Repco Distributing, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 10, 1984

273 N.L.R.B. 158 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Repco Distributing, Inc. and Glass Warehouse
Workers & Paint Handlers, Local Union No.
206, International Brother000d of Painters and
Allied • Trades, AFL-CIO. Cases 29-CA-7861
and 29-CA-7904
10 December 1984
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
ZIMMERMAN AND HUNTER
On 18 June 1981 Administrative Law Judge
Raymond P. Green issued the attached decision.
The General Counsel filed exceptions and a sup-
porting brief.
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 brief and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, 1 and
conclusions 2 and to adopt the recommended
Order.
ORDER
The recommended Order of the administrative
law judge is adopted and the complaint is dis-
missed.
MEMBER ZIMMERMAN, dissenting in part.
I dissent from my colleagues' adoption of the
judge's decision with respect to two issues. I would
find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act on 13 March 1980 1 by discharg-
ing employee Robert Monsky because of his union
' In dismissing the allegation that Robert Monsky's discharge violated
the Act, we agree with the judge that its timing—coming shortly after
Monsky signed a union authorization card—raises a suspicion of a causal
connection However, as the judge correctly points out, a suspicion is not
proof Even assuming the Respondent's knowledge of Monsky's activi-
ties, there is no evidence that the Respondent threatened employees,
promised them benefits, or displayed any Intent to retaliate against em-
ployees because of their union activities In these circumstances, we have
at best an unsupported- inference that the termination was unlawful
Moreover, the judge credits the Respondent's testimony that Monsky's
work habits provided a legitimate basis for discharge Therefore, unlike
our dissenting colleague, we are unwilling to engage in building Infer-
ences upon speculation to arrive at the tenuous conclusion that the Re-
spondent violated the Act
We correct an error in the judge's discussion of the Monsky discharge
incident The judge refers to the customer's order as calling for AS-2
"plate" glass The correct designation of the AS-2 glass is "sheet" glass
2 In adopting the judge's conclusion that the Respondent's 14 March
1980 questions to two employees as to what they knew about the Union
do not constitute unlawful interrogation in violation of Sec 8(a)(1), we
rely on the absence of evidence of hostility toward the Union, the gener-
alized nature of the inquiries, the informal and noncoercive atmosphere in
which the questions were asked, the absence of threats or promises ac-
companying the questions, and the forthrightness of the employees' re-
plies which indicates that no intimidation or coercion existed Rossmore
House, 269 NLRB 1176 (1984) We note moreover that employee Butta-
cavoli could not recall such an interrogation
organizational activities. I would also find that the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
coercively interrogating employees Harold Baylis
and Nick Buttacavoli about the Union.
Monsky's Discharge
The Respondent is a small, family-run automo-
bile parts wholesale distributor. Other than compa-
ny officers, managers, and supervisors, it has only
12 employees. In early 1980, employee Monsky
called the Union to express an interest in gaining
representation for the Respondent's employees.
Around 4 March, Monsky invited employees to his
home for an 8 March organizational meeting. On 5
March, Monsky told the Respondent's vice presi-
dents Wachler and Mastrobuoni that he was inter-
ested in forming a union and that he was con-
cerned that unionization could affect adversely
their positions with the Respondent as independent
contractor-glass installers. Wachler and Mastro-
buoni told him that as corporate officers their posi-
tions would not be affected by unionizing and that
Monsky should do whatever he liked, but that the
Respondent's owner Grasso "would never go for
it." At the 8 March meeting, Monsky and fellow
employees Baylis and Buttacavoli signed cards au-
thorizing the Union to act as their representative.
On 10 and 12 March Monsky successfully solicited
two other employees to sign cards. Further, Baylis
testified that there was a great deal of discussion
about the Union among the employees throughout
the week after the meeting at Monsky's house.
On the afternoon of 13 March the Respondent's
general manager Lawlor informed Monsky that he
was terminated. Lawlor told Monsky that the Re-
spondent was dissatisfied with Monsky's work and
that an incident which occurred earlier in the day
was the last straw. This final incident involved
Monsky's selection of the wrong type of glass for a
customer's order. Monsky inadvertently pulled
from inventory a safer, more expensive piece of
safety plate glass instead of the safety sheet glass
called for in the order. The error was corrected
before the glass was sent. Grasso testified that
Monsky was never more than a marginal employee
who exhibited sloppy work habits, a lack of enthu-
siasm, consistent tardiness, inadequate care for
company property, and inattention to job responsi-
bilities. This last incident involving the wrong glass
allegedly prompted him to tell Lawlor to let
Monsky go.
With respect to Monsky's work record, the evi-
dence is that he had initially worked for the Re-
spondent for several months during 1978, left on
All dates are in 1980, unless otherwise indicated
273 NLRB No. 23
REPCO DISTRIBUTING 159
his own initiative, and then was readily rehired by
Grasso in February 1979. Monsky was given a $20-
a-week raise in August 1979 as an inducement from
Grasso to remain with the Respondent rather than
accept an offer from a competing employer. Grasso
had also repeatedly expressed satisfaction with
Monsky's performance by promoting him to ware-
house foreman, complimenting him in front of cus-
tomers, reassuring him of his position with the Re-
spondent, and, just a week before terminating him,
telling him that he had done a good job while
Grasso was out of town.
The judge accepted as valid and legitimate the
Respondent's justification for discharging Monsky.
In recommending dismissal of the complaint, he
also noted particularly the Respondent's lack of
demonstrated union animus and of direct knowl-
edge of Monsky's . involvement in protected union
activities. Contrary to my colleagues, I find error
in the judge's findings with respect to animus,
knowledge, motivation, and, ultimately, the occur-
rence of an 8(a)(3) violation.
As discussed below, I would find that Grasso un-
lawfully interrogated employees about the Union
only a day after Monsky's discharge. Apart from
this , evidence, Wachler and Mastrobuoni admitted
the Respondent's union animus when they told
Monsky that Grasso "would never go for" union-
ization. This same encounter , between Grasso and
the Respondent's officers clearly established knowl-
edge of Monsky's activities no later than 5 March.
In addition, the small size of the Respondent's
family-run business and the open in-plant organiza-
tional activities of Monsky further support the in-
ference that the Respondent must have known
about those activities before his discharge. In reli-
ance on the foregoing evidence, I would find that
the Respondent clearly knew about and was op-
posed to Monsky's union activity.
I would further find that Monsky's general work
performance and his error in selecting plate glass
were blatant pretexts designed to mask the Re-
spondent's antiunion discriminatory , motivation for
discharging him. Although there is evidence that
Monsky , was not, always a model employee, the
record shows that the Respondent. nevertheless
considered him sufficiently valuable to overlook his
deficiencies, offer encouragement and reassurance
of his tenure, grant him increased responsibilities,
and even increase his salary rather than risk his
loss. The Respondent was willing to overlook
whatever inadequacies Monsky may have demon-
strated without so much as a disciplinary warning
until Monsky's union activities began. It is far too
improbable to believe that Monsky's mistake in
pulling a more expensive, safer, higher quality
piece of glass than called for in a customer's order,
a mistake which was corrected before the glass was
even loaded on the delivery truck and which re-
sulted in no additional expense for either the Re-
spondent or the customer, was such a drastic ,de-
parture from or exacerbation of his previously con-
doned conduct as to justify his precipitate dis-
charge. The Respondent's sudden strictness with
regard to Monsky's work betrayed its pretextual
character. 2 Accordingly, I would find and con-
clude that Monsky's discharge on 13 March violat-
ed Section 8(a)(3) and (1).
The Unlawful Interrogations
On Friday, 14 March, the date after Monsky's
discharge, Union Representative Gableman tele-
phoned Grasso and told him that the Union repre-
sented a majority of the Respondent's employees
and that he wanted to negotiate a contract. .Ac-
cording to Grasso's own account, he followed up
on this phone conversation by asking employees
Baylis and Buttacavoli what they knew about the
Union. My colleagues have adopted the jiidge's
recommendation to dismiss these alleged interroga-
tions as noncoercive, isolated, and trivial in nature.
I disagree.
It is well established that questions probing into
employees' union sympathies reasonably tend to
coerce employees in the exercise of their Section 7
rights even absent accompanying threats of reprisal
or promises of benefits. Here, according to the Re-
spondent's own witness, the Respondent set out to
discover which employees supported the Union
simply by asking individual employees what they
knew about the Union. Such inquiries , undoubtedly
tend to inhibit employees' concerted activities. Par-
ticularly within the context of this case, in a small
12-employee plant where only 1 day earlier the Re-
spondent unlawfully rid itself of the leading union
activist, these interrogations by the Respondent
owner cannot be Characterized as either trivial or
isolated. Therefore, I would find that Grasso's
question's to Baylis and Buttacavoli violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and warrant appropriate remedial
action. See Brooks Cameras, 250 NLRB 820 (1980).
2 Both Grasso and Lawlor testified about the wrong glass incident and
the decision to terminate Monsky Their asserted concern about the
safety aspects of such an error should It have occurred in reverse, i e,
that a lower quality glass might be substituted for an order requiring the
better quality product, seems particularly contrived in light of the cir-
cumstances actually presented
160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DECISION
, STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RAYMOND P. GREEN, Administrative Law Judge.
These consolidated cases were tried before me on De-
cember 17, 18, and 19, 1980, and April 1, 1981. 1 The
charge in Case 29-CA-7861 was filed by the Union on
March 18 and the charge in Case 29-CA-7964 was flied
on April 4. Pursuant to these charges, a consolidated
complaint and notice of hearing was issued by the Re=
gional Director for Region 29 on May 30. In substance,
the complaint alleges:
1. That, about March 13, a majority of the Respond-
ent's employees , in a unit of service, production, and
maintenance employees designated the 'Union as their
collective-bargaining . representative.
2. That, about .March 14, the Union requested the Re-
spondent to recognize and bargain with it as the repre-
sentative of the employees.
3. That the Respondent diseharged its employees Phil
Vito on March '12, Robert Monsky On March 13, and
Greg 'Galano on March 18 because these employees
joined or supported the Union.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent admits the jurisdictional allegations of
the complaint. Therefore, it is found that the Respondent
is a New York corpOration located at 157A Grant
Avenue, Islip, New York, where it is engaged in the
wholesale distribution of automobile parts and related
products. Annually, the Respondent purchases goods and
materials valued in excess of $50,000 which are delivered
directly to it in interstate commerce from States other
than the State of New York. Accordingly, it is conclud-
ed that the Respondent is an employer engaged in corn.-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act. -
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Although the status of the Union as a labor organiza-
tion was denied, it is clear from the testimony of Charlie
Gableman that it is an organization in which employees
participate and which exists for the purpose of represent-
ing employees vis-a-vis employers regarding wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. It
' Unless otherwise indicated, all dates are in 1980
therefore is concluded that the Union is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
The first contact between the Union and employees of
the 'Company occurred in January or February 1980. In
this respect, employee Andrew Agosta was approached
by Union Agent Gableman and asked if he wished to
join the Union Agosta then told Joseph . Grasso, the Re-
spondent's owner, of this approach and the latter . re-
sponded, ,"Don't worry about it." No further contact
was made between the Union and the Respondent's em-
ployees until early March 1980.
In early March, Robert Monsky called the Union indi-
cating his interest in having representation and arranged
for a meeting at his home on March 8. On March 4 or 5,
Morisky spoke with various employees inviting them to
the 'meeting According to Monsky, around March 5 he
spoke with Robert Wachler and Gaspar Mastrobuom in
the shop, told them that he was interested in forming a
unibn, and asked if this would jeopardize their positions
with the Company. Monsky states that he asked them
this because he understood that Wachler and Mastro-
buoni were independent contractors who installed glass
for the Company and he was concerned that under a
union contract they would not be able to continue in that
relationship Monsky states that they responded that a
union would not affect them because they were officers
of the Company and that they would "like to see the
look on Joe's face because he would never go for it."
Monsky also states that they said that he should do
Whatever he liked.
Since the above transaction involved Wachler and
Mastrobuoni, it would be useful at this point to describe
their status with the Company. It appears that both indi-
viduals do glass installation work for the Company and
in connection with their functions do not have any su-
pervisory duties or responsibilities. However, both were
made vice presidents by Grasso, about January 1, 1979,2
and Mastrobuom is the latter's nephew. According to
Grasso, he made Wachler a vice president because he
was very dedicated and loya1. 3 (Lawlor and Mastrobuoni
were also made vice president at that time, no" doubt be-
cause they were relatives.) Grasso also testified that the
designation of Wachler and Mastrobuom as vice presi-
dents did not bring them any added compensation or any
equity 'in the Company, although he did have an under-
standing that ultimately, when he left the business, the
vice presidents would take over. 4 In effect, the arrange-
2 About January 1, 1979, Wachler, Mastrobuom i and Lawlor were
made vice presidents, and Grasso's wife, Frances, became the Company's
president Lawlor is concededly a supervisor within the meaning of the
Act, and is Grasso's sonlin-law Frances Grasso is the Company's book-
keeper
3 The testimony also establishes that Wachler owned his own truck,
has his own company, and was assumed to be an independent contractor
by Grasso
4 Although the General Counsel contends that Wachter and Mastro-
buorn should be excluded from any unit found to be appropriate, it is
noted that she does not allege that they are supervisors or agents of the
Respondent
- ,
4. That, about March 14, and on _various other un-
known dates e in March, the Respondent by Joseph
Grasso ,and by other unknown agents and supervisors in-
terrogated employees concerning their membership in,
activities on behalf of, and sympathy for the Union.
5. That the Respondent's conduct, as heretofore al-
leged, prevented the holding of a fair and free election
and therefore 'a bargaining order is required.
On the entire record, including my observation of the
demean& of the witnesses and after consideration of the
briefs filed, I make the following
REPCO DISTRIBUTING 161
ments made in 1979 appear- to be a 'kind of insurance
policy to provide for the continuation of this small
family-owned business if and when Grasso left the Com-
pany for health or retirement reasons. . •
Getting back to the main plot, of the story, a meeting
was held at Monsky's home on Saturday, March 8,
which was attended by Union Agents Gableman and
Bondi and by employees Robert Monsky, Harold Baylis,
and Nick Buttacavoli. At this meeting where the union
agents spoke of the benefits of unionization, the three
employees signed cards authorizing the Union to repre-
sent them , for collective-bargaining. purposes. However,
subsequent to the meeting Baylis, after speaking with his
wife, decided that he did not want to join the Union and
on several occasions during the next week asked Monsky
for his card back In this regard, Monsky's testimony
was that he could not recall if Baylis asked for his card
back but it could have happened. I credit .the testimony
of Baylis that he did ask for his card back
According to Monsky, about March 10 or 11 he asked
Greg Galano and Phil Vito to 'sign union cards. These
two emPloyees 'did sign such cards, Galano's being dated
March 10 and Vito's card being dated March 12. There-
fore, in toto, five employees signed cards for the Union.5
On Wednesday, March 12, Phil Vito was -told by
Lawlor that he was discharged. According to Vito,
about a week before, he . took- his truck to a gas station
where; in addition to getting gas, he bought a pack of
cigarettes which were put on the bill charged to the Re-
spondent. He explained that he did not have change to
buy the cigarettes but , that the attendant told him that
they were put on the gas bill. Vito testified that he in-
tended to pay the Company for the cigarettes when he
got back. Although the, impression was given during
direct examination that this event took place on the same
day that Vito was discharged and that he tendered the
money as soon as he returned to the Respondent's prem-
ises, it soon became apparent that Vito "forgot" to repay
the money for about a week and that on March 12, when
Lawlor approached him, Lawlor accused Vito of charg-
ing cigarettes on the Company's credit card and that it
"was the principle of the thing" with which he was con-
cerned.
According to Lawlor, he had received a call from the
gas station on the morning of March 12 pursuant to
5 As of March 14, when the Union made a demand for recognition, the
General Counsel asserts that the following people comprised an appropri-
ate collective-bargaining unit Harold Baylis, Ernie Phillips, Nick Butta-
cavoll, Phil Vito, Greg Galano, and Robert Monsky The Respondent as-
serts that the unit should include Robert Wachler, Gaspar Mastrobuoni.
Andrew Agosta, Harold Baylis, Ernie Phillips, George Puleo, Nick But-
tacavoll, Mike Reissman, but excluded Vito, Galano, and Monsky
As to Vito and Monsky, the General Counsel asserts that they should
be Included in the unit notwithstanding the Respondent's contention that
they no longer were employed because she asserts they were Illegally dis-
charged As td Galano and Vito, the Respondent contends that they es-
sentially did office work whereas the General Counsel asserts that they
were drivers With respect to Wachler and Mastrobuorn, the ; General
Counsel contends that they should be excluded from the unit because
they are vice presidents and because of their special relationship with the
Company The General Counsel also objects to the Respondent's conten-
tion that Reissman and Puleo should be Included in the unit as she argues
that the former was a management trainee and that the latter was on ex-
tended sick leave Finally, the Ge'neral Counsel takes no position as to
Andrew Agosta
which he visited the station and learned that Vito was
making a habit: of charging cigarettes to the Respondent.
He states that, when he confronted Vito about this, the
latter 'admitted it Lawlor testified that he therefore de-
cided to discharge Vito. In connection with the dis-
charge of Phil Vito, I note here that there was no direct
evidence that either Lawlor or any other company agent
had knowledge of the fact that Vito had signed a union
card earlier that day. It also is noted that-there was evi-
dence that, on one other occasion when an employee
was suspected of stealing, he was given the option of re-
signing: •
On March 13, Monsky was discharged. That morning
Monsky, who is in charge of the Warehouse, received an
order calling for "the delivery of plate glass designated as
AS-2 for the side windOw of a bus. In this regard, there
are various types Of glass used in motor vehicles, among
them being -glass de signated as AS:1 and AS-2. The
former (AS-1) is required by Federal law for wind-
shields, is clearly marked as such on -the glass itself, and
is somewhat more expensive than AS-2 glass. AS-2
glass, on the other hand, can be used for any window on
a vehicle other' than the windshield 6
Having received the order, Monsky went back to the
warehouse to get the glass and, instead of pulling out a
piece of AS-2 glass, pulled out a piece of AS-1 glass.
According to Monsky, after pulling the glass Grasso
yelled at him "Don't you know what you are pulling.
You're pulling out' a more expensive piece of glass."
Morisky states that in response he said that the glass was
marked wrong, "so how was I supposed to know." 7 He
then testified that he responded firther by saying that he
did not have the other piece of glass, 'apparently meaning
that he did not find the AS-2 glass in stock. At one point
in Monsky's testimony he stated that Grasso said that he
had pulled AS-1 instead of AS-2 glass, but he later testi-
fied that Grasso did not say anything about AS-1 or
AS-2 8 Monsky further testified that "it was not a big
thing, as far as I was concerned." , According to Monsky,
later in the day Lawlor told him that he was fired.
Monsky states that Lawlor told him-that he was not pro-
ductive, not happy, that the Company was family owned
and he could not go further, and that Lawlor had unsuc-
cessfully tried. to get raises for Monsky 9 Therefore, ac-
6 For safety reasons,' the National Highway and Safety Administration
is empowered to adopt safety standards pursuant to which Items of motor
vehicle equipment cannot be sold unless meeting safety standards 80
Stat 722 Pursuant to the statute, Motor Safety Standard No 205 was
promulgated which deals with -glazing materials and requires, Inter aim,
that such materials conform to the American National Standard "Safety
Code for Safety Glazing. Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating
on Land Highways" The American Standard Safety Code, in turn, des-
ignates AS-1 glass as being4 suitable for windshields and AS-2 as not
being suitable for windshields' Pursuant to the, statute, a violation of the
law or, any attendant regulation can subject a company to a fine
Monsly conceded, however, that AS-1 glass is clearly marked as
such with the designation etched onto the glass
8 Early in his testimony, Grasso said that Monsky pulled out AS-2
glass rather than AS-1 glass which was called for by the order He later
corrected himself and testified that it was AS-2 glass which was called
for in the order and not AS-1 glass
9 According to Monsky he had been pressing the Company repeatedly
over several months for a raise but was continuously put off
162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cording to Monsky's account Lawlor did not mention
the glass incident when he was being discharged.
While Lawlor acknowledges telling Monsky that he
felt that Monsky was not happy with his work, he states
that he specifically told Monsky that the glass incident
was the final straw In this regard, Lawlor testified that,
when Monsky pulled the wrong piece of glass, he ques-
tioned Monsky about it and the latter said that he could
not find the right glass. Lawlor further testified that he
told Monsky, "This was not right," and that if he could
not find it he should ask. According to Lawlor, he
gained the impression from Monsky's response, and the
fact that Monsky was supposed to be in charge of the
warehouse and know its inventory, that Monsky did not •
really care if he pulled the wrong glass which could, in
the future, result in the wrong glass being pulled when
AS-1 glass was required. As such, Lawlor concluded
that Monsky showed a lackadaisical attitude and a disre-
gard of his responsibilities, a conclusion which tends to
be supported by Monsky's testimony that his pulling of
the wrong glass was not a big thing as far as he was con-
cerned.
As part of the General Counsel's case, she adduced
through Grasso that, prior to March 13, he considered
Monsky to have had poor work and personal habits for a
substantial period of time and had tolerated this. She also
established that Monsky had received a raise in the
summer of 1979 when he indicated that he was offered a
job by a competitor. From this, the General Counsel
argues that, if the Respondent considered Monsky to be
a poor or indifferent worker for so long a period of time
and tolerated this condition, then the only logical' inter-
vening factor which could have precipitated the decision
to discharge him was his union activities
On Friday, March. 14, Gableman, On behalf of the
Union, called Grasso on the phone and said that the
Union represented 'a majority of the Company's employ-
ees and that he wanted to negotiate a contract. ACcord-
ing to Gableman, Grasso replied that he could visit the
shop and speak with him on March 17 at 10 a.m. Later
in the day, according to Grasso, he told Lawlor abbut
the call and asked Baylis if he knew anything about the
Union. AcCording Grasso and Baylis, the latter said
that he signed a union card but had unsuccessfully - asked
Monsky for its return. MSc:, in his pretrial affidavit,
Grasso said that he also asked Nick Buttacavoli about
the Union. However, Buttacavoli, in his testimony, could
not recall such an interrogation, asserting instead that
Grasso, without mentioning the Union, merely. asked if
he was happy with his job and if he had any complaints.
In connection with these incidents, I credit Grasso's tes-
timony that lie questioned Baylis and Buttacavoli, after
receiving the telephone call from Gableman.
On March 17, Gableman and Bondi went to the Com-
pany's premises only to discover that Grasso was not in.
They then left and did not return. On March 18, the
Union filed a petition for an election in Case' 29-RC-
4909 which was later withdrawn on June 30, 1980.
Given normal mail delivery, the petition would therefore
have been received by the Respondent on March 19 or
20.
On March 18, - Greg Galano was discharged. As , will
be recalled, Galano had signed a union authorization
card on March 10. However, apart from signing "this
card, it does not appear that Galano participated in any
other union activities and there is no direct evidence that
the Respondent's agents were aware that Galano had
signed a union card.'
Galano had been hired 'about 4 weeks before March -18
'and, according to the Respondent, he was hired as a pro-
bationary employee to work mainly in the - office taking
orders over the phone Galano maintains, however, that
he was never told that he was on probation. 'He does
concede that the major part of his work was in the office
taking orders over the phone. He asserts, hoivever, that
he also drove a good deal of the time.
According to Galano, on March 18 Lawlor told him
that he was being discharged Galano states , that when he
asked why, Lawlor . said that he was not the type -of
person that the Company was looking for. He further
states that when he asked if his layoff had anything to do
with the Union, Lawlor paused and said, "I've heard
some rumors" According to Galano, he then asked
Grasso why he was fired and states that Grasso said that
he was :not the right type of person for the job, that they
were looking for someone with more schooling, and that
Galano liked to be out on the road which was not chal-
lenging enough for him. He also states that Grasso said
something about sending out •a wrong piece of glass
which Galano denied ever happening. .
According to Lawlor, he and Grasso decided on
March 18 to discharge Galano because, in their opinion,
he was not salted for the job that he was hired to do. In
this respect, they testified that Galano 'did not have a
good telephone personality, that he was 'too rough :on
the phone, and that since he was hired mainly to take
calls from customers, Galano was not sufficiently useful
to the Company. Lawlor teStified that he had discussed
this problem with Grasso , prior to March 18 but that,
when Galano did not improve, it was decided to let him
go. As to his conversation with ,Galano on March 18,
Lawlor conceded, after being shown his pretrial affida-
vit, that Galano did ask him if his discharge had any-
thing to do with the Union. Lawlor asserts that he an-
swered "no" to this inquiry.
It appears from, the testimony of Agosta that, after
Monsky was fired, the Union established a picket line at
the Company's premises and that Monsky participated in
that picketing. According to Agosta, Grasso, on one oc-
casion, on seeing Monsky on the picket line, said that he
did not understand why Monsky would "go that route,
join the Union, and that the "guys didn't come to him
and'. . . try to work something - out before setting up this
union." It is noted that apart from these statements made
to Agosta and the two instances . when Grasso questioned
employees as described above, there was no other evi-
dence that any other representatives of the Respondent's
management communicated to any employees about the
Union much less expressed, in any way, any intention to
retaliate against employees who joined or supported the
Union.
REPCO DISTRIBUTING 163
IV. ANALYSIS
In my opinion, the critical issue in this case is whether
the Respondent illegally discharged Robert Monsky, Phil
Vito, and Greg Galano because of their union activities
or whether they were discharged for other reasons. In
cases such as this, it must first be ascertained whether the
General Counsel has made a sufficient showing "to sup-
port the inference that protected activity was a `motivat-
ing factor' in the employer's decision," which, if shown,
requires the Respondent "to demonstrate that the same
action would have taken place even in the absence of
protected conduct." Wright ' Line, 251 NLRB 1083
(1980).1°
It is self-evident that the timing of the three discharges
(Vito on March 12, Monsky on March 13, and Galano
on March 18), occurring shortly after they signed union
cards, does suggest, at the very least, a suspicion that a
causal connection exists. Nevertheless, suspicion is not
the same thing as proof and while timing may justify an
inference of antiunion animus, inquiry must be made into
all of the circumstances leading up to the discharges in-
cluding, inter aim, whether the employer had knowledge
of the union activities, other evidence union animus,
whether any intervening transactions occurred which
may have caused the discharges, and whether the rea-
sons asserted by the employer were pretextual in nature
or were contrary to its normal custom and practice.
In the present case, the General Counsel contends that
the Employer had knowledge of its employees' union ac-
tivities through a number of transactions which oc-
curred, in addition to the fact that this was a small
shop." The first of these transactions involves the con-
versation between Agosta and Grasso wherein the
former, in January or February, told the latter that he
was approached by the Union and where Grasso replied,
"Don't Worry about it." Nevertheless, despite the fact
that Grasso became aware of this contact a month or
two before the discharges in question, it also appears
that, after this single contact between the Union and
Agosta, no further organizational efforts were made until
early March when Monsky and other employees came in
contact with the Union. Therefore, as the Union was not
engaged in organizing activities from its first approach to
Agosta until March, and as no other employees had met
with the Union during the intervening period, it can only
be said that the Employer had knowledge of the first
tentative contact between the Union and Agosta Ac-
cordingly, it does not seem to me that the conversation
between Agosta and Grasso can, of itself, be the basis for
concluding that the Employer had knowledge of the sub-
sequent organizing efforts by .the Union or the later ac-
tivities of Monsky, Vito, and Galano. Moreover, the re-
10 It is my understanding that although the criteria set forth in Wright
Line provides a frame work for analyzing these Issues, it does not purport
to alter the longstanding rule that the ultimate burden of proof rests with
the General Counsel
" In her brief, the General Counsel cites Tayko Industries, 214 NLRB
84, 87 (1974), and Wal-Mart Stores, 201 NLRB 250 (1973), for the propo-
sition that in a small shop it is "likely that the employer had observed the
activity in question " For an extensive discussion of what has been called
the "small plant doctrine." see American League, 189 NLRB 541, 548-549
(1971)
sponse given by Agosta would appear to manifest a sin-
gular lack of concern by Grasso about the Union's con-
tacts with his employees.
The second transaction relied on for establishing
knowledge of union- activities prior to March 12 was
Monsky's conversation with Wachler and Mastrobuoni
about March 5. As noted above, Monsky testified that he
told these two men that he was interested in forming a
union. He also testified that they replied that he should
do as he liked and that they would "like to see the look
on Joe's face because he would never go for it." The
next question is whether their knowledge of Monsky's in-
terest in the Union can be imputed to the Respondent. In
this regard, although it was conceded that these two in-
dividuals had the titles of vice president and that Mastro-
buoni is Grasso's nephew, they nevertheless did installa-
tion work for the Company and had no supervisory or
managerial functions. Indeed, the General Counsel does
not contend that either was a supervisor or agent of the
Respondent As such, I do not believe that I can impute,
by virtue of agency, their knowledge of Monsky's activi-
ties to the Respondent, although It may be plausible that
as both had a potential equity interest in the Company,
and because Mastrobuom was a relative, that they men-
tioned this conversation to Grasso.
Another element to be considered is whether, apart
from the timing of the discharges, there is other evidence
manifesting an intent to retaliate against employees who
either joined or supported the Union. In this respect,
Grasso by his own admission questioned two employees
as to what they knew of the Union after receiving a
demand for recognition from Gableman. Grasso also
does not deny that sometime after Monsky was dis-
charged and was seen picketing at the employer's prem-
ises, he stated to Andrew Agosta that he did not under-
stand why Monsky would "go that route, join the
Union" and that the "guys didn't come to him and . . .
try to work something out before setting up this union."
Nevertheless, the evidence herein does not disclose that
the Respondent's management talked or communicated
about the Union with employees on any other occsions
and the record is devoid of any evidence disclosing that
the Employer either threatened employees or promised
benefits to them. In my opinion neither the questioning
of employees about the Union nor the statements made
to Agosta in the context made were manifestations of an
intent to retaliate. In short, it is my opinion that the evi-
dence adduced by the General Counsel to suggest union
animus on the part of the Respondent is, apart from the
element of timmg, decidedly weak and unpersuasive.
With respect to Vito, the evidence establishes that he
signed a union card on the morning of March 12 and
was discharged later on that day. In this case there is no
direct evidence of any knowledge on the part of the
Company that he signed this card and there is no evi-
dence that any supervisors or agents of the Respondent
were in the vicinity when the card was solicited, signed,
or returned to Monsky.
It established that, about a week prior to his discharge,
Vito charged a pack of cigarettes on the Company's
credit card when he purchased gasoline for the truck he
164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was driving. It also was established to my satisfaction
that Lawlor became aware of this on the morning of
March 12 and that, when he confronted Vito with an ac-
cusation of misusing the credit card, Vito admitted it,
whereupon Lawlor discharged him, stating that it was
the principle of the thing with which he was concerned
Although Vito testified that he intended to immediate-
ly repay the Company, he conceded that it slipped his
mind for about a week and that he did not tender the
money until after being confronted by Lawlor on March
12. Whether Vito did or did not intend to repay the
money is somewhat irrelevant because his failure to
make timely repayment would clearly have led Lawlor
to believe that Vito was making personal use of the
Company's credit card.
The General Counsel argues that disparate treatment
was shown in Vito's case as there was evidence that an-
other employee who was suspected of stealing was given
the option of quitting. However, it is my opinion that
there is not much distinction between a forced resigna-
tion and a discharge and, to the extent that the past prac-
tice of this Employer may serve as a guide, the evidence
concerning the oiher employee suspected of stealing
tends to support the Respondent's contention that it does
not retain employees who are believed to have converted
company property or assets.
In the case of Vito my function is only to determine
whether his discharge was motivated by his support for
the Union and not whether his discharge was for "good
cause" As it is my opinion that on March 12 the Re-
spondent discovered that Vito had charged his personal
effects to the Company and also because this had not
been reported for about a week, the Company had a rea-
sonable basis for believing that Vito was being less than
totally honest in his dealings with the Company. It there-
fore is concluded that this transaction rather than Vito's
execution of a union authorization card on March 12 was
the sole motivating factor in the decision to discharge
him. Accordingly, it is recommended that the complaint,
insofar as it alleges that Vito was discharged for dis-
criminatory reasons, be dismissed
As in the case of Vito, there is no direct evidence that
the Respondent was aware of Monsky's union activities
although the circumstantial evidence supporting such an
assertion is somewhat stronger. Unlike the situations of
Vito and Galano, the evidence discloses that Monsky
was the most active employee supporter of the Union,
having contacted the Union and solicited its support
among the other employees."
Having demonstrated that the Respondent viewed
Monsky as a poor and indifferent employee for a sub-
stantial period of time before his discharge, the General
Counsel contends that the only intervening event which
can explain Monsky's sudden discharge on March 13 was
his union activities which commenced in early March
However, the record herein also discloses another inter-
vening event which the Respondent asserts was the last
straw and which caused it to terminate Monsky's em-
ployment.
12 See W W Grainger, Inc , 255 NLRB 1106 (1981)
As noted above, on the morning of March 13 Monsky
had to take out of the warehouse's inventory a piece of
AS-2 glass for delivery. Instead of pulling the AS-2
glass, he pulled a pane of AS-1 glass which provoked a
confrontation with Grasso over this mistake In response,
Monsky explained his actions by asserting alternatively
that he could not find the right glass and that the glass
was wrongly marked. According to the Respondent,
since Monsky was in charge of the warehouse where the
glass was kept and therefore was expected to be aware
of its inventory, his mistake and his explanations for the
mistake indicated a lackadaisical attitude toward his job
which could, in the future, lead to a serious problem be-
cause Federal regulations require the use of AS-1 glass
for vehicle windshields and Monsky's lack of responsibil-
ity might result in the wrong glass being , delivered and
installed in violation of Federal law and thereby risk the
imposition of a fine. Indeed, the testimony of Monsky
that the pulling of the wrong glass was not a big thing as
far as he was concerned tends to support the Respond-
ent's view that, from his actions on March 13, it came to
realize that Monsky not only was a poor employee, but
that he was indifferent to his responsibilities.
Given the lack of evidence showing union animus on
the part of the Respondent, together with the existence
of an intervening event which plausibly could have
served as a sufficient reason for discharging him, it is
concluded that the evidence, on balance, is insufficient to
establish that the Respondent discharged Monsky be-
cause of his activities or support for the Union I shall
therefore recommend that this allegation of the com-
plaint be dismissed.
I also conclude that the discharge of Galano was not
violative of the Act Galano had been hired approximate-
ly 3 to 4 weeks prior to his discharge on ,March 18 and
much of his time was spent answering telephone calls in
the office. Apart from signing a union card on March 10,
Galano did not participate in any other union activities.
Also, although the Respondent was clearly aware of the
Union's organizational efforts by March 18, there is no
direct and little circumstantial evidence, aside from the
timing of his discharge' and the size of the shop, to show
that the Respondent had knowledge that Galano had
signed a union card or otherwise supported the Union.
Given my opinion that there was insufficient evidence of
union animus and the fact 'that I have credited the Re-
spondent's reasons for discharging Vito and Monsky, I
shall do the same in the case of Galano's discharge
Therefore, it is concluded that the Respondent terminat-
ed the employment of Galano because it felt that he was
not sufficiently good at the job for which he was mainly
hired to perform, namely, dealing with customers on the
phone.
In view of my conclusion that the Respondent did not
violate the Act by discharging the three employees, it is
clear that the refusal-to-bargain allegation of the com-
plaint must also be dismissed as it cannot be said that,
even with two instances of interrogation, the Employer's
conduct prevented the holding of a fair and free election.
NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co, 393 U.S 575 (1969).
REPCO DISTRIBUTING 165
Finally, although the evidence herein discloses that
Grasso asked at least one, and perhaps two, employees if
they knew anything about the Union, after he received
the telephonic demand for recognition from Gableman, it
is my opinion that this was isolated, noncoercive, and
trivial in nature. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that it
would not effectuate the purposes or policies of the Act
to require the Respondent to remedy this allegation. Bath
Electrical Systems, 233 NLRB 762 (1977).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 The Respondent, Repco Distributing, Inc., is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Glass Warehouse Workers & Paint Handlers, Local
Union No. 206, International Brotherhood of Painters
and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO is a labor organization
• within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
3. The Respondent has not engaged in any conduct in
violation of the Act requiring remedial relief.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record,- I issue the following recommend-
ed"
ORDER
It is ordered that the complaint be dismissed in its en-
tirety
" 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