United States Steel Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 5, 1975

216 N.L.R.B. 874 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

874 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
United States Steel Corporation, Lorain Works and
Rex M. Waldron. Case 8-CA-8277
March 5, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
On November 8, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
Sidney D. Goldberg issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions.
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 has
decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclu-
sions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt
his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that Respondent, United States Steel
Corporation, Lorain Works, Lorain, Ohio, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order.
1 In adopting the Administrative Law Judge 's determination that
Polansky was not a credible witness , we do not rely upon his finding that a
conflict existed between the testimony of Polansky and Barton regarding
company policy of step-by-step discipline . We find merit in the Respond-
ent's exception that there was no absolute pattern . In effect , both witnesses
so testified.
DECISION
SIDNEY D. GOLDBERG, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard before me at Lorain , Ohio, on July 2, 1974.
The facts are undisputed: the question for decision is
whether the employee's discharge was in retaliation for his
concerted activities or because of his absence from work
without adequate justification.
The complaint herein,' pursuant to Section 10(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended (the Act),
alleges that United States Steel Corporation (the Compa-
ny) at its Lorain Works, suspended and subsequently
discharged Rex M. Waldron, the charging party, because
he had engaged in concerted activities on behalf of the
Rank and File Committee (the Committee) of the United
Steelworkers of America (the Union) and his attendance at
i Issued May 13, 1974, on a charge filed March 29, 1974.
the trial of a civil action involving the Committee, the
Union and the Company.
The Company answered, admitting that it had dis-
charged Waldron, but denying that it was in retaliation for
his concerted activities, and it set up, as an affirmative
defense, the existence of a collective-bargaining contract
between the Company and the Union which contains
provisions for the adjustment of complaints and grievances
through stated procedures.
The issues so raised came on for trial before me as set
forth above. All parties were present or represented by
counsel; they were afforded an opportunity to present
evidence, cross-examine witnesses , and argue on the facts
and the law. During the trial, Respondent moved that
consideration of the issues herein be deferred pending their
resolution through the grievance procedure in the contract.
The motion was denied for the reasons stated at the time
and more fully set forth herein. Helpful briefs filed by the
General Counsel and by counsel for the Company have
been carefully considered.
For the reasons hereafter set forth in detail, I find that
the Company discharged Waldron because of his activities
on behalf of the committee and that its assigned reason for
discharging him, unjustified absence, was a pretext.
Upon the entire record herein 2 and considering the
demeanor of the witnesses while testifying, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Parties
The Company admits that at its Lorain Works it
annually imports into the State of. Ohio , and exports
therefrom , goods and materials valued at more than
$50,000 and that it is an employer engaged in commerce. I
so find.
It is admitted that the union is a labor organization and I
so find.
Background
Waldron became an employee of the Company on
January 29, 1973, in a shipping department of the rolling
mill under the supervision of General Foreman Mike
Polansky. After about 4 months, during which he had
difficulties with that type of work, he requested and
received a transfer to the billet-conditioning department of
the rolling mill, also under the supervision of Polansky, and
he was there until his discharge on March 25, 1974.
While Waldron's function in the billet-conditioning
department was that of a general laborer, his principal
work was to turn steel billets. These billets are strips of
steel about 36 to 40 feet long, weighing over 2 tons, and the
turning operation is performed by two men using a 40-
pound tool about 5 feet long.
In accordance with the provisions of the collective-
bargaining contract, Waldron became a member of the
union. From the beginning, however, he allied himself with
2 Typographical errors in the transcript of proceedings have been
corrected by order dated October 31, 1974.
216 NLRB No. 162
U.S. STEEL CORP., LORAIN WORKS
a dissident group within the union. In June 1973, this
group assumed a more formal status as the Rank and File
Committee and it backed an employee named George
Edwards as a candidate for president of the Union .3
Waldron became cochairman of the committee and
chairman of the Edwards for President Committee.
He also participated actively in the preparation and
distribution of a publication of the committee called
"Voices from the Mill," writing articles critical of both
company management and officials of the Union. Compa-
ny officials, including Polansky, James Barton, superin-
tendent of the rolling mill, and William J. Teves,
superintendent of personal services at the Lorain Works,
all conceded that they were aware of the existence of the
rank-and-file committee and of Waldron's involvement in
its activities.
In addition to his participation in the committee's
activities and in preparation of "Voices from the Mill,"
Waldron was one of the three employees - Edwards and
Bruce Bostick were the others - who were most active in
passing out copies of this publication and other leaflets of
the committee at the plant entrances and other places
inside the plant. Teves testified that there were about 12
separate distributions by the committee during 1973 and
early 1974.
In October 1973, while Waldron, Edwards, and Bostick
were passing out literature at the plant entrances, a
lieutenant of the company security force compelled them
to desist. The Committee sent a letter of protest to Teves,
by registered mail; Teves called Edwards into his office
and verbally approved the distribution.
The 2,500 copies of the issue of Voices from the Mill
dated "Feb-Mar 1974" were received from the printer by
the committee on February 28. Some of the copies were
taken , by Waldron and the others, into the mill on March 1
and 2 and distributed there without incident. On March 21,
however, when Waldron and the others attempted to pass
out this issue at the gate, the guards stated that "there had
been a change in company policy" and that distribution of
the paper at the gate would no longer be permitted. Teves
was away at the time so the committee saw an official
named Orban in the Company's labor relations depart-
ment ; Orban insisted that it was company policy not to
permit distribution of literature and that any previous
relaxation of the policy would not be repeated. When
Teves' approval of the distribution of committee literature
the previous October was called to Orban's attention, he
disclaimed any knowledge of it; he refused to modify the
Company's position , and threatened to arrest anyone who
distributed the literature .4 On March 27 Edwards filed a
charge with the Board claiming this company conduct as
interference with employees' rights under Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act. After the investigation of the charge by Board
agents, Teves wrote Edwards a letter, dated April 19, 1974,
stating that a meeting had been held in his office on April
16; that at the meeting he and Orban represented the
Company and that Edwards and Waldron were also
present; that Edwards and Waldron had pointed out their
right, under the Act, to distribute literature in nonworking
3 Edwards received almost 20 percent of the votes cast
375
areas of the plant during nonworking time and that the
company officials agreed that this right existed. The letter
stated that Edwards and Waldron might distribute litera-
ture at the gate, with due care to avoid interference with
traffic, and that the charge would be withdrawn. Edwards
and Waldron endorsed the letter and withdrew the charge.
In addition to the foregoing interferences with the
committee's distribution of literature, both Bostick and
Waldron testified, without contradiction, that supervisors
within the plant had harassed them while they were
distributing rank-and-file literature and "Impeach Nixon"
stickers. Bostick testified that General Foreman Gorman
and Foreman Waterstone had called him, in connection
with his activities for the committee, a "troublemaker."
The Events Leading to Waldron's Discharge
The committee, in association with similar committees at
other United States Steel plants, brought an action in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania against the officials of the United Steelwork-
ers and 10 major steel producers, including United States
Steel Corporation, attacking the collective-bargaining
contract as contrary to the interests of the workers. The
case came on for trial at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on
Monday, March 4, 1974, and subpenas were issued
requiring the presence of Waldron, Bostick, and Edwards
in court on that day.
Waldron received his subpena early in February; he took
it to Polansky and told him that he expected the trial to last
the entire week of March 4. Polansky told Waldron that it
would be satisfactory for him to take the week off and that,
when he returned, he should bring the subpena and a
certification by the attorneys that he was in court.
Waldron, Edwards, and Bostick drove to Pittsburgh,
which is about 150 miles from Lorain, on the Sunday
before the trial opened. They were in court on Monday,
Tuesday, and Wednesday, March 1, 2, and 3. At the end of
the day on Wednesday, about 6:30 p.m., they were
informed by their attorneys that certain stipulations had
been reached which made their further attendance unnec-
essary. This meeting with the attorneys ended at 8:30 that
evening and all three employees testified that they then had
their dinner, returned to the private home in the Pittsburgh
area where they had been staying, and started back to
Lorain about midnight. Bostick drove, Edwards slept, and
Waldron, who was susceptible to car sickness, was awake
and uncomfortable. Several coffee stops were made to
permit Waldron to walk around. Edwards was dropped off
at his home in East Cleveland between 4 and 5 a.m. and
Waldron reached his home at 5, or a little later, on
Thursday morning. During their ride, they discussed the
problem of reporting to work that day. Bostick was on the
4 p.m. to midnight shift and stated that he would work.
Edwards, although on the 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. shift, was an
instructor of apprentices and had been sleeping during
much of the ride. He said, however, that he had already
reported off and would probably not go in that day.
Waldron said that he would try to make it to work.
4 This interference with the Committee's distribution of its literature is
not alleged as a violation herein.
876 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Waldron testified that he was absolutely exhausted and,
considering the strenuous nature of his job, he could not go
to work on Thursday. He called the plant gate late in the
day and said that he would report the next morning. On
Friday, he reported and worked as usual . He turned in the
subpena and the attorney 's certificate of his presence in
court to his foreman on Monday, March 11.
On Monday, March 18, Waldron received his paycheck
for the week March 4 to 8 and noted that he had not been
paid for the 3 days he was in court. He called the shortage
to Polansky's attention , reminding him that he had
reported, in advance, that he had been subpenaed to
appear in court and that the collective-bargaining contract
provides3 that an employee subpenaed as a witness shall be
compensated despite his absence from work . Polansky said
that he was not aware of that provision in the contract, that
he would check with the Industrial Relations Department
and let him know the next day.
The following day, Polansky instructed Waldron to
appear at his office at 2:30 p.m. and to bring a union
grievance representative . When they reached Polansky's
office, Polansky asked Waldron where he had been on
Thursday, March 7.6 Waldron answered that he had
returned from Pittsburgh at 5 a.m. on that day and that he
was exhausted , so that it would have been unsafe for him
to go to work at 7 a.m. He reminded Polansky that he had
reported that he would be off all week but that he had
come in to work on Friday. Polansky replied that it was
not a justifiable excuse and that exhaustion not supported
by a doctor's certificate was no justification for missing a
day's work. Polansky stated that he was suspending
Waldron for 5 days "subject to discharge."
Upon receiving the suspension, Waldron notified Ed-
wards and Yancey, the Union's grievance representative
for the area. Yancey arranged a meeting with Polansky on
March 20 . Polansky testified that at that meeting he
showed Waldron's disciplinary record to Yancey but that
he declined to predict the result of the 5-day suspension,
saying that the matter would have to be referred to his
superintendent , James Barton. Waldron asked Polansky to
consider this meeting one held pursuant to section 8-B of
the contract , entitling Waldron to certain rights, including
that of having made available to him "the facts concerning
the case ." Polansky refused , stating that an 8-B hearing
was required to be held with a department head.
On March 25, Barton met with Waldron, Yancey,
Polansky , and Dobrian , another general foreman in the
rolling mill. Waldron explained the details of his return
from Pittsburgh and that he did not reach home until 5
a.m. Barton testified that he conferred privately with
Dobrian; that they felt that Waldron "did not fulfill his
obligation in reporting for work on Thursday" and should
be discharged "for an unjustifiable absence from work";
and that they discharged him. Barton further testified that
they took into consideration Waldron's "entire record"
S Sec 10-G.
6 Polansky testified that the records he consulted showed that Waldron
had called in on the 7th
7 The minutes of the grievance meeting show that the company
representative stated that Waldron was disciplined under section 10-F of
the contract. The pertinent provisions of that section, however, are
requirements (a) that an employee give advance notice of an expected
because "it's impossible to discharge a man for this reason
alone. You've got to, at least, attempt to show the
progressive discipline . . . ." Barton testified that, al-
though he did not know Waldron personally, he knew him
by name because he signed every disciplinary slip that was
issued - four or five a day covering 754 employees under
his supervision - and that "as the slips are repeated the
names surface ." He testified that Waldron's activities in the
Rank and File Committee played no part in his decision
and that he had no interest in the activities of that
committee.
Waldron's Grievance
Through the Union, Waldron immediately filed a
grievance over his discharge and a formal "third step"
hearing was held the same day. Barton testified that at this
hearing he heard nothing to change his mind about the
action he had taken and the grievance was rejected.
Formal minutes were taken during this meeting .? Although
the grievance was held open by the Union, no further steps
were taken with respect to it. On April 15, after he had filed
the charge herein , Waldron wrote a note to his union
grievance representatives stating that he was withdrawing
the grievance over his discharge and would pursue his
remedies through the Board and the courts . At the same
time , he wrote a letter to the Board agents investigating the
case , stating that, in view of the characterization of the
rank-and-file movement as "a cancer in our midst" by
President Abel of the United Steelworkers, and his,
Waldron's, chairmanship of the Committee, he did not
believe that he would receive proper representation from
the Union.
Discussion and Conclusions
The Application for Deference to the Grievance
Procedure
Although several company representatives involved in
Waldron's discharge testified that they knew about
Waldron's activities on behalf of the Committee and that
the Committee was frequently critical of the officials of the
Union, Respondent nevertheless interposed , as an affirma-
tive defense to the Board's exercise of jurisdiction herein, a
request that the issues herein be deferred to the grievance
and arbitration procedure in the collective -bargaining
contract.
The undisputed facts outlined above dictate the negative
answer to Respondent 's plea for deference to the grievance
and arbitration procedure in the contract. In addition to
this uncontradicted position of antagonism between
Waldron and the Union, Polansky testified that Yancey, in
discussing Waldron's situation , made no effort to persuade
him to give Waldron "another chance" as he did in each of
the situations involving other employees that were put into
absence , and (b) that failure to give notice shall subject the employee to
discipline "whether or not the employee is otherwise subject to discipline
... for absenting himself from work without just cause." Neither of these
specific provisions of section 10-F was applicable to Waldron , but there is
no doubt that he, like any other employee , would be subject to discipline for
unjustified absence.
U.S. STEEL CORP., LORAIN WORKS
evidence by the General Counsel. To entrust the effort to
secure continued employment for Waldron to the union
officials whom he had been opposing and criticizing during
the entire period of his employment, would , as the Board
stated in Kansas Meat Packers, etc., 198 NLRB 543 (1972),
"relegate the charging parties to an arbitral process
authored , administered , and invoked entirely by parties
hostile to their interests" and would be, therefore,
"repugnant to the purposes of the Act." s Accordingly, the
application for deference to the contractual grievance and
arbitration procedure in the collective-bargaining contract
is denied.
The Merits of the Case
The complaint alleges that the concerted , protected
activities engaged in by Waldron , and for which he was
discharged , included both his committee activities and his
attendance at the trial of a civil action involving such
protected activities. I find that both of these activities
contributed substantially to Respondent 's decisions to
suspend and to discharge him.
Before setting forth my reasons for finding that Wal-
dron 's concerted activities contributed substantially to
Respondent 's termination of his employment , I would
note , first : the rule of law that an employer may discharge
an employee for any reason, good or bad, or no reason at
all, so long as the employee 's protected activities do not
contribute to the employer's motive for the discharge.9 I
would further note that , where the reason assigned for
termination is not convincing , and there is evidence , direct
or circumstantial , of the Employer 's animus toward those
concerted activities , although no direct evidence that such
animus played a part in the decision to terminate, an
inference my be drawn that the Employer' s real reason for
the termination was to interfere with , restrain , or coerce
such activities.
The company executives who were involved in the
determination to suspend and discharge Waldron all
testified that Waldron 's activities on behalf of the Rank
and File Committee , although known to them, played no
part in bringing them to these decisions . If their testimony
is accepted as credible , Waldron's discharge was not in
violation of Section 8(axl) of the Act. In my opinion,
however, their testimony cannot be accepted: on the
contrary , I reject it and , on the basis of all the evidence,
and the demeanor of the company officials while testifying,
I reject their denials and find that Waldron's position as
cochairman of the Committee, his active participation in its
activities , and his connection with the Committee's
litigation against the Company and the Union contributed
substantially to the Company's decision to suspend and
discharge him.10
Polansky testified that, although Waldron 's performance
in the shipping department was poor , after he was
8 In the following cases the Board affirmed denials by Administrative
Law Judges of applications for deference to arbitration where there were
similar antagnostic relationships between the injured party and the union:
Jack Watkins, G.M.C, 203 NLRB 632 (1973); Sabine Towing& Transporta-
tion Co., Inc., 205 NLRB 203 (1973), Laborers' International Union, etc., (A
& E Construction Co.), 206 NLRB 902 (1973); United industrial Workers, etc.
(Sea-Land), 207 NLRB 958 (1973); Standard Fruit & Steamship Company,
877
transferred to the billet-conditioning department in June
1973, he had "no problems" with him except for two
"insubordinations." One of the two insubordinations
shown in the record occurred during Waldron's period in
the shipping department and the other was the subject of
an unresolved grievance which, by plant rules, was not to
be considered as part of the employee's record. According-
ly, it must be concluded that Polansky was describing
Waldron, at the time of his discharge, as a satisfactory
employee.
As stated above, Polansky testified that Waldron's
activities with the Committee played no part in his decision
to discharge Waldron but there are several inconsistencies
in Polansky's testimony that, together with his demeanor
while testifying, persuade me that his testimony on this
point is unreliable and that the opposite is true . Polansky
testified that he considered Waldron's disciplinary record
to be very poor for one with his amount of service, but one
of the Union's grievance committee chairman - presuma-
bly not a strong defender of the members of the Committee
opposing the union officials - testified that; on the basis
of his experience in supervising the handling of grievances
for 675 employees over a period of 4 years, he did not
regard Waldron's record as a bad one.
Polansky also testified that, at the meeting with Waldron
and Yancey on March 20, he said that the outcome of the
5-day suspension he had given Waldron was "a decision..
[he] .. could not make," and that the matter would have to
be referred to his superintendent, but he admitted that he
made a recommendation that Waldron be discharged.
Polansky testified that it was early in the week of
February 23 or 24 that Waldron arranged with him for his
absence during the week of March 4; that Waldron merely
said that he was required to be in court and that he,
Polansky, neither knew nor cared to know the nature of the
case on trial or Waldron's relationship to it. He also
testified that it was he, Polansky, who told Waldron's turn
foreman that Waldron would not report for work that
following week and that the reason for Waldron's absence
was "jury duty." The Company's computer printout of
absences and their reasons, however, shows that the
recorded reason for Waldron's absence was "union
business." Waldron corroborated Polansky's testimony
that he dealt with Polansky in arranging for his absence
and Polansky testified that it was he who told the turn
foreman that Waldron would be out the following week.
Polansky also testified that it was the duty of the turn
foreman to feed into the computer record all employee
absences and the reasons for them. Accordingly, it follows
that Polansky must have been the source of the turn
foreman's information that Waldron's absence was con-
nected with something involving the Union. Polansky's
admitted knowledge of Waldron's committee activities
opposing the Union's leadership lead me to conclude that
Polansky, despite his denial, knew precisely why Waldron
211 NLRB 121 (1974).
9 N L.R. B v. Howell Automatic Machine Co , 454 F.2d 1077 (C.A. 6,
1972): but see John Klann Moving & Trucking Company v. N.L.R. B., 411
F 2d 261 (C.A. 6,1%9).
10 N.L.R B v. Walton Manufacturing Company & Loganville Pants Co,
369 U .S. 404,408 (1962).
878 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was going to Pittsburgh . Polansky's attack on the accuracy
of the company record does not add to his credibility as a
witness . Accordingly , on the basis of the foregoing, and of
Polansky's demeanor while testifying, I find that he knew
that Waldron's attendance at the trial in Pittsburgh was
connected with his committee activity.
Although Polansky testified that he knew in advance that
Waldron expected to be absent the week beginning March
4 and that he had told Waldron's turn foreman that
Waldron would be away, he also testified that Waldron
was scheduled to work on March 7 turning billets.
Polansky's further testimony, that he was aware that
Waldron was involved in the Committee's activity and that
he read an article about himself in the Committee's
publication but that he did not understand anything, or
care to know anything, about the Committee 's activities, is
not credible and I reject it. Accordingly, I find that
Polansky knew and understood the aims and activities of
the Committee.
An additional contribution to my determination that
Polansky was not a credible witness is the conflict between
his testimony and that of Barton concerning the company
policy of step-by-step discipline; Polansky testified that
there was no such policy ; that he would look at an
employee's entire record and administer whatever disci-
pline he felt was appropriate. Barton, however, testified
that it was company policy to employ progressive disci-
pline.
To meet Polansky's testimony that he recommended
Waldron's discharge for his unjustifiable absence on
March 7 and on the basis of his entire disciplinary record,
the General Counsel produced the disciplinary records of
four other employees under Polansky's supervision whose
infractions were more numerous than Waldron 's but who
were still in Respondent 's employ . Polansky first testified
that the four were all habitual alcoholics and that the
collective-bargaining contract obligated the Company to
make an effort to rehabilitate alcoholics," but he conceded
that there was nothing in any of the files to show that the
men involved were , in fact, alcoholics . He also conceded
that the Union had intervened on behalf of each of those
employees, but not on behalf of Waldron.
Based upon the foregoing, I find that Polansky, when he
checked the record of Waldron's court appearance against
his attendance record and found the discrepancy, deter-
mined to utilize it as a pretext to rid the plant of one whom
management regarded as "troublemakers ." 12 He admitted
that on finding the discrepancy and before he had any
information concerning it, he had made up his mind to
discipline Waldron. I find, therefore, that Polansky's action
in suspending Waldron for 5 days and his recommendation
to Barton that the suspension be converted into a
discharge , were based upon Waldron 's committee activi-
ties , including his attendance at the trial in Pittsburgh.
Barton, who made the decision to discharge Waldron,
testified that he received the matter from Polansky without
i i Section 14-F of the contract states that the Company and the Union
agree "to cooperate in encouraging employees afflicted with alcoholism to
undergo a coordinated program directed to the objective of their
rehabilitation "
is Bostick testified , without contradiction , that General Foreman
Gorman criticized him for political activity when the Committee was
any recommendation and that he made the decision
without giving any consideration to Waldron 's committee
activities , but that he reached his decision on the basis of
Waldron's unjustified absence from work as well as his
"entire record ." He also testified that he was "well aware"
of Waldron's record because he signs every disciplinary
slip - four or five each day in his department consisting of
754 employees - and, "as slips are repeated , the names
surface."
In determing the credibility of Barton 's denial that
Waldron's committee activities contributed to his decision
to discharge him, it is to be noted that Polansky testified
that, in forwarding Waldron 's disciplinary suspensions, he
did make a recommendation and that it was that Waldron
be discharged . Barton's further testimony, that he was
aware of Waldron's poor performance because the discipli-
nary slips bearing his name caused his name to "surface,"
strains credulity. In the 412 days between Waldron's initial
employment on January 29, 1973, and his final suspension
on March 19, 1974,13 Barton, according to his testimony,
signed between 1,648 and 2,060 disciplinary slips. These
slips involved 754 possible names, making no allowance for
turnover , and six or seven of them bore Waldron's name.
Barton's testimony that it was in this manner that he
bbcame aware of Waldron 's poor performance as an
employee is rejected as incredible. Moreover , his testimony
was in conflict with that of Polansky on at least two
matters: whether there was a company policy on prog-
ressive discipline , in which I credit Barton and find that
there was, and whether Polansky made a recommendation
that Waldron be discharged, in which I credit Polansky.
These conflicts, however, leave both Barton and Polansky
with their credibilities seriously impaired.
Furthermore between Barton's receipt of Polansky's
recommendation and his acceptance of it, on March 25,
when he converted the suspension into a discharge,
Waldron had been involved in an additional confrontation
with management over the renewed company prohibition
against distribution of the committee publication "Voices
from the Mill." It is undisputed that on March 21 Waldron
participated, as he had uniformly done in the past, in
passing out the paper and that a company official in the
labor relations department stated that company policy
prohibited such distribution. This activity by Waldron
occurred after his suspension but prior to Barton's
determination to accept Polansky's recommendation that
Waldron be discharged and it contributed, I find, to
Barton's decision, on behalf of Respondent, to discharge
Waldron.
Upon all of the foregoing, I conclude and find that
Respondent's real reason for suspending and discharging
Waldron was his activity on behalf of the Rank and File
Committee, that absent such activity he would not have
been discharged, and that its contention that the discharge
was based upon unjustified absence was a pretext. Since
there can be no dispute that those activities were protected
passing out "Impeach Nixon" stickers ; that Foreman Waterstone called
him a troublemaker and that Foreman Grehor , after Bostick had been
distributing committee literature , asked Bostick whether he couldn't serve
better by staying home and sleeping.
13 Waldron's period of illness would be irrelevant in this context.
U S. STEEL CORP., LORAIN WORKS
by the Act, Respondent's conduct in suspending and
discharging Waldron was interference, restraint, and
coercion violative of Section 8(a)(1) thereof.
The Effect of the Unfair Labor Practice upon
Commerce
The activities of Respondent, set forth in findings of fact
2, 3, and 5, occurring in connection with its operations
described in finding of fact 1, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow
thereof.
The Remedy
Having found that Respondent has engaged in an unfair
labor practice, I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and take affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the purposes of the Act.
Having found that Respondent, by suspending and
discharging Rex M. Waldron for engaging in activities
protected by the Act, committed an unfair labor practice, I
shall recommend that it offer him reinstatement to the
position he held on March 19, 1974, or, if that position no
longer exists, to a position substantially equivalent thereto,
without loss of seniority or other rights and benefits, and
that it make him whole for any loss of compensation he
may have suffered, computed in the manner prescribed in
F. W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and with
interest as prescribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co, 138
NLRB 716 (1962).
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record herein, I reach the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. At the time of the activities set forth in this Decision,
Mike Polansky, James Barton, Richard Gorman, William
Waterstone, and George Crehor were supervisors of
Respondent, within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the
Act, and acted as its agents.
3. The activities of the Rank and File Committee
constituted concerted activities for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining or other mutual aid or protection within the
meaning of Section 7 of the Act.
4. By discharging Rex M. Waldron for engaging in
concerted activities for the purpose of mutual aid and
protection, Respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in
the Act and committed an unfair labor practice within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. The foregoing unfair labor practice is an unfair labor
practice affecting commerce within the meamng of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 14
879
Respondent, United States Steel Corporation, Lorain
Works, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall.
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging any employee because he or she engaged
in concerted activities for the purpose of mutual aid or
protection.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
right to self-organization, to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual
aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such
activities, except to the extent that such right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment as authorized
by Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended.
2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate
the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Rex M. Waldron immediate and full
reinstatement to his former position or, if that position no
longer exists, to a position substantially equivalent to that
which he held immediately prior to March 19, 1974,
without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and
privileges, and make him whole for any loss of wages in the
manner set forth in the section of the Decision entitled
"The Remedy."
(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 analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this recommended Order.
(c) Post at its plant at Lorain, Ohio, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." is Copies of said
Notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 8, after being duly signed by its representative,
shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and
be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by it to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
14 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec
102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
15 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 "
880 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The hearing held at Lorain, Ohio, on July 2, 1974, in which
we participated and had an opportunity to give evidence,
resulted in a decision that, in suspending Rex M . Waldron
on March 19, 1974, and discharging him on March 25,
1974, we had committed an unfair labor practice in
violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended , and this notice is posted pursuant
to that decision.
The National Labor Relations Act, as amended, gives
all employees the following rights:
To organize themselves
To form, join, or support unions
To bargain as a group through a representative
they choose
To act together for collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection
To refrain from any or all such activities
In recognition of these rights, we hereby notify our
employees that:
WE WILL NOT discharge any of our employees
because they engage in concerted activities for mutual
aid or protection through a rank-and-file committee or
in any other manner.
WE WILL offer Rex M. Waldron immediate and full
reinstatement to his former job or, if this job no longer
exists , to a substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges,
and make him whole for any loss of earnings he may
have suffered by reason of his discharge.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with , restrain , or coerce employees in the exercise of
their right to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
dt protection, or to refrain from any or all such
activities, except to the extent that such right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a
labor organization as a condition of employment as
authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
UNITED STATES STEEL
CORPORATION, LORAIN
WORKS