Rockland-Bamberg Printworks, Inc.

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Rockland-Bamberg Printworks, Incorporated and Ma- chine Printers and Engravers Association of the United States. Cases 11-CA-6752 and 11-CA- 6812 February 7, 1978 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND PENELLO On September 28, 1977, Administrative Law Judge Irwin H. Socoloff issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed 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 authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Rockland-Bam- berg Printworks, Incorporated, Bamberg, South Car- olina, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommend- ed Order. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE IRWIN H. SOCOLOFF, Administrative Law Judge: These cases were heard at Orangeburg, South Carolina, on March 10 and 11, 1977, upon a consolidated complaint issued by the Regional Director for Region II on December 30, 1976. The complaint, arising from charges filed on October 5, November 12, and December 20, 1976, by Machine Printers and Engravers Association of the United States, herein called the Union, alleges that Respondent unlawful- ly withheld a wage increase from certain employees, in violation of Section 8(a)( ) of the Act, and discriminatorily discharged two employees, in violation of Section 8(a)(4), (3), and (1) of the Act. In its duly filed answer, Respondent admitted certain allegations of the complaint, but denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. At the hearing, all parties were represented by counsel and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine ' 226 NLRB 1040 (1976). 234 NLRB No. 127 and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence. Thereafter, the Charging Party and Respondent filed briefs which have been duly considered. Upon the entire record in this case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION The Respondent, Rockland-Bamberg Printworks, Inc., is a South Carolina corporation engaged in the printing of textile cloth at its Bamberg, South Carolina, plant. During the year preceding issuance of the consolidated complaint herein, a representative period, Respondent received at its Bamberg plant materials valued in excess of $50,000 which were shipped directly to it from points located outside the State of South Carolina. In that same time period, Respondent shipped from said plant, directly to points outside the State of South Carolina, products valued in excess of $50,000. I find that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II1. LABOR ORGANIZATION Machine Printers and Engravers Association of the United States is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background Following a Board-conducted election among Respon- dent's textile printers and their apprentices, which was won by the Union by a 4-to-1 vote, the Board, on June 7, 1976, certified the Union as the collective-bargaining representa- tive of the aforesaid employees (Case 1 l-RC-4101). There- after, in order to test the certification, Respondent refused to recognize and bargain with the Union. On November 19, 1976, the Board found that the Company thus acted in violation of Section 8(aX5) and (1) of the Act and, inter alia, directed Respondent to bargain.' That decision was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. On August 11, 1977, the Board found that, during the campaign which preceded the election, Respondent violat- ed Section 8(aX1) of the Act by its threats and interroga- tions directed at textile printer Roy Hannon.2 However, the Board further concluded in that case that Respondent lawfully discharged its textile printer, Paul Mitchem, and lawfully removed Hannon from Company-owned housing. At the September 1976 hearing which gave rise to that decision, employee John Hiott testified as a witness for the General Counsel concerning the Mitchem discharge. Han- non also appeared as a witness for the General Counsel. In the instant case, the General Counsel contends that Respondent discharged Hannon on August 27, 1976, and Hiott on October 15, 1976, in reprisal for union activities and/or because they gave testimony under the Act. 2 231 NLRB 264 (1977). 758 ROCKLAND-BAMBERG PRINTWORKS, INCORPORATED Respondent asserts that those employees were laid off in response to economic difficulties faced by the Company, and not for discriminatory reasons. Also at issue is whether Respondent violated the Act when, in June 1976, it granted a wage increase to all its employees except the printers represented by the Union. B. Facts and Conclusions i. The wage increase In May 1976, Respondent posted a notice on the employee bulletin board announcing that all hourly paid employees would receive a wage increase effective June 14. Thereafter, Respondent's president, J. Daniel Moore, and its print department manager, William F. Jones, met with printers Hannon, Mitchem, Shelton, and Boyd. According to Hannon, Moore stated that the printers would not receive the wage increase since they were represented by the Union and that, if and when the Company bargained with the Union, the printers' raise would be settled at that time. Moore testified that he told the printers that "the Company was contesting the results of the union election; and at that time it was not clear what the results of that contest were going to be, and it is quite possible that their increase would have to be negotiated." Moore placed the date of this meeting as May 3, 1976, prior to the Board certification of June 7. According to Hannon, the meeting occurred on June 14. Subsequently, Jones met with the remaining printers, Barbare and Stephens, and, according to the testimony of Barbare, Jones informed them that other hourly paid employees would receive a wage increase but that the printers would not get the increase because they were represented by the Union. Based on the foregoing, I conclude that Respondent, in withholding a wage increase from the printers while granting such an increase to its other employees, acted in violation of Section 8(aX)(I) of the Act, as alleged in the complaint. Quite apart from other considerations, in taking the position that it would not bargain with the Union about a wage increase for the printers, and would exclude the printers from participation in the increase granted to other hourly paid employees because the printers had opted for union representation, Respondent acted so as to penalize those employees for their earlier selection of the Union as their collective-bargaining representative. 2. The discharges Roy Hannon was employed by Respondent from Janu- ary 1972 until the date of his layoff on August 27, 1976. Other than the year 1974, when he served as a print department supervisor, Hannon worked as the printer on Respondent's Johnson machine. He also saw very brief duty as a printer on the Company's Rice-Barton machines, including a single I-week stint, as well as several 1-day assignments. On December 16, 1975, Hannon declined an offer by Respondent to return him to a supervisory I Those plants, Rockland-Bamberg Industries and Bamberg Textile Mills, Inc., are, like Respondent, subsidiary corporations of Rockland Industries, Inc., and all three plants are located in Bamberg, South Carolina. The three plants are commonly managed, and utilize Pastad Mills, a division of Rockland Industnes, Inc., to sell their products. position. On December 18, 1975, Hannon served as the union observer at the election. On August 27, 1976, Respondent, in implementation of its decision to temporarily close down the Johnson ma- chine, effectuated the layoff of the five individuals who serviced that machine, including the printer, Hannon. The affected employees were so advised by Jones who handed each of them a notice which announced the layoff, and further informed those employees that Respondent would assist them in obtaining available jobs at its sister finishing and textile plants.3 In order to obtain such assistance, the employees were asked to sign the notice and return it to Respondent. All affected employees, save Hannon, did sign and return the notice and all, save Hannon, were placed in other jobs. At the time of the layoff, Hannon enjoyed greater plant seniority than Respondent's remain- ing four printers. However, those four printers, two of whom operated Rice-Barton machines on the Company's first shift, and two of whom ran those machines on the second shift, were all substantially more experienced than Hannon in the operation of the two Rice-Barton print machines, Respondent's only remaining machines after the shutdown of the Johnson.4 John Hiott began his employment with Respondent on August 6, 1974, as a color mixer and, during the course of his tenure in that position, serviced, at various times, all three print machines. On March 29, 1976, he was promoted to the position of second-shift colorist. In that job, he functioned as a foreman over the two second-shift color mixers who serviced the Rice-Barton machines. On Octo- ber 15, 1976, 1 month after he testified at the earlier NLRB hearing, Hiott was laid off. At that time, Respondent assigned its more senior colorist, Robert Tate, to the second shift to replace Hiott. Tate's former first shift colorist duties were then assumed by Plant Manager Jones. Although, as noted, at the time of the layoff Hiott enjoyed less seniority than Respondent's other colorist, Tate, Hiott had more seniority in his former color mixer position than three of the four color mixers then employed by the Company. As indicated, Respondent contends that both the Han- non and Hiott layoffs were motivated solely by economic considerations. Thus, in the months preceding the August 27 shutdown of the Johnson machine, Respondent and its sister companies found that they were producing products in greater volume than they were selling them which resulted in a decided increase of unsold inventory. In response to that situation, in May 1976, Moore curtailed the operations of the finishing plant, reducing the work- week from 6 to 5 days. In July, the same step was taken at the textile plant. Nonetheless, at the close of Respondent's fiscal year, July 31, 1976, Pastad Mills, Respondent's selling arm, showed a "manufacturing" print inventory 22 percent greater than it was I year earlier, and a "retail" print inventory 55 percent increased from its level on July 31, 1975. Customer orders were declining, particularly for the one- and two-color textile cloths printed on the ' The four remaining printers included Shelton and Barbare. both of whom voted at the election and testified for the General Counsel at the earlier NLRB meeting. 759 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Johnson machine. Moore testified that in light of that situation, and in a further effort to reduce costs and inventory, Respondent decided temporarily to shut down the Johnson machine and lay off the employees who serviced it. Moore further testified that Respondent decid- ed upon that particular action because the Johnson machine is less versatile than the Rice-Bartons and general- ly able to print only the one and two-color patterns for which there had been a particularly great decrease in demand.5 As earlier noted, all laid-off employees, with the single exception of Hannon, affirmatively responded to the Company's offer to assist them in finding jobs at the finishing and textile plants, and were so placed. In October 1976, layoffs were instituted at the textile and finishing plants, involving some 8 to 10 employees. Also, at that time, Hiott was laid off at the printworks plant. 6 According to the testimony of Moore and Jones, following the discontinuance of the operation of the Johnson ma- chine, which had been operated on the first shift only, Respondent found itself "top-heavy in supervision" on that shift (with a complement of three supervisors, as opposed to only one supervisor on the second shift). Jones recom- mended that Tate, the colorist on that shift, as well as a supervisor, be transferred to the second shift; that Jones assume the duties of the first shift colorist; and that Hiott, the second shift colonst, who was junior to Tate in seniority, be laid off. Moore agreed. Jones testified that Respondent did not offer Hiott a color-mixer position at that time since that would have meant the demotion of Hiott, contrary to Respondent's usual practices. Moore and Jones further testified that the manner of selection of employees for layoff, following the decision to cease operation of the Johnson machine, was in conformity with Respondent's past practice of effectuating layoffs on a seniority basis by machine. In 1974, at a time when the Company operated all three machines on the first shift, but only the Rice-Barton #2 machine on the second shift, Respondent, in the face of economic difficulties, ceased operation of the Rice-Barton #2 machine on the second shift, thereby ending its second shift entirely. Respondent retained its senior Rice-Barton #2 machine printer, Shel- ton, and laid off the junior printer, Mathews. Also, with the closing of the second shift, Respondent permitted its then second shift supervisor, Hannon, to return to the position of Johnson machine printer on the first shift, while laying off Mitchell, who enjoyed less machine seniority than Hannon.7 At the time of the hearing in the instant case, in March 1977, Respondent had not resumed operation of its Johnson machine, a piece of equipment originally costing $1 million, and which has a current, depreciated value of $400,000 to $600,000. In addition to the layoffs, discussed above, Respondent has not replaced some five print department employees who voluntarily left their jobs in the months after August 27, 1976. 5 Moore and Plant Manager Jones testified that only one-color patterns, loose-fitting, two-color patterns, and one three-color pattern can be printed satisfactorily on the Johnson machine. On the other hand, the Rice-Barton machines are able to handle that work in addition to patterns containing as many as 12 colors. 6 In December of that year, Respondent "froze" the wages of its salaried personnel. In all of the circumstances herein, I have concluded that the layoffs of Hannon and Hiott were economically motivated and not effectuated for discriminatory reasons. That, by August 1976, Respondent faced severe economic difficulties which necessitated action to reduce its costs and inventory is, on the state of this record, beyond serious dispute. The decision to cease operation of the Johnson machine was only one of a number of steps taken by Respondent in that vein. Moreover, Respondent has adequately explained why it chose that particular action, in view of the lack of versatility of the machine, and the decrease of orders, in August 1976, for patterns which could be printed successfully on the Johnson machine. The consequent layoff was effectuated in a manner consistent with Respondent's past practices. Importantly, the Compa- ny sought to aid in the placement of the laid-off employees in its other plants and, apparently, Hannon was not so placed only because he effectively declined the offer. In view of these factors, Hannon's service as the union observer at the election, some 8 months before the layoff, is insufficient to establish discriminatory motivation. As to Hiott, his testimony at a Board hearing, along with others of Respondent's employees, does not, in and of itself, establish that his subsequent layoff was unlawful. Rather, Respondent has established that the Hiott layoff, which occurred at a time when other employees were also laid off, was a consequence of the closing of the Johnson machine. Significantly, Respondent has not replaced Hiott with another colorist. Rather, to further diminish operating costs, colorist duties have been assumed by the plant manager. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship 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. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action de- signed to effectuate the policies of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. The Re-pondent, Rockland-Bamberg Printworks, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce, and in opera- ' Hannon testified that, in December 1974, when Jones informed him that he would return to the printer position, Jones gave Hannon his choice of machine and Hannon selected the Johnson machine. In contradiction, Jones testified that Harmon was not given such a choice but was assigned to his former position of printer on the Johnson machine. Based upon the probabilities of the situation, and particularly in view of the nature of Hannon's previous experience, I credit Jones' testimony on that point. 760 ROCKLAND-BAMBERG PRINTWORKS, INCORPORATED tions affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. Machine Printers and Engravers Association of the United States is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By withholding a wage increase from certain of its employees because those employees are represented by the Union, Respondent has engaged in conduct proscribed by Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practice is an unfair labor practice affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 5. By its layoff of employees Roy Hannon and John Hiott, Respondent has not engaged in conduct violative of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER 8 The Respondent, Rockland-Bamberg Printworks, Inc., Bamberg, South Carolina, its officers, agents, successors and assigns, shall: I. Cease and desist from: (a) Withholding wage increases from its employees because they are represented by the Union. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: I 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. (a) Grant to its printer-employees a wage increase, retroactive to June 14, 1976, in the same percentage as that received by its other hourly paid employees on that date, and make the printer-employees whole for their loss of earnings caused by the unlawful withholding of the wage increase, plus interest. Backpay and interest will be computed as prescribed by the Board's decisions in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950); Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962); and Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (c) Post at its plant at Bamberg, South Carolina, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 9 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 11, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ- ing 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 II11, in writing, within 20 days of the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges the unlawful discharges of Roy Hannon and John Hiott. ' 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 "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." 761