Startler Industries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 13, 1979

244 N.L.R.B. 144 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Statler Industries, Inc. (Statler Tissue Company) and
United Paperworkers International Union, AFL-
CIO. Cases 1-CA-13178 and I-CA-13599
August 13, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS PENELLO
AND TRUESDALE
On March 6, 1979, Administrative Law Judge Ju-
lius Cohn issued the attached Decision in this pro-
ceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and
a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed a
brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge's
Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of' the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order,2 as modified herein.3
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge,* as modified
below, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Stat-
ler Industries, Inc. (Statler Tissue Company), Au-
gusta, Maine, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall take the action set forth in the said
recommended Order, as so modified:
Insert the following as paragraph l(k) and reletter
the subsequent paragraph accordingly:
"(k) Transferring and relocating jobs from the Au-
I Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule
an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless
the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the
resolutions are incorrect. Sandard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544
(1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the
record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
2 Based on our own careful analysis of this case, we have determined that
Respondent, by the number and extent of its unfair labor practices, has
engaged in such egregious and widespread misconduct as to demonstrate a
general disregard for its employees' fundamental statutory rights. We there-
fore find extraordinary remedial measures appropriate and we shall adopt
the broad injunctive language contained in the recommended Order. See
Hickmor Foods, Inc., 242 NLRB 1357 (1979).
'We hereby modify the Administrative Law Judge's recommended Order
to include a provision, which he inadvertently omitted, concerning the trans-
fer and relocation of jobs.
' The recommended Order and notice of the Administrative Law Judge as
they appear herein have been further modified as directed by the First Cir-
cuit Court of Appeals in its decision of March 12, 1981. The Board sub-
mitted to the court the revised Order and notice on Apnl 8. 1981.
gusta mill accounting department to the corporate
headquarters in Medford, Massachusetts, because of
employee union activities."
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JULIUS COHN, Administrative Law Judge: These consoli-
dated cases were in heard Augusta, Maine, based on
charges filed and thereafter amended, and a consolidated
complaint issued on November 1, 1977, by the Regional
Director for Region 1. Pursuant to a notice to amend, the
complaint was amended at the hearing. Respondent duly
filed an answer to the complaint. Among the principal is-
sues raised by the pleadings is whether Statler Industries,
Inc., herein called Respondent or the Company, engaged in
various acts or conduct violative of Section 8(a)(l) of the
Act. A resolution of some of those allegations is dependent
on whether certain of Respondent's employees are supervi-
sors or agents within the meaning of the Act. Respondent is
also alleged to have violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by
discharging three of its employees because they had en-
gaged in activities, on behalf of the United Paperworkers
International Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union.
Finally, it is alleged that Respondent terminated nine em-
ployees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) as a result of an un-
lawful transfer of their department from its plant at Au-
gusta, Maine, to corporate headquarters in Medford,
Massachusetts.
All parties were given full opportunity to participate, to
produce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, to argue orally, and to file briefs. The General
Counsel and Respondent have submitted briefs which were
carefully considered.
Upon the entire record of the case and from my observa-
tion of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the follow-
ing:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent maintains an office and plant in Augusta,
Maine, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and
destribution of household paper products. Respondent an-
nually purchases large quantities of pulpwood and chemi-
cals valued in excess of $50,000 which are shipped to and
received by it from states other than the State of Maine.
Respondent also annually ships to firms outside the State of
Maine finished products valued in excess of $50,000. The
complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I find, that Re-
spondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOIVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
11I. THE AII.EGED UNFAIR I.ABOR PRA(TICES
A. Background
Respondent, which maintains its central office and corpo-
rate headquarters in Medford, Massachusetts, purchased
244 NLRB No. 19
144
STATLER INDLIS1'RIES. INC.
the Augusta mill from Hudson Paper Company in 1968. In
the following years it moved its production operations from
Medford and other locations to Augusta. The Union has
represented all hourly paid employees punching timecards,
except those employed in the management section of the
mill, since the Company acquired the Augusta mill and,
indeed, had represented those employees prior thereto un-
der the former owner. In July 1976 the Union filed a peti-
tion to represent approximately eight employees principally
engaged as laboratory technicians, testers, and inspectors in
the quality control department of the mill. Thereafter a
Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election was ex-
ecuted by the Union and the Company, and an election was
conducted resulting in certification of the Union for those
employees. Subsequently the parties bargained and signed a
collective-bargaining agreement.
During this period of activity concerning the laboratory
employees, in August 1976. certain of Respondent's office
employees began engaging in activity toward organization
under the Union. It is undisputed that Ellen Kinney com-
municated with the Union, obtained authorization cards
which she distributed to a number of the office employees,
and generally began a campaign to organize them. In the
ensuing months there was discussion among the employees
involved in the office, particularly during lunchbreaks but
also on other occasions. For the period of the commence-
ment of the campaign in August 1976 until May 1977, Gen-
eral Counsel has adduced considerable testimony in sup-
port of the many allegations of violations of Section
8(a)(I).' Preliminary to any discussion concerning the alle-
gations of violations of Section 8(a)( 1) of the Act, it must be
determined whether certain individuals employed by Re-
spondent were supervisors or agents as defined in the Act.
B. The Supervisor' Status Issue
1. Franklin Jones
In the relevant period Jones held the position of plant
accountant with responsibility to oversee all accounting
functions including accounts payable and cost accounting.
He was also the assistant to LaPointe, the plant controller,
and himself had an assistant, Francis Harwood. Besides
Harwood, four other employees worked under Jones. Jones
was a salaried employee who earned annually from $1,500
to $2,000 more than the next highest employee under him.
According to La Pointe, who was the department head, he
himself had the authority to hire and fire, but Jones, who
was not vested with such authority, could and did recom-
mend employees to be hired, and also was responsible for
and directed the work of the five office employees under
him. Jones. who testified on behalf of Respondent, stated
that he had in fact recommended employees for hire and
had also disciplined employees and that his recommenda-
tions were carried out. In addition, Jones said that he filled
in for La Pointe during the latter's absence and on such
i As the first charge herein was filed on May 31., 1977. no finding of viola-
tion of the Act can be made with regard to any alleged conduct occurring
prior to December I. 1976, because of the prescription of Sec. I0(bh) of the
Act.
occasions attended management meetings. During the
course of his testimony, Jones also referred to meetings he
had with employees in which he admonished people about
coming late or extending coffeebreaks and other matters.
In view of the testimony of LaPointe and Jones, I find
that Jones had authority to effectively recommend hiring
and firing of employees, and indeed had exercised the for-
mer, and. as plant accountant. responsibly directed the
work and training of the five employees under him. Accord-
ingly, I find that Franklin Jones is a supervisor within the
meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.
2. Raymond Bernier
It has been stipulated that as a result of his promotion on
April 1, 1977. Bernier became a supervisor within the
meaning of the Act. However the issue arises concerning his
status prior to that date, primarily during the period of
events covered in the complaint.
During the relevant times Bernier's title was production
planner and scheduling coordinator. Bernier was salaried
and earned $100 a week more than the next highest em-
ployee in that department. He reported to Lucian Le-
vesque, the department head, and actually filled in for Le-
vesque when the latter was on vacation. On those occasions
he also attended management meetings if questions of
scheduling were to be discussed. Clearly in his pre-April I
position Bernier did not have authority to hire or fire, but
Levesque stated that he considered recommendations made
by Bernier as to hiring or the management of the workload.
Bernier. testifying on behalf of Respondent, stated that he
made recommendations to Levesque which were usually
followed. Bernier also stated that he could recommend dis-
cipline of employees to Levesque, an example of this being
the occasion when he spoke to Levesque about Walter Hill.
an employee working under him, whom he found asleep at
the job. At the time that department managers were evalu-
ating employees. Bernier sat in with Levesque during the
interview and evaluation of Hill. Also concerning Hill. Ber-
nier recommended that Hill be given 3-months training in
the mill so that he could be better acquainted with Respon-
dent's operations. This recommendation was also imple-
mented. On the basis of testimony from Respondent's own
witnesses, principally Levesque and Bernier, I find that the
latter made effective recommendations concerning disci-
pline, hiring, workload, employee evaluations, and respon-
sibly directed employees, particularly Hill. in their work.
Accordingly, I conclude that prior to April 1. 1977, and
during the period encompassed by the complaint allega-
tions. Bernier was a supervisor within the meaning of the
Act.
3. Theresa Poulin
Poulin is the accounts payable supervisor, having been
promoted to that position on December 15. 1976. Although
her predecessor, Robert Grover, testified that he had au-
thority to hire and fire, a fact disputed by Respondent, it is
nevertheless clear that he did make recommendations in
that regard to LaPointe. the department head, who rou-
145
DE('ISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tinely fotllowed them. Upon her promotion, Poulin received
a pay increase of $15 a week and at that point was earning
$60 a week more than two employees under her. Poulin
testified that she interviewed and recommended the hiring
of' employees. An example of this function was Normande
Beckim, who she interviewed, and her recommendation was
implemented by the hiring of Beckim. In addition LaPointe
stated that Poulin made recommendations as to employees
who had completed their probationary period. Personnel
Director Sullivan testified that Poulin was expected to di-
rect the workload and assignment of duties to individuals in
her area. On the basis of the above. I find that Poulin exer-
cised some of the indicia of' supervisory authority pre-
scribed by the Act, particularly that she did in fact make
effective recommendations concerning hiring, and I find
therefore that she is a supervisor within the meaning of
Section 2(1 I) of the Act.
4. Edward Greenlaw
Prior to the reorganization of April 1, 1977. Greenlaw
was the manager of purchases and stores. At that time, as
was the stipulation also with Bernier. he reported to Le-
vesque. Greenlaw then was salaried and earned consider-
ably more than the employees under him. One of these,
Shelley Dorr, credibly testified that she was interviewed for
her position by Greenlaw and at some point Levesque en-
tered the room, spoke to her very briefly, and then she was
hired by Greenlaw. Greenlaw testified that although after
April I he obtained the power to hire and fire, nevertheless.
before that date he had the power to recommend as he did
in the case of Dorr. Greenlaw trained the people working
under him, made job assignments, and was responsible for
their work. I find therefore that Greenlaw, prior to April 1.
1977, during the relevant periods covered by the complaint.
was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. As noted.
there is no question that he was a supervisor after the date
when he was promoted.
C. The Alleged Violations of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act
As previously noted, the Union's organization campaign
began in August 1976. Authorization cards were distributed
and signed by some employees, and discussions occurred
among the employees during breaks and particulary at
lunch. The record contains testimony with regard to a num-
ber of incidents involving supervisors in the months of Au-
gust, October, and November. These will not be discussed
at length at this point as they occurred more than 6 months
prior to the filing of the charges herein and consequently no
finding of a violation of Section 8(a)( ) can be made as a
result of such conduct, even if it were found to be illegal.
The complaint alleges numerous violations of Section
8(a)(I) which for convenience will be discussed on the basis
of which supervisor of Respondent has been charged with
such conduct.
I Some of the incidents referred to will be detailed where they are relevant
in connection with the consideration o alleged violations of Sec. 8(a)(3), as
background thereto.
I. The alleged violations attributed to Franklin Jones
Arlene Brackett, an accounts payable clerk, testified that
Jones conducted a meeting about December 10 in the ac-
counting office. In the course of that meeting Jones told
Francis Harwood that he did not want him to discuss sala-
ries of other people. Jones said that if Harwood was not
happy with his job he could leave. Harwood, who had a
union card visible in his pocket at the time, said that jobs
were not easy to find; he was not going to leave but was
going to do something about it. During the same meeting
Jones also told the employees that he did not want them
mingling and that they were supposed to be at their desks at
8 a.m. and not 10 minutes after. Robert Grover, at that time
accounts payable supervisor, testified to similar effect con-
cerning this meeting. In this testimony Jones confirmed
talking to the employees about coming in late and extend-
ing coffeebreaks, and also that he thought that information
and discussion about other people's salaries was confiden-
tial. Jones stated he told Harwood that he could tell people
about his own salary but not discuss the salary of anyone
else. Jones also said the subject of the Union was not
brought up at this meeting, claiming he had no knowledge
at the time that employees were interested. I do not credit
Jones as to his claimed lack of knowledge of union activity
at that time, since a number of employees testified credibly
that he was present during earlier luncheon discussions of
the Union.
With regard to the restrictions placed by Jones on attend-
ance and break periods, particularly as employee witnesses
testified that these were not rigidly enforced before and in
view of the ongoing union activities, I find that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)( I ) of the Act by creating less favorable
working conditions) As to the proscription imposed by
Jones on employees' discussion of salaries. the Board has
found that rules prohibiting wage discussion among em-
ployees violate Section 8(a)(I).4 Even assuming the version
set forth by Jones that he limited this rule to discussion of
other employees' salaries, and that his remarks were ad-
dressed primarily to Harwood, who presumably had access
to wage information, there is no evidence that this informa-
tion was to be considered confidential and that Harwood or
others with similar access were advised of the necessity for
keeping the information confidential. Finally, I note that
Sullivan testified that he was not aware in December of any
rule prohibiting employees from discussing salaries. Ac-
cordingly. I find that Respondent further violated Section
8(a)(1) by attempting to prohibit discussion of employees'
salaries and wages.5
The General Counsel has alleged that on or about De-
cember 27. 1976, Jones interrogated employees, threatened
employees with reprisals because of their union activity,
and also created the impression of surveillance of their ac-
tivities. I find no evidence in the record with regard to this
alleged conduct by Jones and therefore dismiss the allega-
tions of the complaint with respect thereto.'
( Chandler Motors, Inc. 236 NLRB 1565 ( 1978.
'Jeannette Corporation. 217 NLRB 653 (1975).
Coosa 'alter Convalescent ('enter, 224 NLRB 1288 (1976).
' It is further noted that the General Counsel's brief contains no reference
to those complaint allegations.
146
STATLER INDUSTRIES, INC.
2. The conduct of Raymond Bernier
Walter Hill testified that about December 14 Francis
Harwood had just left the office when Bernier told him that
Harwood could be in trouble and his involvement in union
activities "could be damaging to anyone involved with
him." Bernier then said to Hill, "I hope you are not in-
volved." Hill queried Bernier whether he was asking if he
were involved in union activities. Bernier said he did not
care, and Hill assured him he was not. Bernier said he was
glad to hear that. Bernier, who testified at the hearing, did
not deny this conversation nor did he allude to it in any
way. I find Bernier's statement, that being involved with an
employee who was engaged in union activities "could be
damaging," implies a threat of some reprisal to an em-
ployee who either was involved himself or associated with
somebody engaged in union activity. Consequently, by the
conduct of Bernier. Respondent violated Section 8(a)( I) of
the Act. Further, the statement by Bernier that he hoped
Hill was not involved, addressed to an underlying, would
appear to call for a response and, in the context of the
threat he just uttered, becomes a coercive interrogation in
violation of Section 8(a)( 1).
3. The conduct of Jack Sullivan
Francis Harwood testified that on December 17 he had a
long conversation with the personnel director, John Sulli-
van, in the latter's office. He asked Sullivan about salary
structure and the staffing of the organization, stating that
Respondent's predecessor had a staffing chart and all em-
ployees knew where they' stood. Harwood said that during a
lengthy discussion which ensued he asked Sullivan if he had
heard about union organization in the office. According to
Harwood, Sullivan did not then comment but somewhat
later stated, "You know a union would be bad for the com-
pany, you would lose many benefits." Sullivan allegedly
also stated that "certain employees would not be able to
join" and also that "the company under no circumstances
would allow an office union." Sullivan told him that there
were all kinds of ways that the Company would use to stop
him from having an office union and finally that it could
move the whole accounting department to Medford.
Sullivan testified at great length concerning this conver-
sation, stating that Harwood asked to speak to him about
his salary and job situation. There followed a long discus-
sion concerning the salaries paid to employees, the relative
weight the Company attached to seniority, and the value it
places on certain jobs vis-a-vis others. Sullivan also men-
tioned some talk about the fact that there was no pension
system. In that connection Sullivan stated Harwood told
him that supervisors were upset because of the lack of the
pension system and they were probably going to form a
union. Sullivan said he responded that the Company was
not obliged to recognize a union of supervisors. and that
this was the only mention of a union in their entire conver-
sation. Sullivan denied having any discussion concerning
the interest of the office employees in a union and the re-
marks concerning it attributed to him by Harwood.
The General Counsel has contended that in this conver-
sation Sullivan threatened employees with economic repri-
sals if the Union came to the plant, promised employees
benefits under a pension plan, and threatened to eliminate
jobs in order to discourage union activity. Firstly. the entire
discussion was initiated by Harwood. who approached Sul-
livan in order to speak about his own job situation. Har-
wood did not testify that Sullivan promised a pension plan.
Sullivan merely confirmed there was no pension plan when
Harwood brought up a question of the supervisors being
unhappy about the lack of a pension. On that subject I
accept Sullivan's version since it is the only one before me
and therefore dismiss the allegation that he promised a pen-
sion plan in order to discourage union activity.
As to the remaining allegations with which Sullivan is
charged. Sullivan testified at great length in a very detailed
and candid manner concerning this conversation with Har-
wood, whereas the latter was unable to recollect anything
specific other than the brief allegations of a threat. I find
that the uncorroborated, sketchy testimony of Harwood
concerning an admittedly long discussion is insufficient to
establish that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act by Sullivan's conduct and accordingly I dismiss para-
graphs 8(e), (f), and (g) of the complaint.
4. The conduct of James Gordon
John Hanley was employed in the pulp department and
was supervised by James Gordon, the head of that depart-
ment. Hanley testified to a conversation he had with Gor-
don in August 1976 which resulted in a general discussion
about the Union in the course of which Gordon asked
whether he thought employees Kinney and Harwood would
join the Union. Hanley further stated that on December 17
Gordon told him it was against company policy to be hang-
ing around any of the offices any more. Later that day Han-
ley, while doing some work in the accounting office, asked
Janet Lord, personnel coordinator, an admitted supervisor.
what the policy was, and she said that the Company did not
want anyone hanging around the office any more. The Gen-
eral Counel contends that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) when Gordon instructed Hanley not to hang around
the offices any longer, in view of the testimony of Hanley
and others that prior to that date there was no such rule.
Although Gordon testified that he did not tell Hanley or
any other employee they could no longer discuss union
matters in December. he did no specifically allude to the
policy of employees no longer hanging around the offices. I
find that the direction of Hanley by Gordon on December
17 was given without reference to the Union and was not in
any context of discussion of union activity. The Union dis-
cussion testified to by Hanley occurred in August, months
before the December incident, and there is no evidence to
show any connection between the two occasions. Accord-
ingly, I shall dismiss paragraph 8(h) of the complaint in
which Gordon is alleged to have discriminatorily ent'orced
the rule to discourage union activity.
5. The conduct of Francis LaPointe
Harwood testified that he had a conversation with La-
Pointe, an admitted supervisor, in his office on December
20. There was some discussion concerning Harwood's dis-
satisfaction, particularly with the salary structure. On this
147
I)IDECISIONS ()1: NA I IONAI IABOR RELATIONS BOARI)
occasion larwood stated that l.aPointe asked him who was
involved with the Uinion, to which larwood replied that
they were the gate guards. some people in the engineer's
office. and the office girls. LaPointe commented that he did
not understand why the office girls would be interested be-
cause he had been so good to them but he would not he any
longer. LaPointe also stated that salaries would not be dis-
cussed among the employees. Harwood and LaPointe had a
similar discussion prior to this on November 19.
In his testimony. LaPointe confirmed telling Harwood
that he would not tolerate the discussion of confidential
salaries. He acknowledged being aware at this time of Har-
wood's involvement with the Union, indeed recalling that
Harwood in December had told him he felt he was going to
bear responsibility for being the ringleader, which he really
was not. LaPointe said he asked Harwood why he was in-
terested in the Union, to which Harwood replied it was for
pensions, salaries, and job security. Although a Pointe did
not recall having asked Harwood who else was involved in
the Union, he said he could have asked that. Concerning
Harwood's statement that LaPointe said that he would no
longer be nice to the girls, LaPointe denies this.
I have previously found Respondent's attempt to prohibit
the discussion of employees' salaries to be violative of Sec-
tion 8(a)( I) of the Act, and LaPointe's conduct in that re-
gard is another incident of the same. I also find Respondent
further violated Section 8(a)( I) of the Act as a result of
LaPointe's interrogation of Harwood concerning his inter-
est in the Union and his inquiring as to what other employ-
ees were involved. As to the latter, I credit Harwood's ac-
count as LaPointe concedes that he could have made such
an inquiry. Finally I find no violation as to the allegation
that LaPointe said he would no longer be nice to the girls
as, based on my own observation of LaPointe's demeanor, I
would agree with his statement that such would not be his
usual personality.
Normande Beckim, an accounting clerk, testified that in
April she saw LaPointe and told him she had signed a
union card and felt guilty. He asked her who had signed
downstairs and she mentioned the names of Brackett. Kin-
ney, and Stevens. LaPointe denied generally interrogating
anyone in April or at any other time. I find that Beckim
testified credibly, while LaPointe did not specifically deny
interrogating Harwood, asjust noted above. I conclude that
by LaPointe's conduct in interrogating Beckim Respondent
further violated Section 8(a)( I) of the Act.
It is also alleged that on or about April 25. 1977. La-
Pointe engaged in surveillance of employees because of
their union activity. In support of this allegation, employee
Arlene Brackett testified that on or about April 25 every
time she went downstairs to the switchboard area, the ladies
room, or wherever, she was followed. She stated that it was
LaPointe who followed her. This is the sole testimony on
this point. Based upon my observation of the witnesses, I
cannot lend credence to an allegation that LaPointe. plant
controller, would or could devote his time to following an
employee wherever she went in the plant including visits to
the ladies room. Accordingly, I shall dismiss this allegation
that LaPointe engaged in surveillance. (Par. 2(x) of the
complaint.)
6. T he conduct of Lucian Levesque
Shelley Dorr. a purchasing secretary. had a conversation
with Levesque on December 21 at a meeting for the pur-
pose of an evaluation. Levesque at that time was the man-
ager of material and production controls. Dorr testified Le-
vesque told her that Harwood had been causing a problem
by complaining about wages. that he was off base on it. and
that he would try to start on office union. Levesque stated
there would never be an office union in Statler Tissue: that
although people had been complaining about the lack of a
pension program, Medford was working on a pension plan.
lie told Dorr he was not going to tell her to stay away from
Hlarwood. but he was trouble. Finally he said if she kept
away from the troublemakers she would have a nice job as
long as she wanted it.
Levesque testified that after initially talking to Dorr in
connection with her job performance and evaluation he
said he was extremely upset at the fact that Greenlaw's
salary had been revealed and, according to rumor, the
source was Harwood. He told Dorr that this was unfortu-
nate and could be detrimental to morale, and he was sure
Harwood would be dealt with by his superiors. Levesque
denied mentioning a union during the conversation but was
not certain whether he referred to a pension program, as
employees had from time to time asked him about it and he
would reply that the Company was trying to get a pension
plan. No other individual was present at this meeting, and
between the contradictory portions of the two versions I
credit Dorr, who was the more forthright and credible wit-
ness.
On the basis of all of the testimony it appears that at the
time of Levesque's evaluation interview of Dorr, Harwood's
activities had become notorious in the mill office. By in-
forming Dorr that she would have a nice job if she kept
away from troublemakers. referring to Harwood, the infer-
ence is that she may not have such a job if she continued to
associate with him. I find, in the context, this statement to
be a threat to Dorr. if she persisted in being involved with
someone active fr the Union, and therefore violative of
Section 8(a)( I) of the Act.
Levesque further referred to complaints by Harwood and
other employees about the lack of a pension program. By
telling Dorr that the Company was working on such a plan.
he implied that she and other employees would obtain such
benefit if they desisted from joining a union, and this fur-
ther violates Section 8(a)( I).
On December 22 Levesque called Walter Hill to his office
and conducted an evaluation session in the presence of Ber-
nier. According to Hill, Levesque spoke to him about his
potential and excellent work record and then, after a point.
stated he was sure Hill was aware of the union talk, and
management needed his loyalty. His said he did not know
any more about union activities other than a few conversa-
tions at which he had been present. Levesque said they
knew there was active talk of a union organization. Har-
wood was regarded as an instigator, anybody involved with
him would be punished and means would be used to elimi-
nate him. Hill replied that he was not involved with Har-
wood or in union activities. Levesque continued that Med-
ford would not tolerate any union activity. Hill said there
148
STATILER INDUSTRIES, INC
had been talk for a month previous but it had died down
during the last month. At that. L.evesque asked it he could
give any information on personnel involved in union ac-
tivity. Hill responded that the employees treated him as
being close to management and would not confide in him.
and he had no idea who had signed a card. He said his
involvement was no more than talk and interest in what
was transpiring. assuring l.evesque that that was all he
knew.
Levesque denied bringing up the subject of the Union in
this discussion with Hill or saying that Harwood was in-
volved and would be punished because of his union ac-
tivity. He further denied asking Hill information as to who
was involved with the Union. Bernier. who was present at
the meeting, stated that the subject of the Union was
brought up by Hill. who told Levesque there was something
he should know, referring to having received correspon-
dence from the Union which he claimed to have thrown in
the wastebasket. According to Bernier. Levesque said noth-
ing to this and did not threaten Hill or promise him anx-
thing.
I credit, in this instance, Hill's account of what occurred
at the meeting. Hill went into considerable detail. and judg-
ing from his demeanor it does not appear likely that he.
who was only minimally involved in some discussion of a
union, would have brought up the subject of the Union to
Levesque and Bernier in the course of his own evaluation
interview. The testimony of Levesque and Bernier on this
subject was limited to some routine denials to leading ques-
tions. I find, therefore, that Respondent. through Levesque.
further violated Section 8(a)( I) by telling Hill that everyone
involved with Harwood, an instigator, would be punished.
Levesque's attempt to obtain information from Hill con-
cerning the union activity of other employees was an un-
lawful interrogation in violation of Section 8(a)( I). How-
ever, I do not find evidence from the account of Hill that
during their discussion on December 22 Levesque promised
job benefits to discourage union activity or that he created
an impression of surveillance of employees' union activities
and will dismiss those allegations of the complaint (par. 2( )
and (0)).
On December 22. 1976. Respondent posted a notice as
follows:
Effective immediately no employees should be in the
accounting, scheduling, and purchasing departments
unless authorized or on official business.
The record reveals that no such rule or policy had been in
effect prior to this time which restricted the movement of
employees, including mill employees, in the area of Respon-
dent's premises. Since December was the peak time of
union activities and discussion, as well as the period in
which Respondent engaged in other violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. I find that promulgating and enforcing
this rule during this period was for the purpose of discour-
aging and inhibiting union activity and therefore violated
Section 8(a)(I ) of the Act.
7. The conduct of Theresa Poulin
The complaint alleges that on or about April 24 Poulin
interrogated employees about union cards. Normande
Beckim. an accounting clerk under Poulin. testified that she
had signed a card on or about April 15 and gase it to a
union representative. 1[inkle\. She stated thereafter she as
bothered about it and told Poulin she had signed a card on
the spur of the moment. According to Beckiri. Poulln asked
her wh she signed it. and Beckim replied that she could see
good points about it. For her part. Poulin testitied that
Beckim had asked to talk with her at lunch and anted to
know if she knew anything about the Union. Poulin told
her that she realI did not. Then Beckirn said that she had
signed the card and it was bothering her. She wanted to get
the card back hut did not know how to et it. Poulin said
she did not know either hut she would ind out. Poulin
denied asking an, employees hether the' had signed
cards. In the context of this conversation in hich Beckim
admittedly approached Poulin. initiated the discussion
about her signing the card and tring to get it back and. in
the absence of the corroboration that Poulin actualls asked
Beckim whs she had signed the card. I find the eidence
insufficient to conclude there was an unlastful interrogation
by Poulin and shall dismiss the complaint allegation as to
her conduct.
8. Edwsard (ireenlaA
Shelley Dorr testified that on or about Ma5 9. 1977.
Greenlaw, her supervisor. told her he wanted to warn her
that Harwood and other union representatives have been
visiting employees and distributing cards. He said lHarwood
was gone hut still causing problems and added that man-
agement had missed plentN on the first firing but nov the!
knew Dorr was involved in the Union and were watching
her closely. He told her to be careful when she \was around
Kinney but it was all right to talk to Brackett. tie further
predicted that Kinney would be gone within a week. Green-
law. who himself was separated from Respondent bh the
time of the hearing. testified on behalf of the General Coun-
sel. With regard to his consersation with Dorr on Mla) 9. he
said he had asked her into the office because she had been
spending a lot of time talking with Kinney. He brought to
her attention that he had heard Kinney was involved in
union organizing. He said he told Dorr she should not be
involved with Kinney as much as she was. He also recalled
stating that Harwood was causing problems. As previously
noted I found Dorr to be a credible witness. and her testi-
mony was to some extent corroborated by (ireenlas. who
also did not specifically den5 the remainder. I find, there-
fore, that (ireenlaw's statement that Respondent knewv
Dorr was involved with the Union and was watching her
created the impression of surveillance of the union activities
of employees and thereby Respondent violated Section
8(a( I). Warning her against being involved or associated
with Kinney and at the same time predicting Kinney's early
departure also constituted a threat to Dorr in order to dis-
courage union activity and turther violated Section 8(a)( I).
Dorr also testified without contradiction that on July 25.
during a conversation with (ireenla. he told her that her
working hours would he changed from 7 am. to 4 p.m. to 8
a.m. to 5 p.m. because of union organization in the office.
149
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Changing her hours of employment fbr that stated reason is
of course a violation of Section 8(a)( I) of the Act.
9. The conduct of Janet Lord
Lord is personnel coordinator and an admitted supervi-
sor. Julia Stevens, an employee, testified that in May 1977
she initiated a conversation with Lord with whom she was
friendly. At the time Stevens was pregnant and afraid for
her job but felt she could confide in Lord. She told Lord
that Kinney and a few others were trying to organize a
union because of the insecure job situation. Lord replied
that although Kinney was not in a position to lose her job.
she would if she tried to get in a union. According to Ste-
vens, Lord also said that the Statler office did not need a
union and Statler had plenty of money which would be
spent to keep the Union from getting in. Stevens then told
Lord who had signed cards and when. At that Lord asked
Stevens if she too had signed a card, and she said that she
did in order to please Kinney. who told her that almost
everyone had signed cards. Stevens said that while she had
felt there was a need for a union, she was skeptical about
the whole thing. Lord told her if she was not for the Uinion
she should try and get the card back and, i she did, it
would probably save her job as the other bunch that signed
cards were on their way out. Stevens stated that later in
May she had another conversation with Lord, who told her
she had spoken to Sullivan and if Stevens tried to get her
card back it would probably help save her job.
Lord in her testimony' merely said that Stevens came to
her upset and told her of her involvement in the Union.
Stevens did not know what to do and wanted her opinion.
With regard to obtaining a return of the union card. Lord
herself did not know what to do and spoke to Sullivan to
find out the procedure. She denied threatening Stevens.
I credit the version of Stevens' testimony. Stevens testi-
fied in a straightforward manner while Lord seemed in-
credibly naive in claiming that she really knew nothing
about unions or any of the procedures with regard to or-
ganization. This in spite of the fact that as personnel coordi-
nator she dealt with the union people in the bargaining unit
in the mill. In addition she must have been aware of the
organization of the lab employees during the previous sum-
mer.
I therefore find that Respondent further violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by the conduct of Lord in interrogating
Stevens as to whether she had signed a union card, convey-
ing a threat of discharge by telling Stevens that getting her
card back could probably save her job, and by indicating to
Stevens that employees for the Union would be discharged.
If Lord merely told Stevens how to get back her card, at
Stevens' request, there would be no violation on that point.
However, by linking the return of the card to saving her
job, Lord again threatened Stevens. Respondent contends
that there should be no violations found from the discus-
sions between Stevens and Lord since the former initiated
the conversation. But as previously noted, it is one thing for
Lord to just discuss the situation with Stevens and another
to interrogate her as to her own card signing and threaten
her while in the course of the discussion even though it was
started by Stevens.
D. Thle .41 egeid iolaion o/ Sectiol 8(a)(3) of ll, 4 c
1. Francis Harwood
Harwood was terminated on March 31. 1977, along with
Hanley and Hill, whose circumstances will hereinafter be
discussed, and 16 other employees including at least 2 engi-
neers, and approximately 9 watchmen whom Respondent
had decided to replace with an outside guard service. Har-
wood, the assistant plant accountant, had been employed
by Respondent ever since it purchased the mill, a period of'
more than 8 years. and by Respondent's predecessor for
about 3 years.
It is clear that Harwood was deeply involved in union
activity ever since the campaign started in August 1976.
Moreover, his activities were clearly known to his supervi-
sors and even to top management of Respondent. Employ-
ees were warned against associating or becoming involved
with Harwood. who was pinpointed as the focus of the
union activity. as was discussed above in connection with
violations of Section 8(a)( I),
Respondent contends that it first became aware of union
activity in the latter part of December 1976. Thereafter the
mill managers met with corporate executives at Logan Air-
port in Boston in January 1977. While it is alleged that the
meetings were held to discuss reorganization of the mill
personnel, it is conceded that the subject of the Union was
a topic at the January meetings. Sullivan. the labor rela-
tions director, stated that Harwood's name was brought up
at the airport meeting, and though the primary reason for
the meeting was discussion of the reorganization. there was
an interest to know who was involved in the Union. Min-
chello, general manager of' Respondent, also acknowledged
discussing the Union at the two January meetings in which
Harwood was identified as the principal activist. Finally.
LaPointe. Harwood's supervisor and department head. who
was present at three meetings, two in January and one in
February. stated that Harwood along with Hill and Hanley
were listed for termination because they were involved in
union activity. They were to be let go along with the watch-
men, who were to be replaced by an outside force, and
some engineers and a few others who were to be terminated
because of such things as low performance.
Respondent contends that the termination of' Harwood
and the others on the same date was the result of a decision
made in the previous year to commence a system of written
evaluations of employees and then to reorganize to mill per-
sonnel for greater efficiency. It urges that as a result of this
period of evaluation, Harwood, who had previously been
passed over for promotion, was not qualified to take over
the position of the plant accountant (Jones). should the oc-
casion arise. The feeling was that he was unsuited for ad-
vancement and accordingly did not fit in with Respondent's
plans which provided for competent backup personnel for
the leadership positions. Respondent also urges that Har-
wood was unsuited because of conduct resulting from his
dissatisfaction with his salary and other conditions. Al-
though Respondent has also attacked the credibility of Har-
wood, the issue is whether he was terminated because of his
union activities and not his credibility.
Based upon the testimony of LaPointe, whom I credit, to
the effect that it had been decided during the three meetings
150
STATI.lER INDl:STRIES. IN('.
in Januar and Februar' to terminalte Hlarwood because of
his union actl\ ities. the testimonyl, of Respondent's o n wit-
nesses. v ho acknllovledged that Harwood's name was al-
wa s brought tup at those meetings. and the clear evidence
that he k as pinpointed as the fcus of union activits. I find
that tlarwood's union acti ities were indeed the caiuse of his
termination. I am not persuaded by Respondent's conten-
tions that it was motivated by the reorganization plan. lHar-
wood's performance. or his dissatisfaction. In this connec-
tion it is noted that the written evaluation made by
LaPointe of Harwood on January 2 and March 29. 1977.
while not glowing in praise of Harwood and his perfilrm-
ance. nevertheless shows that his performance was more
than adequate. ActuallN. LaPointe testified that vwere the
decision solely up to him, he would not have terminated
Ilarwood as he did a good job at what he was supposed to
do and. although LaPointe acknowledged that Harwood
may have been limited, he still would have retained him
because his performance warranted it. It is further noted
that during more than 8 years in Respondent's employ Har-
wood was never disciplined or warned about poor perform-
ance and was given wage increases despite the fact that
McGrath. the mill manager, claimed to have received some
bad reports of Harwvood's performance a year before his
termination.
I find in all the circumstances that Harwood was termi-
nated by Respondent because of the union activities in
which he was engaged in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act.
2. The discharge of John Hanley and Walter Hill
I shall discuss the terminations of these two employees
together because I believe their cases are covered by the
same principle. Hanley's principal occupation was that of a
pulp prep clerk. Prior to that he had been employed in the
mill within the bargaining unit of mill employees repre-
sented by the Union. Respondent terminated him, it con-
tends, because his job was eliminated.
Hill was a production and shipping control clerk whom
Respondent terminated allegedly because of his poor per-
formance and unsuitability for his job or higher jobs. Both
Hanley and Hill were only peripherally involved, if at all, in
the union campaign. Neither signed a union authorization
card although both of them were acquaintances of and on
good terms with Harwood. Hanley at times was observed in
the area where Harwood was employed, talking to him, and
I Respondent has additionally contended in the case of Hanley that his
termination be upheld because he was a supervisor within the meaning of the
Act. The record reveals that Hanley spent from 40 to 50 percent of his time
as a fill-in foreman within the bargaining unit of mill employees. He regu-
larly replaced foremen. who are supervisors and excluded from the unit by
the collective-bargaining agreement, when they were on vacation or sick
leave or absent for any reason. The Board has held that employees who
spend 50 percent or more of working time performing nonsupervisory duties
should not be denied the advantages of collective bargaining. Amalgamated
Clothing Workers of ,4merica, AFL CIO. CLC. 210 NLRB 928. 930 (1974).
Particularly, as in the instant case. where the supervisory job is not regularly
or closely intermingled with nonsupervisor3 work and there is no conflict or
interest with the unit sought, the Board has permitted such employees engag-
ing in split duties to he included in bargaining units. Westinghouse Electric
Corporation. 163 NLRB 723. 727 (1967)
Hill as present at some luncheon discussions of' the L'nion.
Indeed, Hill, as noted in the previous discussion of joila-
tions of Section 8(a)( I b) L.evesque. protested that he had
not been involved in union actis it and had mereli recei ed
some literature which he had torn up.
Respondent has argued that it has had a histor ot rea-
sonably good relations with the I nion as the collecti e-
bargaining representative of the mill production workers
ever since it acquired the mill at Augusta. Further, it points
to the union organization of the lahorators technicians
which proceeded without incident through the filing of a
petition, the stipulation for election. certification of the
Union and eventually a collecti\ e-bargaining agreement.
From this it would have us intfer that the terminations such
as Hill's and Hanle's were solelv lor econonic consider-
ations it sets forth. While this historical argument m;a ha e
some surface appeal. it is negated b Respondent's on
conduct in connection with Section 8(a)( I1 violations itiund
above and the apparent o erreaction of its management
officials to the disclosure that the clerical emploees were
involved in union organization. This reaction, particularly
as only 12 employees were involved, in view of' the organi-
zation by the Union and representation of more than 5(X)
employees, belies the otherwise peaceful historic tradition.
The animus is displayed by the accounts of the three meet-
ings in January and February 1977 attested to by l.a Pointe.
the former controller, and other management officials. 'the
meetings were attended by the mill management personnel
from Augusta and Respondent's executives from corporate
headquarters in Medford. At the first meeting the Mledfrd
people were informed by the Augusta mill managers of the
union organizational campaign in the course of which Har-
wood's name was mentioned as the activist. The Augusta
managers were directed to find out more about it.
LaPointe testified that at the second meeting in January
the Augusta people did not really have anymore names o(
employees involved with the Union. They added the names
of two engineers but were criticized as those two had noth-
ing to do with the clerical employees or the Union and
should have been let go a long time ago in any case. Vice
President Lombardi was incredulous that Harwood could
be, b himselfl the only one organizing a union. Thus
pressed. the Augusta managers came to the third meeting
and added the names of Hill and Hanley as being involved
with the Union. LaPointe stated, as previously noted, that
as a result of these meetings it was determined to discharge
Harwood. and Hill because of their union activities.
The Board has found that terminating employees. who
were even nonsupporters of the Union. and including them
with terminations of union supporters. is violative of Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) of the Act. Howard Johnson Cnomparn'. 209
NLRB 1122 (1974). 1 find that Hanley and Hill. despite
their minimal participation in the union campaign, were
terminated when their names were included with Harwood
as union supporters by the Augusta managers during the
course of the January and February meetings. As to Re-
spondent's specific defenses, although Hanles's job was said
to have been eliminated. actually his work was divided
among other employees. He had experience in the mill as
an acting foreman as well as a bargaining unit employee.
but Respondent refused his request to be returned to work
151
I)t(ISI()NS OF NATIONAL LABOR REATIONS BOARD
in tile inull, despite the tact there is no evidence of poor
pertorma.nce on his part. tlill worked 4-1/2 years without
reprimland or discipline except for one incident related to
his being drowsy or sleepy on the job one day which was
explained by his taking of medication at that time. The
whole concept of reorganization apparently was not as
widespread as it was made to seem, when one considers that
9 of the 19 terminated employees were security guards re-
placed by an outside service two were engineers who had
been slated to go for a long time, and three were the dis-
criminatees invovled herein.
I find therefore that Respondent included Hanley and
Hill for discharge because management believed they were
involved in union activities, and not for the asserted eco-
nomic reasons, and by such conduct violated Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
3. The relocation of office jobs
There remains for consideration whether Respondent
relocated the jobs of nine employees and terminated them
during the period from August 8 to September 23, 1977, for
discriminatory reasons.8 In 1974 Respondent's auditors,
Price Waterhouse and Company. prepared a report and
analysis on its operations and, among other things, recom-
mended centralization of various office functions. This rec-
ommendation was not implemented before 1977 for various
intervening economic considerations. On April 28,
1977. Respondent posted a notice at the Augusta mill stat-
ing that it had been decided "to relocate certain administra-
tive and accounting functions currently performed at the
Augusta mill to the corporate office in Medford. Massachu-
setts." It further stated that corporate offices are being ren-
ovated and the reassignment will be accomplished by July
15. At the time of hearing the offices to which the jobs were
relocated were established in a new building which was
completed approximately at the end of 1977. However.
other facilities in Medford became available to Respondent
earlier in 1977 and, accordingly, the job functions to be
transferred apparently began on August 8 when Shelley
Dorr was terminated, continued on August 26 when seven
other employees were terminated, and concluded about
September 23 when the final termination, employee Ste-
vens, was made at Augusta. Except for a confidential memo
dated December 30. 1976, to McGrath, neither the mill
manager nor any of the other managerial executives at Au-
gusta were apprised of the planned relocation until they
attended a meeting just prior to the posting of the April 28
notice.
LaPointe testified that on or about April 20 he had a
conversation in the office of Poulin who told him that Nor-
mande Beckim had been approached by Hinckley (union
representative) and Harwood about signing a union card.
LaPointe passed on the information immediately to Sulli-
van and McGrath. That very afternoon Lombardi and
Minchello came up to Augusta for a meeting in which
McGrath asked LaPointe to relate to them the information
I The employees terminated were: Shelley Dorr. David Hallee. Lynn Ver-
nil, Arlene Brackett. Normande Beckim, William Nichols. Ellen Kinney,
Gerald Boulefte. and Julia Stevens.
he had received from Poulin. LaPointe said that Lombardi
then told the meeting that they would not have the Union
in Augusta and would move the office to Medford before it
happened. Lombardi also said that a letter concerning
plans to move the office to Medford had been sent to
McGrath last December.
Following the posting of the notice announcing the move
on April 28. a management meeting was held in early May.
Sullivan testified that it was clear that union activity was
going on among the employees in the accounting depart-
ment and he questioned Lombardi about pursuing reloca-
tion at that time as he felt the timing may cause a complaint
to be filed with the NLRB. He said it was his responsibility
to warn the Company that such an interpretation could be
made. Sullivan testified that Lombardi became irritated and
said, "We've had these plans for a number of years and I'm
not going to let some (obscenity) screw them up." McGrath
and Bernier also testified to similar effect. There is no ques-
tion that Lombardi's remarks referred to Ellen Kinney, who
was the employee most prominently engaged in the distri-
bution of union cards to the employees involved. During
the month of August Respondent was able to implement its
plan.
Contrary to the contention of Respondent that the move
of certain clerical functions to Medford was made pursuant
to a long established plan which came to fruition in 1977, 1
find that the transfer of these jobs was discriminatorily mo-
tivated. I rely for this conclusion on a number of reasons.
Firstly, I credit the testimony of LaPointe to the effect that
in April Lombardi responded to the information that
Beckim had been approached to sign a card with the com-
ment the Respondent would not have the Union in the ac-
counting division at Augusta. In that connection it is noted
that as soon as the mill manager was advised by LaPointe
of the approach to Beckim, the corporate executives in
Medford convened a meeting at Augusta in a matter of
hours. This is in line with other reactions, as previously
noted, to news of union activity among the accounting and
clerical employees. There are other factors which lead to
the same conclusion.
Lombardi's obscene remark at the May meeting indicates
his attitude toward the organization of these particular em-
ployees. Respondent would have us consider his statement
merely a reaction to news that the relocation was running
into more problems and did not indicate an anitunion moti-
vation. I come to the opposite conclusion. His expletive
referred to a woman and could have no application except
to Kinney, who was known as the employee engaged in
card distribution. It was thus this union activity which in-
terfered with his plans, and he therefore overruled the ad-
vice of the more sophisticated Sullivan. But the antiunion
motivation or animus which Respondent seeks to negate
springs from more than the one remark of Lombardi. Thus
there are the discharges of Harwood, Hanley. and Hill
which I have already found to be violative of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act, and the many acts of violation of Section
8(a)( ) including threats, interrogations, and promises of
benefits to employees. 9
9 In the latter connection, Respondent urges that violations of the Act
committed prior to 6 months before the filing of the charge in Case I CA-
13599. relating to the relocation, should be disregarded since an unfair labor
152
STATLER INDUSTRIES. IN('
Beyond that, the record shows that at least six of the nine
terminated employees were in some way involved with
union activities. Kinney was known by all to be one of the
prime movers in the union campaign. Greenlaw said in
May that she would be gone in a month. He also told Dorr
that management knew she. Dorr, was involved and was
watching her. Brackett, Beckim, and Stevens all signed
cards for the Union. Hallee testified that he informed Jones
early in August that he probably should have signed a
union card.
It has been previously noted that none of the employees
whose jobs were relocated were offered the opportunity to
move to Medford, despite the fact that some were admitted
by Respondent to be superior employees, such as Dorr. In-
terestingly, Boulette offered to relocate and communicated
this to Bernier, his supervisor. but his offer was not ac-
cepted by Respondent. There is some question whether
Kinney's job, switchboard operator, was really relocated as
it was taken over by a less senior employee at Augusta. In
any case, she was not offered relocation.
Finally, even if Respondent had long range plans to con-
solidate some of these office functions, the timing of the
decision in the midst of the union campaign, after several
years of inaction on the initial proposal, and the haste in
which a meeting was convened following the disclosure on
or about April 20 of the continued union activity are indi-
cators of Respondent's motivation.
In sum, the factors detailed above lead to the conclusion
that the termination of the nine employees in August and
September and the relocation of their jobs were for the pur-
pose of discouraging union activity among the accounting
employees at Augusta and therefore in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRA(TIC(FS UPON
COMMFRCE
The activities of Respondent, set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of Re-
spondent described in section 1, above, have a close, inti-
mate, and substantial relation to trade. traffic, and com-
merce among the several States and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
V. THE REMFDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered
to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent discharged John Hanley,
in violation of Section 8(a) I) and (3) of the Act. I recom-
mend that Respondent offer Hanley immediate and full re-
instatement to his former job or, if such job no longer exists,
to a substantially equivalent job, without prejudice to his
practice cannot be based on these events which are presumably barred by
Sec. 10(b). However, the Supreme Court has stated that the earlier events
may be utilized to shed light on the true character of matters occurring
within such period. Local Lodge No. 1424, etc v. N.L.R.B. (Bran Manufac-
luring Co.). 362 U.S. 411 (1960).
seniority and other rights, privileges, or other working con-
ditions. and make him whole for any loss of earnings or
benefits suffered by reason of such discrimination b paN-
ment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount he
normally would have earned as wages and other benefits
from the date of his discharge to the date on which rein-
statement is offered. less net earnings during that period.
The amount of backpay shall be computed in the manner
set forth in F .W 'oolw'orth Comlpan.', 90 NLRB 289
(1950). with interest thereon to be computed in the manner
prescribed in Florida Seel Corporation. 231 NLRB 651
(1977).1° The same remedy provided br Hanley shall be
available to Francis Harwood and Walter Hill. also dis-
charged in violation of Section 8(a(3) of the Act. How ever.
as their jobs may have been transferred to Medford along
with those of the nine other employees subsequently dis-
charged. Hill and Hlarwood shall be entitled. in the alterna-
tive, to the same remedy as hereinafter prescribed for the
said nine employees.
As it has been found that Respondent discriminatorilv
transferred certain of its accounting and auditing functions
and jobs to its headquarters in Medford. Massachusetts,
from the mill in Augusta. Maine, and thereby terminated
the jobs of nine employees, the organizational efforts of
such employees have been effectively frustrated and Re-
spondent has succeeded in avoiding union organization in
their department. Therefore, I shall recommend that Re-
spondent be directed to resume its former operation and
reestablish the status quo tittle to the extent necessary to
provide jobs for those who desire reinstatement in Respon-
dent's employ as provided below. '
Accordingly. I shall recommend that Respondent be or-
dered to reestablish those accounting and auditing func-
tions at the Augusta mill which had been moved to corpo-
rate headquarters in Medford and reinstate the employees
discriminatorily discharged when those jobs were trans-
ferred. The employees involved shall be awarded backpay
based on the earnings they normally would have received
from the date of their discharge to the date of Respondent's
offer of reinstatement. less any interim earnings. which shall
be computed on a quarterly basis with interest in the man-
ner set forth aboxve.
CON(I ASIIONS O() Il.A
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent violated Section 8(a)( 1) of the Act by:
(a) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their
union and other protected, concerted activities.
(b) Prohibiting employees from discussing salaries
among themselves thereby restraining the employees' right
to engage in concerted activity for mutual aid and protec-
tion guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
(c) Threatening to enforce less favorable working condi-
tions more strictly to discourage union activities.
"0See, generall b . Isis Plumbing & Heating Co. 138 NRB 716 (1962)
i Javs Fwds, Inc. 228 NL.RB 423 1977).
153
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(d) Threatening employees with reprisals if they associ-
ated with union activists.
(e) Promising benefits to employees should they reject
the Union.
(f) Promulgating and enforcing a rule to stop employees
from congregating in the office in order to discourage union
activity.
(g) Creating the impression of surveillance of union ac-
tivities of employees.
(h) Changing employees' working hours because of the
union campaign and organizational activity.
(i) Threatening discharge of employees who signed
union cards and encouraging employees to retrieve their
signed cards.
4. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
by discharging Francis Harwood, John Hanley, and Walter
Hill because of their union activities.
5. By relocating certain of its accounting office jobs and
terminating the following named employees because of
their union activities, Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(a)lI) and (3) of the Act:
Shelley Dorr, David Hallee, Lynn Varrill, Arlene Beckett,
Normande Beckim, William Nichols, Ellen Kinney, Gerald
Boulette, and Julia Stevens.
6. The aforesaid are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
7. Except as set forth above, Respondent has not other-
wise violated the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER '
The Respondent, Statler Industries, Inc., Augusta,
Maine, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their
union activities.
(b) Prohibiting employees from discussing salaries
among themselves and engaging in concerted activities.
(c) Threatening to strictly enforce less favorable working
conditions in order to discourage union activities.
(d) Threatening employees with reprisals if they associ-
ated with union activists.
(e) Promising employees benefits to discourage union ac-
tivities.
(f) Promulgating and enforcing a rule against employees
congregating in the office in order to discourage their union
activities.
(g) Creating the impression of surveillance of employees'
union activities.
(h) Changing working hours of employees because of
their union activities.
12 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its
findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
(i) Threatening discharge of employees who signed
union cards and encouraging employees to retrieve their
signed cards.
(j) Discouraging membership in or activities on behalf of
the United Paper Workers International Union, AFL-CIO,
or any other labor organization, by discharging its employ-
ees or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their
hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of
employment.
(k) Transferring and relocating jobs from the Augusta
mill accounting department to the corporate headquarters
in Medford, Massachusetts, because of employee union ac-
tivities.
(1) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer John Hanley, Francis Harwood, and Walter
Hill, immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs
or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent
jobs and make them whole for any loss of earnings they
may have suffered by reason of their discharge, in accord-
ance with the provisions set forth in the section herein enti-
tled "The Remedy."
(b) Reestablish at its Augusta, Maine, mill the office and
accounting jobs which it relocated at Medford, Massachu-
setts, and offer to the following employees immediate and
full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no
longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges,
and make them whole for any loss of earnings they may
have suffered in the manner provided in the section herein
entitled "The Remedy": Francis Harwood, Walter Hill,
David Hallee, Shelley Dorr, Lynn Verrell, Arlene Brackett,
Normande Beckim, William Nichols, Ellen Kinney, Gerald
Boulette, and Julia Stevens: provided, that [Respondent]
may relocate said office and accounting jobs at any time in
the future if it deems best for business reasons to do so and
is not impelled by the intent to deny to its employees the
rights conferred by Section 7 of the Act.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying, all payroll
records, social security payment records, timecards, person-
nel records and reports, and all other records necessary to
analyze the amount of backpay due.
(d) Post at its Augusta, Maine, mill copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix."'3 Copies of said notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 1,
after being duly signed by its authorized representative,
shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said no-
'1 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of
the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board.
154
STATLER INDUSTRIES, INC.
tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other mate-
rial.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed
as to those allegations not specifically found to be violative
of the Act.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPIOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF HE
NATIONAl. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which both sides had the opportunity to
present evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has
found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post this notice.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate employees con-
cerning their union activities.
WE W.llI. Nor prohibit employees from discussing
salaries while engaged in their union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten to strictly enforce less favor-
able working conditions to discourage employees from
engaging in union activity.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with reprisals if
they associate with union activists.
WE WILL NOT promise benefits to employees to dis-
courage union activities.
WE WILL NOT enforce rules against employees con-
gregating in the office to discourage their union activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT create the impression that we have
kept employees' union activities under surveillance.
WE WILl. NOT discourage membership in or activities
on behalf of United Paper Workers International
Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by
discharging employees or in any other manner dis-
criminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employ-
ment, or any term or condition of their employment.
WE Wll. NOT change working hours of employees
because of an organizational campaign by a union.
WE WVll.. NOT threaten discharge of employees who
signed union cards, nor encourage employees to re-
trieve their signed cards.
WE WIl. NOT transfer and relocate jobs from our
Augusta mill accounting department to corporate
headquarters in Medford, Massachusetts. because of
the union activities of our employees.
WlI Wil.L NOT in any other manner interfere with.
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WEi WILL offer full reinstatement to John Hanley.
Francis Harwood. and Walter Hill with backpa. plus
interest.
WE WILL resume our accounting operations at the
Augusta mill and offer the employees named below
immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs
or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equiv-
alent jobs. without prejudice to their seniority or rights.
privileges, or other working conditions:
Francis Harwood
Walter Hill
Shelley Dorr
David Hallee
Lynn Verrill
Arlene Brackett
Normande Beckim
William Nichols
Ellen Kinney
Gerald Boulette
Julia Stevens
Wl MAY. however. relocate such jobs at any time in
the future if we deem it best for business reasons to do
so and are not impelled by the intent to deny employ-
ees the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL make the employees named above whole
with interest for any loss of earnings or benefits they
may have lost by reason of their discharges.
STATLER INDUSTRIES, IN(. (STAT.ER TISSUE COM-
PANY)
155