Roseburg Lumber Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 28, 1986

278 N.L.R.B. 880 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

880 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Roseburg Lumber Company and Lumber, Production
& Industrial Workers Union , Local 2608. Case
20-CA-19160
28 February 1986
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
DENNIS AND JOHANSEN
On 25 November 1985 Administrative Law
Judge Gordon J. Myatt issued the attached deci-
sion . The Respondent 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,' and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, Roseburg
Lumber Company, Weed, California, its officers,
agents , successors , and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Order, except that the attached
notice is substituted for that of the administrative
law judge.
1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge 's credibility find-
ings. 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 Ctr . 1951).
We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing
the findings.
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.
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or pro-
tection
To choose not to engage in any of these
protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with
your free exercise of these rights.
WE WILL NOT create an impression that we are
engaging in surveillance of your union or other
protected activities.
WE WILL NOT interrogate you about your union
activities and sentiments.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with reprisals be-
cause you engage in activities in support of the
Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close our mill facility
if you select Lumber, Production & Industrial
Workers Union, Local 2680, or any other labor or-
ganization, as your bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain , or coerce you in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of
the Act.
ROSEBURG LUMBER COMPANY
Nancy E. Watson and Lorrie Gray, Esqs., for the General
Counsel.
Nelson D. Atkin II, Esq. (Spears, Lubersky, Campbell,
Bledsoe, Anderson & Young), of Portland , Oregon, for
the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GORDON J. MYATT, Administrative Law Judge. On a
charge filed by Lumber, Production & Industrial Work-
ers Union, Local 2608 (the Union) against Roseburg
Lumber Company (Respondent) the Regional Director
for Region 20 issued a complaint and notice of hearing
on 21 December 1984 .1 The complaint alleges, inter alia,
that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National
Labor Relations Act, by: (1) unlawfully interrogating
employees about their union activities; (2) threatening to
close its mill if the employees were represented by the
Union; (3) threatening to discharge employees for engag-
ing in activities on behalf of the Union ; and (4) creating
an impression of engaging in surveillance of employees'
union activities . 2 Respondent filed an answer in which it
admitted certain allegations of the complaint , denied
others, and specifically denied the commission of any
unfair labor practices.
1 Unless otherwise indicated , all dates herein refer to the year 1984.
9 The General Counsel moved at the hearing to amend the complaint
to allege additional allegations of unlawful interrogation and threats. Al-
though Respondent 's counsel objected to the amendments , he represented
that he did not need additional time to prepare his defense against the
amended allegations. Since the amendments merely cited additional in-
stances of unlawful conduct already set forth in the complaint and in
view of Respondent counsel 's representation regarding preparation of his
defense, the motion to amend was granted. Respondent renewed its ob-
jection to the amendments in its brief . The renewed objection is denied.
278 NLRB No. 124
ROSEBURG LUMBER CO. 881
A hearing was held on this matter in Redding , Califor-
nia, on 28 March 1985 . The parties were represented by
counsel and afforded full opportunity to present material
and relevant evidence on the issues and to examine and
cross-examine witnesses . Briefs were submitted and have
been duly considered.
On the entire record in this case and on my observa-
tion of the witnesses who gave testimony , I make the fol-
lowing
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The pleadings admit , and I find , Respondent is an
Oregon corporation engaged in the business of process-
ing and manufacturing lumber products . As part of its
operational structure , Respondent maintains and operates
a facility in Weed , California, the only facility of Re-
spondent involved in these proceedings. During the 12
months prior to the issuance of the complaint herein, Re-
spondent purchased and received at its Weed facility
goods, materials, and products valued in excess of
$50,000 directly from points located outside the State of
California. In view of the above , I find Respondent is,
and has been at all times material herein , an employer
within the meaning of Section 2(2) engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The pleadings further admit, and I find, that Lumber,
Production & Industrial Workers Union, Local 2608 is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background Facts
Respondent 's facility in Weed is part of a mill complex
previously owned and operated by International Paper
Company . International apparently operated the mill
complex for a number of years and its employees had
been represented by the Union. Sometime well before
the We to Respondent , however, International shut
down the complex and ceased all operations there. The
unrefuted testimony indicates that after Respondent ac-
quired the Weed property, its operations in the complex
were limited solely to the veneer mill . a A box factory
which is also a part of the complex was leased to another
company for operation.
The record discloses that in August 1983 Respondent
began retooling the veneer mill plant in preparation for
starting production . Martin Grugett, an experienced
lumber mill manager , was hired by Respondent as gener-
al manager of the Weed complex sometime in 1983. Gru-
gett and his family lived in a refurbished company house
located across the road from the mill complex . Actual
production at the veneer mill commenced sometime in
September 1983. At the time the veneer mill became
Respondent also operates other mill facilities in several locations in
California and Oregon . Its production and maintenance employees at
these other locations are represented by unions.
operational , Respondent employed approximately 95 pro-
duction and maintenance employees.
From the time of the preparation for the startup of the
veneer mill in August 1983 until the holding of a Board-
conducted election in February 1985, the Union engaged
in periodic attempts to organize Respondent 's employees.
The parties stipulated that the Union filed a representa-
tion petition with the Board on 24 December 1984. An
election was conducted on 26 and 27 February 1985
among Respondent's production and maintenance em-
ployees . During the balloting 94 votes were cast in
which 22 employees voted in favor of union representa-
tion and 72 employees voted against such representation.
The results of the election were certified on 7 March
1985.
B. The Incidents that Occurred During the Organizing
Campaign
1. Phillip York
York, a former lathe operator for Respondent , testified
regarding several incidents that occurred during the
Union's organizing campaign at the mill . 4 York's duties
as a lathe operator included sharpening the lathe knives,
setting up the lathe equipment which is used to peel the
veneer from the lumber , and operating the lathe equip-
ment . This work is performed in a 4-by-8 foot area in the
mill described as the lathe shack. The lathe operation is
the most essential in the production of veneer. The testi-
mony describes the lathe operator as the "quarterback"
of the mill.
The unrefuted testimony reveals that Respondent uses
a two-way radio system to maintain contact with the
various work areas and with key employees on each shift
in the event of maintenance problems and emergencies.
The foremen, millwrights , and electricians on each shift
carry portable radios clipped to their belts with small
microphones attached to their shirts or lapels. Stationary
radios are located in the mill office, deck saw , lathe, fire
station, and log yard areas . The radio system operates on
an open frequency so that it is not necessary to push an
on and off button to communicate and all transmissions
are heard throughout the system . The radio in the lathe
shack was approximately 3 feet from where the lathe op-
erator works.
York testified that in late June or early July, he was in
the lathe shack and heard a transmission by Grugett on
the radio. The Union had intensified its organizing cam-
paign during this time and was handbilling the employees
at the mill several times a week . In addition, the Union
held a meeting with a number of employees on 8 July
and another several weeks later . York stated he heard
Grugett say over the radio that "if this plant goes union,
we'd better get out the locks and chains ."6 York testified
4 York quit his employment with Respondent in November 1994. Ac-
cording to York, he received an "ultimatum" from Grugett to do his job
the way Grugett wanted it done or leave. York then chose to quit his
employment with Respondent.
5 Darrell McCarty, a forklift driver for Respondent , also testified that
he overheard a transmission by Grugett at this time. According to
McCarty, he was standing near an employee who had a portable radio on
Continued
882 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
he knew the statement was made by Grugett because he
recognized Grugett's voice and because the speaker iden-
tified himself by the code word "four" which was Gru-
gett 's identification symbol. 6
York further testified that a week or two after 8 July,
he went into the foremen's office where Grugett was
meeting with Shift Foremen Fred Manzella and Tim Pet-
tibone .7 According to York, Grugett turned to him and
said , "Your shift has the lowest production" and "the
lowest recovery." York stated as they proceeded to dis-
cuss his production, Grugett said , "I heard you went to
that union meeting ." York took the position that it was
his right to go to the union meeting and Grugett then
said Respondent "would shut this motherfucker down if
[the employees ] go union ." When York continued to
protest that it was his right to attend the union meeting,
Grugett told the employee that "he thought there was
hope for [him] with Roseburg Lumber Company and
now he was not sure ." Finally, according to York, Gru-
gett stated that Respondent "might have to make some •
changes and if things didn 't change in the plant, changes
would be made."
York further testified that sometime after the union
meeting on 8 July, he discovered a blank termination slip
in his locker . York acknowledged that he shared the
locker with three other employees working other shifts
at the plant and that the locker was left open on occa-
sion . He had no knowledge of how the termination slip
appeared in his locker or who put it there.
Respondent's testimony differed considerably from
that of York regarding these incidents. Concerning the
radio transmission , Grugett stated he called the shift
electrician on the radio to repair an electrical relay. The
electrician called back and said the equipment to repair
the relay was missing and Respondent should get locks.
Grugett then replied over the radio that a number of
things were missing at the mill and Respondent would
have to get locks in order to secure things.
Regarding the conversation with York in the fore-
men's office, Grugett testified he was holding a meeting
with his supervisors concerning plant production when
York came into the office. He said York improperly
peeled approximately $12,000 worth of veneer because
the employee failed to adjust the knife on the lathe. As a
result, Respondent had to make an adjustment (presum-
ably with the customer). According to Grugett , when he
confronted York with the matter, the employee said he
could not concentrate because he was nervous. Grugett
stated that as they continued to discuss York's job per-
formance , York accused Grugett of picking on him be-
cause the employee attended the union meeting . Grugett
testified he told York it did not matter to him whether
York went to the union meeting or not.8
his belt and he heard Grugett say something about locks . McCarty, how-
ever, was unable to state in what context he heard Grugett mention the
word "locks."
6 Apparently each speaker or area was designated by an identification
symbol when transmissions were made on the radio system.
r Pettibone's name is spelled "Peddybone" in the official transcript.
The record is corrected to indicate the correct spelling of this name.
s It is evident from all the testimony that Grugett and York had fre-
quent and heated discussions in the mill regarding a wide range of sub-
jects. Grugett described these discussions as "debates." The testimony in-
Grugett also denied threatening to shut down the mill
if the employees went union . He further stated he did
not use the profane expression attributed to him by York.
According to Grugett, he was "not the most gentlest
person" and he did use "mill talk" in the plant and
during conversations with employees . He denied , howev-
er, using four-letter words and stated that Respondent's
owner was the type who would not tolerate the use of
such language.
Finally, Grugett denied having any knowledge about
the blank termination slip discovered in York's locker.
Grugett testified the termination slips were kept in Re-
spondent's office and only used when placed in the per-
sonnel file of any employee who was terminated. Gru-
gett stated that until several weeks prior to the hearing,
the office employees were lax in keeping the office door
locked when no one was there . As a result, several items
had been discovered missing . To prevent this, Grugett
now followed a policy of keeping the office locked when
office personnel had occasion to be elsewhere.
Manzella , who was York's shift foreman, stated the
conversation between Grugett and York was a "little bit
warm" but testified Grugett and York "debated quite
often about a lot of things." Contrary to the testimony of
Grugett, Manzella was unable to recall any discussion re-
garding the Union during this conversation . Nor could
he recall Grugett making any statement shutting the mill
down if the employees went union or using the profane
expression which York attributed to Grugett. Manzella
stated he had not heard Grugett use that expression more
than two times during his year of employment with Re-
spondent and never on the mill floor.
Credibility Determinations
It is evident from the conflicting testimony that the
truth about the above events rests solely on a determina-
tion of the credibility of the witnesses . This is never an
easy task ; especially where the witnesses testify in an un-
faltering manner and there is no independent evidence
against which the testimony can be weighed . Neverthe-
less, it is a task that is required to be performed . Having
observed the witnesses carefully during the course of
their testimony, about these and other events, I find
York's testimony is more worthy of belief and is a more
reliable account of the events which occurred.
First, my observation of Grugett causes me to con-
clude that despite his protestations about using four-letter
words in the plant, use of such language was indeed
commonplace in the mill ; both by the employees and the
supervisory officials. As Grugett acknowledged and his
demeanor reflected , he was "not the most gentlest
person" and he did use "mill talk" on occasion. Al-
though the term "mill talk" was not defined in the
record, it is apparent that such talk encompassed profani-
ty including the use of four-letter words. Furthermore,
Grugett's statement that he would not use four-letter ex-
pressions because of the attitude of Respondent's owner
rings hollow in the circumstances set forth here. The
dicates they covered such diverse matters as unionization of the employ-
ees, politics and, in the words of Grugett, "anything."
ROSEBURG LUMBER CO. 883
comment attributed to Grugett by York did not take
place in the presence of Respondent's owner but, rather,
occurred during a heated discussion in the confines of
the foremen 's office in the presence of lower level super-
visors . Thus, any constraints on the use of such language
which Respondent's owner might have imposed were
not present.
Nor do I fmd that the testimony of Manzella lends
credence to that of Grugett. In general, I find Manzella's
testimony to be unconvincing . If Manzella's testimony
that he did not recall Grugett threaten to close the mill,
using the language described by York, is to be interpret-
ed as a denial that the statement was made , it is at best a
weak denial . I find, however, that this was characteristic
of Manzella's entire testimony . For example , Manzella
could not recall any mention of the Union during the
heated discussion between Grugett and York, although
both Grugett and York testified the matter of the Union
was raised ; albeit in different contexts. I deem it highly
unlikely that Manzella would have forgotten either that
York attempted to turn the criticism of his production
failures by accusing Grugett of picking on him because
the employee attended the union meeting , or that Gru-
gett mentioned he knew York attended the union meet-
ing during his complaints about York's productivity on
the lathe . This is especially true since York's work per-
formance on the lathe operation was Manzella's first-line
responsibility. Thus, I fmd Manzella was engaging in se-
lective recall during most of his testimony and was not
giving a reliable account of the events to which he was a
witness.
Regarding the transmission over the open frequency
on the radio, my observation of Grugett causes me to
conclude he was dissembling during his testimony about
the need for locks in the plant. Whether the transmission
arose in the context of his conversation with the electri-
cian about the repairs to the electrical relay and the miss-
ing equipment cannot be determined except by reliance
on Grugett 's testimony which I fmd to be untrustworthy.
But even if it did , I am persuaded Grugett seized upon
the circumstances of the missing relay equipment to ex-
press his hostility toward the Union's organizing effort
by stating Respondent would have to get out the locks
and chains if the plant became unionized . Therefore, I
credit York's testimony that Grugett did make such a
statement over the radio on this occasion.9
2. Norman Nichols
Nichols, a stud-mill operator, testified regarding a con-
versation he and a group of employees had with Grugett
in the lunchroom . Nichols testified the conversation took
place in late July or early August when he and several
coworkers were in the lunchroom prior to going on their
shift. Nichols initially stated that employee Steven Ham-
den was present during this discussion but later testified
that he was uncertain whether Hamden • was in the
group . Nichols testified, however, that he did discuss the
incident with Hamden.
According to Nichols, the employees were discussing
an article on unionization which had been posted on the
bulletin board by Grugett and Grugett joined in the con-
versation . Nichols testified Grugett stated, "I've already
got the papers filled out. If the plant goes union, we'll
close down in 24 hours." During cross-examination by
Respondent 's counsel Nichols who started out his em-
ployment with Respondent as a veneer grader admitted
that he had been moved to the position of a jitney driver
handling loads of lumber . He mishandled a load on one
occasion and was observed by Grugett who ordered him
off the jitney and back to his job as a grader . Nichols
acknowledged he felt he had been treated unfairly in this
instance by Grugett.
Grugett denied making any statement to a group of
employees in the lunchroom that Respondent would
close the plant in 24 hours if the employees became
unionized . Grugett stated he posted numerous articles on
the bulletin board about the prevailing conditions in the
industry. They included articles about plant closings,
market conditions, and lumber production. He further
testified that he frequently discussed the posted articles
with employees and these discussions included articles
relating to the closing of unionized plants which could
not compete because of the depressed conditions in the
industry.
Credibility Resolutions
My observation of Nichols, a current employee of Re-
spondent, causes me to conclude that his testimony was
candid and straightforward. When questioned, he readily
admitted he felt he had been treated unfairly by Grugett
when the latter removed him from the jitney-driver posi-
tion. However, I fmd no indication that this incident
caused him to testify falsely . Nor do I fmd his testimony
unreliable because he first recalled that Hamden was
present and subsequently expressed uncertainty as to
whether this employee was in fact in the group. I at-
tribute this to nothing more than a faulty memory which
did not affect his veracity . Moreover , I note that Nichols
is a current employee testifying against the interests of
his Employer without any evidence of hostility. In my
judgment, this lends credence to his testimony.
On the other hand, the threat to close the plant if it
became unionized is consistent with the threat of plant
closure expressed by Grugett to York . Having already
found that Grugett's testimony is generally unreliable,
and in view of his expressed hostility to the Union's or-
ganizing efforts, I do not credit his denial in this in-
stance . Thus, I fmd Grugett did make the statement to
the employees in the lunchroom about closing the plant
within 24 hours if the Union became their bargaining
representative.
9 In making this credibility determination, I place no reliance upon the
testimony of McCarty concerning the fragmentary portion of the radio
transmission that he overheard . It is apparent that McCarty did not hear
the context in which the. word "locks" was mentioned and was unable to
shed any light on the statement made by drugett over the radio.
884 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. Darrell McCarty
McCarty was employed by Respondent as a forklift
driver.10 He testified that sometime in June the Union
was handbilling the plant and he and four or five other
employees were in the lunchroom on break or on their
lunch period. According to McCarty, Manzella was in
the lunchroom at the time and one of the employees
asked Manzella what would happen if the employees
went union . McCarty stated Manzella replied , "They'd
close the place down ." McCarty denied that Manzella in-
dicated he was expressing only his personal opinion
when he made this statement to the employees.
When questioned about this incident , Manzella cast his
statement in a different light . According to Manzella, he
responded to the inquiry from the employee by stating
that if it were his mill , he would probably shut it down if
the employees went union . Manzella testified he was
only conveying his personal opinion and he felt that it
would be a mistake for the employees to go union.
McCarty further testified that he had a conversation in
his work area with Grugett 3 or 4 weeks before the elec-
tion in February 1985 . He stated Grugett was "chewing
him out about some things." McCarty explained on
cross-examination that the "things" he referred to were
his complaints about unsafe working conditions at the
mill. McCarty testified that during the conversation Gru-
gett stated , "I know you're for the union, that you're a
union sympathizer and don 't deny it." According to
McCarty, Grugett also told him that people (employees)
had been telling him how McCarty was "crying about
things." McCarty denied he initiated the discussion about
the Union by telling Grugett that if the plant were
unionized, unsafe conditions would not be permitted.
Grugett admitted having a discussion with McCarty in
January 1985 about the unsafe working conditions in the
area where McCarty worked. He stated McCarty had
complained to Respondent 's safety director about the
conditions and made the statement that if the Weed plant
had been one of the unionized plants , the unsafe condi-
tions would not have been permitted to exist . According
to Grugett, he told McCarty that the mill was an old
plant and there were problems . He also stated it would
not make any difference whether it was union or non-
union, it was all Respondent had at that facility and they
had to make do until the conditions were corrected.
Finally, on rebuttal McCarty testified regarding an-
other conversation with Grugett about unionization of
the employees.1' McCarty indicated that sometime in
1984 (he was unable to recall any more specific date)
Grugett posted an article about a unionized plant where
the employees had been on strike for 2 years and re-
10 McCarty had given Respondent his notice to terminate his employ-
ment effective the day the hearing was held in this case (28 March 1985).
Respondent put on testimony through McCarty's foreman, David
Dawson, to establish that McCarty left his shift early without permission
the day before his employment terminated with Respondent. McCarty,
on the other hand, testified he understood his foreman as granting him
permission to leave early once another employee returned from lunch to
cover his duties.
11 Although this was not proper rebuttal, Respondent did not object to
the testimony and called Grugett to refute it. Therefore , it is considered
here.
turned to work as a nonunion operation. McCarty testi-
fied he thought the article was about a plant located at
Grand Prairie but stated he was uncertain because Gru-
gett posted many similar articles . McCarty said he was in
the lunchroom at the time and Grugett pointed to the ar-
ticle and said , "See how good the union did for these
guys? They've been out of work for so long." McCarty
stated Grugett remarked that "you really have to be
stupid to want a union."
Credibility Resolutions
Regarding Manzella 's statement to the employees in
the lunchroom, I fmd the testimony of McCarty provides
the more reliable version of what was said on that occa-
sion. McCarty testified in a candid and forthright manner
and his reponses to all questions were direct and uncon-
ditional . In contrast, Manzella conveyed the appearance
of carefully phrasing his responses so as to make certain
no culpability attached to the Respondent . As previously
noted, I find Manzella 's testimony in general to be unreli-
able and I consider his version of his statement about the
plant closure to be unconvincing . Accordingly, I find
that Manzella did not tell the employees he was express-
ing his own personal opinion when he stated that the
plant would be closed if they became represented by the
Union. Rather, it is evident that he was reflecting the
views consistently expressed by Respondent 's highest
level management official at the mill.
Likewise, I credit the testimony of McCarty concern-
ing the statements made by Grugett; regarding both the
article on the bulletin board and the conversation about
the unsafe working conditions in the plant . Having found
that Grugett engaged in dissembling during much of his
testimony, I find his explanation of these incidents to be
disingenuous and untrustworthy. Therefore, I fmd that
Grugett did in fact make the statements on these occa-
sions in the manner testified to by McCarty.12
4. Steven Hamden
Hamden was employed by Respondent from Decem-
ber 1983 until June or July 1984 . He first worked on the
dryers as a relief employee and was later assigned to the
swing shift. Hamden testified that on one occasion in
March or April his crew was gathered in the lunchroom
and a discussion developed about the handbilling the
Union was engaging in at the plant . He stated Grugett
was in the lunchroom during this time . 13 According to
Hamden, as the employees were discussing the handbill-
ing and the Union , an employee named Larry Taylor
asked Grugett a question about the Union . Hamden testi-
fied Grugett responded by saying that if the employees
went union , he would shut the plant down.
18 In crediting McCarty, I do not find that the dispute over his having
left work early on 27 March 1985 destroyed the reliability of his testimo-
ny in this proceeding. At most, it evidenced a misunderstanding between
the McCarty and his foreman which in no way affected the veracity of
this witness.
13 Hamden was unable to recall at the hearing whether the crew was
gathered in the lunchroom to discuss possible shift changes with Grugett.
In his affidavit, however, Hamden indicated to the Board agent that this
was the purpose of the meeting.
ROSEBURG LUMBER CO.
Grugett was unable to recall an employee named
Taylor who might have worked for Respondent. While
he stated he had numerous meetings with employees in
the lunchroom regarding shift changes and safety mat-
ters, he could not recall a specific meeting in March or
April at which Harnden was present. Grugett testified
that he had been given instructions by higher manage-
ment not to discuss the Union with the employees but if
he were asked a specific question, he was to attempt to
answer it to the best of his ability. He stated he was in-
structed not to interrogate any of the employees about
their union activities and not to discriminate against them
for engaging h union activities. According to Grugett,
he was told to keep a "low profile" on the union matters.
Grugett testified this was his practice and if he had been
asked a question in the lunchroom by Taylor or any
other employee, his response would have been in keep-
ing with these instructions.
Credibility Resolutions
Although Grugett was unable to recall the specific
lunchroom meeting which Hamden described and stated
his response to employee questions about the Union
would have been in keeping with the instructions from
higher management, I find his response on this occasion
was not as he indicated. Rather, I credit the testimony of
Haruden and find Grugett stated he would close the
plant if the employees became union. While Grugett's
failure to specifically deny the._ statement attributed to
him by Harnden might have been due to his inability to
recall the particular event, the testimony regarding his
response was consistent with subsequent statements I
have found were made by Grugett to other employees
concerning the consequences of going union.
5. Michael Belcastro
Belcastro is a current employee of Respondent and
works as a forklift driver . The testimony reveals that like
York, Belcastro was a leading supporter of the Union
and openly discussed his prounion views with others at
the mill.
elcastro. testified that in July, after a meeting with
several union officials, he was given a-handbill to post on
the plant bulletin board. He stated he took the handbill
with him as he went to the mill to begin his shift that
evening.14 According to Belcastro, as he was walking
into the mill Grugett stopped him and asked, "What kind
of games are you playing?" Belcastro denied he was
playing any games and Grugett then stated three or four
people had come to him complaining that Belcastro was
bothering them, about the Union. Belcastro denied both-
ering anyone but admitted discussing the Union with em-
ployees. Belcastro testified Grugett then said, "Well, I'll
tell you right now, if this mill 'goes fucking union, I'm
going to shut it down. I have been given permission to
shut it down." Belcastro said Grugett further stated that
he knew everyone who went to the union meeting and
14 Belcastro stated he was working the swing shift at the tune This
shift began at 5.30 p.m. and ended at 4.30 a.m.
885
everyone who signed cards . According to Belcastro,
Grugett appeared "mad and upset."
Belcastro further testified that approximately 5 or 10
minutes later Grugett came over as he was standing by
the forklift. He stated Grugett said he knew Belcastro's
family and his father and Belcastro should talk to them
about the Union. Belcastro stated Grugett then began to
give details about Respondent 's financial condition. He
testified that Grugett said, "Mt. Shasta was losing
$400,000 a month . They were going down , and that
we're making $1.5 million a month and we're only clear-
ing $5 ,000 and we bought $44,000 forklifts [sic], and
we're on shaky ground . That the only reason we're still
working is because it 's a nonunion Mill. 15 Belcastro fur-
ther testified that Grugett ended the conversation by tell-
ing the employee that all he had to do was to give Bel-
castro "three white slips" if he came in a minute early or
failed to wear his hardhat or for whatever reason. The
testimony indicates that the white slips were written
warnings for infractions - of the mill rules. When an em-
ployee received three such warnings, that employee was
subject to termination . Belcastro testified that he did not
post the union handbill on the bulletin board after his
conversation with Grugett.
Grugett's testimony was in sharp conflict with that of
Belcastro . Grugett stated that it was Respondent's
policy, established for safety reasons, that employees
who were not on duty were not to be ' the plant. He
stated that any employee who cam "o the plant while
not on duty first had to secure a pass from the mill
office . According to Grugett, he observed Belcastro in
the mill and since it ' was not time for the employee's shift
he questioned why; Belcastro ' was on the premises. He
told Belcastro he was not on duty and he would have to
leave, Grugett stated that Belcastro then merely turned
and left the mill.
Grugett also testified that he had received a number of
complaints from employees that Belcastro was contact-
ing them during working hours regarding the 'Union.
Grugett denied telling Belcastro that if the mill went
union he had permission to shut it down . He further
denied that he usedi any four-letter words in his conver-
sation with Belcastro . Additionally , Grugett testified that
while it was his practice to post production figures at the
mill, he never discussed any information regarding Re-
spondent's income or cost figures , with employees.
Credibility Resolutions
Having carefully observed both of these witnesses and
bearing in mind the unreliability of Grugett's testimony
about other incidents at the mill, I credit the testimony
of Belcastro regarding his conversations with Grugett.
As previously noted, Grugett displayed a tendency to be
disingenuous and to dissemble throughout much of his
testimony. His protestation about the use of four-letter
words is unconvincing. By his own admission, he en-
gaged in flashes of temper at times when dealing with
15 On cross-examination, Belcastro acknowledged that Grugett had
never discussed Respondent's financial- condition with him in any prior
conversations
886 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees, and I find this anger was verbally expressed
in situations where he discussed his opposition to the
Union with employees. I find this to be especially true in
situations where he was confronting known union adher-
ents on this subject. While I am not unmindful that Bel-
castro was one of the leaders of the attempt to get union
representation in the mill and thus had a vested interest
in the outcome of these proceedings, -I find his testimony
here was candid and forthright. I further find that Bel-
castro's testimony regarding the figures describing Re-
spondent's financial condition were not made out of
whole cloth. Rather, I find they were based on state-
ments made by Grugett to convince Belcastro that Re-
spondent could not afford to have its employees at Weed
represented by the Union., In sum, I find that during
these two conversations Grugett did make the statements
attributed to him by Belcastro.
C. The Notices on the Unfair Labor Practice Charges
On 9 August the Union filed unfair labor practice
charges against Respondent. Sometime during the latter
part of August or early September, Grugett posted a
notice to the employees on the plant bulletin board. The
notice began with a recital of Respondent's version of
the employees' right to engage or not to, engage in union
activities. The notice went on to advise the employees
that the Union had filed unfair labor practice charges
against Respondent. It stated:
Without giving any details, the union claims the
company somehow illegally threatened or forced
employees because [sic] of the exercise of their
rights to engage in or not to engage in union activi-
ties. We believe we have not done anything to un-
lawfully interfere with your rights! We have too
much respect for our employees to attempt to
threaten or coerce you.
The notice then went on to advise the employees that
the Board would investigate the charges and urged their
cooperation. (See R. Exh. 1.)
On 9 September Grugett sent a copy of a letter refer-
ring to the unfair labor practice charges and Respond-
ent's position on them to each of the employees. In this
letter, Grugett stated:
We have learned that the union claims that between
June and August 1, Fred Manzella and I threatened
employees with plant closure if the plant went
union, that I "created the impression of surveillance
regarding the union," and finally that I threatened
individuals with termination for engaging in union
activity. I have discussed these allegations with
Fred and I do not`believe that either him [sic], me
[sic]' or, anyone else unlawfully threatened anyone
with plant shut-down or termination because they
were engaged in union activities. Both Fred and I
certainly do not intend or expect any remarks
which we might have made to be so interpreted.
The letter went on to set forth employee rights con-
tained in Section 7 of the Act and stated that Respondent
"has not and will not interfere, restrain, or coerce any
employee in the exercise of these rights." Grugett went
on to state that' although Respondent believed the em-
ployees at Weed did not want or need a union, Respond-
ent would respect their - rights to make the choice. He
concluded this letter by stating:
One final point that I must make clear is that this
letter is not an admission that Roseburg Lumber
Co. has in any way violated the law and should not
be so interpreted. Don't believe anyone that tells
you anything different. [See R. Exh. 2.]
D. Grugett's Statements to the Local Chamber of
Commerce
On 10 September Grugett spoke to the Weed Chamber
of Commerce concerning; Respondent's plans for the
mill. A newspaper account of the speech was introduced
into evidence by the General Counsel. (See G.C. Exh.
3.) The article indicated Grugett told the Chamber of
Commerce that, if Roseburg workers refrained from
unionizing, they will get the same wages as Respondent's
employees in the unionized plants. The article quoted
Grugett as stating, "The unions are trying to organize at
the plant. We're the only plant in the company that is
not unionized and we want to keep it that way." It fur-
ther quoted Grugett saying, "Whatever the employees
want is what they will get. If the people want a union,
we'll go union-if they want nonunion, we'll go non-
union." In this speech, according to the article, Grugett
stated the unfair labor practice charges against him were
unfounded and denied that he threatened to shut down
the plant if the employees became represented by the
Union. The article further stated that Grugett told his
audience the Weed employees would automatically get
whatever raises were negotiated at Respondent's other
plants.
Grugett did not deny the accuracy of the newspaper
account of his speech except to indicate that he was mis-
quoted in one instance. According to' Grugett, he did not
say that Weed employees would automatically get what-
ever raises were negotiated at Respondent's union-repre-
sented plants. Rather, he testified he told the Chamber of
Commerce that hopefully the Weed employees would re-
ceive the same wage increases that might be negotiated
at Respondent's other plants.- Grugett acknowledged that
after the article was printed, he did not at any time con-
tact the reporter or the newspaper, to protest about the
accuracy of the statements attributed to him.
Concluding Findings
Having resolved the question that the statements made
by Grugett and Manzella to the employees during the
organizing campaign were as the employees testified, the
ultimate issue here is -whether, in all of the surrounding
circumstances, these statements reasonably tended to
interfere with the free exercise of employee rights guar-
anteed under Section 7 of the Act Respondent argues
regarding the situations involving York, Belcastro, and
McCarty that the statements to these employees were
made to known union adherents who openly expressed
their support for the Union. Therefore, according to Re-
ROSEBURG LUMBER CO.
spondent 's theory, the statements were not unlawful
under the rationale of the Board 's decision in Rossmore
House. 1 ° More specifically , Respondent contends that
York and Belcastro openly and actively supported the
Union's cause and that Grugett learned of McCarty's
similar sentiments from third persons at the mill prior to
his discussion with that employee . Thus, Respondent
urges that under the Rossmore House holding , its officials
and supervisors were free to engage in discussions about
the Union with these employees and to question them
about their union sentiments without violating their
rights under the Act.
I do not agree with Respondent 's expansive interpreta-
tion of the Rossmore House decision . A careful reading of
that case indicates that while an employer does not vio-
late the Act when discussing his views on union organi-
zation with employees or questioning open and active
union adherents about their union sentiments, a violation
does occur if the employer 's statements contain express
or implied threats or promises . Such threats and promises
have been held consistently by the Board to tend to
interfere with employee exercise of rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act . See Haynes Motor Lines,
273 NLRB 1851 (1985 ); Eagle Headers, 273 NLRB 1486
(1985); J. & G. Wall Baking Co., 272 NLRB 1008 (1984);
Horizon Air Services, 272 NLRB 243 (1984). See also dis-
sent (Member Dennis), Diversified Products, 272 NLRB
1070 ( 1984).
The facts found in the instant case clearly demonstrate
that the statements made by Grugett to York in the fore-
men's office were patently coercive and unlawful . First,
I find that by stating he heard York attended the union
meeting , Grugett was creating an impression that he was
engaging in surveillance of York's union activities. I find
this to be true even though York was a known and open
supporter of the Union . The meeting was held away
from the mill complex and did not relate to the employ-
ee's union activities at the mill . Thus, Grugett's statement
suggests he was surveilling York's activities off the plant
premises. See Sierra Hospital Foundation , 274 NLRB 472
(1985).
In this same conversation , Grugett threatened profane-
ly to close the mill if the employees were represented by
the Union and then concluded by implying that York's
future with Respondent was questionable . I find the first
statement to be an explicit threat of plant closure and the
latter to be an implied threat of reprisal which tended to
interfere with York's free exercise of his Section 7 rights.
Horizon Air Services, supra; So-Cal Products, supra; Collec-
tramatic, Inc., 267 NLRB 866 (1983). Accordingly, I find
Grugett's statements to York on this occasion violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
In a like vein, I find Grugett's conversations with Bel-
castro to be coercive interrogation in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. By telling Belcastro that he (Grugett)
knew which employees attended the union meetings and
signed authorization cards, Grugett was clearly convey-
ing the impression that he was engaging in surveillance
of all union supporters; regardless of whether they were
open or covert in their activities on behalf of the Union.
16 Rossmore House , 269 NLRB 1176 (1984).
887
Nor does the fact that this statement was made to a
known union adherent nullify the coerciveness of Gru-
gett's comments . Further, as shown by the prior cita-
tions, it is axiomatic that his threat of plant closure was
unlawful . Finally, Grugett's threat to issue three white
slips to Belcastro for any infraction of Respondent's
work rules constituted an implied threat that Grugett in-
tended to seek out reasons to discharge the employee be-
cause he was engaging in union activities . See Mister Fox
Tire Co., 271 NLRB 960 (1984).
I further find that Grugett 's conversation with
McCarty in January 1985 was coercive . Grugett initiated
the conversation because of McCarty 's complaints about
the unsafe working conditions in his work area. By tell-
ing McCarty he was a union sympathizer and defying
him to deny it, Grugett was placing the employee in a
position requiring him to reveal his union sentiments.
Contrary to Respondent, there was no evidence at this
point to indicate McCarty openly supported the Union
or that he had complained about matters other than the
unsafe working conditions in his area. In these circum-
stances, I find Grugett 's comments to be unlawful.
Respondent contends that the Board 's holding in Brig-
adier Industries Corp.,'' justifies its assertion that Gru-
gett 's conversation with McCarty was noncoercive. I
find that case to be inapposite . In Brigadier the employer
learned from third parties that an employee was engag-
ing in union activities at the plant . In speaking to the em-
ployee, the employer advised him that he could only
engage in such activities during breaks and lunch or
before and after work. In finding no coercion , the Board
held the employer's statements were made to "an open
and active union supporter . . . and did not seek a re-
sponse." Such is not the case here . Therefore, I find
Grugett's comments to McCarty on this occasion violat-
ed Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.'s
It follows from the prior discussions that Grugett's
threats of plant closure , made in response to employee
inquiries in the lunchroom in March or April (Hamden's
testimony) and again in July or August (Nichols' testimo-
ny) were coercive and violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act. It is of no significance that on each of these occa-
sions the employees initiated the conversations with Gru-
gett. While an employer is free to express its views when
responding to employee inquiries about the consequences
of being represented by a union, its may not threaten
them with plant closure and resultant loss of employment
or with other retaliatory conduct when responding to
their inquiries.
Similarly, Manzella 's threat of plant closure made in
response to employee inquiries in the lunchroom in June
was coercive and violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. As
previously noted , Manzella was not expressing his own
personal views to the employees but, rather , was assert-
17 271 NLRB 656 (1984).
18 1 do not find unlawful Grugett 's statement to McCarty , sometime in
1984, that employees had to be stupid to want a union. In my view, this
is merely the expression of an opinion privileged under Sec. 8 (c) of the
Act. Rich Plan of Western Reserve, 271 NLRB 1010 (1985 ); W & F Build-
ing Maintenance Co., 268 NLRB 849 fn. 1 (1984).
888 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing the same threat of plant closure expressed repeatedly
by Respondent's highest official at the mill.
Respondent further contends that even if the state-
ments made by Grugett and Manzella were found to be
coercive, they were at best de minimis and isolated. I
reject this contention out of hand. Threats of plant clo-
sure and loss of employment are "hallmark" violations
which strike at the very core of employee organizational
efforts. Horizon Air Services, supra; NLRB v. Jamaica
Towing, 632 F.2d 208, 212-213 (2d Cir. 1980). Nor were
these incidents of unlawful conduct isolated. Rather,
they occurred on numerous occasions with different
groups of employees throughout the Union's organizing
campaign.
Finally, Respondent contends that any unlawful con-
duct that may have occurred was fully remedied by the
notices posted and the letters sent by Grugett to the em-
ployees. In support of this argument, Respondent relies
on the Board's decision in Agri-International Inc., 271
NLRB 925 (1984).
In Agri-International, a number of the employer's su-
pervisors engaged in unlawful interrogation of employees
during a union's organizational campaign. When the em-
ployer's highest official at the plant learned of the coer-
cive conduct (4 days later), it posted notices on the com-
pany bulletin boards and mailed disavowal notices to all
the employees spelling out their rights under the Act and
pledging not to engage in the coercive conduct in the
future. In addition, each supervisor involved in the un-
lawful' acts was required in group meetings with the em-
ployees to pledge commitment to the statements set forth
in the employer's notices. The Board held this was effec-
tive repudiation of the supervisors' unlawful conduct and
no finding of a violation was warranted.
Contrary to the claim of Respondent here, I find that
the posted notices and letters to the employees did not
effectively repudiate the coercive conduct of Grugett or
Manzella. The posted notices clearly indicated Respond-
ent did not believe its officials had engaged in any con-
duct which interfered with the Section 7 rights of the
employees. Similarly, the letters which Grugett mailed to
the employees again stated that neither he nor Manzella
believed they had engaged in any coercive conduct.
Thus, both the posted notices and the mailed letters
failed to "specifically and unambiguously" disavow the
coercive conduct found to have been committed here.
Pilliod, of Mississippi, Inc., 275 NLRB 799 fn. 1 (1985). In
the absence of such a specific disavowal, Respondent has
not effectively repudiated its unfair labor practices. Pas-
savant Memorial Area Hospital, 237 NLRB 138 (1978).
Moreover, Respondent continued to engage in similar
coercive conduct after the purported disavowal as evi-
denced by Grugett's unlawful interrogation of McCarty
in January 1985. I reject, therefore, Respondent's conten-
tion that the unfair labor practices were effectively repu-
diated and no fording of a violation is warranted.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Roseburg Lumber Company is an employer within
the meaning of Section 2(2), engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Lumber, Production & Industrial Workers Union,
Local 2608 is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By unlawfully interrogating employees about their
union activities and sentiments, Respondent has violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By creating an impression that the union activities
of employees were under surveillance, Respondent has
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. By threatening employees with reprisals because
they support the Union, Respondent has violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
6. By threatening to close its mill facility if the em-
ployees select the Union as their bargaining representa-
tive, Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the, Act.
7. Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act by telling employees they have to be stupid to want
a union.
THE REMEDY
Having found Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices , it shall be ordered to cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record , I issue the following recommend-
ed19
ORDER
The Respondent, Roseburg Lumber Company, Weed,
California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Creating an impression of engaging in surveillance
of employees' union or other protected activities.
(b) Unlawfully interrogating employees about their
union activities and sentiments.
(c) Threatening employees with reprisals because they
engage in activities in support of the Union.
(d) Threatening to close its mill facility if the employ-
ees select the Union as their bargaining representative.
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Post at its facility located in Weed, California
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."80
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 20, after being signed by the Re-
spondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by
19 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
20 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 "
ROSEBURG LUMBER CO.
the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained
for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including
all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to ensure that the notices are not altered , defaced, or
covered by any other material.
889
(b) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any allegations contained
in the complaint not specifically found to be violations
are dismissed.