Rosewood Mfg. Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 30, 1984

269 N.L.R.B. 782 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Rosewood Mfg. Co., Inc. and Amalgamated Clothing
and Textile Workers Union, AFL-CIO. Case
26-CA-9382
30 March 1984
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
ZIMMERMAN AND HUNTER
On 29 April 1983 Administrative Law Judge
Marion C. Ladwig issued the attached decision in
this proceeding. The Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting 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
conclusions2 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, Rosewood
Mfg. Co., Inc., Charleston, Mississippi, its officers,
I 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 Cir. 1951).
We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing
the findings.
The judge inadvertently stated that the hearing in this case was held 25
August 1981 rather than 25 August 1982.
We find it unnecessary to rely on the judge's finding that the Respond-
ent's president, Blauer, did not specifically disavow his supervisors' prior
plant closure threats in his 14 October 1981 speech to the employees. In
so doing, we note that there is no evidence that Blauer ever was apprised
of these prior threats.
I We find it unnecessary to pass on the judge's conclusion that the Re-
spondent violated Sec. 8(aXl) of the Act based on his finding that Blauer
made an implied threat of plant closure by not giving a direct answer to
employee Williams' statement that rumor had it that Blauer would close
the plant if the Union came in. In so doing, we note that the finding of
this additional violation would be cumulative and would not affect the
Order materially.
The judge concluded that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(aXl) of the
Act by prohibiting and maintaining a rule against the distribution of
union literature in nonworking areas during nonworking time. The Re-
spondent excepts to the finding of this violation, contending solely that
its conduct was isolated and that it does not warrant a remedial order.
We find the Respondent's contentions to be without merit.
We adopt the judge's conclusion that the Respondent violated Sec.
8(aXl) of the Act by Supervisor Jones' 9 October 1981 statement to em-
ployee Melton and by Plant Manager Jones' statements to employee Wil-
liams in the latter part of October 1981. We find that these statements
reasonably tended to coerce the employees in the exercise of their Sec. 7
rights. Contrary to our dissenting colleague, the fact that Supervisor
Jones' statement may have been made in a fit of pique would not negate
the coercive impact of her statement and Plant Manager Jones' subjective
reasons for making his remarks to Williams are irrelevant in considering
the impact of his statements under Sec. 8(aXI) of the Act.
269 NLRB No. 140
agents, successors, and assigns shall take the action
set forth in the recommended Order.
CHAIRMAN DOTSON, dissenting in part.
I disagree with my colleagues with regard to
two incidents. The first incident occurred about 9
October when Supervisor Jones told employee
Melton that the plant manager had taken her "off
of a machine because you couldn't make produc-
tion on your job and made you the service girl,
and then you all turn around and do him like this."
I disagree with the majority and the judge in hold-
ing that this statement violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act. Instead I would rely on the dissenting
opinion filed by former Member Kennedy in Oscar
Enterprises, 214 NLRB 823 (1974). I agree with
former Member Kennedy that a statement such as
the one involved here reflects nothing more than
pique at what the Respondent "considered the in-
gratitude of the employees." Such remarks would
not be unlawful in my view.
Further, in late October a statement of "shock"
was made by Plant Manager Jones. I would agree
with the Respondent in this case that it is not an
8(a)(1) violation for a company representative to
express surprise that an employee supports the
Union. I do not believe that the statement intended
to create the impression that the Respondent would
treat employees less favorably because of their
union support. This conclusion has no factual basis
and is merely speculation on the part of the judge
and my colleagues.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MARION C. LADWIG, Administrative Law Judge. This
case was tried at Charleston, Mississippi, August 25,
1981.1 The charge was filed by the Union October 15
(amended December 1), and the complaint was issued
November 24 (amended December 14). The primary
issues are whether the Company, the Respondent, during
the preelection campaign, (a) unlawfully interrogated and
threatened employees, (b) engaged in unlawful surveil-
lance, and (c) engaged in other coercive conduct in vio-
lation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations
Act.
On the entire record, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after consideration of the
General Counsel's closing arguments and the Company's
brief, I make the following
All dates are in 1981 unless otherwise indicated.
782
ROSEWOOD MFG. CO.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Company, a corporation, produces outerwear and
jackets at its facility in Charleston, Mississippi, where it
annually ships goods valued over $50,000 directly out-
side the State. The Company admits and I find that it is
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and that the
Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
11. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interrogations and Threats
1. By Fanny Bradford
On October 9, the morning after the first union meet-
ing, many of the employees wore union buttons at work.
As credibly testified to by employee Marcie Hervey,
Supervisor Fanny Bradford came to Hervey's machine
and asked her who was at the meeting, what was said,
and what the Union was for (Tr. 178). Bradford then
went to the office and, upon returning, asked Hervey "if
[Plant Manager] Ray [Jones] left would we drop the
union because he felt like we were doing it to spite him"
(Tr. 179). Bradford "told me that if I knew what was
good for me, I better leave this union business alone be-
cause Mr. [Charles] Blauer [the company president] was
going to close the plant down" (Tr. 179). Then, after
going again to the office, Bradford talked to other em-
ployees who were wearing union buttons. Bradford
denied speaking to Hervey (Tr. 275), denied telling any
employee that Blauer would close the plant (Tr. 270),
denied interrogating employees about the Union (Tr.
275), and denied asking any employee if they would drop
the Union if the Company got rid of Plant Manager
Jones claiming, "No, because I didn't care if they
dropped it or not" (Tr. 270). By her demeanor on the
stand, Bradford impressed me most unfavorably as a wit-
ness. I discredit her denials. Bradford gave no legitimate
purpose for asking the questions and gave no assurances
against reprisals. I find that the interrogation tended to
be coercive, and that the interrogation and threat to
close the plant, as well as the inducement to drop the
Union in exchange for improved working conditions (by
replacing the plant manager), violated Section 8(aX)(1) of
the Act.
When Supervisor Bradford went to machine operator
Martha Burt's machine that morning, she asked Burt if
she had a union button. Burt said yes and showed Brad-
ford where it was, on Burt's collar. Bradford later re-
turned and asked Burt "what if we get [a new plant man-
ager], would you and the other girls consider dropping
out of the union?" and added, "if you don't, the plant
will close" (Tr. 158-159). I discredit Bradford's denials
and find that the promise of improved conditions and the
threat were further violations of Section 8(a)(l).
2. By Jane Jones
On the same morning, October 9, Supervisor Jane
Jones went to operator Diane Todd's machine, said she
had never had any dealings with a union before, and
asked Todd what the union represented, what it was all
about (Tr. 121). After Todd answered, Jones said that
President Blauer would not have the Union in his plant,
that he would lock the doors, walk off, and take the ma-
chinery back, and that he would not have anyone telling
him what to do and how to run his plant (Tr. 122). (I
discredit Jones' denials; she appeared on the stand to be
less than candid.) I find that the interrogation tended to
be coercive, and that it and the threat of plant closure
violated Section 8(a)(1).
The same morning, as service girl Denise Melton cre-
dibly testified, Supervisor Jones first asked what kind of
pin Melton was wearing and then asked "[D]on't you
know that Mr. Blauer would pack the machines up in
the plant and be moved back to Boston overnight and all
of us would be out of a job?" (Tr. 173). I discredit Jones'
denials and find that the threat of plant closure violated
Section 8(a)(1).
3. By Joyce Martin
On October 17, as employee Sherry Doubleday credi-
bly testified, Supervisor Joyce Martin went to her home
and told her that President Blauer "would carry his ma-
chines back to Boston just like he brought them in here,"
that he "had the right to do it because they were his ma-
chines," that there was not "any sense in us trying to
jeopardize someone else's job when they really needed
the job," and that "if we wasn't satisfied with the job,
why didn't we quit" (Tr. 168-169). Martin did not testi-
fy. I find that this additional threat of plant closure vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1).
In the same conversation, Supervisor Martin also told
employee Doubleday, "Mr. Blauer said that he was not
in the blind of this union, that he knew it a long time
before the union started to move in" (Tr. 169). I find,
however, that this statement did not create the impres-
sion that the employees' union activities were under sur-
veillance. I therefore dismiss that allegation in the com-
plaint.
In its brief, the Company challenges the credibility of
the employee witnesses, citing Plant Manager Jones' in-
structions to the supervisors about 8:30 October 9 "not
to discuss the union or union buttons with the employ-
ees." (Supervisor Bradford claimed that the supervisors'
meeting was held "around 8:30" that morning (Tr. 269);
Supervisor Jane Jones claimed it was "around 10:00"
(Tr. 257).) In making the contention, however, the Com-
pany ignores President Blauer's undisputed testimony
that later that same day he called Plant Manager Jones
back and "gave him a list of do's and don'ts and rules for
supervisors to follow from that point on" (Tr. 283). The
Company did not disclose the content of these rules.
4. By Charles Blauer
On October 14, when President Blauer held an em-
ployee meeting, he did not specifically disavow the plant
closure threats. Instead, after talking about the recent
layoffs, the plant's losing money, and productivity prob-
lems, he admittedly told the employees "there were a lot
of pressures on me just to, you know, I mean we have a
783
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
reason to kiss [the plant] goodbye, but I didn't want to
do it because I felt we had a good plant" (Tr. 288).
The next day, President Blauer met privately with em-
ployees Joe Williams, Sherry Haynes, and Diane Todd in
the plant manager's office, at their request. Williams first
asked about the rumor that Blauer would close the plant
if the Union came in. Williams recalled that Blauer an-
swered "that if I put myself in his position, if I had in-
vested as much money as what he had in Rosewood, that
[is] what would I do" (Tr. 29). Todd recalled that Blauer
"told him that he was a smart man, to figure it out for
himself. What would he do if he was in . . . his shoes";
"he never really gave us a definite answer. He said what
would you do if you was in my shoes"; and "you're a
smart man, Joe, you tell me. What would you do. .. if
you was in my shoes" (Tr. 126, 137, 144). Haynes, who
appeared to have more difficulty in recalling the long
conversation, remembered Blauer asking "what would
you do if you were in my place" (Tr. 93, 113-115).
Blauer acknowledged that he asked, "What would you
do if you were in my shoes" (Tr. 289), but he claimed he
first gave a direct response to Williams' statement that
"the rumor's all around that if the union comes in, this
plant's going to close down" (Tr. 288-289). On direct ex-
amination he claimed he first stated "that if this plant
goes down, it's going to be because of economic reasons
and we had lost $160,000 here in six months and we got
a lot of money tied up in this plant" (Tr. 289). On cross-
examination, Blauer claimed that he answered that "this
plant is losing money hand over fist, or something to that
effect.... We've lost S160,000 in six months. If this
plant goes or stays, it will be based on its productivity
and its economic record, and nothing else" (Tr. 313).
Blauer did not appear to be entirely candid. I discredit
his claim that he gave a direct answer to Williams' ques-
tion about plant closure and find that he gave the evasive
answer, implying that he might close the plant if the
Union came in. Although Blauer did make statements
about the necessity of productivity and profitability for
the plant to remain open, I find that in answering Wil-
liams' question about the plant closure rumor, Blauer
made an implied threat to close the plant if the employ-
ees selected the Union as their bargaining representative,
in violation of Section 8(a)(1).
I dismiss the allegation that President Blauer dispar-
aged the three employees "for their support of the Union
by characterizing the employees as disruptive." I credit
Blauer's testimony that he was referring to the Union
being disruptive, after recounting a strike situation in an-
other State.
I also dismiss the allegation that Blauer, by soliciting
employee complaints, promised them increased benefits
and improved terms and conditions of employment.
During the meeting, Blauer did ask the employees:
"What's wrong with this plant? Don't we have good ma-
chinery? Don't we have a new building? Don't we have
good lighting? Don't we have good air conditioning?"
(Tr. 306). I find, however, that he was not soliciting
complaints; he was merely asking rhetorical questions, as
a way of boasting about working conditions at the plant.
B. Surveillance
About 4:45 p.m., as employees were leaving one of the
Union's October meetings at the county courthouse, one
of the employees told employee Sherry Haynes, "There's
Fanny Bradford" (Tr. 79, 103). Haynes turned and saw
Supervisor Bradford standing on the outside of her car,
parked across the street from the courthouse, "looking
right straight at us" (Tr. 103). Bradford was standing in
plain sight of the union supporters leaving the union
meeting, obviously keeping the meeting under surveil-
lance. Bradford testified that she went by the courthouse
on the way home, but had no reason to stop (Tr. 267-
268). As indicated above, she impressed me most unfa-
vorably as a witness; I discredit her denials that she en-
gaged in the surveillance. I therefore find, as alleged in
the complaint, that she kept the union meeting under sur-
veillance in violation of Section 8(a)(1).
I dismiss, however, the three other allegations of sur-
veillance.
On one occasion in October, Supervisor Bradford was
in the lunchroom when employee Haynes entered and
began an open discussion with other employees about the
Union. It was toward the end of the lunch period. Brad-
ford remained seated at the table during the conversa-
tion. Supervisors sometimes take their breaks and have
lunch there. (I discredit Bradford's denial that she ever
heard Haynes say anything about the Union.)
The other allegations involve members of management
watching employees attending union meetings at a pri-
vate parking lot across the street from the plant. Orga-
nizer Danny Forsyth testified that he held informal union
meetings there after work, where the employees leaving
the plant "would see me" and "come on over" (Tr. 68).
On one occasion in October, when President Blauer was
inspecting the plant and stepped outside, he saw the
crowd of people in the parking lot. He looked across the
street at them several times during the short time he was
outside the plant, but did not take any notes or make any
lists. On another occasion, Plant Manager Ray Jones
looked at the employees as he twice drove slowly
around the plant (Tr. 84). (Jones testified that he saw the
employees meeting at the parking lot 10 or 12 times, but
denied driving around the plant. I discredit the denials.)
He did not stop; he merely looked in the employees' di-
rection.
The Board has held that "[u]nion representatives and
employees who choose to engage in their union activities
at the Employer's premises should have no cause to
complain that management observes them." Porta Sys-
tems Corp., 238 NLRB 192 (1978). I agree with the Com-
pany that there was no unlawful surveillance on these
three occasions. Supervisor Bradford merely remained in
the breakroom when employee Haynes entered and
began openly discussing the Union. As argued by the
Company, the parking lot meetings were held in full
public view. They could be readily observed by anyone
leaving the plant. President Blauer did nothing but look
in that direction while remaining on company property,
and Plant Manager Jones did nothing else while driving
slowly around the plant twice. I therefore dismiss the
three allegations.
784
ROSEWOOD MFG. CO.
C. No-Distribution
About November 10, President Blauer approached
Sherry Haynes and three other employees who were
passing out union literature at the plant entrance at quit-
ting time. He admittedly told Haynes that "this is my
property and I will not allow you to hand out leaflets
here" (Tr. 279). The next afternoon, he admitedly asked
some of the employees in the plant if they were planning
to hand out any more literature that day and, upon learn-
ing that they were not, told them, "Well, good, because
I don't want any trouble around this place" (Tr. 280).
In its brief the Company admits that President Blauer
"prevented employees from distributing union literature
on company property," but contends that the "presump-
tively invalid no solicitation/distribution rule that had
been posted on the plant's bulletin board during the
period in question has since been replaced" with a rule
conforming to the Board's current standard and that "a
remedial order at this point would be moot."
A new, admittedly lawful rule was posted December
3. The Company does not dispute, however, that be-
tween that time and the December 18 election, the em-
ployees were not informed that they could pass out
union literature during nonworking time in nonworking
areas (Tr. 308). The new rule was not called to the em-
ployees' attention (Tr. 105) and did not refer to distribut-
ing literature in nonworking areas (R. Exh. 1).
I find that about November 10, the Company unlaw-
fully prevented the distribution of union literature during
nonworking time in a nonworking area, and about No-
vember 11, maintained and enforced the unlawful prohi-
bition, violating Section 8(a)(1), and that a remedial
order is required.
D. Other Coercive Conduct
On October 9, after Supervisor Jane Jones (the plant
manager's wife) made the plant closure threat to service
girl Melton, Jones approached Melton at one of the ma-
chines and told her "[Plant Manager] Ray [Jones] took
you off of a machine because you couldn't make produc-
tion on your job and made you a service girl, and then
ya'll turn around and do him like this" (Tr. 174). I dis-
credit Jones' denials that she had such a conversation
with Melton. The Company contends that even if the
statement were made, it was "completely devoid" of any
"threat of reprisal or force" and therefore "within the
purview of § 8(c) of the Act." I disagree. I find that
statement, pointing out a favor her husband did Melton
before she supported the Union, tended to imply that she
would be treated differently in the future because of her
protected concerted activity. Particularly in the context
of the plant closure threat, I find that the statement was
coercive and violated Section 8(a)(l). Oscar Enterprises,
214 NLRB 823 (1974).
In the latter part of October (about a week after Presi-
dent Blauer made the implied plant closure threat to em-
ployee Williams and two others), mechanic Williams told
Plant Manager Jones he was turning in his 2 weeks'
notice. Williams explained "I didn't know why that all of
a sudden that I didn't do my job, and I didn't know
whether it was on account of this union stuff come up,
and I guess that was all what brought it on" (Tr. 35). As
Williams credibly testified, Jones said, "I was shocked
out of my boots that you did something like this, and we
couldn't understand it why you did it" (Tr. 36). Accord-
ing to Jones, Williams said "He'd got too much in-
volved. And I told him that I was kind of shocked that
he had gotten involved as much as he had" (Tr. 248).
Jones further testified (Tr. 254):
A. I was shocked that he got involved with the
union because I was having to do his work.
Q. You felt like you were helping him out and
then he gets involved ...
A. I was helping him out, yes, right.
Q. And then he goes and betrays you by getting
involved in the union. Is that right?
A. You could put it that way.
As in Operating Engineers Local 12, 237 NLRB 1556,
1558 (1978), in which a statement "conveyed to the em-
ployees the message that the Respondent equated engag-
ing in union activity, which is a protected statutory
right, with employee disaffection or disloyalty," I find
that Jones' statement that he was "shocked" that Wil-
liams had gotten involved (in the union activity) tended
to create the impression that the Company would treat
employees less favorably because of their union support.
Although he was resigning, Williams was still employed,
and such a statement would tend to coerce other em-
ployees as well. I find that it violated Section 8(a)(1).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By coercively interrogating employees about union
support and activities, by making threats of plant closure
if the Union came in, by promising improved conditions
if the employees abandoned the Union, by engaging in
surveillance of a union meeting at the county courthouse,
by unlawfully preventing and maintaining a rule against
the distribution of union literature during nonworking
time in a nonworking area, and by coercing employees,
making statements that an employee turned against the
plant manager, and that the manager was shocked at an
employee's union involvement, the Company engaged in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
2. The Company did not engage in surveillance of the
union activities in the lunchroom or at the parking lot
across the street, disparage employees by characterizing
them as disruptive, solicit employee complaints and
grievances, or create the impression of surveillance of
union activities at the plant.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, I find it necessary to order it
to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
785
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed 2
ORDER
The Respondent, Rosewood Mfg. Co., Inc., Charles-
ton, Mississippi, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Coercively interrogating any employee about union
support or union activities.
(b) Threatening to close the plant if a union comes in.
(c) Promising improved working conditions if the em-
ployees abandon a union.
(d) Engaging in unlawful surveillance of any union
meeting.
(e) Prohibiting the distribution of union literature in
nonworking areas during nonworking time.
(f) Coercing employees by making statements implying
reprisals for union activity or equating union activity
with employee disaffection or disloyalty.
(g) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them 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 in Charleston, Mississippi, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix."3 Copies of
the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 26, after being signed by the Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Re-
spondent 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.
(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 the complaint is dis-
missed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not spe-
cifically found.
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 or-
dered 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 representatives
of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protec-
tion
To choose not to engage in any of these protect-
ed concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT coercively question you about your
union support or activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close the plant if a union
comes in.
WE WILL NOT promise improved working condi-
tions for giving up a union.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully keep watch at a union meet-
ing.
WE WILL NOT stop you from distributing union litera-
ture in nonworking areas during nonworking time.
WE WILL NOT make any statement implying reprisals
for supporting a union.
WE WILL NOT state or imply that you are disloyal for
supporting a union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
ROSEWOOD MFG. CO., INC.
2 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.
I 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board."
786