Crawford Sprinkler Co. of Hickory, Inc.

300 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Crawford Sprinkler Company of Hickory, Inc. and Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No. 669, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO. Case 11-CA-4747 September 27, 1972 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On June 13,1972, Trial Examiner Lloyd Buchanan issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a sup- porting 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 Trial Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's rulings, findings, and conclusions' and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that Respondent, Crawford Sprinkler Company of Hicko- ry, Inc., Hickory, North Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order. ' Although the Trial Examiner erroneously concluded that employee Han- shew was no longer in Respondent 's employ, we find no evidence to indicate that the Trial Examiner attached any particular significance to this conclu- sion. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION BUCHANAN, Trial Examiner: The complaint herein (is- sued January 31, 1972; charges filed December 6, 1971, and January 26, 1972) alleges that the Company has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 73 Stat. 519, by interrogating employees concern- ing their own and other employees' union membership, sympathies, and activities; directing employees to write let- ters to the Union requesting the return of their union cards; and interrogating employees as to whether they had gotten their cards back from the Union. The answer denies the allegations of violation. The case was tried before me at Hickory, North Caroli- na, on March 28, 1972. Upon the entire record in the case and from my obser- vation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT (WITH REASONS THEREFOR) AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I THE COMPANY'S BUSINESS AND THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The facts concerning the Company's status as a North Carolina corporation, the nature and extent of its business in the fabrication and installation of fire protective systems, and its engagement in commerce within the meaning of the Act are admitted; I find and conclude accordingly. I also find and conclude that, as admitted, the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. II THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES This case will not cater to the Walter Mitty in any of :us, whether parties, counsel, or Trial Examiner. Interference is charged to Drum, the Company's construction superintend- ent, and Umbarger, foreman on one of the jobs. Black, who was employed by the Company for 1 day, on September 21, 1971, testified that on September 14 he went to Drum's office for a job; that Drum asked whether he was a member of the Union and that he replied that he was and had been seeking a job for several months, and that he was in a critical financial situation and needed work; that apparently at this point Drum declared that the Company is a nonunion con- tractor. (From Black's testimony it is not quite clear why this was interjected at that point in the conversation, Black later telling us that it was on September 17, over the tele- phone, that Drum told him that this was a union job and that the Company was a nonunion contractor.) Black con- tinued that on September 14 Drum asked what his reaction would be if he were hired and put on a 100-percent union job and were approached by a union representative, and that he replied that he would leave the job immediately if he saw the representative approaching, since his own pres- ence on such a job would be in violation of union rules against working with nonunion men on a union job; and that to Drum's question what he would do if he could not get away from a union representative under such circum- stances, he replied that he would tell him that what he was being paid was none of his business, and that if necessary he would turn in his union book. Black further testified that on September 17 he telephoned Drum, that they discussed his pay and subsistence allowance, and that he was hired. Drum's version is that Black came to his office for a job, that he said that the Company had work in Chattanoo- ga, that Black asked whether it was a union job, and that he replied in the affirmative but that the Company was working open shop. Denying that he asked about the Union, Drum continued that Black volunteered that he was a mem- ber, needed a job badly, and had had problems with another company and the Union had not come to his rescue. Drum added that Black offered to show his union card but that he did not look at it; that he asked Black to fill out an applica- tion but that the latter said he was in a hurry and took the application, and that Drum said he would call him after he received it. According to Drum it was he who called Black 199 NLRB No. 46 CRAWFORD SPRINKLER COMPANY 301 thereafter, as he had said he would on receipt of the applica- tion, and it was arranged over the telephone that Black would go to work, pay having been discussed when Black was in Drum's office. Having told us before that Black had volunteered that he was a member of the Union, Drum specifically denied that he asked Black whether he was. It is clear that the Company is opposed to organization of its employees. The question here is whether it committed unlawful acts while it opposed unionization. In this Yes-No situation, I am satisfied that Black, des- perately needing a job and having indicated that he had worked on union jobs, volunteered that he was a member of the Union but that, if necessary, he would, once hired, turn in his union book to retain employment. I find and conclude that the General Counsel has not sustained his burden of proving violation as alleged in this connection. Employee Hanshew, employed by the Company for more than 2 years and until 3 weeks before the trial, testified that on September 22, the day after Black was hired and terminated, his foreman, Umbarger, asked whether Black had come to his trailer the night before and whether he and another employee, Cragger, who was present, had signed any petition cards; that he replied that they had not seen Black and did not sign any cards; that on December 1 at Loudon, Tennessee, Umbarger told him that he wanted him to write to Warren, the president of the Local, and advise him that he changed his mind about the Union and wanted his union card returned; and that about a week later Um- barger called him at home and asked whether he had gotten his card back from the Union in Washington. While Han- shew testified that it was not until after he wrote to the Union that he told Umbarger that he had in fact signed a card, he explained that Umbarger had said that he knew that he had signed a card. Umbarger denied that he asked Hanshew in September whether he had signed a union card. He further denied that he told Hanshew on December 1 to write to the Union to have the card returned, and that he thereafter asked Han- shew if he had gotten the card back from the Union. Um- barger testified that he had himself signed a card which he had received from Black in September. He told us that about December 1, after he and the others had been watch- ing TV and playing cards in another man's room, Hanshew came to his room, wrote a letter in which he asked the Union to return his card, asked him for the Union's address, and further asked that he mail the letter for him. He testified also that about a week later he told Hanshew that in the latter part of September he had himself written to the Union for return of his own card. This testimony made it appear that when Hanshew, whether asked to do it or not, wrote for return of his own union card, Umbarger did not at that time tell him that he had himself done that several months be- fore: a curious and hardly understandable situation! It thereafter developed that Umbarger had on September 24 sent a membership application and $35 to the Union, and that it was on December 3 that he asked for their return. If this explained what had previously appeared strange, it indi- cated that Umbarger was at least a careless witness. We need not rely on his demeanor although he was noticeably uncomfortable and flushed. Hanshew adequately explained whey he wrote the let- Umbarger did not. According to the latter, Hanshew "just come up" and said that he did not think that the Union would do any good, wrote the letter, and asked Umbarger to mail it. According to Hanshew, whom I credit, they were staying at different motels. I find that he was trying to please Umbarger and that the latter had in effect suggested that the letter be sent. Hanshew and Umbarger are cousins, and it is clear that they maintain a close and friendly relationship. But Umbar- ger had hired Hanshew, and on the job their relationship was that of supervisor and employee. Their personal rela- tionship does not exculpate the Company from its supervisor's violative acts. I find and conclude that Umbarger's interrogation of Hanshew on September 22, his subsequent direction or re- quest that Hanshew request return of his union card from the Union, and his unlawful interrogation as to whether Hanshew had received his card constituted unlawful inter- ference in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:' ORDER Respondent Crawford Sprinkler Company of Hickory, Inc., Hickory, North Carolina, its officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Interrogating employees concerning their own and other employees' union activities, directing employees to write letters to the Union requesting the return of their union cards, and interrogating employees as to whether they had gotten their cards back from the Union. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces- sary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its place of business in Hickory, North Car- olina, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix "2 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 11, shall be posted by the Company, after being duly signed by its representatives, immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consec- utive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to its employees are customarily post- ed. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Company to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. 1 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. 2 In the event that the Board's 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 "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." 302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 11, in writ- ing, within 20 days of the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply here- With 3 3 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 11, in writing, within 20 days of the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT interrogate employees as to their own or other employees' union activities. WE WILL NOT direct employees to write letters to the Union requesting the return of their union cards. WE WILL NOT interrogate employees as to whether they have gotten their union cards back from the Un- ion. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor organ- izations, to join or assist Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No. 669, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, and to engage in other con- certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. Dated By CRAWFORD SPRINKLER COMPANY OF HICKORY, INC. (Employer) (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 1624 Wachovia Building, 301 North Main Street, Winston-Sa- lem, North Carolina 27101, Telephone 919-723-2300.