Thiokol Corporation

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 19, 1981

257 N.L.R.B. 830 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Thiokol Corporation, Louisiana Division and Helen-
ise Scott
International Chemical Workers Union Local No.
525 and Helenise Scott. Cases 15-CA-7547
and 15-CB-2254
August 19, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
ZIMMERMAN
On December 18, 1980, Administrative Law
Judge Richard J. Linton issued the attached Deci-
sion in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General
Counsel and the Respondent Employer filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief. The Respondent
Union filed an answering brief to the General
Counsel's exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional 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, find-
ings,' and conclusions 2 of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as
modified herein.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi-
fied below, and hereby orders that the Respondent,
'The General Counsel has excepted to certain credibility findings
made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established
policy not to overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with re-
spect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant
evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard 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 re-
versing his findings.
' The Administrative Law Judge found that the Respondent Employer
violated Sec. 8(a)(l) of the Act when its personnel group supervisor,
John Dart, refused to discuss employee Helenise Scott's grievance with
her on all individual basis and instead referred her to an agent of the Re-
spondent Union, her statutory bargaining representative. We disagree
with this finding. The Respondent Employer had no statutory duty to
discuss Scott's grievance with her on an individual basis. On the coln-
trary, we note that for it to have done so without affording the Union an
opportunity to be present would have invited a charge that the Respond-
ent Employer had violated its duty to bargain under Sees.
8
(a)(5) and
8(d) of the Act. We further note that the Administrative Law Judge has
found, and we agree, that the Respondent Union did not conspire with
the Respondent Employer against Scott because of her past job com-
plaints and did not breach, in any other ways, its duty of fair representa-
tion in the handling of Scott's grievance. Under these circumstances, we
find that Dart's refusal to discuss the grievance with Scott alone in no
way interfered with, restrained, or coerced her protected right to present
that grievance. Accordingly. we will dismiss this allegation of the com-
plaint.
257 NLRB No. 117
Thiokol Corporation, Louisiana Division, Shreve-
port, Louisiana, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said
recommended Order as so modified:
1. Delete paragraph l(b) and reletter the subse-
quent paragraphs accordingly.
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint
against the Respondent Union is hereby dismissed.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our
employees concerning grievances they may
file under the collective-bargaining agreement
we have with International Chemical Workers
Union, Local No. 525.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ-
ees in the exercise of rights which Section 7 of
the National Labor Relations Act guarantees.
THIOKOL CORPORATION, LOUISIANA
DIVISION
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RICHARD J. LINTON, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard before me in Shreveport, Louisiana, on
July 30-31 and August 1, 25, and 26, 1980, pursuant to a
consolidated complaint issued March 13, 1980, by the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board
through the Regional Director for Region 15. The com-
plaint is based on charges filed by Helenise Scott, an in-
dividual (Scott herein), against International Chemical
Workers Union, Local No. 525 (Union herein), on Janu-
ary 8, 1980, and amended January 17, 1980, in Case 15-
CB-2254, and against Thiokol Corporation, Louisiana
Division (Thiokol or Respondent Employer herein), on
January 17, and amended January 31, 1980, in Case 15-
CA-7547.1
In the consolidated complaint, as amended at the hear-
ing, the General Counsel alleges that Thiokol violated
Section 8(a)(l) of the Act in transferring Scott from the
test area to a lower paying position on the "S" line be-
cause of her prior concerted and protected activities.
General Counsel alleges that the Union has breached
its "fiduciary duty" to Scott and thereby violated Sec-
Although the consolidated complaint lists the Union above Thiokol in
the caption, apparently on the basis that the CB charge was filed first. I
have reversed the caption sequence so that the CA case appears before
the CB case.
830
THIOKOL CORPORATION
tion 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act by refusing to file a grievance
on her behalf over the transfer, and by processing a
grievance Scott filed in a perfunctory manner.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of
the demeanor of the witnesses, and after due considera-
tion of the briefs filed by the General Counsel, the
Union, and Thiokol,2 I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Thiokol Corporation, Louisiana Division, a Virginia
corporation with a facility located in Shreveport, Louisi-
ana, manufactures, loads, tests, and sells military ammuni-
tion. During the past 12 months, Thiokol sold and
shipped goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000
from its Shreveport, Louisiana, terminal directly to
points located outside the State of Louisiana. Respond-
ents admit, and I find, that Thiokol is an employer
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondents admit, and I find, that the Union is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Overview
I. Contractual language
All parties are here principally because the General
Counsel and Scott interpret certain provisions in the cur-
rent collective-bargaining agreement between the Union
and Thiokol in one fashion, whereas the Union and
Thiokol draw a different conclusion. To understand how
that contractual dispute grew into this unfair labor prac-
tice litigation, we first must consider the contractual lan-
guage the parties are debating. The current contract
covers the period February 15, 1979, through February
14, 1982,3 and contains the following pertinent clauses.
Article II11 covers seniority (defined in sec. A), and sec-
tion B relates to "Promotion, Transfer and Assignment."
Subsections 3 and 4 (art. 11,B,3-4) read as follows (em-
phasis supplied):
3. To assist bargaining unit employees in their
desire to obtain transfers and promotions, the em-
ployees may indicate their desire for a specific clas-
sification. The Company will indicate to the em-
ployee his acceptability for the classification. After
other provisions of this Article have been satisfied,
employees accepted for a classification shall be of-
'Scott participated as a witness only and filed no brief.
The "red" book (G.C. Exh. 3). The previous contract (G.C. Exh. 2)
covered the period 2-14-76 through 2-14-7q and is known as the
"orange" hook because, of course, its cover is orange A "gray" book
(GC. Exh. 9) is in evidence covering an earlier period of 2-12-71
through 2-13-74 and is a copy of the contract between the Unionl and
Thiokol's predecessor, Louisiana Army Plant. Division of Sperry Rand
Corporation
fered the opportunity to fill a vacancy in the classi-
fication in order of their seniority.
4. An employee selected for promotion to a
higher job classification shall within twenty days
demonstrate his ability to perform the job. If the em-
ployee fails to demonstrate satisfactory progress, he
may be disqualified prior to the completion of the
qualifying period and returned to the classification
he held previously. The trial period may be ex-
tended by mutual agreement.
Section C covers "Layoff, Demotion and Re-Employ-
ment." Subsection 2 and the relevant portion of subsec-
tion 3 provide [Emphasis supplied]:
2. Permanent layoffs and demotions in the Bar-
gaining Unit will be governed by unit seniority
within the seniority unit, provided that the employ-
ees remaining are qualified to do the remaining
work.
3. After other provisions of this Article have
been satisfied, affected employees may, at the time
of layoff or demotion, on the basis of their unit se-
niority, bump the least senior employees in the
entry level jobs, if qualified to perform those jobs.
Section A.2. defines the three recognized types of se-
niority as: 4
a. Plant seniority is the length of time an employ-
ee has been continuously employed by the Compa-
ny at the Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant.
b. Unit seniority is the length of time an employ-
ee has been continuously assigned to jobs falling
within the bargaining unit.
c. Classification seniority is the length of time an
employee has been continuously employed in a par-
ticular job classification.
2. Scott "bumped" in early December 1979
Thiokol, as contractor, operates the United States
Army's Shreveport, Louisiana, Army Ammunition Plant
(LAAP). Scott, whose bargaining unit seniority date is
May 25, 1966, began working as an inspector in the test
area in February 1979. Mary Amos, whose bargaining
unit seniority date is January 30, 1962, transferred to the
test area as an inspector on November 19, 1979; and on
November 26, 1979, John T. Jackson, with a bargaining
unit seniority date of January 26, 1966, also transferred
there as an inspector.'
In early December 1979, certain work (the "XM 795")
was moved from the test area to the S-Line. This caused
' Subsec. I provides, in part. "Seniority will be the determining factor
where the employee has been given security clearance and where qualifi-
cations such as ability, aptitude and physical fitness are approximatels
equal among employees."
5 There is no dispute that when a transferee is deemed "qualified"
within 20 days, or automatically at the completion of 20 days. overall
bargaining seniority prevails over seniority in the classification when
there is a lavoff in the classification. Much of the evidence in this case
centered around the issue of how an employee becomes qualified"
before he 20 days, for in the instant case, the reduction in force occurred
before Amos and Jackson had been in the test area for 2( das
831
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a need for Thiokol to reduce its test area force by two
workers. As a result of the bumping which followed,
Scott and Michael Triplet were bumped (actually termed
a layoff, but by exercising her bargaining unit seniority,
Scott bumped into a position paying 52 cents per hour
less) and Scott transferred to S-Line. Amos and Jackson
remained in the test area even though they had been
there less than 20 days. If they had not "qualified," or
been deemed so, then they should have been returned to
their previous departments, and Scott would have re-
mained in the test area. Scott, of course, wanted to
remain in the test area. Therefore, the parties looked to
the contractual language covering this situation.
3. General contractal interpretations and case
theories of the parties
The General Counsel contends that the quoted con-
tractual language is clear and very simply means that
before there can be a transfer, there must be a vacancy
(art. 1 -B-3); 6 that as Amos and Jackson were promoted
into the test area, they had to be there 20 days before
they automatically qualified, or expressly be notified by
supervision that they were considered qualified in less
than 20 days in order to remain in the test area under
article I -C-2.7 General Counsel contends that none of
the foregoing occurred, and that what really happened
was that the Union and Thiokol conspired to lay Scott
off from the test area because of her very recent, as well
as past, claims of mistreatment, including claims of dis-
crimination against her because she is a member of the
Black race. Such conspiracy supposedly covered up the
fact that there had been no vacancies for permanent jobs
for Amos and Jackson, and in order to keep them, and
get rid of Scott, Respondents had to create a false expla-
nation of how there were two vacancies for permanent
jobs in the test area for Amos and Jackson to fill.
Although the General Counsel does not so express it
in her brief, it seems that she in effect, contends that Re-
spondents' scheme hit a snag because they failed to let
Amos and Jackson serve in the test area a full 20 days
(in order to qualify to bump Scott under art. 1-B-4 and
11l-C-2) before Thiokol moved the XM 795 work to the
S-Line.
Also not fully explicated by the General Counsel, is
the portion of her theory which attacks the credibility of
Respondents' testimony and evidence. The critical fact of
the matter is that the General Counsel has practically no
affirmative evidence that Thiokol was so motivated (and
very little as to the Union). Therefore, the General
Counsel's case depends in large measure on my not only
disbelieving Technical Director Luther Johnson and Per-
6 The parties do not dispute that there must be a vacancy before a per-
manent transfer is proper.
' Respondents contend that there in fact were two vacancies to fill,
that Amos and Jackson had demonstrated the ability to perform the job
of inspector and, since not disqualified, they were "qualified." As Person-
nel Supervisor Bullock explained, Thiokol has the affirmative burden to
disqualify an employee within 20 days under art. I 1-B-4. It is undisputed
that Amos and Jackson have more overall bargaining unit seniority than
Scott. Thus. if there were permanent vacancies to fill, the key contractual
debate revolves around the issue of qualifying within 20 days (or, as Re-
spondents frame it, not being disqualified by Thiokol within the 20 days).
sonnel Supervisor William G. Bullock, 8 but also finding
the opposite to be true.
For example, a basic factor in the General Counsel's
case is the element of timing. Thus, after certain events
of December 3 and 4, 1979 (Scott's most recent com-
plaints), Thiokol "abruptly" notified Scott (and employee
Mike Triplet) on Thursday, December 6, of the reduc-
tion in force (RIF) by two inspectors. It becomes ex-
tremely critical to the General Counsel's case that a find-
ing be made, not only of a conspiracy, but that it oc-
curred between December 4 and 6. The General Counsel
argues that the Union's January 18, 1980, position letter
in this case, from Union President Verdis Gilbert to the
Regional Office, demonstrates that the conspiracy meet-
ing was held on December 4, because of a paragraph on
the second page reading:
On Tuesday, 4 December 1979, the Union and the
Company met to discuss the above-referenced "re-
duction" to determine whether or not it was con-
tractually correct. As a result of this meeting, it was
determined by the parties that the proposed "reduc-
tion-in-force" was contractually correct and that the
Union would not file a grievance.
Gilbert testified that the December 4 date is a typo-
graphical error, and that this meeting with Thiokol was
not until the following week. A reading of the entire
letter, which outlines the sequence of events, shows
clearly that the date of December 4 does not fit, and that
it necessarily has to be the following week. While the
General Counsel does not articulate her theory, she ap-
parently means to contend that the date of December 4
was a "Freudian" slip revealing the truth-that the
Union and Thiokol really met on December 4 and con-
spired, for unlawful reasons, to arrange the transfer of
the XM 795 '° work from the test area to the S-Line area,
to keep Amos and Jackson, and to layoff/demote Scott.
However, there is no affirmative evidence indicating that
any such meeting was held between the Union and Thio-
kol prior to December 6, or at any other time. While
there is a brief remark by Group Supervisor Joe West on
December 6, 1979, when notifying Scott of her layoff,
that Thiokol and the Union had agreed that Scott and
Mike Triplet were junior and would have to be laid off,
such a ministerial communication falls far short of affirm-
ative evidence of a prearrangement conspiracy.
Nor does the General Counsel explain just what all
this conspiracy accomplished. While there is no doubt
the demotion has caused Scott to leave a job which she
preferred, and moved her to a job paying 52 cents per
hour less, this caliginous plot simply moved Scott from
one area of Thiokol's facility to another. It did not have
B oth of whom I credit in all significant respects based chiefly on
their demeanor as witnesses. Each testified in a forthright, candid, and
believable manner.
9 ,NL.R.B. v. Waltron Manufacturing Company & Loganville Pants Co.,
369 U.S. 404 (1962), not cited by counsel for the General Counsel in her
brief.
' The XM 795 is an experimental 155mm howitzer projectile Thiokol
is producing and testing for the United States Army.
832
THIOKOL CORPORATION
the effect, and apparently not even the hope, of terminat-
ing Scott's employment.
Such an elaborate and complicated conspiracy theory,
even indirectly requiring cooperation by the United
States Army civilian defense representatives, with no
more hope than a transfer of Scott from the test area to
another department at Thiokol's facility (so that Thiokol
and the Union do not even get shed of Scott), rates an
A-plus for resourceful imagination. But the evidence fails
to support the theory.
With respect to the issue of race (an issue which Gen-
eral Counsel and Scott both concede is only secondarily
involved), I note that although Scott is black, and Thio-
kol's managers/supervisors involved here are white,
Union President Verdis Gilbert is black as are employees
Amos and Jackson. Jack Williamson, International repre-
sentative for the Union, is white. Mike Triplet, bumped
with Scott, is white.
Respecting motive, Respondents contend that they had
no illegal animus toward Scott, and that the affirmative
proof of that lies in the fact that when Scott was pro-
moted to the test area in February 1979, she experienced
difficulty in "demonstrating her ability to perform" the
job. " Union President Gilbert, in an effort to assist Scott
to keep her new inspector job in the test area, mutually
agreed with Thiokol for Scott, per artice 11-B-4 of the
contract, to have three extensions of her qualifying
period. Had they wanted to "get" Scott, it would seem
they would have done so by not agreeing to such exten-
sions.
B. Facts
1. Scott's employment problems
Scott began working at LAAP on May 25, 1966. In
the Union, she has served as job steward, chief steward,
and as a member of the Union's executive board. At the
hearing, she described herself as "outspoken" and she
theorized that her problems stem chiefly from the fact
that she is outspoken.
In February 1979, Scott transferred to the test area as
an inspector. So far as the record shows, Scott's employ-
ment problems did not commence until she began her
duties in the test area. She had trouble demonstrating
that she had the ability to perform the duties there, and
Thiokol and Union President Verdis Gilbert three times
mutually agreed to extensions of her 20-day qualifying
period in accordance with article I -B-4 of the contract.
On March 29, 1979, Scott received her first written
warning from Supervisor Earl Uzzle for disconnecting a
grounding wire during preparations by other personnel
for a test. On June 20, 1979, she received her second
written warning, and a 3-day suspension, from Supervi-
sor Robert H. Dayberry for improperly entering area T-
6 while an explosive device was being tested. Scott does
not dispute that she committed the acts, but her testimo-
nial version describes mitigating circumstances. At the
" It is very likely that this threshold consideration of "demonstrating
ability to perform" has been referred to by both supervision and rank-
and-file employees as "qualifying" or "qualified." Scott testified that she
began working in the test area on February 2. 1979. However, as the par-
ties stipulated, she was not "promoted" until March 18, 1979.
hearing she stated that she thinks the suspension penalty
was too severe. I deem it unnecessary to go into all the
details of these warnings. t2 However, following receipt
of her suspension notice, Scott requested, and was grant-
ed, an interview with General Manager Leo Long. Also
present at the interview was Personnel Supervisor Bull-
ock, and Technical Director Johnson was called to
attend.
At this meeting, Scott displayed extensive notes which
she had made purportedly regarding rules violations by
other employees who were not disciplined.'3 In essence.
Scott contended that she was being singled out by super-
vision for unfair treatment. This meeting was followed
by further investigation by Johnson. The end result was
that Scott returned to work after a suspension.
According to a synthesis of Scott's own theory," it
appears that she believes the people she worked with in
the test area, all of whom were white, were opposed to
her presence and did not want her there. Scott specifical-
ly attributes this chiefly to her personality style of being
"outspoken," but secondarily because she is black. 5
Thus, "They labeled me a smart aleck because I would
defend myself. I didn't back down if I thought I was
right and if I thought I was wrong, I didn't try to argue
the point, but I defended myself and I kind of had the
feeling that these white ladies had the feeling that I was
sassy." Scott stated that she had exchanged a "good
cussing spree" with coworkers Sandra Sparkman and
Mary Frances Roberts. Moreover, Scott feels that Super-
visors Uzzle and Dayberry shared her female coworkers'
opposition to Scott and even harassed her by speaking to
her in an unfriendly fashion and issuing warnings to her
when not to others.
Despite Scott's suspicions, I find that it is not at all
clear that Supervisors Dayberry and Uzzle were cooper-
ating with Scott's coworkers in a conspiracy to get her
removed from the test area because of any protected ac-
tivities or because of her race. 16 However, assuming, for
the moment, that such were true, the evidence still must
show a causal link between that improper motivation and
Scott's December 7, 1979, layoff. As I explain below, I
find that the evidence fails to establish this link. Thus,
the decision to move the XM 795 testing to the S-Line
came from Technical Director Luther Johnson, 17 and
there is no evidence that he became a part of any alleged
2 Apparently no charges were ever filed over the warnings.
' Scott testified that she wrote the notes the night before.
4 As reflected in her testimony. Scott is not always precise regarding
her own theory of her problems. Of course, the General Counsel is not
restricted to what Scott personally theorizes.
'1 Scott testified that she was the first black to qualify for work in the
test area.
16 Such would be deplorable, as well as illegal, if true. Respecting the
race matter, there is no evidence that Scott's coworkers or supervisors
ever referred to her race as a point of controversy. In fact, it would seem
from the record that when the coworkers felt (as Scott perceived) that
she was being "sassy," it was only Scott who interpreted that
mental/vocal description to be an old throwback reference to her race
rather than just to her outspoken manner. To the extent Scott's cowork-
ers did not like her, it would appear that it was because of her personal-
ity style rather than her race.
' Whom Scott describes as a fair man.
833
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
conspiracy to remove Scott from the test area. ' More-
over, the evidence fails to establish that Thiokol's and
the Union's interpretation of the layoff/demotion clauses
in the contract (article 11-C-2) was devised, as has since
been followed, just to get at Scott.
2. The XM 795 howitzer shell
(a) Background
The work from which Scott was laid off was develop-
ment of the United States Army's XM 795 155 millimeter
howitzer shell. Technical Director Luther Johnson,
whom I fully credit, gave detailed testimony regarding
the project. Even to summarize the details would unjusti-
fiably lengthen this decision. It is sufficient to note that
in the spring of 1978 the United States Army Research
and Development Command (ARRADCOM) requested
Thiokol to submit a bid for producing 314 experimental
artillery rounds identified as the XM 795. This shell was
designed to be a possible replacement for the M107, a
projectile Thiokol had been producing at the LAAP for
many years.
The entire XM 795 program experienced substantial
delays, most of which seem to have been caused by the
Army's failure to provide specific x-ray testing stand-
ards. 9 The new testing process required that each XM
795 produced be nose dropped,20 kept in a nose down
position, radiographed with a new type of x-ray film,
then sectioned so that the amount of core base separation
could be observed. By contrast, only a small fraction of
the M107's produced required testing which consisted of
a radiograph, sectioning, and nose dropping, in that
order. This factor, coupled with an increased production
requirement from ARRADCOM in early October 1979,
to 2,266 shells, created problems which had not been
contemplated by Thiokol.
Also in early October 1979, ARRADCOM imposed a
production and testing requirement of 48 shells per day
on Thiokol so that the December 1979 delivery date
could be met (Resp. Exh. 20).
Thiokol then realized that there would be some diffi-
culty with testing the XM 795 in the manner required by
ARRADCOM. Had the initial production schedules re-
mained intact, test area employees would have been able
to complete the necessary testing in the normal course of
the workday, but because of the delays and increased
production requirements, the time frame for completing
production and testing of the XM 795 for shipment to
the Army's Arizona proving ground was becoming rap-
idly compressed.
Despite ARRADCOM's assurances that radiographic
parameters would be finalized shortly after an October 3,
's As noted earlier, counsel for the General Counsel does not show
how it would be to Thiokol's benefit to move Scott from one area to
another. While a low-level conspiracy might be so interested, it would
not seem that higher management would see any benefit to be gained.
'" The XM 795 involved required several complex production tech-
niques much different from the M107. Additionally, the testing proce-
dures were very different. Finally, it was not until October 15, 1979, that
the X-ray or radiograph standards issue was resolved with the Army.
20 The projectile is placed in a drop fixture and physically dropped on
its nose to simulate the forces the cast would endure upon being loaded
into a howitzer.
1979, meeting with Thiokol, it was not until October 15,
1979, that this problem was resolved. This caused deliv-
ery of the "first article" (a sample of the shells to be pro-
duced) to be delayed so that final manufacturing approv-
al was not received by the Company until mid-Novem-
ber 1979. The December 1979 delivery date, however,
remained unchanged. The Company, therefore, had to
gamble that these projectiles would be acceptable, and so
it commenced testing of the XM 795 in late October.
The delays associated with the XM 795 project, cou-
pled with an overall increase in the production require-
ments and the added edict of ARRADCOM to manufac-
ture and test 48 shells per day, caused Thiokol to sus-
pend testing of other projectiles and concentrate all of its
efforts on the XM 795. Thiokol originally intended to
drop test the XM 795 at the Central Proving Ground
(CPG herein) using the current staff of test area inspec-
tors. At the conclusion of the October 3 and 4 meetings
with ARRADCOM, however, there was some doubt
concerning the feasibility of this plan but, with additional
staffing, it was hoped the program could be completed as
scheduled,
In order to avoid further delays in the XM 795 pro-
ject, Thiokol began nose dropping the projectile at CPG
with unfavorable results. Only eight shells were drop
tested on October 31, 1979, largely because of the re-
moteness of CPG from the production line and associat-
ed transportation problems (Resp. Exh. 22). As a result,
the Company requested permission to nose drop the XM
795 on the production line to eliminate the transportation
problem, but was unable to obtain the parts to construct
another drop test device (Resp. Exh. 22). Thiokol then
instituted a new procedure for handling the shells at
CPG in order to maximize the XM 795 testing effort, but
even these efforts were insufficient because rarely did the
test area inspectors nose drop 48 shells per day even
with two shifts.
(b) Amos and Jackson transferred
At this point, early November, Technical Director
Johnson told the quality control manager to increase the
test area work force by two, a decision with which the
industrial engineering department agreed. On November
8, 1979, a requisition for two additional test area inspec-
tors was forwarded to the personnel department, and
subsequently Mary Amos and J. T. Jackson, both of
whom are black, were permanently assigned to the test
area. 2
In early November 1979, Johnson and Chisholm dis-
cussed the fact that the XM 795 project was temporary
in nature. They decided, however, that the job for these
two people was to be permanent. When the drop testing
of the XM 795 was finished, Johnson was of the opinion
that a contaminated waste incinerator, which at that time
was under construction, would have been finished, and
21 Names of transfer applicants, such as Amos and Jackson, are main-
tained by the personnel office. There is no evidence that Uzzle, Day-
berry, or any other lower level supervision, or even Quality Control
Manager Chisholm had obtained advance knowledge that Amos and
Jackson were the top seniority applicants and that they had greater bar-
gaining unit seniority than Scott.
834
THIOKOL CORPORATION
would have required 80 hours work per week of test
area inspectors time to operate. Johnson testified that this
incinerator was supposed to have been on line no later
than January 1980. It should be noted at this point that
the two new employees to come into the test area as test
area inspectors would come into the area to perform all
of the functions of a test area inspector. Their job was
not to specifically run this incinerator. Johnson's inten-
tions were merely to devote 80 man hours per week out
of the total complement of test area inspectors to run this
incinerator. Johnson signed the requisition for two new
employees on November 8, 1979.
W. G. Bullock, Industrial relations manager, received
this requisition shortly thereafter. At that point, Bullock
testified that he went to the request for transfer file and
found that Mary Amos and John Jackson were the two
senior employees who had requested a transfer to the job
classification of test area inspector. At this point, Amos
and Jackson were referred to the head of quality control
department, R. G. "Buck" Chisholm, who pursuant to
article II11, section B, paragraph 3, of General Counsel's
Exhibit 3, found them to be acceptable for the classifica-
tion. 22 Mary Amos went to work as a test area inspector
on November 19, 1979, and John Jackson began work as
a test area inspector the following week, on November
26, 1979.
4. Scott's December 3 confrontation with Dayberry-
Meeting of December 4
Scott testified that on Monday, December 3, 1979, she
was assigned to saw a shell at the panel in the control
room. After she began sawing, three white employees re-
turned from an errand. Dayberry immediately directed
Scott to go to lunch and employee Mike Triplet (a
white) to finish sawing her shell.
After returning from lunch, Scott asked Dayberry
why he had ordered her to leave. Dayberry merely re-
plied that he wanted her to go to lunch. Scott reminded
him that the operator who starts sawing a shell is nor-
mally allowed to finish. Dayberry said that he was not
James Bryant (Scott's former supervisor) and told Scott
that he was the supervisor. Scott then asked, "Bob, why
do you discriminate against me?" Scott informed Day-
berry that she believed that he was discriminating against
her and had done so in the past. Scott told him that she
wanted a union steward. Dayberry directed the other
employees to leave the control room. When he and Scott
were alone, Dayberry told her to wait while he called
Supervisor Joe West. Scott also talked with West over
the telephone and informed him that she felt her prob-
lems with Dayberry necessitated a discussion with higher
level management. Scott stated that she wanted him,
Buck Chisholm, Bob Dayberry, and the union steward
present.
Approximately 25 minutes later, Bobby Howell, the
union steward, arrived. Scott reminded Howell that she
had been suspended on June 20, 1979, pending possible
termination. Scott explained that she was frightened by
the previous incidents that had occurred between herself
and Dayberry and believed that he was after her. She
-! Under Respondents' theory, once transferees are deemed acceptable,
and thereafter indicate their ability to perform the work, Thiokol has the
affirmative burden to act. within 20 days. to disqualify them
stated she felt the matter could be resolved without a
grievance by a full discussion with higher management.
Howell then arranged a meeting the following day with
West, Dayberry, and Chisholm (who arrived late). At
the Tuesday, December 4, meeting, Scott reminded Day-
berry of many past events. Initially, she recalled that he
had once told her immediate supervisor, James Bryant,
that she and the ordinance inspector were destroying re-
jected items without supervision. Scott specifically stated
that Dayberry accused her of being unfamiliar with the
rejected items and incorrectly referring to them. Scott
explained that she could not have used the wrong termi-
nology, because the items were totally unfamiliar to her.
She recalled that another employee, named Bruno, had
admitted being responsible for the errors that had oc-
curred.
Secondly, Scott said that Dayberry had mistakenly ac-
cused her of failing to place a decontaminated tag in the
correct drawer at BG-5.
Next, she reminded Dayberry that he almost ruined an
entire lot of material by refusing to accept her opinion.
Scott explained that, at that time, she was the most expe-
rienced employee at Central.
Finally, she recalled that Dayberry denied recom-
mending her termination. Upon her conclusion, West
complimented Scott's presentation. West also told Scott
that he did not believe that Dayberry had intentionally
discriminated against her.
After the meeting, Howell and Scott left the room,
discussed the situation, and decided not to file a griev-
ance. Upon re-entering the control room, Scott shook
Dayberry's hand and assured him that she would not
resent justified criticism. Scott said that they were all
adults and she merely wanted to be treated as equally as
others. She did not want to be the subject of discrimina-
tion. According to Scott, Dayberry said, "I don't mean
to discriminate against you, Helenise." Howell an-
nounced that as a result of the meeting, he and Scott had
decided that a grievance was unnecessary. Scott then re-
turned to work.
5. Events of December 5-6
On Wednesday, December 5, 1979, 16 days after Mary
Amos came into the test area, Chisholm and Johnson
were discussing the difficulties they were still having
with the testing. Even with the two additional people
they were having a great deal of difficulty nose dropping
48 XM 795 shells a day, plus trying to keep up with the
testing of the other munitions. As Johnson described it,
"We were just barely keeping our nose above the
water."
During this conversation, Johnson recalled the require-
ment for nose dropping the M107 was not initially envi-
sioned as a permanent requirement. He asked Chisholm
to call the Army and ascertain whether it would approve
deletion of the nose drop test for the M 107; if not a per-
manent deletion, at least for the duration of the produc-
tion of the XM 795. The branch of the Army which
would make this decision was not ARRADCOM from
Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey; it was ARRCOM in
Rock Island, Illinois. If this request were approved, it
835
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
would not only gain man hours which could be devoted
to drop testing the XM 795, it would also allow LAAP
to move the drop test fixture to the S-Line since there
was no safety restriction prohibiting the dropping of the
XM 795 on a production line. This would eliminate a 10-
mile-trip logistical problem.
The next day, Thursday, December 6, 1979,
ARRCOM agreed to suspend the requirement of nose
dropping the M107 for the duration of the XM 795 pro-
ject. Up to this point, Johnson thought that the man
hours worked by the two new test area inspectors could,
once the XM 795 was completed, be devoted to the op-
eration of the new incinerator. Johnson thought that the
incinerator would be turned over by the Army Corps of
Engineers to LAAP for operation in January 1980 and,
at the worst, it would be 2 to 3 weeks late. It should be
noted that the incinerator was under control of a differ-
ent branch of the Army, the Corp of Engineers in New
Orleans, which is different from both ARRADCOM and
ARRCOM. However, around this same time frame, he
found that there were major engineering problems with a
conveyor belt and that the incinerator would not be fin-
ished and delivered for an indeterminate period of time.
On December 6, 1979, Johnson and Chisholm made
the decision to move the drop test fixture to the S-Line.
Because the drop testing of the M107 had been suspend-
ed, the drop test fixture for the drop testing of the XM
795 had been moved to the S-Line, and because the in-
cinerator was not on line, Johnson, at a routine staff
meeting with Chisholm, decided to reduce the work
force of test area inspectors by two persons.
6. Scott is bumped December 6-7
Scott testified that on December 6, 1979, Supervisor
James Bryant instructed Scott and fellow employee Mike
Triplet to immediately report to him in West's office.
Upon arriving, West informed them that the XM 795
projectile had been moved to the S-Line and that it
would no longer be dropped in the test area. He ex-
plained that the projectile's transfer had necessitated a
reduction in force. West informed Scott and Triplet that,
since they had the least bargaining unit seniority, Re-
spondent Union and Respondent Employer had agreed
to demote them.23 West said that they would be placed
on layoff status effective December 7, 1979.
Scott told West that their demotion was unfair, be-
cause they were not the junior employees. She explained
that John T. Jackson, Jr., and Mary Amos, the two new
test area employees, had not been qualified. West merely
23 West did not testify. Thus, there is evidence, through Scott's testi-
mony, that prior to West's notification to Scott on December 6 of her
layoff, Thiokol and the Union had some kind of communication in which
it was determined that Scott and Triplet, and not Amos and Jackson.
would be the ones subject to the RIF. Such a communication is logical.
Even though Respondents do not admit there was such a communication,
and Union President Gilbert denies any prelayoff conference with Thio-
kol, I find that any such prelayoff consultation does not assist in establish-
ing the General Counsel's conspiracy theory. This is so chiefly because I
credit Johnson's testimony regarding the business reasons and time se-
quence for moving the XM 795, and Bullock's testimony, and that of
Union's witnesses, regarding their interpretation of the contractual provi-
sions. That is, I find that their contractual interpretations are not unrea-
sonable and were not motivated by animus against Scott.
repeated what he had stated and handed them a place-
ment form preference card for alternative jobs.
Scott said that she did not have to fill out a card, be-
cause her personnel file contained a completed form. She
inquired whether West knew that the contract provides
for the posting of a 5-day notice in the event of a layoff.
West replied that he was following Chisholm's instruc-
tions. Scott left the office, retrieved her union contract
from her locker, and returned. West instructed her to
wait. He called Chisholm and told him that Scott was
protesting her layoff. West informed Scott that Chisholm
would call back.
Chisholm did not return the call as promised; West
called again. After speaking to Chisholm a second time,
West stated that their reductions had resulted from an
agreement between Union and Thiokol.24 Scott left the
room, walked into the hall, and returned with union ste-
ward Bobby Howell. She related the foregoing conversa-
tion to him and asked whether Respondent Union had
agreed to the demotions. Howell denied being involved
and assured her that he had no prior knowledge of them;
he agreed that her demotion was incorrect. Then,
Howell told West that he would discuss this matter with
the personnel director and contact him the following
day. Howell did not testify.
After being informed of her demotion, Scott ap-
proached Supervisor James Bryant in his office on De-
cember 6, 1979. She inquired whether he had qualified
Amos and Jackson. Bryant replied in the negative and
explained that he had not sufficient time to do so. He
stated he had worked with Amos only 3 days and had
never worked with Jackson. Bryant did not testify.
Bryant's words confirmed Scott's belief that Amos and
Jackson had not been qualified since they entered the
test area 3 weeks earlier. Scott felt that an immediate in-
vestigation was warranted.
That night Howell called Union President Verdis Gil-
bert to discuss the situation. Gilbert testified that the dis-
cussion between Howell and him centered around the
issue of whether Amos and Jackson should have stayed
in the test area notwithstanding the fact that they had
not been there 20 days when the reduction in force oc-
curred. Gilbert concluded the conversation by telling
Howell that the next morning he would set up a meeting
with Thiokol to investigate the matter.
That same night, Scott called Verdis Gilbert. They
discussed her grievance which she expressed in two
parts. First, according to Gilbert, Scott contended that
since Amos and Jackson had not been in the test area 20
days when the reduction in force came, they were not
"qualified to do the remaining work." Second, she stated
that Thiokol had created an artificial vacancy because
there was no work for Amos and Jackson to do when
they came into the area.
It was Gilbert's opinion that under article 11-B-4 a
person could demonstrate his ability to perform the job
2 Chisholm apparently was reporting to West what Personnel Supervi-
sor Dart (who did not testify) had told Chisholm. Although the General
Counsel did not offer this admission for the truth of the matter, I find
that oversight immaterial since West said essentially the same when noti-
fying Scott of her layoff.
836
THIOKOL CORPORATION
on any day from I to 20. His interpretation of article 11-
C-2 was that when a person had demonstrated his ability
to perform the job, he or she was automatically qualified
to do the remaining work. Gilbert also told Scott during
the same telephone conversation that it was his interpre-
tation of the contract that Thiokol under the manage-
ment's rights clause of the contract (art. 4) had the exclu-
sive right either to qualify or disqualify people in a par-
ticular position. That same night of December 6, 1979,
Gilbert telephoned Charles Land, a former president of
the Union, and the chief steward in the maintenance
group, and asked for his opinion on the contract clauses.
Land's opinion was the same as Gilbert's.
7. December 7 meeting between the Union and
Thiokol
The next day, December 7, 1979, a meeting took place
between Thiokol and the Union to discuss Scott's situa-
tion. Present for the Union were Verdis Gilbert and ste-
ward Bobby Howell. Present for Thiokol were W. G.
Bullock, industrial relations manager; R. G. Chisholm,
quality control manager, and Personnel Assistant John
Dart. Gilbert testified that he informed Thiokol of the
Union's interpretation of the contract. The first question
Gilbert asked was how Amos and Jackson got into the
department to begin with. Bullock, as Thiokol's chief
spokesman, responded that the workload of the test serv-
ices department was being increased in that it would
have to drop test 48 XM 795 projectiles per day and that
this necessitated the adding of an additional shift of
people. Gilbert was also shown a letter from the Depart-
ment of the Army establishing this level of production.
The next question which Gilbert addressed was why,
if the workload had been increased, was it necessary to
reduce the complement of personnel in the test services
department by two? In response to this, Gilbert was in-
formed that the Army had approved Chisholm's request
to move the drop test fixture and, therefore, the drop
testing of the XM 795 from the test area (CPG) to S-
Line. At this point, Gilbert was shown another commu-
nication from the Army approving the movement of the
drop test fixture and the drop testing of the XM 795.25
Gilbert initiated a third inquiry. He asked whether
Scott was being reduced out of the test area in any part
because of her individual actions or having filed griev-
ances in the past. Thiokol denied any such motivation.
Chisholm also told Gilbert during the course of this
meeting that Amos and Jackson had been qualified in the
job of test area inspector. At the end of the meeting, Gil-
bert took no final position on the matter but told the
Company that he would make further inquiries and
return to them with his position.
Before reaching a final decision as to the merits of the
grievance, Gilbert consulted all of the local union's chief
stewards for their interpretation of the contract language
involved. The people consulted were Herod Thomas,
Bobby Howell, James Clark, and as mentioned above,
Charles Land. He also consulted International Union
Representative Jack Williamson (who testified at the
2s No party offered the Army's letters as exhibits.
hearing). Their opinion of the interpretation of the
clauses was the same as his.
8. Scott files a grievance
On December 7, 1979, Scott reported to her job on
"C" shift. After arriving, she went to the gauge lab and
asked if Howell had filed a grievance on her behalf.
Howell answered in the negative and informed her that
he and Verdis Gilbert had met with Thiokol that morn-
ing. Howell explained that, during the meeting, Gilbert
had shown him article II of the collective-bargaining
agreement, which contains the 20-day qualification pro-
vision. Howell stated that he and Gilbert had agreed that
an employee is not required to remain in a department
for 20 days to be qualified. Howell telephoned Gilbert
and asked him to repeat this interpretation to Scott.
While talking to Gilbert, Scott asked whether he had
filed a grievance. Gilbert stated that the contract con-
tained the word "within" and that he had to talk to Jack
Williamson, Respondent Union's International repre-
sentative. However, he promised to contact her as soon
as they had spoken.
On December 7, 1979, Scott and Triplet were ap-
proached at their work area by Chisholm and West.
Scott informed them that she believed that their demo-
tion was unfair. Chisholm expressed his regret and said
that the order to relocate the XM 795 had to be moved
immediately, because dropping of the M107 should have
been eliminated much earlier. Chisholm stated that he
hoped the test area work would increase so that Scott
and Triplet could be recalled. Scott said that if Amos
and Jackson had been returned to their previous classifi-
cation layoffs would have been unnecessary.
On the evening of December 7, 1979, Scott also talked
to Gilbert from the jobsite. According to Scott, Gilbert
told her that she had a good case for the National Labor
Relations Board. He specifically accused Thiokol of dis-
criminatorily qualifying Amos and Jackson. 26 However,
Gilbert explained that he agreed with Thiokol's interpre-
tation of the contract and was, therefore, unable to file a
grievance. Scott testified that Gilbert assured her he
would call her immediately after talking to Williamson.
Gilbert failed to call Scott as promised, so Scott at-
tempted to contact International Union Representative
Jack Williamson. On Saturday, December 8, 1979, Scott
called Williamson in Texarkana. When a lady answered
the telephone, Scott identified herself and explained that
she was trying to reach Williamson. According to Scott,
the lady excused herself and a man then answered the
telephone. Scott introduced herself again and explained
that she worked at Thiokol's Louisiana facility. The man
told her that she had reached the wrong number and
hung up.
Scott then called Gilbert and reminded him that he
had failed to contact her as promised. She explained her
unsuccessful attempts to reach Williamson. Gilbert veri-
fied that Scott had used the correct telephone number.
He reported speaking to Williamson on the previous day,
:6 Why Gilbert., at that late date. sAould so state is unclear I credit his
denial of these allegations
837
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
but informed Scott that winning a grievance on her
behalf would be impossible.
Undaunted by these rebuffs, Scott again attempted to
reach Williamson. Once again a lady answered. After
Scott explained the purpose of the call, the woman in-
formed her that she had reached a wrong number and
hung up.
On December 11, 1979, Scott talked to Verdis Gilbert
at her work station in the x-ray building. Scott said that
she had followed his advice and had contacted the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board. She explained that Board
representatives had suggested filing a grievance with the
Union. Scott told Gilbert, "Verdis, there was not a job
in the test area." She explained that the XM 795 was a
temporary assignment. Scott stated that during October
1979 the employees had worked overtime to perform the
same tests.
She told Gilbert that Buck Chisholm had met with test
area employees in October 1979. At that gathering, he
complimented them on meeting their schedules and in-
formed them that the XM 795 was not test area work.
Rather, it was scheduled for S-Line. Chisholm said that
although Thiokol had encountered safety problems plac-
ing it on the S-Line, certain orders had to be filled imme-
diately. He said that the orders were backlogged. He ex-
plained that the test area was selected because it already
had a dropping fixture that had been used for the M107.
He also notified the employees that a new environmental
chamber had been built. Chisholm explained that the T-6
area would soon begin working on this chamber, which
would destroy scrap and waste. Then, Chisholm an-
nounced that the increased work had necessitated the ad-
dition of two new employees and a supervisor in the test
area.
After hearing the above explanation, Gilbert told Scott
that he wanted to talk to Buck Chisholm. Scott stated, "I
am asking you one more time to file a grievance." Scott
assured him that she would provide the needed evidence.
Finally, she reiterated that Amos and Jackson were tem-
porarily brought to the test area to fill a nonexistent va-
cancy. Gilbert promised again to contact her after talk-
ing to Chisholm and reviewing the job order of the XM
795. Gilbert, however, never called.
Gilbert testified that after his telephone conversation
with Scott on December 7 he consulted four other
sources. Moreover, he even accepted two "collect" tele-
phone calls to his home from Scott over the next several
days. In these calls, Scott, among other things, asked
Gilbert to call Jesse Clyde Moore, a former president of
the local union, and ask him his opinion of the situation.
Also during these same conversations, the clause in arti-
cle 11-C-2 of "qualified to do the remaining work" was
discussed. Gilbert again stated his position that the man-
agement rights clause made it the exclusive province of
the Company to qualify or disqualify people. Gilbert
telephoned Moore and learned that his opinion of the in-
terpretation of the contractual language involved was the
same as that of Gilbert's. Gilbert next went to the union
hall and spent several evenings digging out old arbitra-
tion cases on this language. What he found, he testified,
supported his interpretation of the contract.
Scott, in one of the calls, raised the issue with Gilbert
that Amos and Jackson could not have been qualified be-
cause they were never trained. Before reaching a deci-
sion on the merits, Gilbert investigated this. He contact-
ed other employees in the department to ascertain the
truth of this allegation. He also questioned Thiokol on
this. He was told by Thiokol that they were being
trained on crews with experienced test area inspectors in
areas different from where Scott was working. The issue
was raised as to the amount of work in the test area. Gil-
bert pursued this matter by putting the question to Mary
Frances Roberts, another test area inspector. What she
told him confirmed what the Company had said. There
was an abundance of work in the test area. Finally, at
this point, satisfied that the contract had not been violat-
ed by the demotion of Scott, Gilbert called Bullock and
informed him that the Union found no contract violation
and would, therefore, not pursue the grievance of Helen-
ise Scott.
Scott testified that when Gilbert failed to call her she
called Howell. Scott stated, "I want you to file the
grievance." She explained that the Company had created
a vacancy where none existed. Howell replied that he
had to talk to Gilbert. Scott reminded him that as a ste-
ward he was obliged to file her grievance. Howell
merely repeated that he would call Gilbert. However, he
warned Scott that if Gilbert ordered him not to file it
then he could not do anything.
Although Scott was unable to obtain assistance from
Gilbert, she secured the interest of James Clark, chief
steward over C-Line. On December 12, 1979, Clark
called Scott and said that he understood that she was
having difficulty filing a grievance. Scott agreed and ex-
plained that she protested the fact that Respondent Em-
ployer had created a vacancy where none existed. She
said that they had hired too many employees in the test
area. Then, in less than 20 days she and Triplet were laid
off. Clark assured Scott that he would sign the grievance
if it was written. She provided the written grievance to
him, and he signed and mailed the grievance to person-
nel on December 13, 1979.
On December 13, 1979, Gilbert returned to work and
approached Scott at her work station. Gilbert said that
he had talked to Williamson and that there would be a
union meeting the following Monday or Tuesday. When
Scott notified him that she had filed her grievance, he
asked whether Howell had assisted her. She replied in
the negative. Scott informed him that she had personally
filed it and that Clark had signed it.
On December 14, 1979, Scott went to have Supervisor
Bubba Banks sign her timecard. When she arrived, he
asked why she had filed a grievance against him. Scott
denied doing so. Banks said that Gilbert had informed
him of the grievance. Scott stated that she had no reason
to file a grievance against him. She explained that Banks'
name was only given as her immediate supervisor. Scott
specifically noticed that during her conversation with
Banks, he displayed a critical attitude toward her when
discussing her grievance.
After talking to Banks, Scott proceeded to the lunch-
room where she saw Verdis Gilbert. She immediately
838
THIOKOL CORPORATION
asked whether he had told Banks that she had filed a
grievance against him. Gilbert laughed and asked wheth-
er she filed one. Scott replied that she was entitled to file
one at any step. She stated that it was filed in the fourth
step because that was the appropriate stage.27 Then,
Scott told Gilbert that if he kept her as well informed
about Thiokol as he informed them about her he would
be a better president.
Lynn Grigsby, a maintenance technician at Thiokol's
facility, called as a witness by the General Counsel, testi-
fied that while in his work area, around the second week
of December 1979, he talked to Gilbert. 28 Grigsby said
that Gilbert called Scott stupid and asked if he knew that
she had filed a grievance. Gilbert said that he had at-
tempted to help her but did not intend to make himself
look little. Grigsby reminded Gilbert that he was obliged
to assist anyone regardless of the merits of their com-
plaint. Gilbert told Grigsby that he had already agreed
on what to do and did not intend to stick his neck out.
Then Gilbert stated that he was responsible for people
with the most plant seniority staying in the test area.
Grigsby further testified that Gilbert explained that he
had arranged for "them" to transfer to different classifi-
cations. Grigsby said that transfers had been in existence
for years and were not new. Gilbert replied that the
transfers were not a new system, and that whenever
Thiokol wanted to change something they notified him.
Grigsby said that Thiokol was supposed to notify Gil-
bert. Then Gilbert, referring to Scott, said, "They moved
her out on account of her big mouth." Grigsby stated
that Scott was entitled to her own opinion, and if she felt
that Respondent Employer had mistreated her she was
entitled to complain to the chief steward, job steward,
president or vice president, and to have the problem cor-
rected. Gilbert insisted, however, that he did not intend
to stick his neck out and that Scott was on her own.
Grigsby testified that he told Gilbert that such was a bad
policy for him, as president of the Union, to have. Gil-
bert then stated, "Man do you know I have a grievance
in my pocket and I'm not going to let it go any further
because the Company and I had already agreed on what
to do. I arranged for Mary Amos and Jackson to transfer
into the Test Area. When Grigsby inquired how that
was done, Gilbert replied, Well you have to know some-
body and I know somebody." Then Gilbert related that
Williamson called and confirmed that Scott had attempt-
ed to reach him. Williamson also confirmed that he told
Scott that she had an incorrect number. Finally, Gilbert
told Grigsby that Clark was wrong in filing Scott's
grievance. Gilbert explained that all stewards are re-
quired to contact him before taking action and he intend-
ed to call Clark and reprimand him. 29
27 Grievances involving layoffs commence at the fourth step of the
grievance procedure under art. 9, step 4, sec. 7 (G.C. Exh. 3).
"' This conversation appears to have followed Gilbert's investigation of
Scott's layoff and his notification to Thiokol that the Union would not
proceed further on her grievance.
29 Gilbert denied ever speaking with Grigsby about Scott's grievance
other than at the December 18, 1979, union meeting (to be covered short-
ly). Based in part on demeanor, and also on Grigsby's at times confusing
testimony I do not credit his testimony regarding Gilbert. It also seems
very strange that Gilbert would so conveniently make such admissions to
Grigshy after Gilbert's investigation-and in the face of Grigsbh's com-
James Clark testified that on December 14, 1979, he
received a telephone call from Verdis Gilbert in which
Gilbert asked him why he signed Scott's grievance.
When Clark replied that he thought she had a justified
complaint, Gilbert reprimanded him for signing it. Gil-
bert told Clark that Scott's grievance was outside of his
jurisdiction.
During the same week as the above conversation,
Clark talked to Howell on C-line. According to Clark,
Howell asked why he had signed Scott's grievance.
Howell stated that he had acted incorrectly. Clark re-
plied that he believed his action was correct.
On December 17, 1979, Scott made one final effort to
have Thiokol resolve her grievance. On that day, she
telephoned John Dart, group supervisor in personnel,
and asked when they could meet. Dart informed her that
he had given her grievance to Gilbert. Scott asked why
and reminded him that Gilbert had not filed it, that she
did. Dart said that Gilbert was the union president. Scott
explained that Gilbert had denied having the grievance
when they spoke. Dart replied by saying that he mailed
the grievance and that Gilbert may not have received it.
Then Scott stated, "Mr. Dart, I'm not getting any repre-
sentation at all from my union and I'm very sincere
about this grievance. I feel like its my right. I have a
right to file my own grievance. I have a right to meet
with the Company." Dart, however, only suggested that
she keep her composure and discuss the grievance with
Gilbert. Scott reminded him that she had been a member
of the executive board, had held local office, and knew
the contract well. Scott repeated that she should be able
to meet with the Company. Dart merely replied, "You
get with Verdis." Dart did not testify.
9. Special union meeting of December 18
On December 18, 1979, the Union held a meeting at
the union hall for all test area inspectors. Among those
present were Williamson, Gilbert, Scott, and between
12-30 others (all recollections regarding numbers dif-
fered). The meeting was opened by Gilbert, who report-
ed his version of the events. He then introduced Jack
Williamson. According to Scott, Williamson discussed
the interpretation of several contract clauses. He then
discussed the circumstances of her case with the mem-
bership and informed them of the parties' respective posi-
tions. Scott asked Gilbert if he would admit that Amos
and Jackson were brought to the test area when a vacan-
cy did not exist. Gilbert replied that he could not dictate
where Thiokol should place a job or whom it should
qualify. He then quoted the seniority clause. Finally,
Williamson recited the seniority clause and supplied a
complete explanation. Scott also recalled another ste-
ward, Herod Thomas, commenting on the seniority
clause.
ments favorable to Scott interspersed between Gilbert's alleged remarks.
Moreover, at one point Grigsby asserted that he thought Gilbert cooked
up the whole deal with Thiokol in order to get Amos and Jackson trans-
ferred into the test area, yet a few moments later he denied this. In short,
I find Grigsby to he an unreliable witness. and I do not credit his testimo-
ny. However, even if I were to credit it. most of the assertions seem to
be little more than expressions by Gilbert of his frustration at Scott for
her not accepting the results of his investigation
839
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At the meeting, Scott denied disputing the seniority
clause. Rather, she explained that Respondent Employer
had transferred Amos and Jackson into the test area
when there were no vacancies. Scott reminded Gilbert
that he had promised to call her after speaking to Chis-
holm, but had failed to do so. Gilbert responded by ex-
plaining that the XM 795 could not be placed on the S-
Line without the approval of safety. Gilbert again reiter-
ated that he could not tell Thiokol where to send the
XM 795. At that point, Lynn Grigsby and Charles Land,
past union officers, joined the discussion. They asked
how Respondent Union could justify allowing the trans-
fer of a $5 per hour job to another area and reducing its
pay to $4.80 per hour. Williamson merely repeated that
the Union could not dictate the location of work. How-
ever, he assured them that there had been wage discus-
sions and that they would continue.
Gilbert testified that he brought up and discussed the
fact in this meeting that because Scott had previously
brought up the issue of Amos and Jackson not being
trained, he had investigated this aspect of the case. He
related that by questioning Thiokol and employees, in
the test area, he had found that Amos and Jackson had,
in fact, been trained by experienced employees, but in lo-
cations where Scott had not been working.
Scott testified that "I agreed with the Seniority Clause
but the interpretation of some of the language and some
of the paragraphs, I disagreed." Scott's position was that
because Amos and Jackson had not been trained they
could not do the remaining work, and they should have
been reduced out the department even though they had
greater bargaining seniority than she did. Although Scott
states at one point in the record that at the time she filed
her grievance, she did not know if Amos and Jackson
were qualified, she states that at the meeting on Decem-
ber 18, 1979, she was trying to make the point that, "I
said they were not qualified to perform because they had
not had the training."
After the meeting, Scott approached Gilbert and asked
whether he was finished with her. He allegedly replied,
"You show the Company such stupidity in filing a griev-
ance at the fourth step, which is my step as president."
Scott corrected him for calling her stupid. She explained
that someone had to file a grievance because he would
not and he had forbidden Howell to do so. Gilbert stated
that he had reprimanded Clark for signing it and told
him that Scott could have filed it in the second step.
Scott reminded Gilbert that Jackson had flunked the
hearing test but was sent to the test area when her griev-
ance was filed. Gilbert agreed. He explained that once
Jackson is accepted in the test area he had to stay. Then
Gilbert said, "Your mouth, Helenise, your mouth is the
cause of the Company creating this situation and using
this union book to get you." Finally, Gilbert warned her
to watch her step because her phone calls were being
monitored. When Scott asked Gilbert which calls he
meant, he said the ones to him. James Clark also over-
heard this conversation. He corroborated the fact that
Gilbert blamed Scott's mouth for her demotion. 3 0
30 Although Gilbert denied the reference to telephone monitoring, he
did not specifically deny the testimony that he told Scott her mouth was
the cause of her problems and that Thiokol was using the contract to
Reverend John L. Moore, a material handler at Re-
spondent Employer's facility, testified that he had a simi-
lar conversation with Herod Thomas on approximately
December 10, 1979. Moore accused the Union of mis-
treating Scott by allowing her to be demoted from the
test area. He explained that she had worked in the test
area approximately 9 months before Amos and Jackson
arrived. According to Moore, Thomas replied, "Yeah,
we did sort of do her wrong but if she would shut her
big mouth, we're going to get her back over there."
Thomas then explained that Jackson who had been trans-
ferred into the test area had taken the test for guard but
had failed the hearing test.
Herod Thomas testified that after the meeting Helenise
Scott was engaged in a conversation with several people
and he specifically heard her say "They got me. They
got me. I will get even with them for it." On rebuttal,
Thomas denied Moore's testimony, although he concedes
he did say to Moore that the latter had a big mouth, and
that Scott would be able to return to the test area when-
ever there was an opening.
C. Independent 8(a)(l) Allegations
1. Supervisor Bubba Banks
Scott testified without contradiction that on December
14, 1979, Supervisor Bubba Banks asked her, "Why did
you file a grievance on me?" Scott denied doing so.
Banks told her that his information had come from Gil-
bert. Scott clearly recalled Banks displaying a critical at-
titude and tone of voice toward her prior to this discus-
sion.
Thiokol failed to present Banks or to offer any valid
reason why he did not appear at the hearing to give tes-
timony. I therefore draw an inference that Banks' testi-
mony would have been adverse to Thiokol had Banks
testified. Accordingly, such conduct is found to be viola-
tive of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act as alleged in paragraph
I of the consolidated complaint.
2. Supervisor John Dart
Scott testified, without contradiction, that on Decem-
ber 17, 1979, she had a telephone conversation with John
Dart, Thiokol's personnel group supervisor. According
to Scott, she telephoned Dart and asked when they
could discuss her grievance. He informed her that her
grievance had been given to Gilbert. Scott said that Re-
spondent Union was not representing her and that she
was acting individually. Scott stated that she believed
she was entitled to do so. Dart, however, merely sug-
gested that she maintain her composure and call Gilbert.
Thiokol failed to present Dart or to offer any valid ex-
planation for his absence. As Thiokol failed to produce
any evidence to rebut the incident related above, I find
that the conduct occurred as alleged.3'
'get" her. Even assuming Gilbert made the mouth/union-book remark to
Scott on December 18, 1 find that it falls short of demonstrating that Gil-
bert failed to accord Scott fair representation or that Thiokol officials dis-
criminated against Scott.
a, Paragraph 15 of the consolidated complaint alleges that on or about
December 17, 1979. Thiokol (no supervisor's name stated) "refused to
Contnued
840
THIOKOL CORPORATION
D. Analysis and Concluding Findings
1. Contract article I -Amos and Jackson not
disqualified
Past practice regarding a layoff within the 20-day
period apparently is limited to one situation occurring in
1973 involving Clyde Rushing and three other employ-
ees. 32 However, at best, the evidence is ambiguous.
Rushing testified that although he was not told he had
been disqualified, he did state that the Company did ask
him to return to his former department in order to avoid
laying off any of the people already there. Rushing had
greater bargaining unit seniority than the employees who
remained and who had been there longer than 20 days,
and he, steward Willard Williams, and Jesse Moore, the
then president of the Union, thought that Rushing should
not be sent back to his former department. Although
Rushing testified he could not protest because he had
been there less than 20 days, in fact a grievance was
filed. Moore testified that he settled it with Personnel
Manager Smallwood on the basis that Rushing would be
the next person given the opportunity to transfer into re-
ceiving and shipping when production picked up.
Moore testified that Rushing and others were dissatis-
fied with the "settlement," that "they cussed me pretty
good, but I told them that's the way it were, that they
weren't there for twenty days and they would be given
the opportunity to go back."
The General Counsel and the Union both rely on the
Rushing case as support for their respective positions.
However, I find it to be ambiguous and not serving to
establish a past practice which would justify an inference
of unlawful motivation by Thiokol's departing therefrom
in Scott's case-especially where, as here, any "depar-
ture" has been followed in identical situations in 1980.
Thus, in one instance in which a layoff has occurred
since Scott's, Respondents followed the same contract in-
terpretation applied in Scott's situation.3 3
Quality Control Manager Chisholm credibly testified
that he personally observed Amos and Jackson working
on several occasions during the period in question, and
that he was favorably impressed with their performance.
He further testified, in effect, that when Thiokol took no
action to disqualify Amos and Jackson, they were con-
sidered qualified. Whether this interpretation (shared by
Bullock and other witnesses of Respondents) of the con-
tract clause (art. I l-B-4 and I -C-2) is correct is relevant
only in the sense that a clearly unreasonable interpreta-
meet with Scott to discuss her grievance which she filed on December
13, 1979."
" Respondents objected to this evidence on the basis that the event oc-
curred under the 1971-74 contract with Sperry Rand. I affirm my over-
ruling of the objection. Not only is Thiokol Sperry Rand's successor at
the LAAP, it adopted the then-existing contract and recognized the se-
niority of the unit employees involved here. On the other hand, while I
deem the evidence admissible, I do not consider it controlling, particular-
ly since it is ambiguous and involved but a single event. Finally. I note
that the complaint does riot allege a departure from past practice as an
unilateral change prohibited by Sec. 8(a)(5) of the Act
" In a June 1980 layoff, Dinver G. Williams remained in the H-341
classification when Ledford Driskell humped Mary Maniscalco out. Al-
though Williams had been in the classification only 7 days. she remained.
and Maniscalco had to go, because Williams had greater bargaining unit
seniorit) than the former (Resp. Exh 1. p 5).
tion might be evidence tending to support the General
Counsel's case. In light of the entire record, I find that
the evidence falls short of demonstrating that Respond-
ents' interpretation of article 11 of the contract was dis-
criminatorily motivated against Scott.
2. XM 795-Vacancies-Scott's alleged 8(a)(l)
layoff
As earlier noted, Technical Director Johnson testified
in an unhesitating, straightforward, and persuasive
manner, and I credit his testimony fully. Personnel Su-
pervisor Bullock testified in a similar fashion, and I
credit him completely. While I was not nearly as im-
pressed with the demeanor of Quality Control Manager
Chisholm as I was with Johnson and Bullock, I do credit
his testimony in essential respects. Accordingly, I find
that the vacancies appeared real to Thiokol and were
filled with Amos and Jackson without regard to any ad-
verse consideration of Scott by the latter's coworkers
and first-line supervisors.34
I further find that the XM 795's move to the S-Line
was economically motivated and not based on any ad-
verse consideration against Scott.
It follows, and I find, that the evidence is insufficient
to establish that Thiokol and the Union prearranged
Scott's layoff for proscribed reasons. Accordingly, I shall
recommend that complaint paragraphs 14, 16, and 18,
which allege that Thiokol violated Section 8(a)(l) of the
Act in laying off Scott, be dismissed.
3. Independent 8(a)(1) allegations
As noted earlier, I have found that Thiokol, through
Supervisors Banks and Dart, violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act as alleged in paragraphs 11 and 15.
4. The 8(b)(1)(A) allegations
In light of the foregoing, I find the complaint allega-
tions of violations of Section 8(b)(l)(A) by the Union to
be without merit. Thus, the Union did not fail to repre-
sent Scott fairly; did not act for arbitrary reasons; and
did not investigate Scott's grievance in a perfunctory
manner. Accordingly, I shall recommend that paragraphs
12(b) and (c), 13, and 17 of the consolidated complaint
be dismissed.
a" As may be gleaned from my findings, it may well be that Scott's
coworkers and first-line supervisors in the test area did not like her be-
cause of personality differences. Indeed, they may earnestly have desired
that she be transferred. But even if such were true, such fact does not
establish a causal link to the business need, to la) off two test area in-
spectors. The General Counsel has shown no possible reason, motive. or
explanation of how Thiokol would profit by has ing Scott move from one
departmelnt to another. There is no showing as to why the managers who
made the decisions, particularly Johnson, would have been even remotely
interested in such a move. It may be true that some circumstances herein.
because of the coincidence of events, could cause reasonable persons to
be suspicious of the reasons for the XM 795 transfer and subsequent
layoff of Scott Suspicions. however, do not overcome the positive expla-
nations of Johnson and Bullock.
841
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. Respondent Thiokol is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act.
2. Respondent Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent Thiokol has violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act by coercively interrogating Helenise Scott con-
cerning the grievance she filed on December 13, 1979,
and by referring her to Respondent Union on or about
December 17, 1979, and by refusing her request that
Thiokol's representatives discuss directly with her the
grievance she filed individually.
4. The acts and conduct of Respondent Thiokol, de-
scribed above in Conclusion of Law 3, constitute unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The General Counsel has not established that Re-
spondent Thiokol has violated the Act in any manner
other than as found above in Conclusions of Law 3 and
4.
6. The General Counsel has not established that Re-
spondent Union has violated the Act in any manner.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent Thiokol has engaged in
unfair labor pactices as set forth above, I shall recom-
mend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom, to
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act, and to post signed and dated copies
of an appropriate notice to employees. While the unfair
labor practices are not extensive, they involve employ-
ees' ability to freely utilize the contractual grievance pro-
cedure in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. Accord-
ingly, a notice to employees is appropriately ordered.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following
recommended:
ORDER 35
The Respondent, Thiokol Corporation, Louisiana Di-
vision, Shreveport, Louisiana, it officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall:
35 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
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively interrogating its employees concerning
grievances they may file under the collective-bargaining
agreement.
(b) Referring its employees to Respondent Union and
refusing to discuss with such employees grievances they
may have filed individually under the collective-bargain-
ing agreement.
(c) In any like or related manner interferring with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its Shreveport, Louisiana, facility signed
and dated copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix."3 6 Copies of said notices on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 15, after being duly signed
and dated by a representative of Respondent Thiokol,
shall be posted by Thiokol immediately upon receipt
thereof, and shall 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 Thiokol to
insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent Thiokol has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the consolidated com-
plaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the
Act by Respondent Thiokol not found herein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the consolidated com-
plaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the
Act by Respondent Union.
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.
*6 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 Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
842