Syncro Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 30, 1978

234 N.L.R.B. 550 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Syncro Corporation and International Molders &
Allied Workers Union, AFL-CIO-CLC. Cases 1 0-
CA-12660 and 10-CA-12728
January 30. 1978
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
PENELLO AND TRUESDALE
On September 26, 1977, Administrative Law Judge
Richard L. Denison issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel
filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and Respon-
dent filed a reply brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs, and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
only to the extent consistent herewith.
The Administrative Law Judge found that Respon-
dent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threaten-
ing its employees that it would close the plant if the
employees supported the Union, by soliciting em-
ployees to oppose the Union and to assist Respon-
dent in its antiunion campaign, and by creating the
impression that its employees' union activities were
under surveillance. We agree with these findings. The
Administrative Law Judge dismissed the complaint
to the extent it alleged that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging
employees Ralph Hornsby and Homer Massengill on
March 9, 1977, and Michelle Hill on April 5, 1977.
The General Counsel has excepted to the Adminis-
trative Law Judge's findings and conclusions as to
the discharges of Hornsby, Massengill, and Hill. We
agree with the Administrative Law Judge that Horns-
by and Massengill were discharged for economic and
not for discriminatory reasons, and thus we affirm
his dismissal of those aspects of the complaint.'
However, we find merit in the General Counsel's
exception as to the discharge of Hill, for the reasons
discussed below.
IThe General Counsel has excepted to the Administrative Law Judge's
finding that the General Counsel failed to establish that Bill Replogle was a
supervisor, as the testimony of Respondent's own witness, Ed Schilling,
revealed that Replogle was in charge of the tool and maintenance
department. In addition, Replogle identified himself as a supervisor in
charge of maintenance, and employees Hornsby and Massengill identified
Replogle as their supervisor. The General Counsel asserts that, based on this
testimony. Replogle should be found a supervisor, and thus Replogle's
knowledge of Hornsby's and Massengill's union activities should be
234 NLRB No. 73
The underlying facts, as found by the Administra-
tive Law Judge and more fully set out in his
Decision, are as follows:
Respondent operates a plant in Arab, Alabama,
which manufactures electrical and mechanical prod-
ucts such as alternator systems and brake controllers.
The Union began its campaign among Respondent's
employees in February 1977. Michelle Hill was the
first employee to actually begin soliciting on behalf
of the Union, and she remained the leading union
activist in the plant throughout the organizing
campaign. Following a series of speeches by Plant
Manager Blair Stentz on February 21 and 22, Stentz
called Hill to his office and accused her of question-
ing his honesty and of misjudging him. 2 Stentz
became angry, and stated that he had "had enough,"
and "did she understand." Thereafter, on several
occasions, Stentz asked Hill if she would come to his
office to talk with him because he felt they had a lot
of differences to iron out, but Hill never reported to
Stentz' office. Stentz also confronted Hill in the
process of her compiling a list of names from
timecards for use by the Union, and he told her she
was not to do it anymore. The Administrative Law
Judge concluded, and we agree, that Respondent was
aware that Hill was aggressively pursing the cause of
the Union.
On April 5, 1977, Hill was discharged for the stated
reason that she threatened employees for not doing
her "will." Hill demanded an opportunity to confront
the employees who had accused her of this conduct,
but this request was denied.
Stentz testified that Hill was discharged based
solely upon the complaints of employees Marilyn
Walker and Patsy Hayes. Walker testified that on a
Thursday in April, Hill asked her, in the ladies'
bathroom, to sign a union card. According to
Walker, Hill said that if Walker did not join the
Union she would get her tires slashed. Walker
reported the incident to her supervisor shortly after it
occurred. Hayes testified that on the Friday before
Hill's discharge she was in the ladies' bathroom when
Hill asked her to sign a union card. When Hayes
ignored her, Hill persisted in asking her to sign a
card. Hayes then told Hill to shut up, and that she
had heard her the first time. According to Hayes,
Hill then threatened that if Hayes did not sign a
union card she would get her tires slashed. Hayes did
imputed to Respondent. Since we find that Hornsby and Massengill were
discharged for economic and not for discriminatory reasons, we find it
unnecessary to adopt the Administrative Law Judge's finding concerning
Replogle's supervisory status, or to resolve that status.
2 Stentz was apparently referring to a meeting which Hill had with an
outside consultant who had been called in to evaluate personnel problems in
the plant, in which Hill had demanded to see a copy of Respondent's
financial statement.
550
SYNCRO CORP.
not report the incident to anyone. On the following
Monday, however, she observed Hill copying the
names of employees off the employee timecards. At
that time, according to Hayes, she became frightened
and reported both incidents to her supervisor. Hill
denied having threatened Walker and Hayes, al-
though she admitted that she solicited card signa-
tures from them in the ladies' bathroom and that she
had "cut up with them." Hill also admitted to
pushing Walker into a bathroom stall in order to get
her to sign a union card.
Based upon the above testimony, the Administra-
tive Law Judge concluded that Hill was discharged
for cause and not because of her advocacy of the
Union. Specifically, the Administrative Law Judge
relied upon Hill's admission that she had solicited
card signatures from Walker and Hayes in the ladies'
bathroom, and discredited Hill's denial that she had
threatened to slash the tires of Hayes and Walker.
The Administrative Law Judge also noted Hill's
admission that she had pushed Walker into a
bathroom stall in an effort to get her to sign a union
card.
In addition to the testimony relied upon by the
Administrative Law Judge, the record further reveals
the following information concerning the discharge
of Hill. Walker testified that Hill had "kind of a grin"
on her face when she allegedly threatened to slash
Walker's tires. Walker also admitted that several
weeks before the hearing in this case she told fellow
employee Patsy Jolly that "Michelle had just been
kidding" when she allegedly threatened to slash her
tires. Hayes testified that she (Hayes) is always
laughing and "cutting up" with the other employees
in the plant. Hayes also testified that there were six
or eight other employees in the ladies' bathroom at
the time that Hill allegedly threatened to slash her
tires, yet none of those employees were brought
forward to testify in this case. Finally, Hill testified
that, at the time she pushed Walker into the
bathroom stall, they were both laughing.3
The record further reveals that Stentz made a
number of speeches to groups of employees on
February 21 and 22, 1977, during which he referred
to union representatives as gun-toting thugs who
engaged in such things as shooting people and
slashing tires. Hill testified that following these
speeches, jokes about tire slashing circulated around
the plant. Sara Garrett, who is still employed by
Respondent, also testified that jokes about tire
slashing were common around the plant following
Stentz' speeches.
Viewing the record as a whole, we are unable to
conclude that Hill was discharged for threatening
s Walker never testified as to this event. It was raised for the first time by
Hill when she returned to the witness stand to deny that she had ever
threatened to slash Hayes' tires.
employees rather than for her union activities. Stentz
was fully aware of Hill's union activity and displayed
hostile feelings against her because of that activity.
Stentz even warned Hill that "he had had enough,"
and "did she understand." In the light of such
statements, the stated reason for Hill's subsequent
discharge smacks strongly of pretext.
The only evidence against Hill was given by the
employees allegedly threatened, namely Hayes and
Walker. As to Walker, although she was sure that
Hill threatened to slash her tires, she also stated that
Hill was grinning when she made the threat, and she
admitted to another employee that Hill was only
kidding when the threat was made. Thus, it appears
that, if in fact the threat was made by Hill, Walker
did not consider it serious. As to Hayes, who
admitted to always laughing and cutting up with
other employees in the plant, she did not even report
the incident to Stentz after it had occurred, but
reported it later when she saw Hill copying names off
the employee timecards. The attitude of Hayes and
Walker towards the threats made by Hill are consis-
tent with the atmosphere in the plant following
Stentz' speeches, in which jokes about tire slashing
were common. However, when Stentz received the
complaints from Walker and Hayes concerning the
threats by Hill, he discharged Hill almost immediate-
ly. Stentz never investigated the charges against Hill,
despite the fact that there were six or eight other
employees in the ladies' bathroom when Hill alleged-
ly threatened Hayes. Nor did Stentz seek an explana-
tion from Hill as to the incidents prior to her
discharge. Rather, Hill was discharged without any
knowledge as to who her accusers were or the
specific offense which she had committed.
Therefore, we find, contrary to the Administrative
Law Judge, that Respondent seized upon the allega-
tions by Hayes and Walker that Hill had threatened
to slash their tires as a pretext to discharge Hill. As
the motivating factor behind the discharge of Hill
was her union activity, her discharge was in violation
of Section 8(aX3) and (1) of the Act.
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Administrative Law Judge's Conclusions of
Law are hereby amended by inserting the following
as paragraph 4, and renumbering the subsequent
paragraphs accordingly:
"4. By discharging Michelle Hill for engaging in
union-related, protected, concerted activities, Re-
spondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(aX3) and (1) of the
Act."
551
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
THE REMEDY
We have found, contrary to the Administrative
Law Judge, that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act by discharging Michelle Hill on
April 5, 1977, for engaging in union-related, protect-
ed, concerted activities. In order to effectuate the
purposes of the Act, Respondent will be ordered to
cease and desist from engaging in such unfair labor
practices and to reinstate Michelle Hill to her former
position, or, if such position no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent position, without loss of
seniority and other rights and privileges, and make
her whole for any loss of earnings she may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against her,
by payment of a sum equal to what she normally
would have earned from the date of the discriminato-
ry discharge to the date Respondent offers her
reinstatement, less her net earnings, if any, during
that period. Backpay and interest thereon shall be
computed in the manner prescribed in F. W. Wool-
worth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida
Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977).4
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Syncro Corporation, Arab, Alabama, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening employees with closure of the
Arab, Alabama, plant if the employees select the
International Molders & Allied Workers Union,
AFL-CIO-CLC, or any other union, as their collec-
tive-bargaining representative.
(b) Soliciting employees to oppose the Union and
to assist Respondent in its antiunion campaign by
dissuading fellow employees from joining or assisting
the Union.
(c) Threatening employees in a manner creating the
impression that the employees' union activities are
under surveillance.
(d) Discriminating against employees in regard to
hire, tenure, and other terms and conditions of
employment by discharging employees because they
engaged in union-related, protected, concerted activi-
ties.
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, and coercing its employees because they engage
in protected concerted activities guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Act:
(a) Offer Michelle Hill immediate and full rein-
statement to her former position or, if that position
no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent posi-
tion, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights
and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of
pay which she may have suffered by reason of the
discrimination against her in the manner described in
"The Remedy" section of this Decision.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to
the Board or its agents for examination and copying
all payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all
other records necessary to determine the amount of
backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(c) Post at its Arab, Alabama, plant, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 5 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 10, after being duly signed by an
authorized representative of Respondent, shall be
posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and
be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereaf-
ter, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.
See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
5 In the event that 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 National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with closure
of our Arab, Alabama, plant if our employees
select the International Molders & Allied Work-
ers Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, or any other labor
organization, as their bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT solicit our employees to assist the
Company in its antiunion campaign by using
their influence to dissuade fellow employees from
joining or assisting the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees by
creating the impression that their union activities
are under surveillance.
552
SYNCRO CORP.
WE WILL NOT discriminate against employees
by discharging them for engaging in protected
concerted activities on behalf of any labor organi-
zation.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL offer Michelle Hill immediate and full
reinstatement to her former position or, if such
position no longer exists, to a substantially equiv-
alent position, without prejudice to her seniority
or other rights and privileges, and make her whole
for any loss of pay suffered by reason of her
unlawful discharge, plus interest.
SYNCRO CORPORATION
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RICHARD L. DENISON, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard at Guntersville, Alabama, on June 7 and 8,
1977, based on charges filed by the International Molders
& Allied Workers Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, in Case 10-
CA-12660 on March 14, 1977, and in Case 10-CA-12728
on April 8, 1977.1 The complaints, issued on April 13 and
May 12, respectively, allege that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, by discharging Ralph Hornsby and
Homer Massengill on March 9 and Michelle Hill on April
5. It is also alleged that Respondent independently violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in that Respondent's executive
vice president and general manager, Blair E. Stentz,
allegedly threatened employees to close the plant and
solicited employees to oppose the Union on or about
March 5, and on or about February 21 told employees that
Respondent knew who was engaging in union activities,
thus creating the impression that employees' union activi-
ties were under surveillance. Respondent's answers deny
the allegations of unfair labor practice alleged in the
complaints, but admit that the three employees named
therein were discharged on the dates alleged. Respondent
contends that Hornsby and Massengill were terminated
because of a change in work procedures, and that Hill was
discharged for threatening employees.
Upon the entire record in the case, including my
observation of the witnesses, and upon consideration of the
briefs, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
The jurisdictional allegations of the complaints are
admitted in the answers. I find that Respondent is, and has
been at all times material herein, an Alabama corporation,
with an office and place of business located at Arab,
Alabama, where it is engaged in the manufacture of
vehicular electric brake components and small engine
parts. During the past calendar year, which period is
representative of all times material herein, Respondent sold
and shipped finished products valued in excess of $50,000
directly to customers located outside the State of Alabama.
Therefore I find that Respondent is, and has been at all
times material herein, an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
1. LABOR ORGANIZATION
As alleged in the complaints and admitted in the
answers, I find that the International Molders & Allied
Workers Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, herein called the Union
or the Charging Party, is, and has been at all times material
herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
nlI. SUPERVISORY STATUS
As alleged in the complaints and admitted in the
answers, I find that at all times material herein Blair E.
Stentz is and has been executive vice president and general
manager of Respondent, acting on its behalf, and is
therefore an agent of Respondent, and a supervisor within
the meaning of Section 2(1 1) of the Act. I also find that the
evidence in the record establishes that Plant Superinten-
dent Mickey Tidmore and Manager of Manufacturing Ed
Schilling are supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
The status of other titled individuals referred to in the
record was neither alleged, nor fully litigated, nor does the
record reflect that any other persons mentioned in the
record possessed Section 2(11) authority.
IV. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The History of the Respondent's Tool and Die
Operations
Based on undisputed and credited testimony by Ed
Schilling, manager of manufacturing, Jim O'Keefe, project
industrial engineer, and Blair Stentz, Respondent's vice
president and general manager, the following history of
Respondent's toolroom and die maintenance and repair
operation is established. Respondent is a manufacturer of
electric and mechanical products including alternator
systems, electrical brake controllers for recreational vehi-
cles, component assemblies for alternator systems, and
various types of tools. One phase of the alternator manu-
facturing process involves the stamping of laminations
using a 65-ton and a 100-ton stamping press utilizing
complex carbide and high carbon, high chrome steel dies.
Over a period of time the many repetitions of the stamping
process causes wear on the dies, and necessitates their
being serviced from time to time, including sharpening and
realignment. Since this servicing is delicate, it requires
considerable skill, and consequently is expensive. Thus,
when Schilling initiated training and production at Re-
spondent's Arab, Alabama, plant in 1973, laminations were
I All dates are in 1977 unless otherwise specified.
553
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
shipped from Respondent's Ohio plant in order that the
servicing of the dies could be performed by the die
manufacturer, in accordance with the practice at the Ohio
plant. This practice continued into mid-1976, although in
the interim the Arab plant had begun stamping operations
and a limited amount of servicing and grinding of dies in
their maintenance department. All complex die servicing
was still performed by the die manufacturer. On August 2,
1976, Blair Stentz arrived and took over as general
manager of the Arab plant. At or about this same time new
dies began arriving at the plant. Since they required a
considerable amount of servicing, Stentz was of the
opinion that the Arab plant should develop the capability
of servicing their own dies at Arab. In late August it was
decided to start an "in-house tooling program" which, it
was hoped, would greatly shorten the length of time during
which the dies were out of service by eliminating the time
involved in shipping dies to and from the manufacturer
and which, it was hoped, would also reduce labor costs. As
a result of this decision the maintenance and toolroom
department headed by Bill Replogle was divided into two
separate operations. Replogle remained the leadman over
the maintenance operations, which had previously done
some minor die repair and servicing. William Carmack, a
tool-and-die maker, was hired to take charge of the tool-
and-die program. Jim O'Keefe, an industrial engineer, was
hired as project industrial engineer at the Arab plant since
Stentz felt that the plant needed someone responsible for a
cost control program. One of O'Keefe's first assignments
was to monitor and make regular periodic reports of the
costs involving both the maintenance and tooling opera-
tions. Beginning in October, at the request of Stentz, a
series of monthly reports was initiated.
Immediately following the arrival of Carmack during the
third week in September 1976, the new tooling department
consisted of Carmack and one apprentice. In October the
apprentice left. Thereafter in October and early November
1976, respectively, Schilling hired Ralph Hornsby and
Homer Massengill following Carmack's appeal for addi-
tional help. In the meantime Respondent's costs continued
to rise, not only because of the additional personnel hired,
but also as a result of overtime work performed in an effort
to get the new operation on its feet. In November O'Keefe
reported that Respondent was still farming out 40 to 50
percent of its tooling and maintenance repair work.
Thereafter Respondent's costs continued to increase steadi-
ly. Further increased costs were brought about by tool-
and-die problems arising from both breakdowns in the
presses and increasing overtime in the tool operation. In his
January 6 report, covering the month of December 1976,
O'Keefe recommended that discussions be held with the
tooling department about stabilizing and reducing labor
costs, and indicated that the plant could not afford to
continue the operation under these circumstances. During
the month of January, due to steadily increasing costs,
Respondent found it necessary to curtail all overtime in the
tooling department, except for emergencies. This resulted
in the resignation of Carmack who protested that he was
not being permitted to run the toolroom as he wanted to
run it, and was unable to do so with restrictions on
overtime. In the meantime Respondent found it increasing-
ly necessary to farm out much of the tooling maintenance
repair.
Following Carmack's departure the maintenance and
tooling departments were once again combined with
Replogle in charge. In the meantime Respondent contin-
ued to search for an expert tool-and-die maker to replace
Carmack, but was unable to locate a replacement at a
salary cost which Respondent could afford. Thus, during
the month of January Respondent began a reconsideration
of the tooling and die program, and even began to search
for purchasers for what would be surplus equipment in the
event the tooling and die operation was phased out. During
February Stentz traveled to Nashville, Tennessee, to confer
with John D. Swartzbaugh, president of Massey Seating
Co. concerning a possible sale of Syncro's surface grinder,
vertical mill, horizontal mill, and lathe.2 Thus, on February
21 Stentz requested a special analysis on in-house tooling
maintenance from O'Keefe. Stentz emphasized that in his
view they had a big problem concerning the tooling
operation and stated that he desired recommendations on
what should be done about the situation. On February 25
O'Keefe submitted his report recommending as follows:
1. That source selected vendors be contacted for
feasibility of handling all our die and tool fixture
maintenance support and some kind of working
contracted agreement to be entered into.
2. Since we have only Junior Machinists on board,
with limited tooling expertise in die maintenance
and repair, our die life is diminishing too rapidly
due to over grinding of die working surfaces.
Steps should be taken to eliminate the require-
ment of these Junior Machinists at the earliest
possible date.
3. That an additional analysis be made for disposition
(sale) of equipment in the present tooling area,
except for those pieces of equipment that can be
incorporated for usage in our Manufacturing and
Facility Maintenance Area.
4. It should be noted that our present tooling effort
in-house is costly at this time and definite action
should be taken at the earliest possible date to
bring our tooling costs back in line.
On March 7 O'Keefe submitted his regular monthly
report on the tooling and maintenance departments'
operations during the month of February. The report
revealed continued increased costs. In addition O'Keefe
reported that the tooling area did not have sufficient
expertise to accomplish the Company's immediate needs
even when backed up by farming out portions of the
tooling work, as needed. He recommended that they had
reached "a critical position where production cannot abide
with 'hit or miss' situations of half-completed maintenance
and repair of our high production, high cost dies." He
urged "the need for competency in our tooling area, bj
hiring an expert, or go to outside vendors for 100 percent of
Stentz' testimony is supported by a March 14 letter from Swartzbaugh.
554
SYNCRO CORP.
our tooling needs." As a result of these recommendations,
Respondent decided to terminate the in-house tooling
program. On March 9 Junior Machinist Ralph Hornsby
and Homer Massengill were terminated. Thereafter Re-
spondent reverted to its previous practice of farming out
the greatest majority of the tooling work. The maintenance
department still utilizes the remaining tooling machinery
and does a limited amount of servicing work on some of
the less complicated dies, just as they had done before the
advent of the in-house tooling program. Thereafter, the life
of Respondent's dies increased and there were fewer
breakdowns resulting in decreased costs.
B. The Commencement of the Union Campaign and
General Manager Stentz' Reaction--The Alleged
8(a)(1) Violations
The Union began its campaign among Syncro's employ-
ees during the month of February, when Union Represen-
tative Gerald Park approached Junior Machinist Ralph
Hornsby on the grounds of the Arab primary school and
asked how the employees felt about the Union. Hornsby
referred Park to Michelle Hill who agreed to assist Park in
the Union's effort to organize the plant. The first employee
union meeting was held in late February, and was attended
by Hill, Dorothy Tidmore, and Allison Fielding. Three or
four other union meetings were held during February and
March. Hill attended these meetings and passed out
handbills for the Union at various times during this period.
Ralph Hornsby attended union meetings on March I and
8, at which time he signed a union card. Homer Massen-
gill's only union activity was that he signed a union card
before work on March 9, the day of his discharge.
According to Blair Stentz, he discovered that the Union
was attempting to organize the Company through an
anonymous phone call he received in mid-February in
which a female voice said that 12 or 13 of his employees
were meeting with a union organizer in an effort to
organize the plant. After consulting with his labor attorney,
Stentz called the employees together in the plant cafeteria
on February 21 and 22 in groups of 50 or 60 to hear his
views about the Union's organizational efforts.3 Hornsby
and Massengill attended the same group meeting. Accord-
ing to Hornsby, Stentz began his talk by discussing the
financial condition of the plant. After stating that the
Company had lost money, and had been operating in the
red during the previous year but was now in the black and
beginning to make a little money, he turned to the subject
of the Union. Stentz said that he had about 15 employees
that had gone to Anniston to talk to the Union about
representation, and that he was shocked that he had
employees who did not have faith in him and did not trust
him. He said that a union was like a cancer, and that he
had known of people getting shot because of union trouble.
Stentz made other remarks which Hornsby could not
remember, but recalled Stentz concluding his talk by
saying that he knew about the Union because he had been
a member for a number of years, and if the employees did
not believe him they could attend the union meeting which
3 Neither Stentz nor any of the witnesses who testified concerning Stentz'
speeches mentioned any use of notes by Stentz in making these talks.
was to be held the following night and find out for
themselves.
Massengill's memory was somewhat different concerning
Stentz' remarks. He recalled Stentz discussing the progress
of the Company, and that he said the Company was doing
better but that they were not in the clear yet. Stentz said
that the Company was improving over what they had been
doing. Then he mentioned that 12 or 15 people, whom he
did not name, had sought out union assistance in orga-
nizing the plant, and that it hurt his feelings that the
employees did not have any more faith in him than that.
The only other thing that Massengill remembered about
the 45-minute long speech was that Stentz "painted a
picture of union people as gun toting thugs, like something
to be feared; it's something nasty, you know." However,
Massengill did not specify what Stentz actually said on this
subject.
Michelle Hill attended a different group meeting. Ac-
cording to Hill, after talking about the financial situation
of the Company, Stentz said he was going to fight the
Union in any way he could, and that he did not want a
union in there. Hill claimed that Stentz discussed one of his
friends who was in jail, and about people getting shot and
tires being slashed and things of that nature. Hill could not
remember anything else about Stentz' speech until prodded
by leading questions by the General Counsel. Thereafter
she testified that Stentz stated he knew that Gerald Park
was the union representative, and he knew what kind of car
he was driving, the license number, and where he was from.
She then testified that Stentz said he had a list of names of
13 to 15 people who were interested in the Union.
No other employee witness testified about the speech.
The General Counsel alleges that Stentz violated Section
8(aXI) of the Act in his talk by threatening employees in
such a manner as to create an impression that their union
activities were under surveillance in telling employees that
he "knew which employees were engaging in activities on
behalf of the Union." In his testimony, Stentz denied this
allegation. According to Stentz, he told the employees that
there were 12 or 13 of Syncro's employees meeting with the
union organizer, who was in the area, and whose name and
address he knew. He then discussed the financial condition
of the Company, explaining their losses of the previous
year, and stating that with a lot of help and work on their
part the Company had been able to come from a position
extremely in the red to at least a profitable condition,
which he appreciated. He continued, "that it was a pretty
direct slap in the face for me to find out that there were a
number among them who did not have faith in me as the
manager of the Company, that I felt that I had tried to level
with them and be honest with them and try to give them a
better place to work than they had had." He said that with
the serious losses the Company had experienced in 1976,
and with the present cash flow condition of the Company,
there was a great question in his mind as to whether the
financial structure of the Company could withstand the
economic onslaught of the Union; and that because of the
cash flow condition, which would be aggravated under
those circumstances, it was quite possible that their major
555
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
suppliers of critical materials might hold up shipment of
those materials because of nonpayment, thereby forcing
the closing of the plant. Therefore, he said it was necessary
that they continue to work to keep the Company in line
and working.
Stentz' version of his remarks compares favorably with
the testimony of Massengill and Hornsby, except for the
employees' somewhat vague reference to a portion of
Stentz' speech which allegedly related to guns and shoot-
ing, which was not placed in issue by the complaint and
was not fully litigated. I credit Stentz' more detailed
version of his remarks; I do not credit Michelle Hill's
testimony which differs considerably from both that of
Stentz and the accounts given by Hornsby and Massengill,
especially her claim that Stentz said he had a list of names
of 13 to 15 people who were interested in the Union.4
Nevertheless, based on Stentz' own testimony, I find that
his remarks describing the number of people interested in
the Union, the identity and other details concerning the
union representative, and his invitation for them to attend
a union meeting which he knew was being held the
following evening, were calculated to convey to the
employees the impression that their union activities were
under surveillance. Thus, Stentz violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act. 5
C. The Events Leading up to The Termination of
Hornsby and Massengill on March 9
On March 5 Blair Stentz approached Hornsby and
Massengill in the toolroom and talked with them about the
Union. 6 According to Hornsby and Massengill, Stentz
began by saying that he wanted to talk to them because
they were two of the more intelligent employees he had in
the plant. Then he said that he had two bit- on the line
that were causing trouble. Stentz then proceeded to
graphically describe the nature of one of the unnamed
female's alleged involvement with the union representative.
Then, according to Hornsby, he said "she's got another
thing coming," and that he wanted their help to get the
word out to the people about the Company's condition.
According to both men, Stentz then said that if the
Company were organized they would get a raise, but it
would be short-lived because the creditors controlled
everything that went on. He then said that if the Company
should close his contract was guaranteed and that all he
had to do was produce a voucher and he would be paid
regardless, and his family could live right on. He said that
he and his wife would like a trip around the world, and that
he would come back and start a business of his own.
Hornsby's only response was that he felt the same way, and
if the plant should close he would go somewhere else and
get a job. Massengill's only answer was that people could
not hide behind an organization if they were nonproducers,
4 Hill displayed a poor memory in testifying and was vague and
incomplete in her answers.
5 The remarks in Stentz' speech concerning plant closure are not alleged
to be violative of the Act, nor does the General Counsel claim them to be
violative in his brief. In any event, I find that Stentz did not violate the Act
by the remarks he made in this portion of the speech, which were cast in
terms of the Company's economic posture.
6 In the meantime, about a week after Stentz' speech to groups of
employees in the cafeteria, outside consultants came into the plant and held
they would go out the door anyway. Aside from these
answers, neither man made any further expression of their
sympathies or indicated one way or another whether they
would or would not assist Stentz as he requested.
Stentz admitted talking to the two men together in the
plant on March 5. He agreed that he referred to the two
women on the production line, and that he characterized
their activities in the terms described by Hornsby and
Massengill in their testimony. He also agreed that he
requested their help to convince the employees that what
he was telling them was the truth about the financial
condition of the Company. In his testimony Stentz general-
ly denied that he ever threatened employees that the plant
would close if the Union came in, but did not elaborate
further on the details of this conversation. I credit Hornsby
and Massengill and find that Stentz' remarks on March 5
contained both a threat to close the plant if the employees
selected the Union, and solicited Hornsby and Massengill
to assist Respondent in its antiunion campaign, which
conduct violates Section 8(aX I) of the Act.
On Monday, March 7, Stentz approached Hornsby at his
work station and asked where Massengill was. After
Hornsby replied that Massengill had not come to work that
day, Stentz asked Hornsby if he knew where he could find
a good tool-and-die man. He said he hated to replace a
man but it looked like he was going to have to. Stentz did
not say anything about who he was considering replacing.
At that time it is undisputed that Respondent had been
seeking a replacement for Carmack.
On the morning of March 9 in the cafeteria, before work,
Massengill signed a union card for Michelle Hill. Later
Hornsby and Bobby Seay, a maintenance mechanic,
discussed the Union during lunch in the plant cafeteria.
Hornsby asked how Seay felt about the Union and Seay
responded that he didn't feel the Union would be much
good at Syncro. Hornsby ended the conversation by saying
"I don't guess you'd be interested in signing a union card
then," and Seay replied, "No." Bill Replogle and another
mechanic named John Harris were seated at a table
adjacent to theirs.7 That afternoon around 2 or 2:30 p.m. a
lead girl named Sue Wright came to the toolroom and
asked if Hornsby wanted the Union. He asked her who
wanted to know. She responded that she was just wonder-
ing, but she did not think the Union would be good for the
Company. Hornsby answered that the Union was not
designed for the Company, but for the employees. Wright
repeated that she did not think it would do the Company
any good, and left. Hornsby then observed Wright speak-
ing with Massengill. According to Massengill, she asked
how he felt about the Union, and he responded that he was
for it and was planning on attending the union meeting
that night. Massengill asked Wright to go, and she refused
stating that the Union did not have anything for her. He
discussions with groups of employees concerning what it was they did not
like about the Company. This phase of the Respondent's antiunion
campaign, based on the uncontradicted testimony of Hill, was not placed in
issue by the complaint and was not fully litigated.
I Although Hornsby voiced the opinion that these men had overheard
the conversation, he did not describe any action by Replogle and Harris
which confirmed this opinion, which he based entirely on the short distance
between the tables.
556
SYNCRO CORP.
testified that when she left his presence she went to speak
to Ralph Hornsby.8
At or about 3 p.m. that afternoon, following a conversa-
tion between Stentz and Hornsby, in which Hornsby
advised Stentz to send a certain die out for outside
servicing, Hornsby and Massengill were called to the office
and terminated during a joint conference with Plant
Superintendent Mickey Tidmore and Project Industrial
Engineer O'Keefe. Tidmore said that they had run a cost
survey, and had come to the conclusion that it would be
cheaper to send out the dies than it would be to keep their
own tool-and-die man in the shop. Hornsby remarked that
it seemed rather sudden, and Tidmore answered that he
had only learned of the decision 10 or 15 minutes before.
O'Keefe remarked that he would not have replaced
Massengill's micrometers a few days before, if he had
known. Then Tidmore continued, saying that both men
had real good work and attendance records, and that the
Company would send them a letter of recommendation.
Then Hornsby said that they did not have any way of
getting their toolboxes home, and asked if they could
return the next day in a truck to pick them up. Tidmore
agreed. The conference lasted about 10 minutes. The
Union was not discussed.9
On the morning of March 10 the two men returned to the
plant to pick up their tools. While at the plant, they went to
the lobby and requested to talk with Blair Stentz. Stentz
received them in his office and talked with them for about
an hour with Tidmore present. They asked Stentz why they
had been discharged. He explained the Company's finan-
cial condition and produced financial statements from
previous months. He said that the Company had decided it
would be cheaper to send out the die work, and Hornsby
agreed. Then Tidmore, who was also present, spoke up and
said that it was cheaper to send the work out than it was to
keep it there. Then Hornsby asked why they were dis-
charged the day after a union meeting, and after they had
signed union cards. They asked if that had anything to do
with their termination, and Stentz responded that it did
not. Hornsby said that he had heard rumors through the
plant that he and Massengill were leading the Union, and
that this was not true. Stentz answered that he had no idea
they were involved in the Union, and the conference
ended. The two men went to the toolroom, picked up their
toolboxes, and left.
The General Counsel contends that the Respondent
utilized the condition of its tool-and-die operation as a
pretext to terminate Hornsby and Massengill because they
sympathized with and supported the Union. Counsel for
the General Counsel urges that the timing of the dis-
charges, which occurred on the same day that Massengill
signed a union card, supports this theory of the case.
Respondent argues that Hornsby and Massengill were
discharged for economic reasons only, and that although
I do not credit the testimony of Hornsby and Massengill concerning
this incident since their versions contradict one another. Massengill testified
that the alleged conversation took place on Tuesday, March 8, while
Hornsby insisted it occurred on Monday, March 7. More significantly,
Hornsby testified that Wright first spoke to him and then spoke to
Massengill, while Massengill testified that the two conversations occurred in
exactly the opposite order. In any event, the incident is of no significance
since Wright was not alleged or proved to be a supervisor within the
meaning of the Act.
the terminations may have seemed sudden to the employ-
ees, the timing of the decision falls within a logical
sequence when considered in the light of Stentz' unrefuted
testimony that he based his decision on O'Keefe's Febru-
ary 25 and March 7 reports. Furthermore, Respondent
argues that it had no knowledge of Hornsby's and
Massengill's union sympathies until they revealed them to
Stentz in their postdischarge conversation on March 10.
I am persuaded that Hornsby and Massengill were
terminated for economic considerations and not because of
their union activities. The problems which Respondent
experienced with respect to the costs of its tool-and-die
operations and its unsuccessful effort to reach the goal of
performing a large majority of the repairs on dies in the
plant, are well documented and virtually undisputed. The
uncontradicted testimony of Stentz concerning the timing
of his decision to phase out the tool-and die-operation is
supported by O'Keefe's February 25 and March 7 reports.
Against this background, the General Counsel's timing
argument fails. It might be considered equally conceivable
that Hornsby's and Massengill's interest in the Union,
especially Massengill's signing of a union card on the
morning of March 9, may have been prompted by a
concern over the security of their jobs because of the
deteriorating condition of the tool-and-die operation. This
also is not clearly revealed by the record, however. What is
firmly established in the record is that Respondent was
faced with a steadily increasing cost picture, aggravated by
the resignation of Carmack and their inability to find
another tool-and-die expert. Finally, the General Counsel's
argument, based on credible testimony by employees Betty
Lou Hyde and Sarah Garrett that following the discharges
of Hornsby and Massengill they continued to see some dies
being worked on in the toolroom, that Hornsby's and
Massengill's jobs were not actually eliminated, is neutral-
ized, in the absence of more detailed testimony, by
undisputed testimony from Respondent's witnesses to the
effect that the maintenance department had always in the
past performed a certain amount of the less complex die
work and was continuing to do so. I therefore find that the
General Counsel has not proved that Respondent seized
upon the adverse economic circumstances involving its
tool-and-die operation as a pretext for eliminating Hornsby
and Massengill because of their union sympathies.
I likewise find that the General Counsel has not proved
that Respondent knew that Hornsby and Massengill
sympathized with and assisted the Union. I disagree with
the General Counsel's argument that Stentz discerned their
sympathies about the Union from the March 5 conversa-
tion in which he solicited their assistance in countering
falsehoods being spread about the Company. Nowhere in
this conversation did either Hornsby or Massengill reject
Stentz' request. Not only did they rather artfully evade
making a negative response, but in addition made remarks
9 O'Keefe testified that when Hornsby questioned him about the
suddenness of the decision to terminate them, he said that he had just found
out about it at 10 minutes after 3, and that although be had recommended
the decision he had not been informed that the decision had been made. I
credit Hornsby's version which is consistent with O'Keefe's February 25 and
March 7 reports.
557
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in connection with Stentz' statements about the possibility
of the plant closing, which could well have led him to
believe that they agreed with him. For example, Hornsby
answered that he "felt the same way, if the plant should
close, he'd go somewhere else and get a job." Massengill
stated that people could not hide behind an organization if
they were nonproducers, they would go out the door
anyway. Under these circumstances I find that the March 5
conversation does not establish company knowledge of
Hornsby's and Massengill's union sympathies and activi-
ties. Neither do I find that the General Counsel has
established the Employer's knowledge of Hornsby's and
Massengill's sympathies through the evidence of other
incidents concerning Hornsby's and Massengill's conversa-
tions with other persons neither alleged nor proven to be
supervisors within the meaning of the Act. The Board has
long held that the title "supervisor" standing alone does
not prove supervisory status. The only person alleged to be
a supervisor in paragraph 6 of the complaint, and so
admitted in the answer, is Vice President and General
Manager Stentz. No other individual's status as a supervi-
sor was litigated and there is no evidence in the record that
any individual other than Stentz, Mickey Tidmore, and
Schilling possessed any Section 2(11) duties. Thus, the
testimony of Replogle, referred to in the record as both a
supervisor and a leadman, that on the afternoon of Stentz'
cafeteria talk Hornsby stated to him that a union had come
in at Automatic in Huntsville and that he thought it was a
pretty good thing, is of no value to the General Counsel in
binding Respondent with knowledge of Hornsby's sympa-
thies. Finally, the evidence concerning Hornsby's conver-
sation with Seay and Massengill's signing a card for Hill in
the cafeteria, with the obvious suggestion that someone
from the Company must have seen or heard these inci-
dents; and the evidence concerning Sue Wright's alleged
discussion of the Union with Hornsby and Massengill
shortly before their discharges, clearly intended to suggest
that she then reported these discussions to management,
constitutes mere speculation. Although it is understand-
able, from the standpoint of the Charging Party, that the
discharges of union sympathizers and activists close on the
heels of their becoming active in the Union's organization-
al drive, would raise a suspicion that the terminations were
motivated by their activities; these suspicions cannot be
utilized as a substitute for proof of actual unlawful
discrimination stemming from proven knowledge of the
employees' union activities.1 0 I find that the General
Counsel has not proven that Respondent knew prior to
their discharges that Hornsby and Massengill were union
adherents. I therefore find that Respondent has not
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by discharging
Ralph Hornsby and Homer Massengill on March 9.
10 Nor do I find persuasive the argument that Hornsby and Massengill
were not offered an opportunity to transfer elsewhere. There is no evidence
in the record that any other work for them in the plant existed, let alone
work commensurate with their skills and pay.
t" The General Counsel asserts in his brief that Stentz' March 5 remarks
D. The Circumstances Leading to The Discharge of
Michelle Hill
Michelle Hill had worked for Respondent approximately
22 months as of the time of her discharge on April 5. She
was the first employee to actually begin working with the
Union in its organizational drive, and thereafter remained
the leading union activist in the plant. She compiled lists of
people in different departments who might be interested in
the Union, attended union meetings, obtained union card
signatures from employees, and passed out handbills
outside the plant entrance. In many of these activities she
was assisted by Dorothy Tidmore.1' Following Stentz'
February 21 and 22 series of speeches in the plant cafeteria,
and during the period of time when outside consultants
were holding group discussions with employees, Stentz
called Hill to the office and accused her of questioning his
honesty or misjudging him. He said that she had asked for
a financial statement at one of the meetings (with the
consultants). Stentz became angry and said that he had had
enough, and did she understand. Then Stentz went down
the line and talked to others. Hill heard him saying that if
permitted he would come up with a financial statement for
them. Thereafter, on several occasions, Stentz asked Hill if
she would come to his office to talk with him because he
felt they had a lot of differences that needed to be ironed
out. The last one of these requests came a few days before
Hill was terminated. Nevertheless, Hill never reported to
the office to discuss the matter. Hill's testimony concerning
these incidents is undenied and credited. Consequently, it
is clear that before her termination the Employer was
aware that she was aggressively pursuing the cause of the
Union. In addition, at some unspecified point during the
last 2 weeks of her employment, Stentz confronted Hill in
the process of compiling a list of names from timecards, for
use in contacting employees concerning the Union, and
told her that he had received complaints in the office about
this activity and that she was not to do that any more.
On April 5 Hill was called to Mickey Tidmore's office at
or about 3:25 p.m. and discharged. Tidmore said that he
had statements from employees saying that she had
threatened them for not doing her "will." Hill demanded
an opportunity to confront the employees who had accused
her of this conduct, but this request was refused. Tidmore
said he had the statements if they were needed and that he
would use them later, if necessary. Then Tidmore escorted
Hill to her work station to pick up her belongings and then
to the door where two policemen conducted her off the
property. She did not return thereafter.
General Manager Stentz testified that Hill was dis-
charged based upon the complaints of employees Marilyn
Walker and Patsy Hayes that Hill had threatened them.
Marilyn Walker testified that on a Thursday in April Hill
asked her to sign a union card in the women's bathroom.
When Walker declined, Hill said that if she did not join the
Union she would get her tires slashed. According to
Walker this frightened her and she reported the incident.
to Hornsby and Massengill concerning two women on the production line,
itself establishes the Employer's knowledge of Hill's activities. Although the
record shows that Stentz did not mention any names, his later conversations
with Hill show that one of those to whom he referred was Hill.
558
SYNCRO CORP.
Patsy Hayes testified concerning a similar exchange with
Hill in the restroom at or about 3 o'clock on the Friday
before Hill was fired. Later, when she observed Hill listing
employees' names from their timecards, she became fright-
ened and reported the matter. Both employees then talked
to Mr. Stentz and gave statements to the Company
concerning the incidents. Michelle Hill denied having
threatened Walker or Hayes. However, she admitted
soliciting card signatures from Walker or Hayes in the
bathroom and that she had "cut up with them." She also
admitted, concerning Walker, that she had pushed Walker
into a bathroom stall in an effort to try to get her to sign a
union card. Under these circumstances, I do not credit
Hill's denial and am persuaded and find that she did
engage in the conduct which Walker and Hayes described
in their testimony. I therefore find that although Respon-
dent clearly knew of Hill's union sympathies and activities,
she was discharged for cause and not because of her
advocacy of the Union. I find incredible the testimony
adduced by the General Counsel from Sarah Garrett to the
effect that remarks about rock throwing and tire slashing,
which circulated around the plant during this period, were
considered jokes by the employees. Nor do I find that Hill
was treated disparately, based upon the cross-examination
testimony of Stentz concerning an incident involving
employee Jackie York's complaint that employee Sue Ivy
had threatened her following an automobile accident in the
company parking lot, since York declined to pursue the
matter. Finally, I do not draw any adverse inference from
Respondent's choosing not to confront Hill with Walker
and Hayes, prior to the hearing, or not to reveal their
names in the context of a situation involving threats of
misconduct. I find that Respondent did not violate Section
8(aX)(1) and (3) of the Act in discharging Michelle Hill on
April 5.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By threatening employees that Respondent's Arab,
Alabama, plant would close if its employees selected the
Union as their bargaining representative, by soliciting
employees to assist Respondent in its antiunion campaign,
by dissuading fellow employees from joining or assisting
the Union, and by threatening employees in such a manner
as to create an impression that their union activities were
under surveillance, Respondent violated Section 8(aXl) of
the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. Respondent has not violated the Act in any respects
other than those specifically found.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I find it necessary to order that
Respondent cease and desist therefrom and to take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
559