Woonsocket Spinning Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1980

252 N.L.R.B. 1170 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Woonsocket Spinning Company arnd Amalgamated
Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL-
CIO, CLC. Case 1l-CA-8371
September 30, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND PENELI.O
On June 26, 1980, Administrative Law Judge J.
Pargen Robertson issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief, and the Charging
Party filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings,l and conclusions2 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 Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Woonsocket
Spinning Company, Charlotte, North Carolina, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the said recommended
Order.
I Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi-
bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con-
vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
z We agree with the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that the
Christmas bonus at issue here constituted wages. In so doing, we rely on
the fact that it was Respondent's custom and practice to give such a
bonus IThus, as the Administrative Law Judge found, employees had re-
ceived the bonus for 17 years prior to 1978 Such a pattern clearly indi-
cates that the bonus was a wage Laredo Coca Cola Bottling Company, 241
NLRB 167 (1979); Gas Machinery Company, 221 NLRB 862 (1975); A'ello
Pistoresi & Son. Inc. (S & D Trucking Co.. Inc.), 203 NI.RB 905 (1973).
We also note that the record supports the other findings and conclusions
of the Administrative Law Judge on the status of the bonus
DECISION
STATI'EMENT OF THE CASE
J. PARGEN ROBERTSON, Administrative Law Judge:
This case was heard on January 9, 1980, at Gastonia,
North Carolina. The charge was filed on May 25, 1979.
The complaint issued on June 29, 1979, and was amend-
ed on January 9, 1980.
252 NLRB No. 163
The complaint, as amended, alleges that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(l), (3), and (5) of the Act, by unilat-
erally withholding the 1978 Christmas bonus from bar-
gaining unit employees, and Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
threatening its employee with discharge for criticizing
working conditions, and with retaliation because its em-
ployees discussed union matters, and by informing its
employees that its 1978 Christmas bonus would be with-
held from employees that voted for the Union and that
its employees would not receive the 1979 Christmas
bonus because the employee had signed a union card.
Upon the entire record,' and from my observation of
the witnesses and after due consideration of the briefs
filed by the General Counsel, the Charging Party (herein
Union), and Respondent, I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS
A. The Evidence
During the summer of 1978, the Union commenced an
organizational drive at Respondent's Charlotte, North
Carolina, plant.
Prior to 1978, Respondent had, for some 17 years,
given its Charlotte employees a Christmas bonus. During
the 5 years immediately preceding 1978, the Christmas
bonus paid to Respondent's hourly paid employees was
determined, in the case of each such employee, by multi-
plying the number of hours worked by the respective
employee during the preceding 12 months, by the
number of years the employee had worked for Respon-
dent, by the figure .0060.
During July 1978, Respondent's vice president and
general manager, Norman Picard, informed all employ-
ees that Respondent had decided to award them a July
bonus. 2 According to Picard, he was holding up a union
leaflet when he addressed the employees. Picard told the
employees that the "corporate" had decided that inas-
much as the people had worked hard to help with Re-
spondent's good performance, they would receive a
bonus at that time. Picard admitted that he waved the
union leaflet and said that the bonus had nothing to do
with this. Picard testified that Respondent's fiscal year
ended on June 30, and that Respondent had decided to
"break tradition" and give a bonus in July, because it
was obvious that they were going to have a good year
(ending June 30, 1978).
Employee Thelma Traylor testified, without rebuttal,
that when Norman Picard finished informing employees
of the July bonus, she was standing next to Picard's assis-
tant, Supervisor Pete Tessier. Traylor asked Tessier if
the employees would still get their Christmas bonus. Tes-
sier replied, "Yes, we would."
I Neither jurisdiction nor the status of the Union is at issue The com-
plaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that Respondent is an Em-
ploer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec 2(6) and (7) of
the Act. The answer also admits and I find that the Union is a labor or-
ganization as defined in the Act.
The Union's February 14, 1980, motion to correct the transcript is
hereby granted
2 The JulI 1978 bonus was not based on the above-mentioned formu-
la, which as used in determining the employees' bonus during the last 5
years. The July bonus was based on each employees' pay for half a week
1170
WOONSOCKET SPINNING COMPANY
On October 19, 1978, an election was conducted at
Respondent's plant. The Union received 154 votes for
representation and 43 votes against. On October 27,
1978, the Regional Director, Region 11, certified the
Union as exclusive bargaining representative of the fol-
lowing of Respondent's employees:
All production and maintenance employees, quality
control technicians, and plant clerical employees
employed at Respondent's Charlotte, North Caroli-
na, facility, excluding office clerical employees, pro-
fessional employees, guards and supervisory em-
ployees as defined in the Act.3
On November 27, 1978, the parties held their first ne-
gotiation session. Thereafter, following rumors that the
employees would not receive a 1978, Christmas bonus,
the Union circulated leaflets to the employees and sent a
letter to Respondent, on December 15, 1978, protesting
Respondent's decision not to give a Christmas bonus. In
both the leaflet and the letter the Union protested that
Respondent's refusal to grant the bonus constituted a
violation of the National Labor Relations Act.
Also on December 15, according to the testimony of
employee Nancy Walker, she was in Respondent's em-
ployee cafeteria with three ladies that she did not know
and Supervisor Joseph DuCharme. Walker testified that
one of the women asked Mr. DuCharme why the em-
ployees were not receiving a Christmas bonus. Du-
Charme replied that only the people that did not vote for
the Union would receive a Christmas bonus. Walker tes-
tified that the woman replied to DuCharme, that she
knew that was a lie because she had not voted for the
Union and she did not receive a bonus. Mr. DuCharme
testified that he was in the cafeteria on December 15,
and that he recalled having a conversation with some of
the employees. DuCharme testified that he did not know
the names of any of the employees. He also testified that
even though he had been in the hearing room through-
out the hearing, he did not know whether any of the em-
ployee witnesses were present during his December 15
conversation in the cafeteria. DuCharme testified that he
said nothing at all about the Union during that conversa-
tion. I found Mr. DuCharme's testimony to be less than
candid. I find it strange that he could recall the conver-
sation without recalling whether any of the witnesses
were present or not. I found incredible Mr. DuCharme's
denial that he had learned that Respondent would not
grant a Christmas bonus to hourly employees, on or
before December 15, in light of the knowledge of the
employees that they were not going to receive the
bonus. DuCharme admitted that he attended manage-
ment meetings and General Manager Picard admitted
that the decision not to award the Christmas bonus had
already been made when they met with the Union on
December 20, 1978. Respondent claimed that the conver-
sation as related by Walker did not make sense because
there was no way that Respondent could have known
which employees voted for the Union. However, I note
3 Respondent. in its answer, admitted that the unit constituted a unit
appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Sec 9(b) of the Act
that a small segment of the bargaining unit (three salaried
employees) did receive the 1978 Christmas bonus. Du-
Charme could have been thinking of those employees
when he implied that employees that did not select the
Union would receive the bonus. I found Nancy Walker
to be a straightforward witness and I credit her testimo-
1'y.
Witnesses for both parties agreed that the 1978 Christ-
mas bonus issue was first raised during the December 20,
1978, negotiation session. The Union protested that the
hourly employees were entitled to receive the bonus
since it had become a part of their wage structure. Gen-
eral Manager Picard admitted that Respondent's negotia-
tor, Edward Dowd, told the Union, on December 20,
that the decision had already been made on the bonus
and that the hourly employees would not receive it.
No hourly employee in the bargaining unit received a
Christmas bonus during 1978. However, salaried employ-
ees, including three salaried employees in the bargaining
unit received a Christmas bonus. Respondent contended,
during bargaining negotiations, that those three salaried
employees should be excluded from the bargaining unit.
In that regard, Respondent refused to furnish the Union
with requested information regarding the method of
computing the bonus for the three salaried employees in
the unit, on the asserted grounds that bonus and compen-
sation of salaried employees were management affairs.
Also, during the December 20 negotiations session,
Respondent's representative, Dowd, read a portion of a
newspaper article written by employee and member of
the union negotiating committee, Charlie Thomas. The
article was critical of Respondent. Dowd stated that any
further attacks on the Company by any employee would
result in disciplinary action including possible discharge.
After December 20, Respondent and the Union contin-
ued to meet in bargaining sessions until agreement was
reached during the June 11, 1979, session.4
During the January 4, 1979, negotiation session, Re-
spondent furnished the Union with a list of the three unit
employees (salaried) that had received the Christmas
1978 bonus, along with an indication of the amount each
received. The list was furnished pursuant to an earlier re-
quest by the Union. Respondent told the Union that their
position had not changed, that they would not pay a
Christmas bonus for 1978, to the remaining unit employ-
ees (hourly paid). The Union requested the formula by
which Respondent normally determined the amount of
the Christmas bonus. Respondent replied that they
would consider the Union's request in that regard.
Respondent supplied the formula for computing
Christmas bonus for hourly paid employees, to the Union
during the January 19 session. The Union asked for the
formula for the three salaried unit employees. They were
told that the salaried employees bonus was not deter-
mined by the same formula used on hourly employees,
but that Respondent viewed information regarding sala-
ried employees as exclusively management business. Re-
spondent told the Union that the information regarding
4 Sessions were held on November 27 and December 4 and 20, 1978;
and oln January 4, 19, and 29, February 12 and 20, March 1, 7. 15, 19,
and 20, April 3 and II, May 9. 15. 22, and 29., and on June 11, 1979
1171
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LAB()R RELATIONS BOARD
the salaried employees' bonus would not be released to
the Union.
At the March 20 negotiation session, General Manager
Picard complained that a member of the union negotiat-
ing committee, employee Don Holt, had ridiculed a com-
pany poster dealing with the negotiations in a loud and
flagrant manner on the day before, during work. Ac-
cording to the testimony of Union Representative
Craven, Picard said that he had not determined what
type of disciplinary action he would take against Holt.
On May 23, John Kissack, assistant southern director
of the Union, called Respondent's negotiator Dowd and
told Dowd of the Union's plan to file charges with the
NLRB regarding, among other things, the failure of Re-
spondent to pay the 1978 Christmas bonus. Those
charges (I l-CA-8371) were filed on May 25, 1979.
During the May 29 negotiation session, Respondent
proposed a "final offer." That proposal included a 20-
cent-per-hour increase plus an additional 5 cents per
hour "in lieu of a Christmas bonus." During the May 29
sessions, the parties communicated through a representa-
tive of Federal mediation, rather than face to face. John
Kissack testified that the 20-cent-plus-5-cent proposal
was offered as prospective only and that it was under-
stood by both parties that that particular proposal would
have no effect on the 11-CA-8371, unfair labor practice
charges regarding the 1978 Christmas bonus. Edward
Dowd admitted that the "final offer" of the extra 5 cents
per hour referred to the 1979 Christmas bonus, rather
than the 1978 bonus.
On June 11, the parties reached agreement on the con-
tract. The contract was actually signed on June 25.
Employee J. C. Clifton testified that he had a convera-
tion with his supervisor, James Cline, on December 21,
1979. Clifton testified that he mentioned to Cline that he
felt that he should get something from the Company by
saving them as much money as he had saved them
through the years. Cline replied, "Well, if you hadn't
voted for the Union, you might have got a Christmas
bonus." Supervisor Cline admitted that he often talked
with J. C. Clifton but denied telling Clifton on Decem-
ber 21, 1979, anything about the 1979 Christmas bonus.
However, Cline's overall testimony demonstrated that he
confused this conversation with a time during which he
had no knowledge of whether the employees would re-
ceive a bonus or not. Cline also indicated at one point
that he thought the questions regarding his conversation
with Clifton referred to 1978. Under the circumstances, I
found Cline's testimony to be unreliable. I credit Clif-
ton's account of the December 21 conversation.
B. Conclusions
1. The alleged unilateral change
"The law is well settled that unilateral changes in
terms and conditions of employment without bargaining
with the Union representing such employees violates
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act." Jimmy Dean Meat Company
of Texas, Inc., 227 NLRB 1527, 1530 (1977).
There appears to be no dispute as to whether Respon-
dent unilaterally denied a Christmas bonus during 1978
to its hourly paid employees in the bargaining unit. Re-
spondent did not notify the Union of its intentions until
the Union asked about the bonus during the December
20 negotiations. At that time, the Union was told that the
decision had already been made.
Furthermore, there appears to be little question but
that the Christmas bonus constituted wages. Respondent,
in its brief, admitted that "Respondent, in the present
case recognized this 'wage expectancy' aspects and the
fact that the bonus issue was a bargainable subject... ."
The evidence fully supports Respondent's admission. In
Radio Television Technical School, Inc. t/a Ryder Techni-
cal Institute v. N.L.R.B., 488 F.2d 457, 460 (3d Cir.
1973), the court, in questioning whether a Christmas
bonus constituted a gift or wage, stated that the follow-
ing factors should be considered: (1) the consistency or
regularity of the payments; (2) the uniformity in the
amount of the payments; (3) the relationship between the
amount of the bonus and there remuneration of the re-
cipient; (4) the taxability of the payment as income; and
(5) the financial condition and ability of the Employer.
When the above indicia are applied, there is little
doubt but that the Christmas bonus for hourly paid em-
ployees was wages. As to item (I) Christmas bonuses
were paid on consecutive Christmases for the 17 years
before 1978. As to item (2) for the last 5 years before
1978, the same formula was applied in determining the
amount each employee would receive. The formula, in
consideration of item (3), was based on each employee's
attendance and seniority. Respondent stipulated that it
regularly deducted income tax and social security tax
from the employees' Christmas bonus payments. As to
item (5) as in the Radio Television School case, Respon-
dent did not raise the issue and "could hardly do so
while continuing to pay bonuses to all non-union em-
ployees." (488 F.2d 460, fn. 4). Respondent admittedly
paid a 1978 Christmas bonus to salaried employees, in-
cluding three salaried employees in the bargaining unit
which it contended should be excluded from the unit.
Therefore, I find that the 1978 Christmas bonus for
hourly employees in the unit constituted wages, and, as
such, was a bargainable subject.
In a somewhat similar case, as to the 8(a)(5) aspect of
this case, the Board, in Nello Pistoresi & Son, Inc., 203
NLRB 905 (1973), held:
As it is clear that Respondent did not inform the
Union that it was considering not paying the 1971
bonus, and that Respondent notified the Union only
after the decision had already been made, this uni-
lateral action which resulted in changes in the
wages and terms of employment of employees, even
though not taken in bad faith, nevertheless violated
Respondent's statutory obligation.
Respondent, by unilaterally changing a bargainable
condition of employment, immediately after negotiations
commenced, appears to have clearly violated Section
8(a)(5) regardless of its intent. Moreover, the General
Counsel, by alleging that Respondent's actions also vio-
lated Section 8(a)(3), contended that Respondent refused
to grant the bonus in bad faith.
1172
WOONSOCKET SPINNING COMPANY
Respondent, however, offers a number of defenses to
the General Counsel's allegations. It first contends that it
did in fact bargain over the 1978 Christmas bonus. How-
ever, the evidence indicates nothing more than Respon-
dent's willingness to tell the Union, on each and every
occasion that the Union brought up the subject, that they
had in fact decided not to grant the 1978 Christmas
bonus. Respondent did supply the Union with its formula
for determining what each employee would normally re-
ceive as a Christmas bonus. However, there was no evi-
dence offered which would demonstrate that Respondent
expressed any intention to negotiate regarding the 1978
bonus. When the subject was first brought up by the
Union on December 20, 1978, Respondent presented the
Union with a fait accompli, there would be no bonus!
The evidence reflected that Respondent's position as to
the 1978 Christmas bonus never varied after December
20.
Respondent argued that by negotiating and signing a
complete collective-bargaining agreement during June
1979, the Union waived its right to insist on the 1978
Christmas bonus. However, that position is not support-
ed by the evidence. The evidence did reflect that on
May 29 Respondent proposed and the Union accepted an
additional 5-cent-per-hour increase in pay in lieu of Re-
spondent paying the Christmas bonus. However, the evi-
dence is not in dispute, that at the time of that agree-
ment, Respondent was well aware that the areement did
not affect the 1978 bonus. The National Labor Relations
Board's charge alleging that Respondent had violated the
Act by failing to award the 1978 bonus had just been
filed. A few days before the charge was filed, the Union,
through John Kissack, informed Respondent of its intent
to file the charge. Thereafter, during the May 29 negoti-
ation session, the parties were in accord that the 5-cent
proposal would not affect the Union's claim regarding
the 1978 bonus. Therefore, the evidence shows, and I
find, that the Union expressly reserved its right to con-
test Respondent's failure to award the 1978 Christmas
bonus.
Respondent's contention that it was justified in deny-
ing the 1978 bonus, because the parties had reached a
bargaining impasse, must also be rejected as lacking
merit. The bonus question was not raised during the first
negotiating session. When the Union brought up the sub-
ject during the second session, that of December 20,
1978, the decision had been made. In order for Respon-
dent's agreement to prevail, an impasse would have to
have occurred during or shortly after the first negotiat-
ing session. The evidence failed to show that such was
the case. In fact, the parties continued to negotiate on a
regular basis until agreement was reached on June 11
and a contract was signed on June 25. There was no evi-
dence to show that the parties ever reached impasse.
Respondent also contended that it offered a July 1978
bonus instead of the 1978 Christmas bonus. Respondent
did grant its employees a bonus at the end of the fiscal
year, June 30, 1978. That was an unusual occurrence.
However, the evidence is not in dispute that the assistant
to the general manager indicated that the July bontus was
not being given in lieu of the Christmas bonus. As indi-
cated above, when an employee asked that very ques-
tion, the supervisor, Pete Tessier, indicated that the em-
ployees would also receive their Christmas bonus. Also,
the July bonus was computed differently, as shown
above.
Therefore, on finding that the evidence does not sup-
port any of Respondent's defenses, I find that Respon-
dent unilaterally deprived its hourly paid unit employees
of their 1978 Christmas bonus in violation of Section
8(a)(5) of the Act. Additionally, in view of the evidence
reflecting that it was Respondent's intention in July 1978
to grant a Christmas bonus; Respondent's action in grant-
ing salaried employees5 the 1978 Christmas bonus; its re-
fusal to inform the Union of the basis on which it com-
puted the bonus for those three salaried employees in the
unit; and its threats that employees had lost their bonus
because they selected the Union, 6 I find that Respon-
dent's denials of the 1978 Christmas bonus to hourly paid
unit employees also violate Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. The 8(a)(1) allegations
a. Threats regarding loss of the Christmas bonus
As indicated in my findings, employees were told on
two occasions that they had lost their Christmas bonus
by voting in the Union. On December 15, 1978, Supervi-
sor Joseph DuCharme told a group of employees that
only those employees that did not vote for the Union
would receive a Christmas bonus. On December 21,
1979, Supervisor James Cline told employee J. C. Clifton
that he might have received a bonus if he had not voted
for the Union. I find that those threats constitute clear
violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The threats alone
would suffice. Under the circumstances herein, against
the background of Respondent depriving its hourly paid
unit employees of the 1978 Christmas bonus, the state-
ments of DuCharme and Cline become even more seri-
ous and effective.
b. The threats of the negotiation sessions
The General Counsel alleges that by uttering two
threats against members of the negotiation team, during
negotiations, Respondent engaged in additional viola-
tions.
During the December 20, 1978, negotiation session,
Respondent's negotiator, Edward Dowd, read some of a
newspaper article 7 written by employee Charlie Thomas.
I As shown above, three of the salaried employees were included in
Ihe bargaining unit The overall unit included approximately 200 employ-
ees
6 See my discussion below regarding the 8(a)( ) allegations
7 The article appeared in the December 1978 edition of "The Charlotte
Advocate" It was entitled "Woonsocket" uith the byline "by Charlie
Thomas' and read as follows
The dehairing department at Woonsocket Spinning Company is a
hellhole of heat and dust The machinery is so unsafe that 20 people
in the last 18 months have hbeen treated for injuries
In one recent case a oman's thumb was cut off in a machine
When the Company called to "see hosi she wAas." they had the nere
to ask if the oman's sister could cLme and work in her place until
she could return to %,ork!
Unsafe cnditlls are not the ornly problem I.os pay, forced
orerime, and the lack of a pensiton plan are major problems too
Contlnuld
1173
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Thomas was a member of the union negotiation commit-
tee. According to the testimony of Respondent's general
manager, Picard:
The meeting was opened by Ed Dowd reading
from the Charlotte Advocate certain uncomplimen-
tary remarks made about Woonsocket Spinning.
More specifically, Ed read the portion of the article
which says that Woonsocket Spinning Company is
a "Hell hole of heat and dust." Mr. Craven angrily
but unsuccessfully tried to stop Ed from reading the
article and towards the end of Ed's remarks, which
were in line with the sanctity of the bargaining
table, I informed Charlie Thomas that if these re-
marks continued in the Charlotte Advocate or any
other newspaper, he would be discharged.
The General Counsel's second allegation concerning
negotiation sessions, alleges that during the March 20,
1979, session, General Manager Norman Picard threat-
ened an employee with retaliation for discussing union
matters with other employees. Picard maintained notes
of the various sessions. Those notes on the March 20 ses-
sion show, inter alia:
Norman Picard brought up the fact that Don Holt
had shouted in the cafeteria about the Company
posting notices regarding the negotiating sessions.
He was told that it is our purpose to inform the
people whether or not they belong to the Union.
We have been flooded with questions regarding the
sessions and we feel an obligation to the people to
keep them informed. I also warned Don Holt that
reoccurrence of this kind of behavior in the cafete-
ria would lead to what is yet an undetermined repri-
mand. I also informed him that he had a bad habit
of suddenly shouting within the production unit. I
advised that some day he might need help and
someone will just think he's just fooling around the
way he always does and he will get hurt.
These are some of the reasons we voted 154 to 43 to affiliate with
the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Ulnion (ACTItWU)
We have ust begun contract negotiations with Woonsocket The
Company is represented by Ed Dowd of Central Piedmont Employ -
crs Association Dtowd's goal is in line with his right wing politics---
to do away with unions entirely. He is national co-chairman of the
Committee for a Union-free Environment.
At Woonsocket, Dosd's wish cannot come truc 'lhe large and
growig majority of workers arc determined to get a good cointract
within a very few weeks. Each time the negotiating committee goes
to he bargaining table the other workers in the plalit show their
unity by wscaring their union tee shirts and buttonis.
Even ill the early days of bargaining some gains have been woni
The Company has agreed to settle some grievances about safety con-
ditions, supervisor's abuses, and discrimination. hey have also
agreed to reclgilie temporary shop stewards.
But these inlpro ememnts arc based on verbal agreemeitis only ad
leave the final decisions otn complaints to the Company. A binding
writtell conlract is the onlly say to be sure of getting grievances set-
tled fairly. Nobody wants to have to strike to win a coltract but
every day mrire of us realize that it might become ncessary If
Dossd tries his staling tactics at Woonsocket, or if his final offer is
not acceptablc. we will definilely have a strike ote . hile strike is
our only essapon Sonmetimes it is cioughl to be ready, s illing and
able to strike, and somelinles it is necessar tIo walk out, hbut the
strike is our otnly real strenigti
These two allegations raise questions which must be
considered in the context of the negotiation sessions. Em-
ployees involved in the actual process of collective bar-
gaining are obviously engaged in activity protected by
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. In that
regard an Employer must exercise care that he does not
engage in activity which would have the likely effect of
discouraging participation by employees. The Board has
frequently cautioned Employers that they are not to ap-
proach negotiation sessions or grievance sessions in the
role of master and servant. The "master-servant relation-
ship does not carry into a grievance meeting, but there is
instead at such a meeting only company advocates on
the one side and union advocates on the other engaged
as opposing parties in litigation." Crown Central Petro-
leum Corporation, 177 NLRB 322 (1969).
In the instant situations Respondent was pursuing
goals which are legitimate and relevant. Certainly, Re-
spondent may demonstrate concern for published ac-
counts of negotiations if it feels those accounts may seri-
ously effect the progress of their negotiations. Also, Re-
spondent may demonstrate concern for activity which it
understands may be disruptive of the workplace. Howev-
er, in the instant occasions, Respondent ventured beyond
the steps necessary for the pursuit of its legitimate activi-
ties. In both instances Respondent threatened to disci-
pline employee members of the union negotiation com-
mittee. Absent extraordinary circumstances, threats to
discipline committee members serve no legitimate pur-
pose at the negotiation table.
Moreover, it appears that the employees' activities
which precipitated Respondent's threats were protected
activities. Charlie Thomas' newspaper article concerned
what Thomas argued were poor labor relations policies.
Thomas' article also reported on negotiations. Don Holt
complained about Respondent's bulletin board report of
the contract negotiations. Since both of those activities
are protected by Section 7 of the Act, the burden falls
on Respondent to demonstrate justification for its threats.
In both instances Respondent failed to prove proper jus-
tification.
There was no evidence showing that Charlie Thomas'
article contained untrue material. Springfield Library and
Museum Association, 238 NLRB 1673 (1978). Respon-
dent's concern with the article's possible effect on nego-
tiations did not logically relate to its action in threaten-
ing Thomas, even though it may have been a proper sub-
ject to discuss during negotiations.
Don Holt was alleged to have been too loud when he
criticized Respondent's poster. However, no evidence
was offered in that regard other than the admitted hear.
say testimony of Norman Picard, which was not re-
ceived as probative of Holt's actual conduct.
Therefore, I find that Respondent was not justified in
threatening employees Thomas and Holt, and those
threats constitute violations of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
CONCIUSIONS OF LAW
i. Respondent Woonsocket Spinning Company is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
1174
WOONSOCKET SINNING COMPANY
2. Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union,
AFL-CIO-CLC, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The following constitutes a unit appropriate for the
purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees, quality
control technicians, and plant clerical employees
employed at Respondent's Charlotte, North Caroli-
na, facility, excluding office clerical employees, pro-
fessional employees, guards, and supervisory em-
ployees as defined in the Act.
4. At all times material herein, the Union has been the
duly certified and designated representative of the em-
ployees in the aforesaid unit.
5. By informing its employees that they had lost their
Christmas bonus because they voted for the Union, and
by threatening its employees with disciplinary action in-
cluding discharge, because of their protected activity and
union activity, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of the
Act.
6. By unilaterally discontinuing the 1978 Christmas
bonus without affording the certified Union an opportu-
nity to bargain with respect thereto, because of its em-
ployees activity in selecting the Union as their bargaining
representative, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and
(5) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
TH- RMEI)
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(l), (3), and (5)
of the Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease
and desist therefrom, and to take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
My recommended Order shall require Respondent to
make whole its hourly paid bargaining unit employees,
for the monetary losses suffered by them as a result of
Respondent's unlawful unilateral discontinuance of the
payment of the 1978 Christmas bonus, with interest as
provided in Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651
(1977), and F W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289
(1950).8
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDERS
The Respondent, Woonsocket Spinning Company,
Charlotte, North Carolina, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall:
' See. generally. I1i Plu,,,hbing & rtig (o,, 138 NRB 716 (h621
" In the eci.ent no eceplolm, are Tcfiled a pro.lided h Sc 102 46 of IhE,
Rules and Regulaiioni lf Ihc Natiional Iahor RelaIio., Hiard h find-
ing,.. conclu1oIIs, and recomllltnlded ()rder heii sh.lall. i.l pr1xldcid in
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interfering with, restraining, and coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in
Section 7 of the Act. in violation of Section 8(a)( ) of
the Act, by telling its employees that they lost their
Christmas bonus by selecting the Union as their bargain-
ing representative, and by threatening its employees with
disciplinary action, including discharge, because of their
protected activity and their union activity.
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively with Amalgamated
Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL-CIO-CLC,
as the exclusive representative of its employees in the
following appropriate bargaining unit, with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other
terms and conditions of employment, by unilaterally dis-
continuing its employees' 1978 Christmas bonus, because
of its employees activities in selecting the Union as their
bargaining representative:
All production and maintenance employees, quality
control technicians, and plant clerical employees
employed at Respondent's Charlotte, North Caroli-
na, facility, excluding office clerical employees, pro-
fessional employees, guards and supervisory em-
ployees as defined in the Act.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affrimative action which is
deemed to be necessary to effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Make whole its hourly paid employees in the ap-
propriate bargaining unit for any monetary losses they
may have suffered by reason of its unilateral termination
of the 1978 Christmas bonus, in the manner set forth in
the section of this 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, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other re-
cords necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this recommended Order.
(c) Post at its place of business in Charlotte, North
Carolina, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix."' 0 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 11, after being duly signed
by its authorized representative, shall be posted by Re-
spondent immedately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Sec 102 48 of the Rules and Regulation, he adopted by the Board and
become is finding,, conclusions. and ()rder, and all objection, thereto
shall be decnie]d i a ised ftri all purposes
"' II1 tlIhe Celt. that Ihis Order is enfirced bh a Jdgmnell of a irlted
States C urt f Appeal. the ords in the notice reading l'Posted hb
Order of the National I abor Relatons Hioard" slaill read l"PosCd 'Pursu-
lit o i1 Jud gmrne of the nliteI Si1ted (touri of Appals I f rClilg an
Order if Iti N tiiOli I ibhor Rllton I I ar"l -
1175
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region II11, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WIL.L NOT tell our employees that only those
employees that did not vote for the Union will re-
ceive a Christmas bonus and WE WILL NOT tell our
employees that they lost their Christmas bonus by
voting for the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten, during negotiation ses-
sions, to impose disciplinary action on our employ-
ees, including discharge, because our employees
engage in protected activity by writing newspaper
articles about us or by criticizing our bulletin board
posters concerning negotiations with Amalgamated
Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL-CIO-
CLC, or any other labor organization.
WlI wIl.l. NOT refuse to bargain collectively with
the Union, as the representative of our employees
within the appropriate bargaining unit described:
All production and maintenance employees, qual-
ity control technicians, and plant clerical employ-
ees employed at Respondent's Charlotte, North
Carolina, facility, excluding office clerical em-
ployees, professional employees, guards and su-
pervisory employees as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally, without notifying and
affording the Union an opportunity to bargain, dis-
continue our 1978 Christmas bonus, for hourly paid
employees in the aforesaid appropriate bargaining
unit, because our employees selected the Union as
their exclusive bargaining representative.
WE WILI. make whole our hourly paid employees
in the aforesaid appropriate bargaining unit, for any
monetary losses they may have suffered by reason
of our unilaterally terminating the 1978 Christmas
bonuses, with interest.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of
the National Labor Relations Act.
WOONSOCKET SPINNING COMPANY
1176