Williamette Industries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Apr 21, 2003

26-CA-019667 (N.L.R.B. Apr. 21, 2003)

JD(ATL)–27–03
Fort Smith, AR

5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
ATLANTA BRANCH OFFICE

WILLAMETTE INDUSTRIES, INC. and
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY,
a Golden State Successor

and CASES 26–CA–19667
26–CA–19675
PAPER, ALLIED–INDUSTRIAL, CHEMICAL 26–CA–19676
AND ENERGY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL 26–CA–19693
UNION, AFL–CIO, CLC 26–CA–19745
26–CA–19774

Susan Greenberg, Esq.
for General Counsel.
Michael S. Mitchell, Esq.
for Respondent.
Carl Bush, Esq.
for Charging Party.

Decision

A hearing was held in these proceedings in Fort Smith, Arkansas on January 13
and 14, 2003. I have considered the full record as well as briefs filed by General
Counsel, Charging Party and Respondent.

Jurisdiction:

Respondent admitted the jurisdiction allegations. It admitted that Willamette is an
Oregon corporation and it had a corrugated packaging facility located in Fort Smith,
Arkansas where until about March 15, 2002 it engaged in the manufacture of corrugated
containers. At material times from March 15, 2002 until May 7, 2002, Willamette was a
wholly owned subsidiary of Respondent Weyerhaeuser. Respondent Weyerhaeuser is a
Washington corporation with a facility located in Fort Smith, Arkansas where it is
engaged in the manufacture of corrugated containers. During the 12–months ending
May 30, 2002 Respondent Willamette sold and shipped in the conduct of its Fort Smith
operations and from that Arkansas facility goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly to
points outside Arkansas; and during that same 12 months Respondent Willamette
JD(ATL)–27–03

purchased and received at its Fort Smith facility goods valued in excess of $50,000 from
points directly outside Arkansas. During the 12–months ending November 30, 2002
Respondent Weyerhaeuser sold and shipped in the conduct of its Fort Smith operations
and from that Arkansas facility goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points
outside Arkansas; and during that same 12 months Respondent Weyerhaeuser
purchased and received goods valued in excess of $50,000 from points directly outside
Arkansas. At material times Respondents Willamette and Weyerhaeuser have been
employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the
Act.
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40

About March 15, 2002 Respondent Weyerhaeuser purchased the business of
Respondent Willamette and until May 7, 2002 continued to operate the business of
Willamette as a wholly owned subsidiary in basically unchanged form. On about May 7,
2002 Weyerhaeuser merged with Willamette, dissolving the legal entity Willamette and
since then has continued to operate the business of Willamette as the entity
Weyerhaeuser in basically unchanged form. At a time before Respondent
Weyerhaeuser purchased the business of Willamette, it was notified of the potential
liability of Respondent Willamette in cases 26–CA–19667, 26–CA–19675, 26–CA–
19676, 26–CA–19693, 26–CA–19745 and 26–CA–19774. Respondent Weyerhaeuser
has continued as the employing entity with notice of Respondent Willamette’s potential
liability of the unfair labor practices mentioned above and is a successor to Respondent
Willamette.

LABOR ORGANIZATION:

Respondents admitted that the charging party is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

The Alleged Unfair Labor Practices:
Background:

There was a change of ownership of the employer’s manufacturing facility in
early 2002. Weyerhaeuser purchased the facility from Willamette. Before the purchase
Weyerhaeuser was put on notice of Willamette’s potential liability in the unfair labor
practices cases. Weyerhaeuser continued to operate the business.1

There were two Union election campaigns before Weyerhaeuser’s purchase. The
first campaign concluded with an NLRB election on November 19, 1999. Determinative
challenges and objections followed that election and the parties agreed to another
election. The NLRB regional office held that second election on February 11, 2000.

1 Respondent admitted all the allegations of paragraph 5 of the complaint regarding its successor
status with Willamette.
2
JD(ATL)–27–03

The alleged 8(a)(1) violations:
Supervisor Cockrum:

Terry Cockrum testified that he is a supervisor. He worked at the Fort Smith
facility from 1978 and has been a supervisor from 1981 or 1982.
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40

Threat of loss of pension benefits:
Threat of an increase in insurance premiums:

Wayne Christian was employed as a slitter operator during the union campaign.
He worked for Willamette from 1991 until June 2002. As a slitter operator he worked
alone in the slitter control room. Christian supported the Union from before the first
petition was filed.2 He kept contemporaneous notes of events including notes of an
October 1, 1999 conversation he witnessed between Terry Cockrum and Henry
Blasingame. Cockrum told Blasingame that he was going to lose his 401(k) and his
insurance would go up if the Union came in.

Christian testified that Cockrum came in the slitter control room where Christian
was working on November 1, 1999. Henry Blasingame, Cliff Battle and Mark Horton
were there as well. Cockrum said they would lose their 401(k) and their insurance would
go up, if they went union. The next day, November 2, Cockrum again came in the
control room. Cockrum repeated that the employees would lose their 401(k) and their
insurance premiums would go up, if the Union came in. Terry Cockrum told Henry
Blasingame that he would bet a hundred dollars Blasingame would lose his 401(k) if the
Union came in. Later on during that conversation Cockrum told Blasingame that he
would promise him he would lose his 401(k).

Around November 1, and again on November 2 1999 Henry Blasingame was in
the slitter control room. He was with Wayne Christian, Cliff Battles, Danny Person,
Steve Kenny and Terry Cockrum. Cockrum told them they would definitely lose their
401(k) and their insurance rates would go up because they were trying to get a union in
the plant. On November 2 Blasingame was with Christian and Cockrum. Cliff Battles,
Shane Doss, Steve Kenny and Mark Horton came in the room and Cockrum reminded
them of what he had said about losing their 401(k) and having their insurance premiums
increased. He said that Rick Davis3 had said those things. Blasingame replied that he
understood that the Company couldn’t take anything during the negotiation process.
Cockrum said they could do anything and he bet a $100 that the employees would lose
the benefits if the Union came in.

Michael Standridge recalled that Terry Cockrum talked to the entire shift outside
the plant before the first election on November 19, 1999. Cockrum said he thought we
would lose our 401(k) if we went union.

2 The Union filed its petition for an election on October 8, 1999.
3 Rick Davis was Respondent’s general manager at material times. Davis testified that he was in
complete charge of the Fort Smith plant.
3
JD(ATL)–27–03

Terry Cockrum testified that he told Wayne Christian and Henry Blasingame and
several other employees there was a chance they would lose their 401(k) plans if the
Union came in. He denied telling the employees they would lose their 401(k) plan if the
Union came in. Cockrum was asked about a bet involving 401(k). He agreed that
Blasingame said they could not take away their 401(k) and Cockrum replied, “I bet you
that I can, and I think it was something like an off–the–wall deal that didn’t have nothing
to do with money.” He admitted that he believed a $100 came up and that he bet $100
that the Company could take the 401(k) if that is what they bargained for.” Cockrum
testified he did not recall telling employees they would have an increase in insurance
premiums if the Union came in.
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45

Threat of plant closure and loss of jobs:

Mark Horton testified about a conversation involving Terry Cockrum around
November 1, 1999. Cockrum threatened the employees about a possible rotating shift.
Cockrum also said that Rick Davis had said they could close down the Fort Smith plant
and open an Oklahoma City plant if the Union came in or there was a strike.

As shown above, on November 2, Cockrum told employees Blasingame,
Christian, Cliff Battles, Shane Doss, Steve Kenny and Mark Horton about losing their
401(k) and having their insurance premiums increased, that Rick Davis had told him
that if the Union came in it was probable they would have a strike and Davis was afraid
of violence and he’d just shut down the plant. Wayne Christian testified that Cockrum
also said that Rick Davis had said if the employees went on strike he would shut the
plant down. Cockrum said that Davis would shut down the plant because he was afraid
of violence.

Prohibited employees from distributing Union literature:
Threatened to arrest employees if they distributed Union literature:

Wayne Christian testified that some Union representatives were passing out
brochures to people going in and out of the plant. Terry Cockrum came up during that
day and said that Rick Davis was going to call the cops and that Davis did not want
anyone out there hand billing.

Prohibited employees from discussing the Union during
non–working time in non–work areas:
Threatened employees with discharge:
Threatened employee that work and nonwork activities
would be closely monitored:

Henry Blasingame attended a meeting held by Tom McIntyre around November
4 or 5, 1999. The next day Terry Cockrum paged Blasingame and said that Rick Davis
had said to get Blasingame out of the break room. Blasingame was on his break talking
to other employees when Cockrum paged him. Cockrum told Blasingame not to be
talking about Union business on Company property. He said that management was
4
JD(ATL)–27–03

watching Blasingame closely and if Blasingame needed anything in the break room to
go get in and get the hell out. Cockrum said that if the Union did not get in the plant
Blasingame would be the first one out the door.

Threatened unspecified reprisals: 5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45

Christian testified that Terry Cockrum said on November 5 that if the Union goes
through there’s going to be some people in trouble. Cockrum also said that if the place
goes Union they are going to arbitrate every case.

Around November 16, 1999 Cockrum paged Blasingame. Cockrum told him to
look busy by sweeping around the line and cleaning everything because management
was watching Blasingame and he didn’t want Rick Davis on his ass. Cockrum told
Blasingame that he definitely did not want Davis on his ass.

Threatened physical harm:

On October 6, 1999 Christian overheard Cockrum talking in the slitter control
room. Christian, Cliff Battles and Cockrum were present. Cockrum said that the
Arkansas right–to–work law gave him the right to run over a person that was picketing
or he could shoot them dead.

Early in November 1999 Terry Cockrum told employees including Blasingame
that if they were out hand billing at the gate or during a strike they were out picketing, he
had the right to run over or shoot the employees.

Mark Horton testified that around November 1, 1999 Terry Cockrum said that if
the employees went on strike he had a right to come to work and could run over and
shoot the employees and it would be legal because Arkansas was a right–to–work
state.

During mid–November, November 22, 1999, April 22, 2000
threatened adverse changes in working conditions:
May 2, 2000 threatened day shift that Respondent would
adversely change work schedules:

Mark Horton testified about a conversation involving Terry Cockrum around
November 1, 1999. Cockrum said that the employees needed to kind of let this blow
over or you may possibly go to a rotating shift. Cockrum said the guys up front were
saying that. The next day Cockrum offered to bet Henry Blasingame $100 they would
go to a rotating shift if it didn’t die down.

Horton recalled that after the first election Cockrum told them they were lucky this
thing did not go through because they would be going to a rotating shift.
5
JD(ATL)–27–03

On Monday, November 22, the first weekday after the first election, Clifton
Battles overheard a conversation between Terry Cockrum and Steve Doss. Cockrum
told Doss they were going to a rotating shift and lose benefits because of the Union.
Terry Cockrum mentioned that the front office was mad because of the Union. Later that
same day, Battles heard Cockrum say that the employees were lucky they had not gone
union. He said that if they had gone union they would go to a rotating shift and lose
rates and benefits.
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45

Wayne Christian testified that on Monday after the first election, Terry Cockrum
said, “you boys are lucky you didn’t go union or Rick Davis would have put you on a
rotating shift.” Clifton Battles overheard Terry Cockrum tell Wayne Christian that Mark
Horton was crazy and that Cockrum could not understand why Horton was voting for the
Union because he was going to go on rotating shifts and would lose benefits.

On November 22, 1999, Terry Cockrum came in the slitter control room where
Blasingame, Christen, Battles and Horton were present. Cockrum told Christen that it
was a good thing they did not get the union in because Rick Davis said that Christian
was going to a rotating shift.

Some time after the first election Christian overheard Terry Cockrum say they
were going to a rotating shift and the Company wanted to show the people who was in
charge. Christian testified the second election was a 50/50 split and on May 2, he asked
Cockrum why the corrugator crew was singled out. Cockrum said because the
corrugators were 100% Union and the crew was being ram–butted.

Around May 2, 2000, according to Blasingame, Cockrum came in the control
room. Christen and Shane Doss were in the control room with Blasingame. Cockrum
said that Rick Davis had told him that if they keep trying to get the Union in, they were
going to rotating shifts. Cockrum said that he had told the employees that was going to
happen. Christian asked why in view of the fact that 50% of the plant had voted for the
Company. Cockrum replied that 100% of their crew voted for the Union and you all are
going to get ram–butted for it.

Terry Cockrum admitted that he told employees they would go to a rotating shift
but he denied he denied telling them they would go to a rotating shift if the Union came
in. Cockrum admitted that he probably told the employees on the first shift that Rick
Davis was mad about the Union campaign. He denied telling the employees they were
going on a rotating shift because Davis was mad.

Findings:
Credibility:

Here, and with all credibility determination, I have considered demeanor of
witnesses and the full record. I do not credit the testimony of Terry Cockrum to the
extent it conflicts with credited testimony. Cockrum was evasive in some of his
responses. Nevertheless he did admit that he make comments similar to some of those
6
JD(ATL)–27–03

alleged as unfair labor practices. I found the testimony of Wayne Christian, Michael
Standridge, Henry Blasingame, Mark Horton and Clifton Battles was credible. The
testimony of those witnesses conflicted with that of Cockrum and contributed to my
determination that Cockrum was not believable.
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40

Conclusions:

The above–mentioned testimony shows that Terry Cockrum repeatedly
threatened employees on, before and after November 1, 1999 that they would lose their
401(k) retirement plan and that their insurance premiums would go up if the Union was
selected as bargaining representative. Cockrum made those comments to employees
Henry Blasingame and Wayne Christian, in October.4 On November 1 and then again
on November 2, Cockrum, repeated to several employees in the slitter control room that
the employees would lose their 401(k) plan and their insurance premiums would
increase if they went Union. On November 2 Cockrum offered to bet employee Henry
Blasingame $100 that Blasingame would lose his 401(k) if the Union got in. During that
same conversation Cockrum promised Blasingame he would lose his 401(k) if the Union
got in. Around November 6 Cockrum threatened Henry Blasingame that his work and
non–work activities were being closely monitored.

On November 19 Cockrum threatened the entire first corrugator operators they
would lose their 401(k) if the Union came in.

On November 1 and 2 Cockrum threatened employees that Rick Davis would
shut down the plant if the employees went out on strike.

Around November 3 Cockrum threatened to call the police about the Union hand
billing at the plant. Shortly after November 4 or 5 Cockrum threatened employee
Blasingame that he would be the first one out the door if the Union did not get in; that
management was watching him and he was not to discuss the Union on Company
property.

Cockrum threatened employees on November 5 that some of the employees
would be in trouble and that the Company was going to arbitrate every case, if the
Union went in.

In early November Cockrum threatened employees that he had the right to run
them over and shoot employee picketing at the gate them under the Arkansas right–to–
work law.

On several occasions in November and on May 2, 2000 Cockrum threatened first
shift corrugator employees they would go on a rotating shift because they were trying to
get the Union in.

4 The pre–November comments are not alleged as unfair labor practices.
7
JD(ATL)–27–03

After the February 11, 2000 election Wayne Christian overheard Terry Cockrum
say they were going to a rotating shift and the Company wanted to show the people
who was in charge. Christian testified the second election was a 50/50 split and on May
2, he asked Cockrum why the corrugator crew was singled out. Cockrum said because
the corrugators were 100% Union and the crew was being ram–butted. 5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45

I find Cockrum’s numerous threats and other comments shown above constitute
violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.

Area Resources Manager Tom McIntire:

Wayne Christian testified that Tom McIntire held meetings with employees at the
plant from the beginning of the union campaign. Christian attended a meeting with
McIntire along with other employees. During the meeting McIntire said “union, no 401(k)
and non–union, 401(k).” McIntire said that Union plants don’t have 401(k) plans.

Tom McIntyre was Willamette human resources manager for southern and
eastern divisions during the Union campaigns. He testified that he met with groups of
employees during that campaign. He agreed that he held meetings on November 1 and
4 1999. He used prepared remarks on those occasions (RExh. 13). McIntyre denied
saying that union strikes are inevitable or that it was futile to vote for the Union because
there would be a strike.

Threat of loss of pension benefits:
Threat that it would be futile to select the Union:

Steve Tyler and other employees attended a meeting on October 4, 1999 along
with management officials Rick Davis, Tom McIntyre, Rick Hicks and Kay Shearer.
McIntyre spoke to the employees. He said that no union plant of Willamette had a
401(k) plan but that all non–union Willamette plants had 401(k) plans. Another meeting
was held where McIntyre spoke about a week later. During one of McIntyre’s several
meetings, he mentioned a plant in Indianapolis where the employees had a 401(k) plan
and voted in a union. After that the parties agreed to a contract and the 401(k) plan was
eliminated. Then in the third meeting McIntyre told about a plant Willamette had
purchased from Boise Cascade where there was a union. Willamette wanted to start
drug testing and the Union opposed drug test. Willamette went ahead and tested the
employees for drugs. McIntyre explained that the union could do nothing to prevent the
Company from testing for drugs.

Tom McIntyre admitted that he spoke to employees about 401(k) plans. In
addition to his comments included in Respondent Exhibit 13, McIntyre followed the text
contained in a writing prepared by the corporate labor relations manager (RExh. 14). He
also admitted discussing rotating shifts with management at Fort Smith. McIntyre
referred to a three–shift plant used by a Saturn plant (RExh. 6).
8
JD(ATL)–27–03

Threat that a strike was inevitable:

At a November 4 or 5 meeting Tom McIntyre told employees they would probably
go on strike if the Union were elected because the Company would not give up what the
Union wanted.
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45

Tom McIntyre admitted that he spoke to employees and his comments were
included in Respondent Exhibits 13 and 14.

Findings:
Credibility:

I found Tom McIntyre to be a forthcoming non–evasive witness. Additionally, I
note that comments he admittedly made to employees at Fort Smith were similar to
those recalled by the witnesses for General Counsel. On the basis of the full record I am
convinced that McIntyre testified truthfully regarding his use of Respondent Exhibits 13
and 14 during his meetings at Fort Smith.

Conclusions:

As to the allegations that McIntyre threatened employees with loss of pension
benefits and that it would be futile to select the Union, I find that he did make comments
regarding those issues as set forth in Respondent Exhibits 13 and 14.

In regard to the question of whether McIntyre threatened it would be futile to
select the Union and that a strike would be inevitable, I note that he did discuss the
possibility of strikes if the Union was selected. At the start of his prepared remarks
(RExh. 13), McIntyre commented, “I’ve said it before, with a union there is always the
risk of a strike.” He then went on and referred to strikes in Fort Smith with Rheme and
Southwest Glass. He also showed the employees a film regarding union strikes.
McIntyre referred to strikes at Willamette and he showed letters and newspaper articles
that supported his comments regarding Willamette strikes. He also stated that
employees are responsible for the maintenance of their group insurance during a strike.

As to whether McIntyre threatened loss of pension benefits, the credited
testimony showed that he relied on Respondent Exhibit 14. Among other things, that
document shows four “facts” regarding 401(k) plans:

1. Nonrepresented facilities have a 401(k) plan as part of their benefit
package.
At the present time, no union contract at Willamette includes a company
sponsored 401(k) plan.
2. Like other benefits, 401(k) plans are negotiable in any represented
facility. Unions and the company at all Willamette’s represented facilities
have together chosen to agree to other things instead of a company
sponsored 401(k) plan.
9
JD(ATL)–27–03

3. The company has not and will not make any predictions (which may be
argued by someone to be a promise) about a 401(k) plan at this facility
depending on the outcome of the election.

The credited evidence failed to show that McIntyre made comments to
employees that constituted unfair labor practices. McIntyre told the employees that only
Union plants among Respondent’s facilities did not have 401(k) plans for unit employee.
On the other hand all plants where the employees were not represented did have 401
(k) plans for unit employees. There was no evidence that McIntyre was inaccurate in
those comments.
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40

The Section 8(a)(3) allegations:
Warned Mark Standridge:

Mark Standridge has worked for Respondent for 20 years. At one time he was
permitted to smoke at his workstation. Then he was told to smoke outside. However, he
was not assigned break times to smoke. Instead he was permitted to smoke whenever
his workload permitted. Standridge was an open Union supporter. He wore Union shirts
and hand billed for the Union.

A few days after the first election on November 19, – on November 24, 1999 –
Standridge came in at 5:00 a.m. He took a smoke break at the back dock near his
workstation at about 5:10 or 5:15 a.m. after he got his machine up and running and had
checked to see that everything was okay. Brent Carson was also on break at that time
and he subsequently returned to his workstation. During that break Standridge was
actually standing inside the back door. He stayed there for about 5 minutes.

Later while working, Standridge noticed that Steve Sharpe was standing inside
the door smoking. He was caught up on his work and took a second break to smoke
and talk with Sharpe. Standridge testified that normally under the circumstances present
at that time, he was permitted to take another break whenever his workload permitted.
Standridge was given a warning that day by Terry Cockrum. Cockrum told Standridge
that he needed to be careful because he had influence of other younger people on the
corrugator crew. Standridge was taken to Rick Hicks’s office and Hicks, Cockrum and
Standridge were present. Rick Hicks also said that Standridge had influence on younger
corrugator people. Standridge testified that he had been talking to the younger people
on corrugator crew, about the Union. That was the first warning Standridge received
while working for Willamette.

Terry Cockrum testified that he verbally “wrote down” Mike Standridge. He
identified Respondent Exhibit 1,5 which is dated November 23, 1999, as the writing he
gave Standridge on that occasion. Cockrum saw Mike Standridge sitting talking with
another employee in a small smoking area at the back drinking fountain abut 5:05 a.m.

5 During the hearing I failed to receive RExh.1. Respondent offered that exhibit and it was
identified. Therefore, I hereby receive RExh. 1.
10
JD(ATL)–27–03

Forth–five minutes later Cockrum saw that Standridge was smoking with another
employee there in that same smoking area.

Findings:
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Credibility:

Among other things Terry Cockrum’s testimony is inconsistent with the warning
or write–up issued to Standridge. Cockrum testified to the effect that Standridge took a
long smoke break without attending to his work. However, other evidence including the
write–up shows that Standridge took two smoke breaks within a short period of time. As
shown above I did not credit Cockrum’s testimony regarding other unfair labor practice
allegations and I do not credit his testimony here. I do credit the testimony of Mark
Standridge in view of his demeanor and the entire record.

Conclusions:

The credited testimony of Mark Standridge shows that he was treated differently
than he had been treated prior to the Union campaign, after it became known that he
supported the Union. Standridge took two smoke breaks on November 24 after insuring
that he could take those breaks without interfering with his productivity. Prior to that time
he had taken similar breaks and had never been disciplined. There was no showing that
other employees were disciplined for similar activity. Respondent was aware of
Standridge’s Union activities in view of his open activity including wearing Union shirts
and hats. Moreover, Cockrum implied that Standridge’s influence with younger
employees played a part in the decision to award him the November 24 write–up and
Standridge had talked to younger employees about the Union on occasions before
November 24. I find that General Counsel proved that Respondent was motivated by its
Union animus to write–up Mark Standridge. Manno Electric, 321 NLRB 1, fn. 12
(1996); Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F. 2d 899(1st Cir. 1981), cert.
denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982); NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., 462 U.S.
393 (1983)

There was no evidence that Respondent would have written up Standridge in the
absence of his Union activities. Therefore, I find that Respondent engaged in unfair
labor practices by writing up Standridge on November 24, 1999.

Warned Henry Blasingame:

Respondent currently employs Henry Blasingame. As shown above Blasingame
was in the slitter control room around November 1 and 2 where he heard Terry
Cockrum threatened that the employees would lose their 401(k) plan and their
insurance premiums would increase if the Union came in. On one occasion Blasingame
replied to Cockrum that he understood that the Company couldn’t take anything during
the negotiation process. Cockrum said they could do anything and he bet Blasingame
$100 that we would lose the benefits if the Union came in. Terry Cockrum said that Rick
Davis had told him that if the Union came in it was probable they would have a strike
and Davis was afraid of violence and he’d just shut down the plant.
11
JD(ATL)–27–03

Blasingame attended a meeting held by Tom McIntyre around November 4 or 5,
1999. The day before that meeting Cockrum paged Blasingame and said that Rick
Davis had said to get Blasingame out of the break room. Blasingame was on his break
talking to other employees when Cockrum paged him. Cockrum told Blasingame not to
be talking about Union business on Company property. He said that management was
watching Blasingame closely and if Blasingame needed anything in the break room to
go get in and get the hell out. Cockrum said that if the Union did not get in the plant
Blasingame would be the first “mother fucker” out the door.
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40

Early in November 1999 Terry Cockrum told employees including Blasingame
that if they were out hand billing at the gate or during a strike they were out picketing, he
had the right to run over or shoot the employees.

Around November 16, 1999 Cockrum paged Blasingame. Cockrum told him to
look busy by sweeping around the line and cleaning everything because management
was watching Blasingame and he didn’t want Rick Davis on his ass. Cockrum told
Blasingame that he definitely did not want Davis on his ass.

Blasingame received a written warning around March 21, 2000 (RExh.16). Terry
Cockrum gave Blasingame the warning and Cockrum said Blasingame was receiving
the warning because he supported the Union. Blasingame went to Steve Layes and
complained about the warning. Layes told him that normally since Blasingame had a
doctor’s excuse nothing would happen but he was warned since he was a strong union
supporter and they weren’t going to give him any slack.6

Findings:
Credibility:

As shown above I credit the testimony of Blasingame and I do not credit the
testimony of Terry Cockrum. Nor do I credit the testimony of Steve Layes. Layes
testified that he did not tell Blasingame that he would not have given him a warning but
for the fact that Blasingame was such a strong supporter of the Union. As shown above,
I find Blasingame to be a credible witness. His testimony was supported by other
testimony and I was impressed with his demeanor. Therefore, I credit the testimony of
Blasingame and do not credit the conflicting testimony of Cockrum and Layes.

Conclusions:

In view of the credited evidence I find that Respondent was aware of Henry
Blasingame’s Union views including his and other members of the first shift corrugator
crew wearing Union shirts on the day of the first election – November 19, 1999.
Moreover, as shown above, Blasingame was involved in several discussions with Terry

6 Layes was asked if he had a conversation with Blasingame after he gave him his warning and he
answered that he was sure he did. Layes denied that he told Blasingame that he normally would
not award the waning but was since Blasingame was such a strong supporter of the Union.
12
JD(ATL)–27–03

Cockrum where Blasingame openly support the Union. Cockrum threatened
Blasingame because of his Union activities including a threat that because of his Union
activities Blasingame would be the first one out the door if the Union were not elected. I
find that General Counsel proved that Respondent was motivated by Union animus in
warning Blasingame on March 21, 2000. In view of the entire record and especially
credited testimony showing that Terry Cockrum and Steve Layes told Blasingame he
was receiving the warning because of his support of the Union, I find that Respondent
failed to prove that Blasingame would have been warned in the absence of his Union
activity. Among other things Respondent failed to show how Respondent’s absenteeism
practice before the warning differed from instances that it routinely tolerated until the
Union organizing campaigns. See Manno Electric, 321 NLRB 1, fn. 12 (1996); Wright
Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F. 2d 899(1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S.
989 (1982); NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393 (1983).

Adversely changed work schedules in June 2000:

There is no dispute but that Respondent placed all its corrugator operators on
rotating shifts on June 26, 2000. Prior to that date Respondent had never used rotating
shifts for non–supervisory employees. Immediately before June 2000 Respondent used
two shifts. Each shift ran 10 hours each day and overtime was used as needed. One
shift ran days and the other nights with no rotation. After June 26 Respondent ran three
shifts of six 10–hour days. The three shifts rotated so that no one crew worked
exclusively day or night shifts. That change to rotating shifts affected the pay and hours
of employees including the first shift corrugator employees. Wayne Christian testified
that the corrugator crew lost 10 hours overtime and each week and they lost shift
preference seniority, by being placed on rotation.

As shown herein, there was evidence showing that from before the first election,
the first shift corrugator crew fully supported the Union, Respondent knew of that
support and Respondent made several threats to place the first shift corrugator
operators on rotating shift if the Union came in.

Steve Tyler was the Union observer at the first election. He noticed that
employees including all the employees on the first shift corrugator crew wore Union
shirts. None of the first shift corrugator crew employees failed to wear a Union shirt.
Michael Standridge testified that all the first shift corrugator employees wore black
Union t–shirts on the day of the first election (i.e., November 19, 1999).

As shown above, on several occasions Terry Cockrum threatened first shift
corrugator employees with being placed on a rotating shift due to their Union support.

Mark Horton testified about a conversation involving Terry Cockrum around
November 1, 1999. Cockrum said that the employees needed to kind of let this union
blow over or you may possibly go to a rotating shift. Cockrum said the guys up front
were saying that. The next day Cockrum offered to bet Henry Blasingame $100 they
would go to a rotating shift if it didn’t die down.

13
JD(ATL)–27–03

On May 2 after Cockrum said the employees were going on a rotating shift if they
continued trying to get the Union in, Wayne Christian asked why in view of the fact that
50% of the plant had voted for the Company. Cockrum replied that 100% of their crew7
voted for the Union and you all are going to get ram–butted for it.
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40

Terry Cockrum admitted that he told employees they would go to a rotating shift8
but he denied telling them they would go to a rotating shift if the Union came in.
Cockrum admitted that he probably told the employees on the first shift that Rick Davis
was mad about the Union campaign. He denied telling the employees they were going
on a rotating shift because Davis was mad. He also denied telling employees they had
been ram–butted.

Findings in regard to General Counsel’s case:
Credibility:

As shown above I do not credit the testimony of Terry Cockrum to the extent it
conflicted with credited evidence. I credit the testimony of Steve Tyler, Michael
Standridge, Mark Horton and Wayne Christian in consideration of demeanor and the full
record.

Conclusions:

The credited evidence shows that corrugator employees engaged in Union
activities; that Respondent knew of those Union activities and that Respondent
illustrated strong Union animus. As to the activity of the corrugator employees the
record shows that the first shift corrugator employees were all Union supporters and
Respondent had reason to believe they were 100% involved in that effort. That
evidence included evidence that all the first shirt corrugator employees wore black
Union t–shirts on the day of the first election.

Respondent repeatedly threatened it employees with reassignment to a rotating
shift because of the Union and Respondent reassigned employees including its first shift
corrugator employees, to a rotating shift. Also as shown above, from about the time of
the filing of the petition for an election with the NLRB in October 1999 Respondent
started consideration of a rotating shift and Terry Cockrum started threatening first shift
corrugator employees that Respondent would place them on rotating shift if the Union
was elected. Wayne Christian testified about conversations with Cockrum beginning on
October 1, 1999 in which, among other things, Cockrum threatened employees with
loss of benefits because of the Union. On October 6 Cockrum threatened that he had
the right to run over or shoot picketing employees that blocked the way into the plant.
Cockrum continued to make threats to employees.

The first election was held on November 19 and it appeared that the Union had
failed to receive a majority of the votes. Terry Cockrum told first shift corrugator

7 Their crew was the first shift corrugator operator crew.
8 It was never shown how Cockrum learned about Respondent’s plans for rotating shifts.
14
JD(ATL)–27–03

employees that it was a good thing the employees did not vote in the Union because
Wayne Christian would go to a rotating shift.

However, challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the election
results and the Union filed objections. On December 21 the parties agreed to hold a
second election.
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45

At the second election on February 11, 2000 the Union received 56 votes. There
were 51 votes against the Union and there were 5 challenged ballots. Challenged
ballots were sufficient to affect the election results and Respondent filed objections.9 A
hearing was held on the challenged ballots and objections on March 25, 2000.

In March Respondent announced that it would start rotating shifts for its
corrugator employees. However, rotating shifts were not implemented at that time.

Around May 2 Terry Cockrum told some first shift corrugator employees they
were going on a rotating shift if they continued trying to get the Union.

On June 23 the hearing officer’s report issued showing that two challenges
should be sustained and Respondent’s objections should be overruled. Therefore, there
was strong reason at that moment to believe that the Union had won the February
election.

On June 26 Respondent implemented rotating shifts for corrugator employees.

As shown above several first shift corrugator employees testified and I credited
their testimony. Their testimony showed that while on the first shift Corrugator
employees routinely worked 50 to 60 hours a week. The reassignment to rotating shift
resulted in a loss to each employee of from 10 to 20 overtime hours each week plus any
benefits from seniority for shift preference purposes.

In view of the entire credited record I agree with General Counsel. I find that
Respondent was motivated by its Union animus to reassign employees to a rotating
shift on June 23, 2000. Manno Electric, 321 NLRB 1, fn. 12 (1996); Wright Line, 251
NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F. 2d 899(1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982);
NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393 (1983).

Respondent’s defense:

I shall also question whether Respondent would have reassigned its employees
to a rotating shift in the absence of Union activity. Respondent argued that it was faced
with a high level of business in 1999 along with the fact that it was already using
extensive overtime. In October 1999 Respondent viewed its 5–year plan (RExh. 4) as
requiring an increase in production because it forecast significant increase in business,
mostly from Anheuser Busch.

9 The objections were filed on February 18, 2000.
15
JD(ATL)–27–03

In order to increase production Respondent decided to purchase a new Flexo
machine, which was more appropriate for the work performed in the facility. Respondent
pointed to an AFE (Appropriation for Expenditure) showing the plan to purchase the
Flexo machine for over a million dollars (RExh. 5). The Flexo machine was to be down
line from the corrugator but its anticipated increased efficiency was thought to require
more production from the corrugator.
5
10
15
20
25
30
35

In view of the fact that the existing two shifts were already putting in extensive
overtime work and Respondent had received some complaints about that extensive
overtime from employees and spouses of employees, Respondent looked to other
avenues to increase corrugator production.10

Respondent contended in a letter to the Regional Office of the NLRB, that its
corrugator operations consisted of 2 shifts before the change in the summer of 2000
(GCExh. 8). Each shift was assigned work of 8 hours per day for “five days a week, and
on Saturdays as business demanded.”

However, as shown above, other evidence showed that it was the routine
practice for each of the two shifts to operate five or six 10–hour days a week. That
produced at least 100 production hours from each job over a one–week period.11

If Respondent had added a third shift and employed a straight three–shift
operation of 8–hours, 5 days a week, it would produce 120 production hours per job. Of
course it would not be possible to employ three 10–hour shifts during a 24–hour day.12
A straight non–rotating schedule would be limited to shifts of 8 hours each if each
respective shift maintained the same working hours each day.

The testimony regarding 10–hour versus 8–hour shifts, was to the effect that the
Company’s experience with 8–hour shifts had not been good. Rick Hicks testified that
Respondent had run three eight hour shifts once, maybe twice before, probably in the
early 1990’s and had learned that the corrugator had always produced more efficiently
running two 10–hour shifts.

It is noteworthy that Hicks’s testimony is contrary to statements in Respondent’s
position letter (RExh. 8). There Respondent contended that it had been using an 8–hour
shift up until it converted to a three–shift operation in 2000. Therefore, if as Respondent

10 However, the Appropriation for Expenditure (RExh. 5) showing a request for the purchase of the
Flexo machine was dated November 17, 1999. That was over 2 months after Respondent started
its consideration of using three rotating shifts.
11 The formula used is 2 (representing two employees, one from each shift) times 50 (representing
the number of pre–assigned hours each of the two employees worked each week).
12 Before June 26 Respondent used available downtime from 1:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m. each day (i.e.,
4 hours when the two shifts worked 10 hours each), for maintenance and cleanup.
16
JD(ATL)–27–03

contended in its position letter it was using 8–hour shifts, it operated on an inefficient
basis in the view of Rick Hicks, until June or July 2000.13

In his testimony at the hearing, Rick Hicks stated that production went down
during the occasions when Respondent used 8–hour shifts.14 Hicks admitted those
drops in production were probably due to some inexperience. However, he also pointed
out that 8–hour shifts left no down time for clean up and maintenance on the corrugator
machine. In view of my determination as to Hicks’s credibility, I am not convinced that
8–hour shifts were inefficient.
5
10
15
20
25
30
35

Tom McIntyre suggested to Respondent and submitted a three–shift plan used at
a Saturn plant (RExh. 6). That plan called for each of three shifts to work 6 successive
workdays15 on either the day or night shift, then, after a break of some days, to work the
alternate shift of night or day for six consecutive workdays.16 Respondent decided to
use the Saturn plan and it was implemented on June 26, 2000.

Findings:
Credibility:

There are several reasons why I must question the credibility of Respondent’s
evidence tending to show that it would have gone to a rotating shift in the absence of
Union activity. In that regard I shall examine what, if any, consideration should be given
to the fact that employees were being threatened with rotating shift if they continued to
support the Union, at the very time that Respondent was actually considering a rotating
shift? As shown above the evidence illustrated that Respondent began its consideration
of rotating shifts some time before mid–October 1999. Shortly thereafter Terry Cockrum
was threatening employees with rotating shifts if they did not let the Union matter blow
over. In view of that evidence I shall examine all Respondent’s arguments and its
evidence carefully in determining credibility and I shall make those findings as required
below.

Moreover, as shown above I do not credit disputed testimony by Rick Hicks in
view of conflicts in his testimony and Respondent’s statement of position to the NLRB
regional office.

Additionally, in regard to credibility I am also concerned by Respondent’s failure
to show that it exhausted all courses of action in consideration of its alleged objective of

13 In that regard I am convinced that Hicks was not completely candid in his testimony regarding at
least one of the reasons why Respondent changed to rotating shifts of 10 hours each. I do not
credit his testimony to the effect that Respondent had discovered in the early 1990s that 8–hour
shifts were inefficient.
14 Despite Hicks’s testimony Respondent’s position letter (GCExh. 8) stated that Respondent was
using 8–hour shifts until it changed to rotating shifts. In other words Respondent was using two
8–hour shifts throughout 1999 and the first two quarters of 2000. Respondent’s summary of its
productivity (RExh.11) shows that productivity improved throughout the time from the beginning of
1998 until the end of the 4th quarter of 2001.
15 Workdays were considered all days each week other than Sunday.
16 Under that three–shift plan, no more than two shifts would work on any given day.
17
JD(ATL)–27–03

working no more than 20 hours each day in order to provide some down time for the
corrugator machine. The record showed that Respondent only considered the “Saturn”
plan for three shifts.17

Conclusions: 5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40

Respondent argued that it established the third shift for legitimate reasons.
However, it appears from the record that the addition of a third shift was never the
issue. Instead both the threats to employees and the allegation that it “adversely
changed the working schedules of employees”, concerned going to rotating shifts.
There was no showing that Respondent ever threatened to “add another shift” if the
employees continued to support the Union. Therefore, I reject that argument by
Respondent.

Nevertheless, even if I should consider whether Respondent proved that it
implemented a third shift for legitimate reasons, that evidence is not without dispute. For
example if one considers cost, production and productivity, there is a serious question
of whether Respondent proved that it would have implemented a third shift in the
absence of its employees’ union activities. As to cost, there was no showing that
Respondent anticipated the addition of a third shift would be less costly than its two–
shift operation. Nothing was offered to show how the question of cost figured in
Respondent’s alleged calculations.

As to production, Respondent’s exhibit 10 showed that it suffered a decline in
production during the next two quarters after implementing a third corrugator machine
shift at the end of June 2000.

In regard to productivity Respondent’s exhibit 11 showed that it experienced a
steady improvement in productivity from the first quarter of 1998 until it decided to add a
third shift to the corrugator line in March 2000. From March 2000 throughout the third
quarter of 2000, productivity declined.

Therefore, I find that Respondent did not prove it would have added a third shift
on June 26, 2000 in the absence of the Union organizing campaign.

In consideration of the question of would Respondent have implemented rotating
shifts for all corrugator employees in 2000, Respondent argued that following its
decision to add a third shift, the question it then faced was whether it should employ
three fixed shifts of eight hours each or whether it should implement a rotating shift.
Respondent used the term rotating shift to mean three rotating shifts and it argued that
it decided on rotating shift in order to allow 4 hours down time on the corrugator
machine each 24–hour period for clean–up and maintenance and to reduce overtime. In
other words it decided to maintain two 10–hour shifts each 24–hour period rather than

17 There was also reference to 4 shifts in RExh. 7. However, from that document and the full record
it appears that Respondent never gave serious consideration to a 4–shift operation.
18
JD(ATL)–27–03

go to three 8–hour shifts each 24–hour period. Respondent also decided on a regular
6–day week with Sundays off.

Apparently Respondent then ignored any question of different alternatives for
consideration in maintaining its two 10–hour shifts and reducing overtime. Instead it
simply looked in one direction and that was the direction it had been threatening to
employ since November 1999. Respondent failed to show that it could not have
maintained its 10–hour shift and reduced overtime by adding a third shift, without going
to a three–shift rotation. For example Respondent failed to show why it could not have
used a 6–day workweek, with all Sundays off, and rotated only the newly implemented
third shift on both day and night shift times.
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45

Instead Respondent argued that it was inexperienced and that its actual
experience in using 8–hour shifts had not been good. Therefore, it adopted Tom
McIntyre’s suggestion to use the Saturn automobile plan of rotating shifts. It
implemented the Saturn plan apparently without consideration to its extended period of
threats to do exactly what it now planned regarding rotating shifts for corrugator
employees and it apparently implemented that plan without considering any alternative
plans.

Respondent argued that when it implemented its rotating shifts, it gave only
business related reasons to its employees for the use of that system. However, by that
same token, there was no showing that Respondent ever expressed to employees that
their Union activity had nothing to do with implementation of rotating shifts for corrugator
employees.

Respondent argued that the three rotating shifts were actually beneficial to
employees by reducing onerous overtime. However, even if I accept that a reduction in
overtime in this instance was beneficial to all the corrugator employees, there was no
showing that the other side of the coin (i.e. Other consequences such as continuous
changes from day to night work) was also beneficial. In fact there was a showing that
some, if not all, the effects of rotating shifts adversely changed working conditions.
Moreover, Respondent’s argument failed to address the problem presented by General
Counsel. In effect General Counsel complained that not only did Respondent adversely
change working schedules but also it did so after it had made several threats to
employees to make those exact changes because of its employees’ union activities.

Respondent argued that Terry Cockrum’s threats did not transform its lawful
decision to go to three rotating shifts from a legal to an illegal action. In that regard it
argued that Cockrum’s comments were unbelievable. However, despite some extreme
comments from Cockrum such as he had the right to run over and shoot any picketing
employee, the record failed to show that all Cockrum’s comments were unbelievable. In
fact just the opposite was shown as to rotating shifts. The record proved that Cockrum
was making threats about rotating shifts at the very time Respondent was considering
doing just that. Moreover, there was no showing that Cockrum’s comments about other
consequence including for example, loss of 401(k) and increased insurance premiums
were unrealistic or unbelievable. Therefore, even if I should conclude that his comments
19
JD(ATL)–27–03

regarding what he could legally do to a picketing employee were unbelievable, and I do
not make such a finding, there is nothing in the record to show that the material threats,
(i.e. threats regarding rotating shifts) were unbelievable.

5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Respondent argued that Cockrum’s threats did not reflect the Company’s
motives in that Cockrum had no role in changing to rotating shifts and that Cockrum was
speaking on his own in that regard. However, the evidence showed otherwise. Even
though Cockrum was not in Respondent’s management, he was an admitted supervisor
and he apparently had some knowledge of Respondent’s planning regarding rotating
shifts. Otherwise, it is a remarkable coincidence that he started threatening rotating
shifts at almost the exact time Respondent formalized its consideration of rotating shifts,
and his threats extended until Respondent actually implemented rotating shifts. I am not
convinced that Cockrum’s threats did not reflect Respondent’s motives. Moreover, I see
nothing in the record, which convinced me that the employees should have known
Respondent’s motives were lawful.

Respondent cited the testimony of Mike Standridge. However, that testimony
showed that Standridge was testifying as to what he was told by Respondent as to its
reason for going to a rotating shift. Mark Horton brought up with Rick Davis, Terry
Cockrum calling him a liar and Respondent argued that showed that Horton was not
troubled by Cockrum’s rotating shift threats. Respondent argued that Henry Blasingame
was not troubled by Cockrum’s rotating shifts threats because he spoke to Rick Davis
about no solicitation. I am unable to agree with Respondent and I find that neither
Standridge, nor Horton, nor Blasingame’s testimony showed that any of those
employees were unconcerned with Cockrum’s threats regarding rotating shifts.

I do not agree with Respondent that this is a proper question to apply the rule
from Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2nd Cir. 1964). However, as in Bourne, I have
considered the totality of the circumstances and I am convinced that it does show a
violation of Section 8(a)(3) by Respondent’s implementation of three rotating shifts. I
find that Respondent was motivated by its animus in implementing rotating shifts and
the record did not show Respondent would have implemented rotating shifts in the
absence of its employees’ union activities.

Therefore, I find the record failed to prove that Respondent would have added a
third shift and the record failed to prove that Respondent would have gone to a three
shift rotation, in the absence of its employees’ Union activities. In that regard I have also
considered the arguments advanced in Respondent’s brief and find that none of those
arguments show that Respondent would have added a third shift or gone to rotating
shifts in the absence of its employees’ Union activities.

I find that Respondent engaged in conduct in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3)
by going to rotating shifts on June 26, 2000.

20
JD(ATL)–27–03

Conclusions of Law

1. By threatening its employees with loss of their 401(k) retirement plan, with
increased insurance premiums, by offering to bet its employee that he would lose his
401(k) retirement plan, by threatening its employee that his work and nonwork activities
were being closely monitored and watched by management, that the plant would be
shut down if the employees went out on strike, that it would call the police if the Union
hand billed, that its employee would be the first one out the door if the Union did not get
in, that some of the employees would be in trouble and Respondent was going to
arbitrate every case if the Union got in, that its supervisor had the right to run over and
shoot employees if they picketed, and threatening that its corrugator employees would
go to a rotating shift, because of its employees’ Union activities; the Respondent,
Willamette Industries, Inc. and Weyerhaeuser Company has engaged in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
5
10
15
20
25
30
35

2. By counseling or warning its employees Mark Standridge and Henry
Blasingame and by adversely changing its working schedules of corrugator employees,
because of its employees’ union activities, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) and Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.

Remedy

Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I
find that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.

Having found that Respondent unlawfully warned its employees Mark Standridge
and Henry Blasingame, I recommend that Respondent be ordered to remove all record
of those unlawful warnings, to avoid use of those records and to inform Standridge and
Blasingame in writing that it has removed those records of their warnings and that it will
not use those records against them.18

On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue
the following recommended:19

18 It appears from the brief that General Counsel does not seek restoration of Respondent’s former
fixed shifts nor does General Counsel seek a make whole remedy.
19 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
21
JD(ATL)–27–03

ORDER20

The Respondent, Willamette Industries, Inc. and Weyerhaeuser Company, its
officers, agents, and representatives, shall
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40

1. Cease and desist from:

(i) Threatening its employees with loss of their 401(k) retirement plan,
because of its employees’ Union activities.

(ii) Threatening its employees with increased insurance premiums,
because of its employees’ Union activities.

(iii) Offering to bet its employee that the employee would lose his
401(k) retirement plan, because of its employees’ Union activities.

(iv) Threatening its employees that employee’s work and nonwork
activities are being closely monitored and watched by management, because of its
employees’ Union activities.

(v) Threatening its employees that the plant would be shut down if the
employees go out on strike, because of its employees’ Union activities.

(vi) Threatening its employees that it will call the police if the Union
hand billed, because of its employees’ Union activities.

(vii) Threatening its employees that its employee will be the first one out
the door if the Union did not get in, because of its employees’ Union activities.

(viii) Threatening its employees that some employees will be in trouble
and Respondent was going to arbitrate every case if the Union got in, because of its
employees’ Union activities.

(ix) Threatening its employees that its supervisor had the right to run
over and shoot employees if they picketed at its gate, because of its employees’ Union
activities.

(x) Threatening its employees that its corrugator employees will go to a
rotating shift, because of its employees’ Union activities.

(xi) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.

18 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice
reading “POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD” shall read “POSTED
PURSUANT TO A JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING AN
ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.”
22
JD(ATL)–27–03

2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of
the Act:

(i) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from its files any
reference to the unlawful warnings issued to Mark Standridge and Henry Blasingame,
and within 3 days thereafter notify Standridge and Blasingame in writing that this has
been done and that the warnings will not be used against either of them in any way.
5
10
15
20
25
30
35

(ii) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility or
office in Fort Smith, Arkansas copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”21
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 26, after
being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the
Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in
conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that, during
these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility
involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own
expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and former employees employed
by the Respondent at any time since November 2001.

(iii) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional
Director a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region
attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed insofar as it alleges
violations of the Act not specifically found.

Dated, Washington, D.C.

_________________________________________
Pargen Robertson
Administrative Law Judge

21 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice
reading “POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD” shall read “POSTED
PURSUANT TO A JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING AN
ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.”
23
JD(ATL)–27–03

APPENDIX

NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES

Posted by Order of the 5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government

The National Labor Relations Board had found that we violated Federal labor law and
has ordered us to post and obey this notice.

FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO

Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities

WE WILL NOT threaten you with loss of your 401(k) retirement plan if you support
Paper, Allied–Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International Union, AFL–CIO,
CLC or any other labor organization.

WE WILL NOT threaten you with increased insurance premiums if you support a union.

WE WILL NOT offer to bet our employees they would lose their 401(k) retirement plan if
they select a union as their bargaining representative.

WE WILL NOT threaten to closely monitor your work or nonworking activities because
of our employees’ union activities.

WE WILL NOT threaten that the plant will be shut down if the employees go out on
strike.

WE WILL NOT threaten to call the police if the Union hand bills at our facility.

WE WILL NOT threaten our employee that he or she will be the first one out the door if
the Union is not selected as our employees’ bargaining representative.

WE WILL NOT threaten you that some employees will be in trouble and that we will
arbitrate every case if the Union is elected.

WE WILL NOT threaten that our supervisor has the right to run over and shoot anyone
picketing at our facility.

24
JD(ATL)–27–03

WE WILL NOT threaten that our corrugator employees will be placed on a rotating shift
if the Union is elected.

WE WILL NOT warn or otherwise discriminate against any of you because of your
union activities. 5
10
15
20
25

WE WILL NOT change working conditions of our employees because of their protected
concerted activities or because of their involvement in unfair labor practice charges.

WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.

WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, remove from our files any
reference to the unlawful warnings to Mark Standridge and Henry Blasingame and WE
WILL, within 3 days thereafter, notify each of them in writing that this has been done
and that the warnings will not be used against them in any way.

30
35
WILLAMETT INDUSTRIES, INC. AND WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY
(Employer)

Dated: ___________________________ By: ______________________________________
(Representative) (Title)

The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor Relations
Act. It conducts secret–ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it investigates and
remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under the Act and how to file a
charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s Regional Office set forth below. You may
also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov. 40
45
1407 Union Avenue, Mid–Memphis Tower Building, Suite 800, Memphis, TN 38104–3627
(901) 544–0018, Hours: 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST
NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS
NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (901) 544–0011.
25
JD(ATL)–27–03

The National Labor Relations Board had found that we violated Federal labor law and
has ordered us to post and obey this notice.

5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO

Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities

WE WILL NOT threaten you with loss of your 401(k) retirement plan if you support
Paper, Allied–Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International Union, AFL–CIO,
CLC or any other labor organization.

WE WILL NOT threaten you with increased insurance premiums if you support a union.

WE WILL NOT offer to bet our employees they would lose their 401(k) retirement plan if
they select a union as their bargaining representative.

WE WILL NOT threaten to closely monitor your work or nonworking activities because
of our employees’ union activities.

WE WILL NOT threaten that the plant will be shut down if the employees go out on
strike.

WE WILL NOT threaten to call the police if the Union hand bills at our facility.

WE WILL NOT threaten our employee that he or she will be the first one out the door if
the Union is not selected as our employees’ bargaining representative.

WE WILL NOT threaten you that some employees will be in trouble and that we will
arbitrate every case if the Union is elected.

WE WILL NOT threaten that our supervisor has the right to run over and shoot anyone
picketing at our facility.

WE WILL NOT threaten that our corrugator employees will be placed on a rotating shift
if the Union is elected.

WE WILL NOT warn or otherwise discriminate against any of you because of your
union activities.

WE WILL NOT change working conditions of our employees because of their protected
concerted activities or because of their involvement in unfair labor practice charges.
26
JD(ATL)–27–03

WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.

WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, remove from our files any
reference to the unlawful warnings to Mark Standridge and Henry Blasingame and WE
WILL, within 3 days thereafter, notify each of them in writing that this has been done
and that the warnings will not be used against them in any way.
5
10
15
20
25
30
35

WILLAMETT INDUSTRIES, INC. AND WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY
(Employer)
40
Dated: ___________________________ By: ______________________________________
(Representative) (Title)

27