Pullman Trailmobile

430 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Pullman Trailmobile, a Division of Pullman Incorpo- rated and Allied Industrial Workers of Amer- ica, Local 591. Case 14-CA-13015 May 9, 1980 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND TRUESDALE On February 13, 1980, Administrative Law Judge Abraham Frank issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex- ceptions and a supporting 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 brief, and has decided to affirm the rulings, find- ings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to the Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the rec- ommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Pullman Trailmobile, a Division of Pullman Incorporated, Charleston, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ABRAHAM FRANK, Administrative Law Judge: The charge in this case was filed on September 27, 1979,1 and the complaint, alleging violations of Section 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act, issued on October 24. The hearing was held on November 27 at St. Louis, Missouri. At issue in this case are questions of whether Respond- ent restrained and coerced employees and transferred an employee in retaliation for the employee's filing of griev- ances. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW A. Preliminary Findings and Conclusions Respondent, with its principal office and place of busi- ness in Charleston, Illinois, is the only facility involved in this proceeding and is engaged in the business of man- ufacturing, selling, and distributing truck trailers and re- lated products. Respondent admits, and I find, that it is I All dates are in 1979 unless otherwise indicated. 249 NLRB No. 59 engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. The Charging Party, hereinafter called the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. B. The Facts At all times material herein, Respondent and the Union have been parties to a collective-bargaining con- tract effective from January 1977 to 1980. Don Stephens was employed by Respondent as a production employee in department 915 on March 12. On July 20 Stephens was appointed steward in that department. From that date until his transfer on September 14 Stephens proc- essed on behalf of himself and other employees 13 griev- ances, 12 of them during the last week of August and the first 2 weeks of September. On or about September 3 Committeeman Gary Collins was called to the Office of Industrial Relations Manager Dennis Robinson. Robinson said that there was an over- abundance of grievances coming from department 915 and from what he could see it looked like Don Stephens was an overzealous steward. Collins told Robinson that Collins had talked to Don Stephens frequently and had talked to Supervisor Jeff Reed on several occasions. Col- lins also told Robinson from what Collins could see the problem was with the supervisor rather than the ste- ward. On September 13 employee Brenda Jordan told Ste- phens that Jeff Reed, Stephens' foreman, had asked Jordan if Jordan had heard anything about Stephens get- ting transferred. That evening Stephens met with Collins, who prepared a grievance for Stephens to be processed in the event Stephens was transferred. Stephens received the grievance from Collins the morning of September 14 and placed it in his union file. That afternoon, about 3:20 p.m., Reed approached Stephens and said, "Don, you are no longer in this department. You have been transferred to Mod, which is Department 451." Stephens asked if it was a permanent or temporary transfer. Reed replied, "I don't know, I don't care, as long as I get you out of here." Stephens asked Reed who would know about Ste- phens' transfer. Reed said Stephens would have to talk to Robinson. Stephens then took his prepared grievance from his union file and handed it to Reed, saying, "Mr. Reed, I have something for you." Reed took the griev- ance, tore it, crumpled it, and threw it in the trash. Reed said, "This is what I think about your damn union. You can take it and shove it. He who laughs last laughs best." By this time 20 or 30 employees had gathered around Reed and Stephens. One of the employees retrieved the torn grievance and handed it to Stephens. Shortly thereafter Stephens, Union President Frank Jones, and Collins met in Robinson's office with Reed, Robinson, and General Foreman of production Junior Kerans. Jones explained what had happened and asked for the discharge of Reed because of his conduct in de- stroying a union paper. At this point Reed said, "I've had so many grievances filed against me, I just can't take it no more." Jones questioned Reed about his attitude and temper. Reed finally said, "I've got better things to do" or "I can't take any more of this" and walked out. PULLMAN TRAILMOBILE, A DIVISION OF PULLMAN INC. 431 At that point Stephens asked, "Well, what about my transfer?" Robinson replied, "Well, it stands as it is." Ste- phens asked, "Well, why am I transferred?" Kerans re- plied, "Well, we've been having problems in that depart- ment, and we decided to get rid of some of the prob- lems." Kerans also said that Stephens was a troublemak- er. Jones then said, "Do you mean to tell me that Don Stephens is a troublemaker because he had filed a griev- ance, a right that he does have." Kerans replied, "Well, we were having problems in that department and we got rid of them." During the course of the meeting Kerans said, "Don is a good worker, he's a leader and he's well respected." On Monday morning, September 17, Jones met with Robinson in Robinson's office. Jones was prepared to file a new grievance, but withdrew it when Robinson in- formed Jones that Reed had been discharged because he had torn up a union document. Kerans testified to a number of reasons for the transfer of Stephens. Transfers were a common occurrence at the plant and Stephens was transferred in the normal course of business along with other employees. Kerans also tes- tified, however, Stephens was selected for transfer be- cause he had an "attitude problems." Stephens, accord- ing to Kerans, would finish his particular job and would not help another employee keep the line flowing. Ste- phens' attitude influenced other employees in the depart- ment and efficiency fell off. Kerans also testified that another reason for Stephens' transfer was Kerans' belief that Stephens had solicited grievances in violation of the contract. On one occasion Kerans had been told by employee Brad Winkey that Stephens had attempted to induce Winkey to file a griev- ance. Winkey did not testify. Still another reason for Stephens' transfer was Ste- phens' unfair accusation against Reed. A female employ- ee in department 915 became the object of Reed's and Stephens' attention because she preferred to be lightly or not at all underclad in the modern style. As a result, when she moved, she moved without restraint, to the distraction of vulnerable males. Stephens reported to Kerans that Reed was flirting with the ostentatious young lady, that Reed had told her if she persisted in flaunting her glandular charms in his face, he would have to do something about it. Kerans later determined that Reed was merely counseling the young lady, not flirting with her. On cross-examination, Kerans conceded that he re- garded Stephens as a troublemaker and that Kerans had trouble with Stephens as a steward because Stephens filed too many grievances. Analysis and Final Conclusions of Law I conclude that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the following conduct: 1. Foreman Reed's action on September 14 in throw- ing a union grievance in the trash container with the comment, "This is what I think of your damn union," in the presence of 20 or 30 employees necessarily had the effect of restraining and coercing employees with respect to their contractual and statutory right to file grievances with their employer concerning their terms and condi- tions of employment. 2. General Foreman Kerans' statement on September 14 that Stephens was a troublemaker and, in the context of questions as to why Stephens was transferred and if he was a troublemaker because he had filed a grievance, that Respondent was having problems in department 915 and had gotten rid of them. In the absence of any other response to Stephens' question, as to why he was trans- ferred, and Collins' question, as to whether Stephens was a troublemaker because he filed a grievance, Stephens and the union officials present could reasonably interpret Kerans' answer to mean that Respondent's problem in department 915 was the over-zealous steward, Stephens, who filed too many grievances and the solution to that problem was the transfer of the steward. Such conduct restrained and coerced Stephens and other employees in their right to engage in protected concerted activity, in- cluding the filing of grievances. I conclude that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by transferring Don Stephens from department 915 to department 451. It is clear from the record that Robinson, Reed, and Kerans believed that Stephens was an overzealous ste- ward and filed too many grievances. Robinson had so in- formed Collins on September 3. Kerans admitted to this view during cross-examination. Reed's anger and frustra- tion with Stephens, because of Stephens' filing of griev- ances, is too clear on the record to require further com- ment. As found above, Kerans statement during the Sep- tember 14 meeting, that Respondent had problems in De- partment 915 and has gotten rid of them, referred to Ste- phens' conduct in filing grievances and Respondent's de- cision to transfer him because of such conduct. No men- tion was made at that time of the several reasons now advanced by Respondent for Stephens' transfer. Kerans' explanation as to why Stephens was trans- ferred is a mishmash of unsupported, inconsistent, and trifling reasons. Records in the possession of Respondent were not produced to support Respondent's contention that production in department 915 was adversely affected by Stephens' poor work habits and conduct. Kerans testi- fied that Stephens deserved discipline, but that the trans- fer was not a disciplinary measure. Indeed, despite Re- spondent's 4-step disciplinary procedure, Stephens was never issued a written warning. Only hearsay was ad- duced by Respondent to support its contention that Ste- phens solicited grievances. Finally, there is the matter of the flirtatious female em- ployee, who, according to Stephens, had elicited a corre- sponding reaction from Reed. Kerans was satified that Reed had not responded improperly, but neither Reed nor the young lady testified, and here, again, Respondent offers only hearsay to justify the transfer of Stephens. Moreover, while Stephens may not have correctly inter- preted Reed's attitude toward the young lady and may, indeed, have overreacted himself, Stephens, as steward, had right to call Kerans' attention to a matter Stephens viewed as a problem in the department that could result in an unspecified "outrage." In this respect, he may per- haps have been, as Respondent charged, an overzealous 432 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD steward, but such conduct is not a lawful reason for his transfer. Accordingly, I conclude that Respondent in transfer- ring Stephens from department 915 to department 451 on September 14, was motivated by Stephens' conduct in filing grievances and that the reasons now advanced are either pretextual or afterthoughts to conceal Respond- ent's real reason. By such conduct, Respondent discrimi- nated against Stephens because of his union and protect- ed concerted activities and thereby violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. The above unfair labor practices are unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, con- clusions of law, and the entire record, I hereby make the following recommended: ORDER 2 The Respondent, Pullman Trailmobile, a Division of Pullman Incorporated, Charleston, Illinois, its officers. agents, successors, and assigns, shall: I. Cease and desist from: (a) Restraining and coercing employees from engaging in union and protected concerted activity by destroying union grievance papers in the presence of employees in a wanton, flagrant, and abusive manner. (b) Restraining and coercing employees from engaging in union and protected concerted activity by informing employees that a union steward was transferred from one department to another because his filing of grievances had become a problem. (c) Discriminating against employees because of their union and protected concerted activity in the filing of grievances by transferring an employee from one depart- ment to another. (d) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Rescind the transfer of Don Stephens from depart- ment 915 to department 451, or any other department, and restore him to his position in department 915 with- out prejudice to his seniority and all other rights and privileges. (b) Post at its plant in Charleston, Illinois, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix.": Copies of said 2 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 12 46 of the Rules and Regulations of tile National I.abor Relations Board. the find- ings, conclusions. and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102 4 of the Rules and Regulatilons, he adopted by the Board an(l become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objectlions thereto shall be deemed waived fr all purposes a In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgmnlent of a Unitted States (Court of Appeals. the words itl the notice reading l'osted hb notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 14, after being duly signed by an authorized rep- resentative of Respondent, shall be posted by Respond- ent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision and Recommended Order what steps Respond- ent has taken to comply herewith. Order of the National Labor Relations Board" hall read "Posted Pursu- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WtI WILL NoT restrain and coerce our employees from engaging in union and protected concerted ac- tivity by destroying union grievance papers in the presence of our employees in a wanton, flagrant, and abusive manner. WE WILL_ NOT restrain and coerce our employees from engaging in union and protected concerted ac- tivity by informing our employees that a union ste- ward was transferred from one department to an- other because his filing of grievances had become a problem. WE Wll.I NOT discriminate against our employees becaus, of their union and protected concerted ac- tivity in the filing of grievances by transferring em- ployees from one department to another. WI: vWll NOI in any like or related manner in- terfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Sec- tion 7 of the Act. WF wnl.l rescind the transfer of Don Stephens from department 915 to Department 451 or any other department, and restore him to his position in department 915 without prejudice to his seniority and all other rights and privileges. PULI MAN TRAII.MOBIlI., A DIVISION 01 PUI.I.MAN INCORPORATI I)