Good Hope Refineries

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Good Hope Refineries, Inc. and Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, Local 4-447. Case 15-CA-7069 September 26, 1979 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, MURPHY, AND TRUESDALE On May 11, 1979, Administrative Law Judge J. Pargen Robertson issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision. 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, findings,' and conclusions2 of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order,' as modified herein.4 I We agree with the Administrative 1Law Judge that the absence counsel- ing interview of employee Gary Sullivan was an investigatory one with disci- plinary overtones and thus one requiring that Sullivan be afforded represen- tation as set forth in N.L.R.B. v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251 (1975). Accordingly, we find it unnecessary to rely on the Board's decision in Certi- fled Grocers of California, Ltd.. 227 NLRB 1211 (1977), as the Administrative Law Judge did in fn. 4 of his Decision, as that case dealt with a situation concerned solely with disciplining an employee, 2 We find that the warning issued to Sullivan for refusing to answer ques- tions without a union representative being present violated Sec. 8(a( 1 ) of the Act. N.LR.B. v. Weingarten, Inc., supra, and International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, Upper South Department, A FL -CIO v. Quality Manufactur- ing Co., 420 U.S. 276 (1975). In so doing, however, we find it unnecessary to determine whether the warning issued to Sullivan violated Sec. (aX3) of the Act, as found by the Administrative Law Judge, inasmuch as said additional finding would not affect our remedial order. Accordingly, the Administrative Law Judge's Conclusion of Law 5 is hereby modified by substituting the word "8(aX I)" for the word "8(a(3)" and par. 2(b) of his recommended Order shall also be modified to conform to this finding. While the Adminis- trative Law Judge found that Respondent's unilateral change in its absence counseling system violated Sec. 8(aX5) of the Act, he failed to find that such conduct also violated Sec. 8(aX 1 of the Act. Thus, his Conclusion of Law 6 is also hereby modified by including the words "and 8(a( I )" after the words "Section 8(a))5)." We also shall modify par. 2(c) of his recommended Order to conform to the scope of the refusal to bargain violation found; namely, making unlawful unilateral changes in the terms and conditions of employ- ment of the unit employees. We agree with the Administrative Law Judge that Respondent's refusal to allow employees representation under its new absence counseling system constituted a violation of Sec. 8(aX I) of the Act under the Supreme Court's Weingarten decision, supra, and also a violation of Sec. 8(aX5) and () of the Act as a unilateral change in the parties' collective-bargaining agreement. However, we find that the change in Respondent's absence counseling sys- tem requiring that employees report to the personnel office rather than to their immediate supervisor, as had been the practice previously, was, under the circumstances herein, a valid exercise of a management right. Thus, we find only the failure to permit representation during such counseling sessions to be unlawful. Accordingly, we shall modify the Administrative Law Judge's recommended Order by deleting therefrom that portion of the Order requirng Respondent to rescind its new policy on absence counseling ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Good Hope Refineries, Inc., Good Hope, Louisiana, its offi- cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: I. Cease and desist from: (a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em- ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, by requiring its employees to account for their efforts to represent other employees in accordance with the terms of the collective-bar- gaining contract and by threatening to discipline its employees for their efforts to represent other employ- ees in accordance with the terms of the collective- bargaining contract. (b) Discouraging activities protected by the Act, by disciplining its employees for refusing to fully par- ticipate in supervisory interviews when the employee requests and is entitled to union representation. (c) Requiring any employee to take part in any ab- sence counseling session without union representation if such representation has been requested by the em- ployee. (d) Unilaterally instituting and thereafter enforc- ing changes in policy regarding union representation during absence counseling sessions involving employ- ees represented by Oil, Chemical and Atomic Work- ers International Union, Local 4-447, in the appro- priate unit. (e) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights to organize, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through repre- sentatives of their own choosing, to engage in con- certed activities for the purpose of collective bargain- ing or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds with effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Revoke and remove from its records all disci- plinary warnings, notices, memorandums, and any other written notations issued to employee Gary Sul- livan. or any other employee represented by the aforesaid Union, since September 6, 1978, resulting adopted on August 29. 1978, and put into effect September 6, 1978, or re- quiring Respondent to bargain upon request about that new policy, I The Administrative Law Judge recommended that the Board issue a broad cease-and-desist order in this case. However, as we do not find Re- spondent's conduct herein to be so egregious as to warrant the issuance of such a broad order, we shall order Respondent to cease-and-desist from "in any like or related manner" interfering with, restraining, or coercing employ- ees in the exercise of the ghts guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. See Hickmour Foods. Inc., 242 NLRB 1357 11979). Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied inasmuch as the record, the exceptions, and the briefs submitted adequatel) present the issues and the positions of the parties. 245 NLRB No. 39 380 GOOD HOPE REFINERIES from application of its August 29. 1978. absence counseling sessions through which it refused to allow union representation during those absence counseling sessions after the employee requested union represen- tation. (b) Upon request by the aforementioned labor or- ganization, bargain with it as the exclusive represent- ative of all the employees in the unit described below, concerning any changes Respondent desires to make in the wages, hours, and terms and conditions of em- ployment of the employees in said unit, including any changes in policy regarding absence counseling ses- sions. The unit is: All production, maintenance, and construction employees, including laboratory employees, em- ployed by Respondent at its refinery in Good Hope, Louisiana; excluding office clerical em- ployees, the chief chemist, shift foreman, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. (c) Post at its Good Hope, Louisiana, refinery cop- ies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."5 Cop- ies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional director for Region 15, after being duly signed by Re- spondent's authorized representatives, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days there- after, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees 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. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posting Pursuant to a Judg- ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board." APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT unilaterally institute and there- after enforce changes in policy regarding union representation during absence counseling ses- sions involving employees represented by Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, Local 4-447, in the appropriate unit. WE WILL NOT require any employee to take part in any absence counseling session without union representation if such representation has been requested by the employee. WE WILL NOT discipline or threaten to disci- pline any employee for seeking union representa- tion during an absence interview or for otherwise attempting to enforce the provisions of our col- lective-bargaining agreement with the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, Local 4-447, regarding that employee's, or any other employee's, right to request and re- ceive union representation at any stage of disci- plinary procedures. WE WILL NOT discipline or threaten to disci- pline any employee for attempting to serve as the representative of another employee at any inter- view or meeting where the latter employee has reasonable grounds to believe that the matters to be discussed may result in his being the subject of disciplinary action. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. WE WILL remove all disciplinary warnings, no- tices, memorandums, and any other written no- tations in our files issued to Gary Sullivan, or any other employee represented by the Union, since September 6, 1978, resulting from applica- tion of our August 29, 1978, absence counseling system through which union representation was refused the respective employee following his re- quest for such representation. WE WILL, at the request of Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, Local 4- 447, bargain with it, as the exclusive representa- tive of all employees in the unit decribed below, concerning any changes we desire to make in the wages, hours, and terms and conditions of em- ployment of the employees in said unit, including any changes in policy regarding absence counsel- ing sessions. The unit is: All production, maintenance, and construction employees, including laboratory employees, employed by us at our refinery in Good Hope, Louisiana; excluding office clerical employees, the chief chemist, shift foreman, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. GOOD HOPE REFINERIES, INC. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE J. PARGEN ROBERTSON. Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard on February 20, 1979. in New Orleans, Lou- 381 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD isiana, pursuant to a charge filed on October 5, 1978, and amended on October 30, 1978, and a complaint which is- sued on November 3, 1978, and was amended on January 18, 1979, and again on February 20, 1979. The complaint alleges that Respondent violated Sections 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act by unilaterally changing a provision of the collective-bargaining contract, denying an employee union representation in an interview with super- vision which the employee reasonably believed might have resulted in disciplinary action, threatening to discipline an employee for not answering questions in an interview unless union representation was provided, and threatening to dis- cipline an employee for attempting to serve as union repre- sentative for an employee being interviewed. Upon the entire record and from my observations of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS I. COMMERCE Respondent, Good Hope Refineries, Inc., admitted and I find that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. LABOR ORGANIZATION Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, Local 4-447 is a labor organization as defined in the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES On August 29, 1978, Respondent mailed to all employees in the collective-bargaining unit two documents signed by its manager of personnel. The first advised employees that effective September 6, 1978, all employees were to report to the personnel department upon their return from unexcused full or partial absences. The second document advised em- ployees that all Respondent's employees are required to maintain satisfactory attendance, listed several types of ab- sences which are specifically "excused" under the contract, and stated that employees tardy or absent will be subject to disciplinary action including warnings, suspension, and ter- mination. On that same day Respondent advised the Union that it was mailing the two documents to the employees. Subsequently, by letter dated September 7, 1978, the Union protested that the August 29 documents constituted unilateral changes. Prior to September 6, 1978, counseling of employees re- garding absences was performed by the immediate supervi- sor of the respective employee, usually on the job. On those occasions when employees were counseled in an office they were permitted to have union representation on request. On September 8, 1978, employee Gary Sullivan returned to work after missing the 3 preceding days. Prior to missing work, Sullivan asked and received permission from his su- pervisor to miss the first of those 3 days, September 5, for the purpose of taking his daughter to the hospital for an operation. Sullivan did not obtain prior permission to miss work on September 6 and 7. Those absences were necessi- tated by the death and funeral of Sullivan's aunt. After beginning work on the 8th, Sullivan was told by his supervi- sor that he had to see Mr. Jerry Deutsch (manager of per- sonnel), since he had missed work. Sullivan asked Union Steward Gail Simmons to accompany him to Deutsch's of- fice. Simmons checked with his supervisor and was granted permission to accompany Sullivan. Sullivan and Simmons then went over to Deutsch's office, located in a building approximately 300 yards from the building where they work. However, Deutsch had been called away from his office, and, after waiting for about an hour, Sullivan and Simmons were called back to their own area. Later that morning Sullivan was directed by his supervi- sor to see Deutsch at I I o'clock. The supervisor told Sulli- van that Deutsch had said he would not need union repre- sentation. Shortly thereafter, Sullivan saw Gail Simmons and told Simmons that he was to see Deutsch but that Deutsch had said he didn't need union representation. Sim- mons called Deutsch and advised Deutsch that Sullivan had requested union representation and that Sullivan was entitled to representation under the contract. Deutsch re- plied that Sullivan did not need representation. Then he asked Simmons what he was doing in Deutsch's office ear- lier that morning. Simmons replied that he had been there at Sullivan's request, to represent Sullivan. Deutsch stated that he wanted to see Sullivan at 11:00 and Sullivan didn't need representation, but he wanted to see Simmons at 11:15, and "you do need union representation, but I'll pro- vide it for you." Simmons told Sullivan to meet Deutsch at I 11:00 but not to answer questions about his absences. When Sullivan went into Deutsch's office at 11:00, Deutsch told him he was there so that Deutsch could find out why he had been off 3 days. According to Sullivan, Deutsch then said, "[W]ell, you're not here for a reprimand, I just want to know why you were off those 3 days." Sulli- van requested union representation. Deutsch replied, "[I]f you get union representation over here, it could lead to a letter or discipline." Sullivan then refused to answer Deutsch's question about the 3-days absence. Deutsch asked Sullivan to step out of the office for a moment. Gail Simmons and another union steward, Travis Edwards, were waiting outside Deutsch's office and were called in as Sulli- van walked out. Shortly thereafter, Sullivan was called back in, and, with Simmons and Edwards present, he explained his absences to Deutsch. Deutsch told Sullivan that if Clev- enger (Sullivan's supervisor) had excused him on Tuesday (September 5), there was nothing he (Deutsch) could do about that, but that he would not excuse the time off for his aunt's funeral. Deutsch told Sullivan that he had not needed union representation that morning but that his (Sul- livan's) refusal to talk constituted insubordination and a letter would be entered into his file. A warning, dated September 11, 1978, was placed in Sul- livan's file, stating: Current Company Attendance Policy requires that employees report to Personnel upon their return from unexcused absence. Upon your return from unexcused absence you were instructed to report to me. In our meeting you refused to answer any questions concern- ing your absence unless supplied with Union Repre- 382 GOOD HOPE REFINERIES sentation. You were informed that Union representa- tion was not necessary since this was not a disciplinary action. Still you refused to cooperate. Your refusal to cooperate in the administration of Company policy represents a disregard for that policy and cannot be tolerated. You are hereby warned that further refusal to coop- erate with the management of this company will result in further disciplinary action which may include sus- pension or termination. IV. CONCLUSION A. The Weingarten issue In N.L.R.B. v. J. Weingarten, Inc.,' the Supreme Court upheld the Board's construction that Section 7 of the Act creates a statutory right in an employee to refuse to submit without union representation to an interview which he rea- sonably fears may result in his discipline. The Court ap- proved the Board's holding that "reasonable ground" for fearing disciplinary action will be measured "by objective standards under all the circumstances of the case," and stated that it would reject any rule that requires a probe of an employee's subjective motivations as involving an end- less and unreliable inquiry. The Board has had several opportunities to apply the Weingarten test.' In Amoco Chemicals Corporation, 237 NLRB 394 (1978), the Board adopted an administrative law judge's finding that an employer did not violate Section 8(a)(1) in connection with interviews involving counseling for excessive absences to which two employees were re- quired to attend without union representation. The judge had found that neither employee had reasonable grounds for believing that the interview would result in disciplinary action, because prior to the interviews the employees were informed that the counseling sessions were not a disciplin- ary meeting and the results of the meeting would not be recorded in their personnel file. The record in that case also revealed that such oral discussions with an employee were not a condition precedent to the imposition of discipline. In General Electric Company, 240 NLRB 479 (1979). the Board found no violation where the employee was in- formed, in response to a statement by the employee, that he would not be disciplined in any manner but that at most he would get a contact slip. The Board found that the evidence clearly indicated that a contact slip was not a form of disci- pline in that plant and that fact was known to the employ- ees. Also, when the employee started to walk away from the interview to seek his union steward, the interviewing super- visor said he would locate and bring back the steward if the employee would return to work. The employee persisted in walking away from his work. His subsequent warning no- tice and suspension for insubordination were found not to violate the Act. ' 420 U.S. 251 (1975). 2 E.g., Certified Grocers of California, Lid., 227 NLRB 1211 (1977); South- western Bell Telephone Company, 227 NLRB 1223 (1977): Climax Mo'bde- num Company, a Division of Amax, Inc., 227 NLRB 1189 (1977); Alfred M. Lewis, Ic.. 229 NLRB 757 (1977); and General Electric Company. 240 NLRB 479 (1979). In the instant case, I must determine by applying objec- tive standards, whether Sullivan reasonably feared his inter- view with Deutsch could result in his discipline. The evi- dence reveals that when Sullivan returned to Deutsch's office at I 1:00, he was told, "[W]ell, you're not here for a reprimand, I just want to know why you" were off those 3 days.' The collective-bargaining agreement between Respon- dent and the Union also addresses the issue before me: An employee may request union representation at any stage of the disciplinary procedure directed toward the said employee, including the investigatory stage. and such representation shall not be denied by the Company. The Union agrees that it will furnish such representation to the employee. The record is uncontested that several of the Weingarten elements are present here. Sullivan was called in for an interview with the manager of personnel and he did request union representation. Sullivan was not given the option of having the interview without union representation or hav- ing no interview. The issue here is simply one of whether Sullivan reasonably feared his interview could result in dis- cipline. In support of his position, General Counsel contends Sul- livan's interview was an investigatory interview which could have resulted in discipline to Sullivan. The record supports General Counsel's argument. Absences are categorized by Respondent as excused or unexcused. Deutsch admitted that he is authorized to deter- mine whether an absence is excused or unexcused and that at least one of the purposes of his inquiry at the absence interviews is to decide whether to excuse or not excuse an absence. The record reflects that employees have a reason- able basis for believing that that determination could result in their discipline. For example, the contract provides that three consecutive unexcused absences may result in an em- ployee's losing his seniority. Additionally, Deutsch's Au- gust 29 letter to employees indicated that absences not ap- I credit Sullivan's version of his interview with Deutsch. Sullivan im- pressed me as a straightforward and candid witness who appeared to testify without regard to whether his answer would help or hurt his position. How- ever, I did not find Deutsch a candid witness. My observation of Deutsch's demeanor and testimony convinced me his testimony was not reliable. In many instances Deutsch evaded questions by General Counsel. For example he was asked on several occasions if his absence interviews with employees were not conducted, at least in part, to determine why the employee was absent. At various times Deutsch indicated that was a purpose but not the sole purpose. At another point Deutsch indicated that was not a purpose of the interviews. Nevertheless, a review of the record demonstrates that Deutsch never succeeded in stating any purpose for the interviews other than to find out why the employee missed work. He did, in response to Respon- dent's questions, supply several reasons why it was important for him to know why the particular employee was absent, but the fact remained that the only reason he gave for the interview was to learn why the employee missed work. Additionally, several documents received in evidence which originated from Deutsch demonstrate that the purpose for the absence inter- views was to determirne why the absence occurred. Also, it appeared that Deutsch altered his testimony on occasion in an effort to satisfy apparent defects in Respondent's defense. Deutsch testified that he asked why an employee was absent often for the purpose of doing sonething to benefit the employee but that whenever an employee indicated he didn't want to talk about the reason for his absence, he (Deutsch) would immediately drop the subject. In the instant mailer, Deutsch did not drop the subject when Sulli- van stated he did not wish to answer Deutsch's questions about his absences. 383 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD proved by the personnel department could result in discipline which might include suspension or termination. Respondent contends that absences which do not fall within that group of absences clearly identified as "ex- cused" in the contract are automatically unexcused. That contention was refuted by Deutsch's admission that he had the authority to excuse absences and that that determina- tion was one of his main concerns in questioning Sullivan about two of his three absences. General Counsel also argues that the evidence shows that the counseling sessions play a role in the disciplinary proce- dure and that they form a basis for disciplining an em- ployee. Again, the evidence supports General Counsel's po- sition. Several "warning letters" were received in evidence which indicated the warning was issued after a review of the employee's record showed the employee had been "counseled" on a number of occasions. Also, the record indicates that on occasion a written record of absence coun- seling is retained in the employee's file, a file characterized as a "disciplinary file" by Mr. Deutsch. Respondent con- tends that Weingarten is satisfied in those instances because Deutsch, knowing before the interview that a written record of the interview would go into the employee's disciplinary file, would, on those occasions, provide union representa- tion for the employee. Such a practice demonstrates a mis- understanding of Weingarten. Weingarten is concerned with the employee's, not the personnel manager's, expecta- tions. Regardless of what Deutsch expected of the inter- view, the issue is whether Sullivan, considering factors in- cluding Respondent's practice of phrasing warnings to indicate they were predicated on past counseling sessions and occasionally retaining notations of counseling sessions in disciplinary files, reasonably feared his interview could lead to discipline. On the basis of the above facts and the record as a whole, I am convinced that it was Respondent's practice to con- sider past counseling sessions in determining whether to take more serious disciplinary measures, such as issuing warnings. I am also convinced that on occasion, particu- larly when the counseling session was memorialized with a written notation to the employee's discipline file, the coun- seling itself was considered a form of discipline.' I am also persuaded that other factors, including the for- mality of Deutsch's August 29 letter advising employees to report to the personnel department following unexcused ab- sences, and the requirement that employees report to the personnel office, located in the main office building away from the work area, contributed to a reasonable fear that the interview would result in discipline. The August 29 let- ter to employees was sent by certified mail, return receipt requested. Sullivan testified that the Deutsch interview was only the second occasion on which he had been called into a supervisor's office, and the other occasion was when he started to work for Respondent. Therefore, I find that Gary Sullivan reasonably feared the September 8 interview could result in discipline. The subsequent warning to Sullivan for not answering Deutsch's questions during the interview also constitutes a 4Cf. Certified Grocers of California, 227 NLRB 1211. violation since Sullivan was exercising his Section 7 rights in not responding to the questions.' B. The Alleged Threat to Simmons On September 8, Gail Simmons was requested to repre- sent Gary Sullivan in Sullivan's absence interview. Sim- mons checked with his supervisor and was permitted to ac- company Sullivan. Thereafter, in a phone call with Manager of Personnel Deutsch, Simmons was directed to report to Deutsch to explain why he accompanied Sullivan to Deutsch's office. Deutsch told Simmons he would need union representation. Respondent defends Deutsch's action by contending it was necessary for Deutsch to select employees' union repre- sentatives in order to avoid work disruptions. However, the evidence is uncontested that Simmons sought and received permission from his supervisor to accompany Sullivan. Simmons, by seeking to represent Sullivan, was exercis- ing protected Section 7 rights.6 Deutsch's direction to Sim- mons to report to his office to explain those actions violates Section 8(a)(1). Deutsch's comment that Simmons would need union representation which he (Deutsch) would fur- nish, a threat that additional disciplinary action may fol- low, is further violation of Section 8(a)( 1). C. The Alleged Unilateral Change By Deutsch's August 29, 1978, letter to employees, Re- spondent changed from a policy of absence counseling by employees' immediate supervisor to one of counseling by the personnel department. The evidence reflects no occa- sion in which an employee was denied union representation upon request during an absence interview prior to Deutsch's announced change. However, following Deutsch's letter, employees were, at least on occasion, de- nied union representation during those interviews. The Union was simply notified when Deutsch mailed letters to employees on the date of the mailing and was not offered an opportunity to bargain about this change in policy. In view of my findings above and the record as a whole, I find the change in absence counseling constitutes a unilat- eral change from the contractual provision regarding union representation at any stage of the disciplinary procedure. Respondent's action involves a mandatory subject of bar- gaining and violates Section 8(a)(5).W Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record, I hereby make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, Local 4-447. is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. I Inrernarional Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, Upper South Department, AFL-CIO v. Quality Manufacture Company, 420 U.S. 276 (1975). 1.L.G.W.U. v. Quality Mfg. Co., supra. 'Alfred M. Lewis, Inc., 229 NLRB 757. 384 GOOD HOPE REFINERIES 3. By calling its employee to account for his efforts to represent another employee and threatening its employee with discipline for those efforts. Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)( ) of the Act. 4. By requiring its employee to participate in an inter- view which the employee reasonably anticipated could re- sult in his discipline, without union representation follow- ing the employee's request for representation. Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. By disciplining its employee for refusing to answer questions absent union representation during an interview in which he requested and was entitled to union representa- tion, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 6. By unilaterally changing its practice of absence coun- seling of employees, Respondent has engaged in unfair la- bor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair la- bor practices in violation of Section 8(a)( I) (3). and (5) of the Act. I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative actions de- signed to effectuate the policies of the Act. [Recommended Order omitted from publication.] 385