after
the regular company vacation week of July 4. Because
under company policy the minimum leave of absence
period is 30 days, by arrangement with her supervisor,
Fidler was granted a 30-day leave of absence with the
understanting that she would return to work after using
only 2 weeks of this time . It is therefore clear and undis-
puted that the 30-day minimum leave-of-absence period
policy is subject to being overridden by whatever special
arrangement the employee makes with the supervisor.
Consequently, during Fidler's leave of , absence that
summer , when she was called and questioned by Assist-
ant Personnel Manager Christenbury concerning why
she was not at work, her explanation concerning her ar-
rangement with her supervisor was accepted, and no dis-
cipline ensued.
On October 8, 1979, Fidler was granted a 30-day leave
of absence for maternity leave. This was the first of four
consecutive 30-day leaves of absence Fidler obtained
from the Company after she and her husband testified in
this consolidated proceeding. The beginning dates of the
other three leaves of absence were November 7, Decem-
ber 7, 1979, and January 6, 1980. The last leave of ab-
sence was scheduled to end on February 3, 1980.
In the interim, while on leave of absence, Thad Black-
welder, by means of a transfer from another department,
became Fidler's supervisor instead of Frances Karriker.
On January 17, 1980, Kermit Fidler reported to person-
nel employee Lisa Hager that his wife was released by
the doctor to resume work on January +21.24 However,
24 Hager's testimony concerning how she handled this matter is cor-
roborated by the testimony of Personnel Manager Mary Wilhelm Shelly.
1598 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
he stated that he did not think she would return because
their arrangements for a babysitter had been canceled.25
Kathy Fidler agreed that she had been released to return
to work by her doctor on January 21. The personnel de-
partment called Blackwelder and told him that Fidler
had been released by her doctor and would report for
work on January 21 . She did not do so. On the morning
of January 22 she phoned Blackwelder . Blackwelder and
Fidler disagree concerning this conversation . According
to Fidler, "I told him that my doctor had released me
but my baby was sick , and that I had to keep him under
a vaporizer and everything and I couldn 't take him out. I
had a leave until the 3rd of February and would try to
get him well by then . He said that was all right ." Black-
welder testified that Fidler said "her baby was sick and
she would like to take her baby to the doctor . She said,
`I'll either call you or be back to work in the morning."'
On cross-examination Fidler omitted any reference to her
supervisor agreeing to this arrangement . In view of
Fidler's release by the doctor, I am persuaded that
Blackwelder 's version of the conversation is more logi-
cal. It is credited . I find that Fidler agreed to return to
work on the morning of January 23, or to call her super-
visor, thereby, as she had in the past, modifying the con-
ditions of her leave of absence.
The Respondent has a company rule that any employ-
ee who is out from for 3 days without contacting the
Company is automatically terminated . 26 According to
Fidler, she did not call or contact the Company until
February 4. At that time she told Blackwelder "the baby
was still real sick , and he said personnel had called him
and asked him if I had been back yet, and if he had
heard from me or what. He said that they had told him
that he had to terminate me. I said, well, I had a leave
until the 3rd of February and he claimed he didn't know
anything about it." Fidler was positive about the date of
this phone call. Balckwelder was not. I therefore find
that the phone call took place on February 4, as Fidler
testified . However , Blackwelder 's version of the conver-
sation differs . He testified that Fidler told him "she
would have to quit because her baby was sick . I told her
that I had terminated her anyway." Blackwelder's ver-
sion more nearly conforms with the information which
Kermit Fidler, undisputedly , gave to the personnel de-
partment on January 21. I credit Blackwelder 's account.
In any event , it is undisputed that Kathy Fidler did not
contact the Company until far more than 3 days had
passed following January 23. Therefore , in accordance
with the Company 's rule, she became automatically ter-
minated.
The General Counsel argues that Fidler was terminat-
ed discriminatorily because of her and her husband's in-
volvement with the Union , pursuant to Christenbury's
threat to Kermit Fidler in November 1978 and because
she testified in these proceedings in September 1979. 1
disagree . In my view , only by the most strained interpre-
tation of the facts, including piling inference upon infer-
ence, can the General Counsel 's assertions prevail. The
General Counsel failed completely to establish any nexus
between Eric Christenbury 's threats in November 1978
and Fidler 's termination in 1980.27 Moreover , the record
shows that Fidler received four consecutive leaves of ab-
sence from the Company after the Christenbury incidents
and after her testimony on September 19, 1979. It was
only after she clearly violated the Company's 3-day rule
that she was terminated . While it may have been that the
Respondent was not altogether unhappy to learn that
Kathy Fidler had placed herself in a position from which
her termination was sustainable , such lack of remorse, if
in fact it existed , does not suffice as a substitute for
proof. To find otherwise would be to decide Fidler's
case on a basis of pure speculation . I find instead that the
General Counsel has failed in the burden of proof with
respect to Kathy Fidler 's discharge , and that the Re-
spondent did not violate Section , 8(a)(i), (3), and (4) of
the Act by terminating her on January 28, 1980, as al-
leged in paragraphs 8 through 13 inclusive of the com-
plaint in Case 11-CA-9157.
J. The Alleged Refusal to Bargain
Paragraphs 14-19 and 22-23 allege , in substance, that
at all times since September 20, specifically on Septem-
ber 20 and on November 5, the Union has represented a
majority of the Respondent 's employees in the unit found
appropriate by the Regional Director in Case 11-RC-
4592. Through the commission of unfair labor practices,
the Respondent allegedly sought to undermine and de-
stroy the Union's majority.
On September 20, by letter, the Union requested rec-
ognition from the Respondent . The Respondent declined
to recognize the Union, and the parties proceeded to an
election on December 6, following a representation hear-
ing and unit determination by the Regional Director. For
the reasons set in section III,B of this decision, I have
found that the Respondent 's 37 leadmen are supervisors
within the meaning of the Act and should be excluded
from any collective-bargaining unit. Therefore , I find the
unit set forth in paragraph 13 of the complaint is not an
appropriate collective-bargaining unit . I likewise find
that the appropriate collective-bargaining unit is as fol-
lows:
All production and maintenance employees at the
facilities of Reeves Brothers , Inc located in Corne-
lius, North Carolina; excluding truckdrivers, office
clerical employees , professional employees, guards
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
The burden of proving an authorization card majority
rests with the General Counsel. In this case the efforts to
prove such a majority center around two specific dates,
September 20, when the Union requested recognition and
November 5, the payroll eligibility date for employees in
the voting unit. The date of September 20 will be consid-
ered first. General Counsel's Exhibit 218 lists the names
of 644 persons, including leadmen, employed by the Re-
25 This testimony is undisputed because Fidler did not testify
26 The mutually corroborative testimony of Blackwelder and Shelly in
this regard is unrebutted
27 Thad Blackwelder 's testimony that he did not know at the time of
their conversation that Eric Christenbury was Kathy Fidler 's relative is
unrebutted
REEVES BROS.
spondent on September 20. After deducting Respondent's
37 leadmen, a total of 607 employees remain in the ap-
propriate unit. Therefore, 304 employees would consti-
tute a majority. Of a total of 371 authorization cards re-
ceived into evidence in this proceeding, I find the fol-
lowing 80 cards to be invalid for the reasons set forth
below. '
The following cards are invalid because the signers
listed below are leadmen and supervisors within the
meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act, as found in this de-
cision.
Name G. C Exh.
David J. Cook 3
Ray P. Turner 29
William K. Walker 31
Bobby A. Moore 22
Larry Helms 15
James Bufford Howell 97
Tim W. Reid 65
Joseph Graham
Cowan 72
Cyrus Tilghman 87
Warren Brandon 100
Jackie Torrence 124
Julius S. Craton 169
Horace Odell Jackson 238
Troy E. Rogers 340
James N. Sloan 284
Harold G. Edwards 145, 36028
Bill J. Burgess 321
According to General Counsel's Exhibit 218 the fol-
lowing named employees were not in the unit as of Sep-
tember 20, 1978.
Name G. C. Exh.
Randy Alexander 296
Kenneth Alexander 315
Samuel Buchanan 143
Wilbur Caldwell 194
Michael Carone 42
Joanne Carr 184
Gene Hall 187
Freddie McCrae 52
Andy Phileman 142
Charles Sipes 293
Regie Sloan 349
Andre Speaks 370
Tawanna Turner 256
Elaine Wylie 363
The authorization cards of the following named per-
sons I find to be invalid because, in my view, the cred-
ited testimony of these employees and, where applicable,
authenticating witnesses, shows that the card signers
were either explicitly told by the solicitor that the sole
purpose of signing a card was to obtain an election, or
were told in such specific terms that the only reason for
their signing a card was to obtain an election to preclude
any other possible reason, within the meaning of the
Board's decisions in Federal Alarm, 230 NLRB 518, 522
28 Only G C Exh 360 was signed as of September 20.
1599
(1977); Walgreen Co., 221 NLRB 1096 (1975); and Levi
Strauss & Co., 172 NLRB 732 (1968).
Name G.C. Exh.
Jodie A. Bostian 123
Bill Burgess29 321
Carolyn Deese 322
Troy Rogers29 340
Joan Solesbee 281
William Ward 285
John Black 332
Sarah Bradford Cress 215
Glenn Crowell 44
Yolanda D.
Cuthbertson 203
David Rogers 288
Ray Turner29 29
The following employees' cards were signed after Sep-
tember 20, 1978.
Name & G.C. Exh. Date on Card
L. G. Benfield, 147 11-20-78
Billy Bennett , 146 11-24-78
Sarah Bentley , 144 - 11-20-78
Jean Byrd , 125 11-13-78
Barry Brown ; 167 10-21-78
Carolyn Caldwell, 159 10-11-78
Shirley Davis, 132 11-20-78
Lamont Dyson , 97 9-23-78
Calvin Donaldson,
216 12-1-78
Lloyd Driver, 259 11-6-78
'Harold Edwards ,30 11-22-78
Curtis Hancock , 127 11-28-79
Norman Hill , 348 12-1-78
Patricia Marsh , 245 9-29-78
Billy Owensby, 301 10-9-78
Beatrice Smith , 126 11-21-78
Oscar Sturgess , 289 10-19-78
Frank Torrence, 282 10-26-78
Jackie Torrence, 30 11-21-78
Tony Waugh, 64 11-30-78
Gregory Withers, 252 10-26-78
Johnny Witherspoon,
386 11-27-78
John Young, 163 10-2-78
Lonnie Isom , 48 10-4-78
John D. Collins, 12 11-30-78
The cards of the following employees are found in-
valid for the reasons set forth below."'
Ronnie Barnett-350. Barnett did not date his card.
The date is not in his handwriting. He did not know who
dated the card and had no memory concerning the accu-
racy of the date.
Bill Cornett-81. Cornett did not testify. From an ex-
amination of his card and from the testimony of authenti-
29 Also found to be invalid as a leadman.
30 Leadman
31 The Union demanded recognition on September 20 I therefore find
it immaterial that many of the cards are date stamped as received by the
Regional Office on a subsequent date
1600 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sating witness Burley Draughn, I find that Cornett
placed only the date "78" on the card , while someone
else also dated it "8-7-78." Draughn did not know who
dated the card and only assumed that the card was
signed about the date thereon.
Ronnie Cowan-387. Cowan testified that she placed
only "Sun '78" on the card and did not know who
placed "Aug." above her writing . She had no recollec-
tion at all concerning the date on which she signed the
card.
Berle Hayes- 170. Hayes did not date his card. He had
no recollection whatsoever concerning either who dated
his card or whether the date that appears on the card
was accurate . I find the date to be unreliable.
Cynthia Howard-339. Howard also did not date her
card and had no recollection concerning the accuracy of
the date placed on the card by someone else. I find the
date to be unreliable.
Eunice Jackson-166. Jackson did not testify. The card
was placed in evidence through witness James Davidson,
who gave the card to Jackson . Davidson testified that
Jackson did not date the card . Davidson did not date the
card . He had no recollection concerning either who
dated the card or the accuracy of the date on the card.
Geoffrey Mayhew-130. Mayhew did not testify. His
card was placed in evidence through Union Representa-
tive John Kissack who met Mayhew for the first time in
the throng of card signers at the August 6 union meet-
ing. Kissack testified that he remembered Mayhew be-
cause his first name was "Godfrey," thereby revealing a
faulty memory about this incident . I find it highly unlike-
ly that Kissack remembered Mayhew signing a card
under the somewhat confused mass card signing which
occurred at the August 6 meeting , the first meeting Kis-
sack attended , as described earlier in this decision. Kis-
sack 's testimony is discredited in this regard . Mayhew's
card is invalid.
Juli Baker-358. Baker testified that she did not date
her card and did not know who dated it. She did not
know whether the date on the card was the approximate
date that she signed the card . I find the date on the card
to be unreliable.
Ella Davis-99. Davis did not testify. Joel Cook, who
gave Davis the card, testified that he did not know who
filled in the date , but did know that it was not Davis.
Cook had no idea who dated the card, or if the date was
accurate . I find the date on the card to be unreliable.
Douglas Horton-248 . Horton testified that he did not
date his card and did not know who dated it. He had no
recollection when he signed it or whether the date that
appeared on the card was correct . I find the date on the
card to be unreliable.
Carolyn Jarvis-38. Jarvis did not testify. Charles
"Buddy" Martin , who solicited Jarvis to sign a union
card, testified that Jarvis did not fill out the top of the
card, including the date . He did not know who did. It
was not until redirect examination that Martin testified
that the card was signed on the Monday after the union
meeting . I am persuaded that Martin 's testimony in this
respect derived from his observation of the date on the
card rather than his independent recollection of the cir-
cumstances . He is not credited in this respect . I find the
date on the card to be unreliable.
Mack Byers-338 . Byers testified that although he
asked his wife to fill a union card out for him , he never
saw the card and consequently was unable to identify
General Counsel 's Exhibit 338 as the card he signed. He
further stated that he was "not too familiar" with her
handwriting . His wife did not testify.
Paulette Caldwell- 195. Caldwell was unable to identi-
fy General Counsel 's Exhibit 195 as the card which she
asked a friend to fill out for her. No one else testified
about this card . Caldwell was not familiar with her
friend 's handwriting and could only "guess" that the
date on the card might be the approximate, date.
C. A. Upright-8. Upright testified that he could not
read and that although he signed his name to a card
given him by David Cook , Cook filled out the rest of the
card . Upright could not confirm the accuracy of the
date. Cook testified that he read the card to Upright
before he signed it, but Upright testified that Cook did
not. Although Cook testified that he dated the card, he
did not testify that it was dated on the date it was
signed . I credit Upright over Cook and find Cook 's testi-
mony unreliable and the card invalid.
Daisy Gibson- 131. Gibson did not testify . Her card
was introduced into evidence through Union Representa-
tive Kissack, who testified that he saw Gibson sign the
card at the August 6 union meeting and remembered her
because she was quite an enthusiastic member of the au-
dience who asked him to get her some more cards. How-
ever, Kissack did not know Gibson 's signature . Consider-
ing the number of people that attended the August 6
union meeting, which was the first meeting that Kissack
attended , I do not credit Kissack's testimony in this
regard . Since Gibson did not testify , I find the card .not
to have been authenticated and therefore invalid.
Richard Graham-60. Graham did not testify. Bobby
Waugh , who observed Graham filling out a card, was
unable to identify General Counsel 's Exhibit 60 as the
card which Graham signed . Waugh testified that he
really just assumed this was the card Graham turned in
because it had Graham 's name on it . I find Waugh 's testi-
mony to be an unreliable basis for finding this card to be
valid.
I find the following 291 cards to be valid based on the
credited testimony of the card signers themselves or,
where applicable, the testimony of authenticating wit-
nesses. These cards are divided into the categories listed
below.
The following 239 cards were adequately authenticat-
ed and were not challenged by the Respondent on any
substantial ground other than the question of supervisory
participation in the campaign , which will be discussed
below.
Name G.C. Exh.
Susie Adcock 152
Ernestine Alexander 343
Jerry Alexander 211
Phyllis Alexander 172
Ruby Andrews 134
Mane Bailey 149
REEVES BROS.
Albert Ball 382 Evelyn Erwin 201
Robert Ball 94 Randy Erwin 369
Lon Barker 89 Jeff Ferrell 362
Jessie Lee Barkley 231 Kathy Fidler 84
Dewanna Barnett 351 Kermit Fidler 85
James Barringer 154 Michael Fish 198
John Barringer 155 Franklin Fisher 9
Robert Barringer 275 Billy Fleming 66
Robert L. Barringer 204 Harold Fleming 217
Linda Barton 34 Patty Fletcher 257
Vivian Batchelor 105 Clyde Ford 178
Carl Beatty 191 Rosalyn Forney 185
Grover Beatty
Jonsie Beatty
162
137
Rufus Gabriel
Thomas Frank
205
David Beaver 70 Gamble 176
Glenn Beaver 295 Thomas R. Gamble 175
James Berry 344 Whitfield Gaston 104
Thomas Berry 336 Richard Giles 379
Goldia Black 274 Billy Glaze 183
Allen Bolick 139 Gladys Codbout 297
Henry Bost 108 Harvey Goodson 10
Franklin Brawley 237 Charles W. Graham 335
John Brown 365 Clifford Graham 356
Mitchell Burris 37 Joan Graham 304
Pansy Burris 36 John F. Graham 13
Sherman Burton 138 John W. Graham 206
Steve Byers 312 Leroy Graham 177
Howard Caldwell 151 Watson Graham 373
Mary Caldwell 329 Thelma Green 209
Frank Cantrell 213 Walter Green 210
Brenda Canup 385 Joanne Griffith 353
Mary Ann Carpenter 212 Brenda Hager 164
Cleve Carr 347 Donald Hager 200
Floyd Carr 140 Ira Hall 5
Stephen Chastain 136 Lola Harrison 190
Haywood Cherry 156 Randy Harwell 75
Vickie Cherry 299 Marie Hart 101
Eddie Childers 135 Spencer Hastings 196
Patsy Lee Childers 113 John Hawks 14
Roderick Clark 361 Michael Helms 141
Vivian Clark 359 Flowery Henderson 182
Margaret Cole 109 Cecil Hicks 298
Douglas Compton 251 Melvin Hinson 16
Linda Compton 157 Edward Holbrook 117
Joel Cook 92 Randy Honeycutt 161
John Cook 158 Dwight Houston 171
Willie Cook 153 Loria Houston 193
Hollis Corenlius 273 Ophelia Houston 173
Jack Dale 214 Thelma Houston 302
Mary Ann Davenport 186 Virginia Houston 18
James Davidson 165 Warren Houston 17
Carol Davis 174 Shelton Howard 179
Ethel Davis 318 Veronica Howard 180
Herman Davis 346 Helen Howie 232
James Whitfield Davis 371 James Huey 110
Janie Davis 320 Thelma Hunter 253
Karl Deal 74 Edna Huntley 255
Burley Draughn 78 Furman Huntley 19
Veronica Draughn 82 Karen Jenkins 300
Lorie Dyson 111 Danny Jetton 381
Edna Elliott 207 Margaret Jetton 305
1601
1602 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Donna Jones 313
Ourren Jones 230
Emma Jones 148
Paul Jones 20
Ernest Jordan 121
Jean Karriker 91
Charles King 21
William Steven Knox 306
Leonard Knox , Jr. 258
Leon Ladda 80
Wilda Ladda 83
Harold Latter 323
Avis Little 356
Jerry Little 116
Robert Lovelace 341
James Lowery 95
J. C. McClure 334
Robert McCorkle 333
Darrell McCoy 4
Johnnie McCrary 236
Cathy McCullough 366
Clarence McDaniel 24
Nelson McDaniel 57
Alice McGraw 107
Vernon McGraw 90
James Maley 223
Sharon Mamaugh 243
Gladys Marsh 246
Charles Martin 35
Darry Martin 377
Joseph Matheson 76
Sherrie Mayhew 250
Barbara Meadows 226
Patsy Meadows 225
Russell S. Medley 79
Anthony Miller 354
Joe Lee Miller 324
Sandra Miller 241
Harold Mills 86
Richard Mize 254
Frankie Moore 221
Lewis Moore 224
Robert Moore 77
Patricia Morgan 220
Bradley Morris 235
Libby Morrison 242
Regina Morrison 224
James Moss 325
Michael Mundy 249
John McCauley 319
Louise Neal. 88
John Norman 233
Sadie Oliver 234
Joey Perkins 287
Lillie Pharr 303
Kathy Phifer 112
Kevin Plyler 277
Albert Ponder 25
David Ponder 93
Michael Pryor 308
David Reid 268
Kenneth Rivens 271
Myrtle Rivens 267
Ricky Rivens 337
Thomas Rivens 266
Ola Mae Hayes Rivers 326
Billy Ray Robinette 260
Steve Robinson 26
Titus Robinson 352
Wayne Robinson 27
Dianne Rogers 264
Parks Ross 270
Sarah Sellers 342
James Shelton 309
David Sherrill 63
Dorothy Sherrill 276
Rebecca Sherrill 118
Arnetha Sinclair 330
Josephine Sinclair 69
Thomas Sinclair 375
Cathleen Smith 286
Ferman Smith 269
John Springs 6
Joyce Springs 265
William Springs 263
Genevieve Steele 227
Joe Steele 327
Corliss Stinson 115
Edith Stinson 261
Michael Stinson 290
Rostus Stinson 262
Samuel Strider 67
Arthur Swaney 283
Danny Tallmon 335
Gary Dean Triplett 68
Sammy Umbarger 32
Charles VanZant 30
Vandora Walker 122
Pratt Wallace 61
Sheila Warren 378
Bobby Waugh 58
Ruth Weddington 278
Altenna While 376
Thomas White Sr. 291
Vincent White 279
Richard Whitlow 294
Robert Whitlow 311
J. C. Williamson 106
Dexter Wilson 73
Jevet Wilson 328
Arnold Withers 292
Vonnie Wylie 331
I find the following group of cards to be valid, al-
though they were contested because of an alleged lack of
evidence of authenticity with respect to the date or other
technical deficiency.
Name G. C. Exh.
Elizabeth Austin 150
Billy Bennett 345
Ray Brandon 62
Dennis Byrd 383
Inez Carr 11
Bettye Houston 199
F1oydJackson 380
Richard Jewell 96
Robert Quarles Jr. 314
Robert Quarles Sr. 98
Shirley Sherrill 103
June Springs 102
Frances Tanner 222
REEVES BROS. 1603
Swann McClure 23
Earlene Nance 374
Larnette Pinkston 272
Henry Hunt Rhyne 310
Dennis Wade 372
I find the following group of cards to be valid, al-
though they were challenged by the Respondent on the
basis of the contested credibility of employee solicitor
Douglas Piguerra . Although Piguerra's testimony, con-
tained fluctuations and inconsistencies , I am persuaded
that his testimony, considered as a whole , adequately au-
thenticated his own card, General Counsel 's.Exhibit 39,
and those of the following employees:
Name G.C. Exh.
Alvin Ray Barnett 40
Henry Burgess 41
Felton Carr 43
Doug Davis 45
Pink Graham 47
Lonnie Isom 48
Brian Thompson 49
Eddrew Graham 50
Linda Mercer 51
Charles Olson 53
Thomas Junior Smith 54
Bobby Turner 55
McConnie Gaston Jr. 71
Respondent contends that the following cards are in-
valid because the employees listed below were allegedly
told either that the sole purpose of their card was to
secure a,National Labor Relations Board election , or that
everyone else had signed a card . I am persuaded, from a
close examination of the testimony relating to the cards
of these employees , that the representations made to
them by the card solicitors fall within the parameters es-
tablished by the Board in the Federal Alarm, Levi Strauss,
and Walgreen Co., cases, supra, and cases cited therein. I
am therefore satisfied that the remarks made to these em-
ployees were not the equivalent of telling the employees
specifically that the reason for signing a union card was
"solely" or "only" to get an election.
Name G. C. Exh.
Horace Morrison 367
Jeffrey Alexander 197
Elizabeth Austin 150
Sarah Beatty 189
Jmes Bullock 160
Ralph Chapman 188
Carl Clark 192
Ricky Cruse 181
Vivian Hastings 247
Mary Howard 202
Sandra Keller 240
Steven Keller 229
Dorothy Knox 239
Louis Lowery 316
:
I also find the authorization card signed by Fred
Wright, General Counsel's Exhibit 33, to be a valid card,
although it was filled out and signed for him by David
Cook . Although an examination of this card clearly re-
veals that Wright did not sign his name in pencil over
Cook's writing, as he testified, I find that Wright clearly
authorized Cook to sign the card for him. This conclu-
sion is reinforced by a considerable amount of evidence
at various points in the record which demonstrates that
Wright was one of the Union 's earliest adherents and one
of the most consistently active throughout the campaign.
Finally, I have declined to count the lost card of
Oscar Benfield . Benfield testified that he is illiterate and
could only guess that he placed his mark on the card
about a month before Labor Day. Edward Holbrook, the
solicitor, could not remember with any degree of certain-
ty the date on which the card was signed or the names
of those persons who were present when Benfield alleg-
edly signed the card . I find the testimony of these wit-
nesses to bean unreliable basis for validating the card in
the absence of the document.
Based on the above findings and analysis , I further find
and conclude that the Union did not have a majority in
the appropriate unit on September 20, 1978.
General Counsel 's Exhibit 219 is a list of 656 persons
employed by the Respondent as of the November 5 pay-
roll eligibility date . Deducting the 37 leadmen from this
total results in a total employee complement in the ap-
propriate unit . of 619 employees . Therefore, 310 employ-
ees would constitute a majority . As discussed earlier, I
have found that as of September 20 the Union had ob-
tained 291 valid authorization cards . From this total must
be deducted the following 16 cards signed by employees
no longer on the payroll as of November 5:
Name G. C. Exh.
Ronnie Barnett 350
David Beaver 70
Vivian Clark 359
Doug Davis 45
Billy Fleming 66
John F. Graham 13
Pink Graham 47
Karen Jenkins 300
Sharon Mamaugh 243
Henry Hunt Rhyne 310
Wayne Robinson 27
Thomas Junior Smith 54
Danny Tallmon 335
Dennis Wade 372
Odell Ware 280
Sheila Warren 378
Therefore, I find and conclude that as of November 5
the Union had acquired a total of 275 valid authorization.
cards. To this total must be added the cards of the fol-
1604 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lowing 10 employees who signed cards after September
20 and before November 5:
Name G. C. Exh.
Barry Brown 167
Carolyn Caldwell 159
Lamont Dyson 97
Lonnie R. Isom 48
Patricia Marsh 245
Bill Owensby 301
Oscar Sturgess 289
Frank Torrence 282
Gregory Withers 252
John Young 163
Thus, as of November 5, the Union had a total of 285
valid authorization cards. I therefore find and conclude
that, on November 5 the Union did not represent a ma-
jority of the employees in the appropriate unit. Although
September 20 and November 5 are the only two dates on
which the General Counsel sought to prove the Union's
majority status, an examination of all the cards signed
after September 20, 1978, as listed earlier , reveals that
the Union did not have a majority at any other provea-
ble time . I therefore find and conclude that the Respond-
ent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act, as
alleged in the complaint. I further find and conclude that
the unfair labor practices of the Respondent found to
have occurred ' in this case , although serious , are not
egregious to an extent which would warrant the issuance
of a bargaining order in the absence of a proven majori-
ty.
Lastly, the Respondent contends that the participation
of its supervisory leadmen in the Union 's organizational
and card-signing drive, standing alone, tainted virtually
all of the cards and rendered them invalid .- I disagree. It
is true that the record does show that David Cook and
other of the Respondent 's leadmen participated exten-
sively in soliciting authorization card signatures, hand-
billing , and other significant union activities. It is, I
think , a fair assessment of the record as a whole to ob-
serve that practically the entire union campaign was thus
saturated with supervisory participation. In other circum-
stances than those presented here a campaign so perme-
ated with supervisory participation might render all the
authorization cards invalid. However, I have also consid-
ered the fact that Cook and other of the most active su-
pervisor participants directed only the work of small
groups of maintenance employees and, conversely, were
not in a position to affect or control the day-to-day
working lives of the vast majority of Respondent's rank-
and-file production employees. Thus, their ability and
opportunity to have a coercive influence over those em-
ployees with respect to signing authorization cards was
clearly minimal.32 I therefore find that the cards were
not "tainted" by supervisory participation. Under these
circumstances the Respondent's motion to dismiss the
representation case petition is denied.
32 Cf. Kul Rate Kid & Shop Kwtk, 246 NLRB 106, 107 (1979).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent-Employer is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act.
2. The Charging Party-Petitioner, the Union, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees 'at Re-
spondent's facilities located in Cornelius, North Carolina;
excluding truckdrivers , office clerical employees , profes-
sional employees , guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act.
4. Beginning about September 20, 1978 , and at all
times material thereafter within the scope of this deci-
sion, the Charging Party-Petitioner has not and does not
represent a majority of the employees in the appropriate
unit set forth in paragraph 3 of this section of this deci-
sion.
5. By threatening employees with discharge , plant- clo-
sure , withholding of pay increases , more rigid enforce-
ment of company rules , and other disciplinary action; by
informing employees that the Company would not nego-
tiate with the Union , and threatening them that a strike
was inevitable if the employees selected the Union as
their bargaining representative ; by promulgating, main-
taining, and enforcing rules prohibiting the distribution
of union literature and solicitation on behalf of the Union
on comapany time and property for the purpose of inhib-
iting employees ' lawful union activities; by more strin-
gently enforcing workbreak rules, including prohibiting
employees from sending out for food during workbreaks;
by promising employees benefits and conferring benefits
on them to discourage union support ; by soliciting griev-
ances from employees to discourage their participation in
union activities , and by soliciting employees to persuade
others to vote against the Union; by interfering with the
processes of the National Labor Relations Board by in-
forming employees that they did not have to meet with
agents of the Board; by interfering with the lawful union
activities of its employees and those of union representa-
tives ; and by interrogating employees concerning their
union sentiments and activities, the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
6. By discharging Kenneth Wiggins on December 7,
1978, and denying Fred Wright work on December 6,
1978, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
8. The Respondent has not violated the Act in any re-
spects other than those specifically found.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices , I find it necessary to order the
Respondent to cease and desist therefrom and take cer-
tain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
REEVES BROS.
Because Respondent discriminatorily discharged Ken-
neth Wiggins and unlawfully denied work to Fred
Wright on December 6, 1978, I find it necessary to order
that the Respondent offer Wiggins immediate and full re-
instatement and offer Wiggins and Wright backpay com-
puted on a quarterly basis, plus interest as prescribed in
F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida
Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977).33
The Respondent shall also be ordered to post an ap-
propriate notice.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed34
ORDER
The Respondent, Reeves Brothers , Inc., Cornelius,
North Carolina, its officers , agents , successors , and as-
signs, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Threatening employees with discharge , plant clo-
sure, withholding of pay increases , more rigid enforce-
ment of company rules, and other disciplinary action; in-
forming employees that the Company would not negoti-
ate, with the Union, and threatening them that a strike
was inevitable if the employees selected the Union as
their bargaining representative ; promulgating , maintain-
ing, and enforcing rules prohibiting the distribution of
union literature and solicitation on behalf of the Union
on company time and property for the purpose of inhib-
iting employees' lawful union activities ; more stringently
enforcing workbreak rules, including prohibiting employ-
ees from sending out for food during workbreaks; prom-
ising employees benefits and conferring benefits on them
to discourage union support; soliciting grievances from
employees to discourage their participation in union ac-
tivities,_ and soliciting employees to persuade others to
vote against the Union ; interfering with the processes of
the National Labor Relations Board by informing em-
ployees that they did not have to meet with agents of the
Board; interfering with the lawful union activities of its
employees and those of union representatives ; and inter-
rogating employees concerning their union sentiments
and activities.
(b) Discharging employees , denying employees work,
or otherwise discriminating against employees in regard
to hire and tenure of employment , or any term or condi-
tion of .employment , because they joined or assisted
Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union,
AFL-CIO, CLC, or, any other organization , or because
they engaged in union activities or protected concerted
activities.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining , or coercing employees in the exercise of their
33 See generally Isis Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
94 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102 46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations , the findings , conclusions, and recommended
Order shall , as provided in Sec. 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses
1605
rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor
organizations, to bargaining collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, to engage in other pro-
tected concerted activities for the purposes of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to re-
`frain from any and all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer Kenneth Wiggins immediate and, full rein-
statement to his former position or, if such position no
longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, with-
out prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privi-
leges, and make Kenneth Wiggins and Fred Wright
whole for any loss of earnings , in the manner set forth in
the remedy section of this decision.
(b) Preserve and, on request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records nec-
essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
(c) Post at its plants at Cornelius, North Carolina (oth-
erwise known as the Cornelius plant, and the Carolina
plant), copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix."35 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 11, after being signed by
the Respondent's authorized representative , shall be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places
including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
At the hearing in this matter counsel for the General
Counsel stated that the Charging Party-Petitioner's ob-
jections, consolidated for hearing in this case by the Re-
gional "Director, precisely corresponded with the allega-
tions of unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, as
amended . In view of the findings in this decision, IT IS
FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Charging Party-Peti-
tioner's Objections 4, 7, 15, 25, 27, and 31 and other acts
and conduct, which fall within the critical period, as set
forth in the Regional Director 's supplemental decision,
direction and order consolidating cases , dated March 6,
1979, be susgtained , that the remaining objections, con-
cerning which a hearing was ordered, be dismissed, and
that the results of the election held on December 6, 1978,
be set aside and a new election directed.
IT IS
,
FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint, as
amended, be dismissed to the extent it alleges violations
of the Act not found herein.
as If 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 Nation-
al 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 "