Farley and Loetscher Manufacturing Co.

CLOVERDALE PLYWOOD COMPANY 819 Cloverdale Plywood Company, a Division of Farley and Loetscher Manufacturing Company and General Truck Drivers, Ware- housemen & Helpers Union, Local 980 International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America. Case No. 20-CA-3408. January 14, 1966 DECISION AND ORDER On October 15, 1965, Trial Examiner Louis S. Penfield issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond- ent has engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac- tices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. The General Counsel filed cross exceptions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Zagoria]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner. [The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.] TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding, with all parties represented, was heard before Trial Examiner Louis S Penfield in Santa Rosa, California, on June 2 and 3, 1965, upon a complaint of the General Counsel and answer of Cloverdale Plywood Company, a Division of Farley and Loetscher Manufacturing Company, herein called Respondent.1 The issues litigated were whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act,, as amended, herein called the Act. Following the close of the hearing counsel for the General Counsel and counsel for Respondent each filed motions to correct the transcript in certain particulars. Neither motion was opposed in any respect by either party. I have considered the substance of each of the motions, and I am of the opinion that the corrections urged I The complaint issued on March 2, 1965, and is based upon a charge and an amended charge filed with the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, on Decem- ber 21, 1964 , and February 23, 1965, respectively . Copies of the complaint , the charge, and the amended charge have been duly served upon Respondent. 156 NLRB No. 87. 217-919-66-vol. 156-53 820 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD are appropriate to correct inaccuracies. Accordingly, each motion is hereby granted in its entirety. It may also be noted that in addition to the matters covered by the motions, the transcript contains other inaccuracies. I am satisfied, however, that none of those remaining is of such nature that it distorts meaning in a manner significant to a resolution of the issues raised by the pleadings. Accordingly, I deem no further order correcting the transcript to be necessary. Upon the entire record, including consideration of briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respondent, and upon my observation of the witnesses, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent is an Iowa corporation with its principal office located in Springfield, Oregon This proceeding is concerned solely with the incidents occurring at a plant owned and operated by Respondent at Cloverdale, California, where at all times prior to April 22, 1965, it was engaged in the manufacture of plywood and plywood products. During the preceding year, Respondent in the course and conduct of its Cloverdale operations, had sold and shipped products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside the State of California. I find that at all time material to this proceeding, Respondent was engaged in a business which affects com- merce within the meaning of the Act, and that assertion of jurisdiction over the busi- ness of Respondent is appropriate It was stipulated that on April 22, 1965, Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, herein called Fibreboard, purchased all the assets of Respondent at Cloverdale, and that at all times since that date Fibreboard has owned and operated that Cloverdale plant. Fibreboard did not purchase the entire business of the Respondent, however, and Respondent has continued its business at other locations. The significance of such purchase insofar as it relates to any remedy which may be forthcoming will be discussed below. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED General Truck Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers Union, Local 980 International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, herein called Teamsters, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The complaint alleges, in substance, that Respondent engaged in various acts and conduct alleged to have interfered with the rights guaranteed employees by Section 7 of the Act, and that on or about December 16, 1964, it unlawfully terminated the employment of two of its employees because of their union or other concerted activi- ties Respondent denies that it engaged in any unlawful acts of interference with employee rights either before or after the termination of the two employees, and asserts that the two employees were terminated for cause at a time when Respondent was unaware that either one had engaged in any activities protected by the Act. Respondent's plywood plant was located in Cloverdale, California, a town with a population of approximately 2,700. At all material times Respondent employed approximately 175 employees who worked on 3 shifts and who, for the most part, lived in the town of Cloverdale or its vicinity. James O. Green was the general man- ager in charge of the entire operation, and Harry R. Unger was the plant superintend- ent. The parties stipulated that Roy O. Bandeen, John G. Suesens, Floyd A. Gil- strap, and Roland A. Gustafson were also supervisory employees within the meaning of the Act. Jerry Schroeder and Peter McReynolds were the two employees who were terminated by Respondent on December 16, 1964, under circumstances which the General Counsel alleges to be discriminatory. Schroeder first came to work for Respondent in July of 1963, was laid off in November of 1963; returned to work in July of 1964; and worked thereafter until his termination. McReynolds had worked steadily for Respondent from September of 1960 until the date of his termination. Both were working on the graveyard shift under the immediate supervision of Foreman Suesens at the time their employment ended. A. Events preceding the terminations an December 16, 1964, Prior to December 1964, employees at Respondent's Cloverdale plaiit were not represented by a labor organization. CLOVERDALE PLYWOOD COMPANY 821 During either the first or second week of December 1964, Jerry Schroeder, on his own initiative, visited the officers of the Carpenters Union in Santa Rosa, a town some miles south of Cloverdale, for the purpose of discussing the possibilities of establish- ing a union at Respondent's plant. Schroeder returned to Cloverdale with a number of authorization cards and, on the following day, held a meeting at his home which was attended by approximately 14 of Respondent's employees Prospects of union organization were discussed, and many of those present signed authorization cards. Although McReynolds was present at the meeting at Schroeder's house, he was not convinced by what he heard, and on the following day he went to Santa Rosa himself and talked with a Carpenters Union representative. Still not satisfied with the advan- tages which the Carpenters Union purported to offer, McReynolds thereupon under- took to visit a representative of Teamsters to discuss the possibility of organization by that union. On or about December 10, McReynolds held a meeting at his own home in Cloverdale. This was also attended by a number of Respondent's employ- ees including Schroeder. This meeting was addressed by a representative of Teamsters, and the employees present concluded representation by Teamsters rather than by Carpenters Union to be more to their advantage. Accordingly, most of those present signed authorization cards designating Teamsters as their representative A number of them, including McReynolds and Schroeder; took authorization cards for further distribution among the employees. Employees were solicited on company prem- ises, at their homes, and at various locations throughout the community. There is nothing to show that this solicitation was carried on in a manner calculated to keep the undertaking a secret from management or anyone else McReynolds estimated that he obtained approximately 30 signatures from employees prior to the date of his termination, and more following that time. Schroeder did not indicate any specific number of employees that he had induced to sign cards, but he too participated in the solicitation and distribution. Considerable testimony was received concerning an incident purporting to show that some employees including McReynolds and Schroeder, had been involved in a walkout occurring either just prior to the time that union organization had com- menced, or a day or so before McReynolds and Schroeder were terminated It was developed that beginning some time in the fall of 1964 Foreman Suesens had requested on several occasions that employees working on the spreader machine work for as much as an hour beyond their usual lunchbreak. Initially these requests were hon- ored by the employees despite some complaints that the men were hungry 2 The actual lunchbreak walkoff followed an informal understanding among five of the six spreader machine employees that on the next request to defer their lunch hour, they would ignore the request, leave their posts, and go to lunch at the usual time.' While it is undisputed that the walkoff occurred, and that it occurred prior to the termina- tions of McReynolds and Schroeder, there is conflicting testimony concerning the exact date upon which it took place. McReynolds and Schroeder place it in the last week in November; Foreman Suesens and employee Pat Daley place it on either December 15 or December 16 The significance of such conflict will he discussed below. Whatever the date, it is not disputed that the five, on one occasion, without having previously notified Foreman Suesens of then intention, left their posts at the regular lunch hour and started to walk to the lunchroom Suesens intercepted them and told the group that he had expected them to work for an additional hour. They replied that they were hungry and wanted to eat then, and Suesens said, "Alright, go ahead " No order to return or further admonition is asserted. No one of the men purported to act as leader or spokesman for the group. Suesens denies that he had reported the incident to Superintendent Unger before the teimmation of McReyn- olds and Schroeder, and Unger corroborates him in such denial. Prior to December 16, 1964, neither Teamsters nor the Carpenters Union had under- taken formally to notify Respondent of any organizational efforts either was making among the employees. At approximately 10 am. on December 16, 1964, some 3 a Foreman Suesens testified that employee Pat Daley had informed him following the first occasion upon which he had requested work for an extended period beyond the noon lunch hour that McReynolds had said he had not liked it " Suesens testified that such report led him to conclude that McReynolds was the instigator of the subsequent walkoff. "The five employees included Peter McReynolds, Jerry Schroeder, Glen Havnes, Walt Williams, and Bob Anderson. Pat Daley, the sixth'member of the spreader machine crew did not participate in the discussions leading to the understanding , nor did he walk off with the others. 822 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD hours following the terminations of Schroeder and McReynolds , Respondent received a telegram from Teamsters advising it of the organizational efforts which had been taking place, protesting alleged efforts by Respondent to discriminate and discourage membership , and advising Respondent that unless the employees who had been dis- criminated against were immediately reinstated with backpay, Teamsters would undertake legal or economic action to bring about such an end. Respondent insists that it was not until receipt of this telegram that it had any knowledge whatsoever of organizational efforts among its employees , or of the activity on the part of any particular employee directed toward such end. There is evidence, however, that points in a contrary direction . Employee Edward Lane testified that a week or more prior to the termination of McReynolds and Schroeder , Foreman Suesens had asked him if it were true that he had attended a union meeting. Suesens does not specifi- cally deny such conversation , nor does he deny having numerous other conversa- tions with Lane relating to the subject of union organization . He places most of these, however, as occurring after December 16. Lane impressed me favorably as a witness. In view of Suesens' admitted convei sations on union subjects and his lack of specificity in denying either the time or subject matter, I credit the version which Lane has related above and find that the conversation took place prior to December 16. iMurrl Warren, another employee , testified that in a conversation with Foreman Ban- deen occurring shortly before the terminations of Schroeder and McReynolds, Ban- deen had asked him if it were true that 75 percent of the swing shift was for a union, .and upon being told by Warren that he did not know, Bandeen had remarked "Well if they go union they will make it rough on [Bandeen] and [Bandeen] will have to anake it rough on us." Bandeen does not specifically deny this conversation, and admits having numerous discussions with Warren on union subjects . However, he asserts that "to the best of [his] knowledge " these conversations did not occur until January. Warren impressed me favorably as a witness and in view of Bandeen's vagueness as to the timing of these conversations with Warren , I credit the version of Warren and find that the conversation he relates occurred before the discharges of McReynolds and Schroeder. $. The terminations of McReynolds and Schroeder on December 16, 1964 McReynolds and Schroeder worked as usual on the regular graveyard shift com- mencing at 11 p.m. on December 15 and concluding at 7 a.m . on December 16. It is not claimed that at any time during the course of the employment of either he had been an incompetent or unsatisfactory employee or that other than as set forth below any incident occurred on this shift which reflected on the work performance of either. Foreman Suesens testified that some time between 6:30 and 6:45 a.m. on Decem- ber 16, he was approached by employee Pat Daley and told by Daley that "McReyn- olds and Schroeder were dissatisfied with their jobs." Although Daley expressly denied knowledge of union organization at that time, he did not undertake to explain either the basis of his understanding regarding the so-called dissatisfaction, or why he felt called upon to report of it to Suesens . Suesens makes no claim that he under- took to question Daley regarding the basis for his report , and Suesens could recall nothing specific that Daley told him about it other than the bare statement that the two were dissatisfied . While Suesens states that at the time he himself believed that he knew why the men were dissatisfied , his explanation is inconclusive . On the one hand Suesens testified that as far as McReynolds was concerned , he "was always blow- ing about something" and that he "had been the instigator of the lunch break walkoff." On the other hand, Suesens states that he did not have the same feeling as to Schroeder. Thus while his belief that McReynolds was a chronic complainer might explain his understanding of McReynolds' dissatisfaction , he comes up with no explanation as to Schroeder 's problem . As we shall see, however, in all subsequent events leading to their terminations they were treated on a joint and not on an individual basis Sue- sens' next and immediate step was to relay Daley's report to Superintendent Unger. Suesens concedes that prior to this time he had never reported any incident of employee dissatisfaction to Unger. He offers no explanation in this instance why Daley's information had such impact that it demanded an almost instant report to the superintendent. According to Unger, Suesens came to him about 6:45 a in., only 15 minutes before the end of the graveyard shift, and reported only that "he had two men that wasn't satisfied with their jobs ." Unger asked how Suesens had learned of this, and Suesens CLOVERDALE PLYWOOD COMPANY 823 told him that the information had come from Pat Daley. Unger then said "I don't want any hearsay John. You go find out." At Unger's direction, Suesens then under- took to question Schroeder and McReynolds directly? According to the men, Suesens called them over together as they prepared to punch out and first said "I understand you men are dissatisfied with working here." Schroeder replied that he was "not dissasisfied with working [there]" but that he was "dissatisfied with certain conditions ." Suesens then turned to McReynolds who replied that he too "was dissatisfied under certain aspects of working there , that [he] wanted to work there, [he] had no desire to leave." Suesens replied that "Well we don't want any men here who are dissasisfied ." Suesens' own version of this confrontation differs only in emphasis . He concedes that he did ask the two men "if they wer dissatisfied with their jobs," and he states that both replied in the affirmative. He makes no mention of their having indicated that they were -only dissatisfied with certain aspects of their jobs, but states that they had told him that "they didn't like the way the company was run, they didn't like the management." Following this, Suesens asked the men to punch out and come with him to Unger 's office. According to the mutually consistent versions of Schroeder and McReynolds, upon their arrival at Unger's office Unger stated to them that he understood them to be dis- satisfied, and they replied much in the manner that they had to Suesens , McReynolds indicating that he wanted to continue working, but that he was somewhat unhappy about certain of the work conditions , and Schroeder stating much the same thing and indicating specifically that he was dissatisfied with the absence of a seniority policy at the plant. At this point they state that Unger presented them with voluntary termination slips and asked them to sign. Following their refusal , Unger told them that they were terminated . They jointly asked for a statement of the reasons for the discharges in writing, but this was refused at the time, and no such statement was ever given at any later date. The versions of Suesens and Unger as to the confronta- tion in Unger 's office do not differ substantially . Unger concedes that he asked the men for the source of their dissatisfaction , and states that they indicated nothing specifically, but only replied that "they didn't like management , the way the mill was run." Unger testified that he then said, "Well , under the conditions I don't think I would work at any mill if I wasn't satisfied with my job." Unger says he then pre- sented the employees with voluntary termination slips, and that when they refused to sign them he told them they were dismissed. He served as shift foreman from 1954 to 1958 and since 1958 he had been plant superintendent Unger acknowledges that a certain amount of grumbling among the employees as to various aspects of their working conditions was both normal and frequent and that prior to this occasion he had never undertaken to discharge an employee for engaging in such conduct. He states, however, that he felt the dissatisfaction expressed here was different "because they brought up the management" and he felt that employees that didn't like manage- ment shouldn't remain employed. This is the sole reason advanced by Respondent for the discharges of Schroeder and McReynolds. Several days later Schroeder and McReynolds , acting at the instigation of Team- sters, visited Unger at his home to discuss the possibility of getting back their jobs. Unger asked them if they still felt the same way, and when they responded that they did, Unger stated that he could not give them back their jobs "because it has all been turned over to our lawyer." C. The events occurring after the terminations On December 16, 1964, Teamsters filed a representation petition with the Board. Following an election on January 21, 1965, Teamsters was certified as the statutory representative of Respondent's employees. During the course of the campaign lead- 4 Minor discrepancies exist in the testimony of the witnesses as to the exact sequence of events. Suesens testified that he had questioned Schroeder and McReynolds before he reported to Unger. Unger, however, relates the sequence as set forth above. I believe it likely that Unger's recollection in this instance is the more accurate and therefore I credit his version and find the sequence to be as he relates it. Later, when the employees were questioned on the floor of the plant before going to Unger's office, Schroeder places both Unger and Suesens as having been present , and both as having questioned them as to the sources of their dissatisfaction . Unger states, however, that he did not question the employees until such time as they had been brought to his office at a later time by Suesens. Both McReynolds and Suesens testified to the same effect. I am satisfied that Schroeder is mistaken in his recollection on this point , and that Unger was not present when Suesens originally questioned Schroeder and McReynolds on the plant floor. 824 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ing up to the election a number of conversations concerning union organization took place between various employees and Respondent's supervisors As noted above I have credited the testimony of Lane and Warren that Suesens and Bandeen had each questioned them about union meetings or the extent of union orga- nization even before the terminations. Bandeen at that time had told Warren that if a union came in he would have to make it hard on the employees. Lane testified to a number of later conversations with Suesens including one in which Suesens had characterized Lane as one of the instigators of union organization and as the successor in this capacity to Schroeder and McReynolds. Warren testified to several conversa- tions with Foreman Bandeen occurring on or about the day of the election. In one of these Bandeen suggested that the men form their own union; in another he queried Warren as to the way certain Mexican employees of Respondent were going to vote, and upon being informed that Warren believed they would vote for a union, Bandeen had remarked "We should send them all back to Mexico." Still later, according to Warren, Bandeen had told him "That the fellows was making a big mistake, that [Warren] had a lot of spare time, [he] could go around the mill and tell them to vote against the Union." Employee Lester Rosenthal testified that Bandeen had told him on the day of the election that he "was going to need all the no votes he could get" and that the men should form a union of their own, and that this would be better than getting outside union help. Edward Lane further testified that shortly before the election Foreman Seusens had accused him of putting union signs on the bulletin board. Lane denied that he had done so and Suesens told him that if he caught him putting up such signs he would be fired.5 Warren testified that on the day of the elec- tion head shipping clerk Gustafson had questioned him about the probable outcome, and when Warren had told him that he expected it to be close, Gustafson had remarked that "these kids are making a big mistake, they don't know what they are doing" and that "being they put in this new machine and stuff, they can take it out faster than it took them to put it in and close it down in a minute." Employee Newt Peeler testified that on election day Bandeen had queried him as to how he would vote in the election, and had remarked that it would be better if the employees formed their own union. Following the election in which, as we have seen, Teamsters received the majority of the votes, Warren states that Bandeen told him that Respondent was going to make it rough on him (Bandeen) and that he (Bandeen) was going to have to clamp down on the men. Employee Henry Rushing testified that following the election Foreman Gilstrap told the members of the green chain crew that since the mill was now union they would no longer be permitted to go to the lunchroom when the machines were shut down for repairs. Prior to this time they had been permitted to go to the lunch room for a smoke during shutdowns of more than minimal duration. Employee Peeler corroborates Rushing in this testimony. Employees who testified as to these conversations impressed me favorably as telling forthright and consistent stories of the various occurrences related above. Respond- ent's supervisors admitted engaging in conversations concerning union organization, and their denials generally lacked specificity and were vague and inconclusive. I credit the versions of the employees and find that the conversations occurred in sub- stantially the manner set forth above. D. Discussions of the issues and conclusions Although acts of unlawful interference are alleged, their significance as to the employees generally is diminished by the subsequent certification, and they become important for their effect, if any, on the central issue of the case the lawful or unlaw- ful character of Respondent's motivation in terminating the employment of McReyn- olds and Schroeder It is of course axiomatic that if the decision to terminate McReynolds and Schroeder was in whole, or in part, motivated by their participation in union or other protected concerted activities Respondent has violated the Act. Respondent asserts, however, that such a conclusion in the instant case cannot be reached because Respondent lacked knowledge of union activity among its employees at the time the terminations took place, and thus no basis exists for attributing unlawful motivation to its decision. However, while it is true that the record lacks direct and positive confirmation of employer knowledge prior to the terminations, I am convinced that circumstances exist which make it reasonable to infer that at the time the decision was made Respond- r, Suesens testified that he raised this issue with Lane because he had been informed by employee Pat Daley that Lane had been posting union organization notices on the bulletin board without authorization. CLOVERDALE PLYWOOD COMPANY 825 ent's supervisors were aware not only of the general organizational efforts, but also understood that McReynolds and Schroeder were the most active union proponents. It stands undisputed that McReynolds and Schroeder were the prime instigators who brought in a union and that they played a leading role in efforts to induce other employees to sign union authorization cards. It is not shown that McReynolds, Schroeder or anyone else undertook to carry on this activity behind a cloak of secrecy. On the contrary, the solicitation of employees was carried on openly both on the plant premises and within the confines of a relatively small community. While such cir- cumstances standing alone might suffice only to raise suspicion of company knowl- edge, here they are coupled with at least two instances of direct questioning of employees by foremen concerning organizational efforts which occurred prior to the date of the terminations, and the record further shows matters relating to union orga- nization to have been the subject of frequent discussions between employees and their supervisors during the entire course of the organizational drive. While I believe that such circumstances alone suffice to support an inference of company knowledge, there is also evidence in the record indicating that Respondent was directly informed by one of the employees not only of the general organizational efforts but of the active participation of McReynolds and Schroeder therein. Although Pat Daley, a fel- low employee of McReynolds and Schroeder on the graveyard shift, testified that he had no knowledge of union activity prior to the terminations, uncontradicted and unexplained evidence relating to his conduct toward his fellow employees renders this denial suspect. According to Foreman Suesens it was Daley who reported to him that McReynolds was the instigator of the lunchbreak walkout; it was Daley who reported on the day of the terminations that McReynolds and Schroeder were dis- satisfied; and it was Daley who told him that Lane had been posting union notices on the bulletin board. This suggests that Daley followed not only a somewhat per- sistent pattern of informing on his fellow employees on matters relating to their con- certed efforts, but also that he was not without knowledge to what was going on at the plant. His report to Suesens on the so-called dissatisfaction of McReynolds and Schroeder, the two most active union proponents is especially suspect. The inci- dent, standing, as it does, without explanation from Daley or anyone else as to its meaning, or of the need for reporting it at all, suggests that the term dissatisfaction may have been a mere euphemism, and makes possible a reasonable inference that the reported dissatisfaction, far from being the vague and abstract matter Respondent would have us believe, related to the extensive and open activity of these two employees in furtherance of union organization. Under the circumstances I find it more plau- sible to believe that what Daley really reported to management at this time was that union organization was under way and that McReynolds and Schroeder were its two principal protagonists, and I so find. From the foregoing I am convinced that Respondent's claim that it lacked knowledge of union activity among its employees or of the participation of McReynolds and Schroeder therein prior to their termina- tions cannot be sustained. Accordingly, Respondent's subsequent conduct toward McReynolds and Schroeder must be evaluated in a context of full company knowl- edge of the organizational drive and of the role of McReynolds and Schroeder therein. Possession of such knowledge, however, does not alone suffice to establish that Respondent used it to rid itself of McReynolds and Schroeder. If a plausible reason for their terminations at this time can be made out, it may rebut any suspicion of unlawful motivation that may arise from the fact of knowledge alone. Failure to advance a plausible reason, however, may point in the opposite direction. While an employer is not necessarily required to conduct itself in a reasonable or understand- able manner to avoid the proscriptions of the law, its failure to do so may be fatal to a defense against a charge of unlawful motivation, for it is not to be presumed that in managing its business an employer will ordinarily act in a capricious or illogical manner, and where evidence appears that it has done so, it suggests that the underlying reasons for its conduct may be found elsewhere. The management position as pre- sented in the instant case strains credulity to the utmost. We find Foreman Suesens' hearing for the first time that two satisfactory employees of long standing are in some vague and unspecified manner dissatisfied with their jobs. Suesens receives this information from one of their fellow employees without explanation and he under- takes no inquiries as to the nature or source of the so-called dissatisfaction. Never- theless, although Suesens does not attempt to explain why, receipt of this sketchy report triggers an immediate visit to the superintendent. Suesens acknowledges this to be a course of action which he had never pursued before with any other employee. Neither Suesens nor Superintendent Unger explains why the impact of such seemingly innocuous information was so great that it necessitated the immediate summoning and questioning of McReynolds and Schroeder. Nevertheless, such questioning was 826 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD commenced even before the men had punched out at the completion of their shift. credit the versions of McReynolds and Schroeder that in response to the queries which Suesens and Unger made to them jointly they had indicated no more than a general dissatisfaction with certain aspects of the working conditions and at the same time had made it clear that their dissatisfaction was not so extensive that they wished to terminate their employment. The versions advanced by Unger and Suesens do not differ substantially except that they emphasize that McReynolds and Schroeder told them that they did not like the way management was running the mill. Even if we assume their responses to be as Unger and Suesens relate them, I find it an uncon- vincing explanation for the summary discharges. Unger admits that employee dis- satisfaction was not a thing unknown to him, but on the contrary states it to have been frequent occurrence for employees to grumble and gripe about certain aspects of their jobs. However, he could cite no instance where this had precipitated termi- nations of employment. Unger claims that in some way the type of dissatisfaction that McReynolds and Schroeder had expressed at this time was different from the expres- sions that he had received before. The only difference that he notes, however, is that this was the first time in which employees had "brought up the management." Unger appears to voice the belief that any employee dissatisfaction with management func- tioning necessitates a termination. Such an explanation is not persuasive. It is not unreasonable for a management interested in the efficient operation of its plant to be concerned, about, or even to undertake inquiries into, underlying reasons for employee dissatisfaction. A normal reaction might encompass acceptance or rejection of sug- gestions or complaints received or even a suggestion that the employee leave, but to react by the peremptory discharge of two otherwise satisfactory employees solely because they view management with something less than complete enthusiasm seems neither normal nor reasonably to be expected absent some further explanation. On the contrary, it not only supports, but also almost compels an inference that some- thing more underlies the action. No other reason for the need to discharge these employees at this time is advanced or appears in the record. The discharge of union leaders is an obvious, and often effective, way of killing an organizational drive which is just getting under way. In the absence of any other credible explanations I find it to stand out as the most plausible reason which appears in the record for Respond- ent's action. Under the circumstances I conclude and find it to constitute an under- lying motivation of Respondent for the decision to terminate McReynolds and Schroeder on December 16, 1964. While I am satisfied that the above inference is supportable without more I find it to be buttressed by Respondent's conduct during the course of the organizational drive following the terminations. Respondent's expressions of opposition to union organiza- tion have been set forth above. I have found that Respondent's supervisors queried employees as to their union affiliation, urged them to campaign for a no vote, threat- ened discharge for putting up union signs, urged the formation of a company union, threatened plant closure, and threatened curtailment of formerly exercised privileges. Such statements go beyond privileged expressions of opinion and are directed at the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. I find that they constitute interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. The significance of such conduct as independent violations of the Act which would require remedial Board action, however, becomes all but nonexistent in view of Teamster's certifica- tion and the subsequent sale of the plant. The conduct still has relevance, however, on the issue of Respondent's motivation for the discharges, for it tends to reflect an atti- tude of unlawful concern with employee organization and opposition to it which lends support to inferences already drawn regarding the unlawful motivation which I have found brought about the discharges. Accordingly, I find that Respondent used the alleged dissatisfaction with management as a pretext, and that the underlying reason for the discharges of Schroeder and McReynolds was their active participation as leaders in the organizational efforts among Respondent's employees. By the discharges Respondent has violated Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, and by such conduct and by the other acts of interference, restraint, and coercion outlined above Respondent has also violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. The General Counsel urges that the participation of McReynolds and Schroeder in the so-called lunchbreak walkoff was a form of protected concerted activity, and that an inference is warranted that Respondent discharged them for engaging in such activity as well as for their union activity. I do not agree. Assuming the walkoff to constitute protected concerted activity, and disregarding the question of whether it occurred in either late November or a day or two before the terminations, I am not convinced that on this record a conclusion is justified that the matter was of suffi- cient concern to Respondent that an inference of retaliatory motivation can be sup- ported. There is nothing to show that either McReynolds or Schroeder placed him- CLOVERDALE PLYWOOD COMPANY 827 self in the position of a leader of the walkout, but even more significantly it is not shown that Foreman Suesens was especially concerned by the action, or that he had reported it to Superintendent Unger before the discharges took place. Accordingly, I find, contrary to the claim of the General Counsel, that there is insufficient evidence to support an allegation that Respondent discharged McReynolds and Schroeder for their participation in concerted activities in connection with the lunchbreak walkout. However another facet of the case regarding protected concerted activity has a different aspect. To present in concert a complaint or grievance to management is a protected right under Section 7 of the Act. It is well established that the discharge of one or more of such grievants because of concerted efforts of this nature constitutes a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.6 It is true that McReynolds and Schroeder did not undertake to present grievances of their own volition. However, they were summoned jointly by management, and queried jointly as to the sources of their so-called dissatisfactions, and when they jointly responded by telling management representatives their views as to the manner in which the plant was run it resulted in their summary discharges. Thus, we find two employees placed in a position where their grievances or complaints about management were solicited and we find management forthwith retaliating against them because it does not like their response. Surely, if the voluntary lodging of a concerted protest is protected against retaliation, and even stronger case can be made to establish a similar protection where the con- certed voicing came about following management solicitation. Accordingly, I find that even if it be assumed that Respondent was not aware of the union activities of McReynolds and Schroeder at the time of their terminations, its conduct in soliciting the causes of their alleged dissatisfactions and thereupon discharging them when they joined in criticizing management constitutes a violation of the basic rights of these employees to engage in concerted activities for their mutual aid or protection, and therefore their summary discharges for having engaged in such protected concerted, activity were a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent as set forth in section III, above, occurring in connec- tion with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist there- from and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. I have found that Respondent discriminatorily discharged Jerry Schroeder and Peter McReynolds on December 16, 1964. As noted above, however, in April 1965 Respondent sold its Cloverdale plant to Fibreboard, and all times since Fibreboard has carried on the operation. Fibreboard neither assumed liability for unfair labor practices, nor is it joined as a party to this proceeding. The record does show, how- ever, that while Respondent sold the Cloverdale plant to Fibreboard it did not go out of business altogether. However, this record does not further show whether Respondent is now engaged in similar operations elsewhere or, if so, whether such operations are being conducted in reasonable proximity to Cloverdale. Since rein- statement cannot be directed at the Cloverdale plant, the discriminatees should be given the opportunity to work at substantially equivalent positions at other plants of Respondent if they so desire, and if such positions are available. Accordingly, I shall order Respondent to offer McReynolds and Schroeder immediate and full reinstatement to any substantially equivalent position which may be available at any of its other plants, making them whole for any losses each may have incurred from the date of his discharge to the date of the offer, with an allowance for reasonable transportation and moving expenses if the offer be accepted. I shall not, however, require that employees occupying positions at Respondent's other plants be displaced if such be necessary for the offers to be made, or that Schroeder and McReynolds be placed on a preferential list at any of Respondent's other plants. If the offers can- not be made because no substantially equivalent positions are available at other plants, or if the offers be made and are rejected each discriminatee so affected shall be made whole for any losses he has incurred from the date of his discharge to the date that Respondent ceased operating the Cloverdale plant and thereafter provided he has 6 Bonded Armored Carrier, Inc., 147 NLRB 100; Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc., et ad., 149 NLRB 1577. S28 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD not already obtained substantially equivalent employment until such date as he obtains such employment. Backpay together with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum, shall be computed in accordance with the formula and method prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 and Isis Plumb- ing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 to which the parties hereto are expressly referred. • Since Respondent is no longer operating the Cloverdale plant, and Fibreboard is not a party to the preceding, posting of a notice at such plant would neither be appro- priate, nor is it urged by the General Counsel. General Counsel suggests that since Respondent is still in business elsewhere it be required to mail notices in lieu of post- ing to those persons who were employed at the Cloverdale plant prior to its sale to Fibreboard. The principal, if not the only, reason for the notice remedy is to notify employees still working in a plant at which their employer has committed unfair labor practices that such employer will no longer engage in unlawful conduct, and that they are free to exercise the rights guaranateed them by the Act. The employees who formerly worked for Respondent at the Cloverdale plant are now either still working there for another employer who has not been found to have engaged in unfair labor practices, or have terminated their employment and are working elsewhere. There is no showing that Respondent itself is operating a plant in the area or that it intends to return. I am of the opinion that the sale of the plant to Fibreboard with the con- sequent withdrawal of Respondent from the area is sufficient in itself to eliminate from the minds of former employees any apprehension that they may still be sub- jected to conduct by Respondent which might affect their rights under the Act. Under the circumstances I not only see little purpose to be served by mailing notices to such former employees, but I am also of the opinion that the mailing of such notices at this late date would be more likely to confuse than to enlighten them. Posting of notices at other plants of Respondent would normally not be ordered unless it appeared that the unfair labor practices at the plant in question might in some way affect employees at other plants. There is no evidence of this nature here, and accordingly I would not deem it appropriate to post notices at any other location where Respondent operates. Therefore, I shall not order that Respondent either post notices to its employees or that it mail notices to former employees in lieu thereof. The unfair labor practices committed by Respondent strike at the heart of the rights guaranteed employees by Section 7 of the Act.7 The inference is warranted that Respondent maintains an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act with respect to the protection of employees in general. It will, accordingly, be recom- mended that Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Acts CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this proceeding, I make the following conclusions of law: 1. Cloverdale Plywood Company, a Division of Farley and Loetscher Manufactur- ing Company is, and has been at all times material, an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. 2. General Truckdrivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Union, Local 980, Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America is, and has been at all material times, a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act 3. By discharging Jerry Schroeder and Peter McReynolds as found above, Respond- ent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and 8(a)(3) of the Act. 4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, as found above, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices ate unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and 2(7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this proceeding, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, I recommend that Respondent Cloverdale Plywood Company, a Division of Farley and Loetscher Manufacturing Company, its agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 7 N.L R.B. V. Entwistle Mfg. Co, 120 F. 2d 532 (C.A. 4). °May Department Stores, d/b/a Famous-Barr Company v. N.L.R.B., 326 U.S. 376; Bethlehem Steel Company v. N.L.R.B., 120 F. 2d 641 (C.A.D.C.). NELSON CHEVROLET COMPANY 829 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership of any of its employees in General Truck Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers Union, Local 980, International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, or any other labor orga- nization of its employees by discharging employees for engaging in union or other protected concerted activities or in any other manner discriminating against any individual in regard to his hire or tenure of employment or terms or conditions of employment except as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. (b) In any other manner interfering with , restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization , to form labor organizations , to join or assist the above-named or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such rights are to be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condi- tion of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Jerry Schroeder and Peter McReynolds immediate and full reinstatement to substantially equivalent positions which may be available at other plants owned or operated by Respondent and make them whole for any loss of pay each may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him in the manner provided above in the section entitled "The Remedy." (b) Notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. (c) 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 records necessary to an analysis of the backpay due. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt by Respondent of a copy of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply therewith.° It is further recommended that unless on or before 20 days from the date of its receipt of this Trial Examiner's Decision Respondent notifies the Regional Director that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the National Labor Rela- tions Board issue an order requiring Respondent to take the action aforesaid. 0 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, paragraph 2(d) thereof shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director , in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order what steps Respondent has taken to comply therewith." Nelson Chevrolet Company and Automobile Salesmen & Misc. Workers Union Local No. 192.i Case No. 13-CA-6643. Janu- ary 17, 1966 DECISION AND ORDER On June 11, 1965, Trial Examiner Samuel M. Singer issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond- ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac- tices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Exam- ' The name of the Charging Party, as designated in the charge and thereafter in the formal papers filed in this case, included "AFL-CIO." The circumstances which make the AFL-CIO affiliation no longer an appropriate part of the Union's title are set out hereinafter. Accordingly, the caption is amended to delete any indication of affiliation, and references to the Union hereafter will exclude the AFL-CIO designation. 156 NLRB No. 88.