Poloron Products of Mississippi, Inc.

704 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Poloron Products of Mississippi , Inc. andUnited Rub- ber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO,CLC. Case 26-CA-5090 May 2, 1975 DECISION AND ORDER By MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND KENNEDY On December 18, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Max Rosenberg issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep- tions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and con- clusions of the Administrative Law Judge, as herein modified, and to adopt his recommended Order. We hereby correct the following inaccuracies in the Administrative Law Judge's Decision: 1. The Administrative Law Judge inadvertently found,that Kemp Brown's real name is Cloyce Allen Brown, whereas the record shows that his real name is Cloyce Alan Kemp. 2. In referring to the "Progress Report" of employee Levon Flowers the Administrative Law Judge makes mention of the following March 23, 1974, notation of Respondent's personnel manager, Ray Adcock: "Cooper-This employee must improve or action needs to be taken." The particular exhibit from which this comment is quoted clearly shows that it belongs to employee Jane Goodson, and not Levon Flowers. We have considered these "Progress Reports" and agree with the Administrative Law Judge that they do not establish any serious job performance shortcomings on the part of either Goodson or Flowers. Thus, Good- son's report shows that she was evaluated in 10 catego- ries, ranging from "attitude toward job" to "quality of work," on March 9 and 23 and April 9. Employees are rated as "poor," "fair," "good," or "excellent." In the first evaluation she scored "fair" in six categories and "good" in four other categories. In the second evaluation she was checked "fair" in all but one category, "compatibility," in which she rated "good." In the final report on April-the day of her I The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge It is the Board's established policy not to over- rule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (CA 3, 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. discharge-Goodson was rated "poor" in "housekeep- ing," "good" in "compatibility," and "fair" in the re- maining eight categories. was "compatability," evaluated for the periods end- ing February 16 and March 2 and 9.-He rated "fair" nine times and "good" once in his first report; "poor" twice, "good" once, and "fair" seven times in his sec- ond report. Indeed, his final report, prior to discharge, showed a substantial improvement, with "good" in one category and "fair" in the remaining nine categories. 3. Finally, the Administrative Law Judge found that during his speeches the Respondent's president had not threatened reprisals against employees who signed au- thorization cards. In reaching his conclusion, he relied "primarily" upon the testimony of Maude Robison which contradicted the testimony of the General Coun- sel's other witnesses, Eugene Taylor, Russell Morris, and Don Wright. We note, however, that Robison was assigned to a different shift than the other employee- witnesses and thus did not hear what was said to Mor- ris, Wright, or Taylor. But it appears that the Adminis- trative Law Judge also relied, at least in part, upon the specific denial of President Hoffman, and, since no exception was filed, we see no reason to disturb his conclusion. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re- lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that Respondent, Poloron Products of Mississippi, Inc., Batesville, Mississippi, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, except that the attached notice is substituted for that of the Administrative Law Judge. APPENDIX A NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT discharge our employees, thereby discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employment, in order to discourage their member- ship in United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plas- tic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, CLC, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our em- ployees about their union activities. WE WILL NOT ask our employees to report to us the identity of the union sympathizers. 217 NLRB No. 114 POLORON PRODUCTS OF MISSISSIPPI, INC. WE WILL NOT warn our employees- to stop engag- ing in activities protected by the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. WE WILL NOT spy on our employees' union activi- ties. - WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL make Jane Goodson and Levon Flow- ers whole for any loss of pay they may have suf- fered as a result of our discrimination practiced against them, and WE WILL reinstate them to their old jobs or, if they no longer exist, to substantially equivalent ones. All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining members of the above-named or any other labor organization. POLORON PRODUCTS OF MISSISSIPPI, INC DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MAX ROSENBERG, Administrative Law Judge: With all par- ties represented, this proceeding was tried before me on Au- gust 13 and 14, 1974, in Batesville, Mississippi, on an amended complaint filed by the Geneial Counsel of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board and an answer interposed thereto by Poloron Products of Mississippi, Inc., herein called the Respondent.' The issues raised by the pleadings related to whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by discharging employees Jane Goodson and Levon Flowers, and whether Respondent further independently violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by certain conduct to be detailed hereinafter. Briefs have been received from the General Counsel and the Re- spondent, which have been duly considered. Upon the entire record made in this proceeding, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses as they testified on the stand, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS I THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Respondent, a Mississippi corporation with its principal office and place of business in Batesville , Mississippi, is en- gaged in the manufacture of ice chests and coolers. During the annual period material to this proceeding, Respondent purchased and received products valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points located outside the State of Mississippi and, during the same period, sold and shipped from its Bates- villle, Mississippi, installation, products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points located outside the State of Missis- sippi. The complaint alleges, the answer-admits, and I find The complaint, which issued on June 20, 1974, is based upon charges and amended charges filed and served on May 7, 1974, and June 10, 1974, respectively 705 that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, CLC, herein called the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by discharging Jane Goodson on April 9, 1974,2 and Levon Flowers on April 12, because they joined or assisted the Union.' It further alleges that Respondent offended the provisions of Section 8(a)(1) of the statute dur- ing the period from April 22 to May 10 when its agents and supervisors engaged in a series of acts designed to thwart the exercise by its employees of rights guaranteed to them under Section 7 of the Statute. For its part, the Respondent denies the commission of any labor practices proscribed by the con- trolling Federal legislation. It is undisputed and I find that, in late March or early April, the Union embarked upon a campaign to enlist the collective support of some 550 employees at the Respondent's plant. - Jane Goodson testified that she had been employed by Respondent on February 28 as a machine operator in the water hold department where she made styrofoam boxes for ice coolers. During her employment stmt which ended on April 9, she worked on the 4 p.m. to midnight shift under the supervision of Superintendent Cooper Williams and Lead- man Major Wrenn, Sr., both admittedly statutory supervi- sors. On April 3, Goodson obtained some authorization cards from the Union, one of which she executed on that date. On April 5, while at work, she solicited employees Levon Flow- ers and a Kemp Brown to sign designations.4 Flowers did so, but Brown declined and returned the blank card to Good- son. It is uncontroverted and I find that none of Respondent's supervisors observed Goodson's engagement in union activi- ties on this date. It is also undenied and I find that Goodson was the sole solicitor on behalf of the Union at that time. At 5 p.m. on April 9, Superintendent Cooper Williams approached Goodson at her machine and beckoned her to accompany him to the office of Ray Adcock, Respondent's personnel manager. When they arrived, Adcock informed her that "Miss Goodson, I am sorry-that I regret this will be your last day with us." Adcock then asked whether Goodson had any questions regarding her separation, and the latter inquired as to the reason for her discharge. Adcock replied that he was dissatisfied with her work performance and, with that, the conversation terminated and Goodson left the plant. Levon Flowers began his employment with Respondent on February 1, as a machine operator in the water hold depart- 2 All dates herein fall in 1974 3 The complaint also alleged that employee Willie Thornton was illegally discharged on May 10 by Respondent At the hearing, the General Counsel dropped this averment from the pleadings. 4 Kemp Brown's correct name is Cloyce Allen Brown. He is the stepson of Lawson Brown, a leadman in another department at Respondent 's plant and an acknowledged supervisor 706 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ment, worked on the same shift as did Goodson , and had the same supervisors. He testified that, on the evening of April 5, while Kemp Brown was at Flowers' work station , Goodson distributed authorization cards to them for signature Flow- ers executed his card and handed it to Goodson. Brown perused the card and returned it to Goodson unsigned. When Flowers reported for work on the afternoon of April 12, he noticed that his timecard was not in the rack . Flowers apprised Leadman Major Wrenn, Sr., of this circumstance, and Wrenn referred Flowers to Superintendent Cooper Wil- liams. Flowers sought out Williams , and together they pro- ceeded to the office of Personnel Manager Adcock. Upon their arrival, Adcock remarked that he had checked Flowers' employment file and discovered that the employee had not progressed at his work in an acceptable fashion . Adcock added that he did not believe that Flowers was satisfied with his duties, and-that Flowers was being discharged. Flowers received a paycheck and left the plant. It is Flowers' testimony that, on or about April 19, he returned to the shop to pick up his final paycheck and en- countered Leadman Wrenn . After discussing the purpose of Flowers' mission, Wrenn told Flowers that "Jane Goodson was a good worker and he didn't fire her, Cooper Williams did because of all the trouble with the [union] cards. He asked me [Flowers] did she have any cards and I told him yes. Then he said he heard that Kemp Brown told Cooper Williams that I had cards and that was the reason I was fired." To confront the foregoing testimony of Flowers and Good- son, and to thwart the General Counsel 's contention that Respondent gained -knowledge of the union activities of these employees and discharged them therefor, Respondent drew upon the testimony of Kemp Brown , Kemp's stepfather and supervisor, Lawson Brown, Leadman Major Wrenn, Sr., Su- perintendent Cooper Williams, and Personnel Manager Ray Adcock. Kemp Brown, in his testimony, denied that he had ever observed Jane Goodson with union authorization cards; de- nied that he had seen Levon Flowers in possession of those designations; denied that he had ever reported to any of Respondent's officials that he had observed employees in his department who were possessed of the cards ; denied that he had at any time discussed the subject of the Union in any manner with Cooper Williams and Major Wrenn, Sr.; denied that he had ever mentioned the topic of designation cards to his stepfather, Lawson Brown, and, denied that he had ever discussed any union activities of Goodson and Flowers with Lawson Brown. When called to the witness stand, Lawson Brown insisted that his stepson had never discussed the mat- ter of the possession of union cards by employees with him and denied that Kemp ever mentioned the names of any employees who were active in soliciting on behalf of the Union. Major Wrenn, Sr., who served as a leadman in the water hold department under Superintendent Cooper Williams, steadfastly denied in his testimony that he had told Levon Flowers on April 19 that Jane Goodson had been a good machine operator and that she had been discharged for dis- tributing union cards, and that he had had any discussion with Flowers concerning the possession or distribution of union designations by either Flowers or Goodson . Further- more, Wrenn disclaimed any knowledge that either Flowers or Goodson was a union adherent prior to their discharge. Superintendent Cooper Williams testified that he.was to- tally unaware that Flowers and Goodson had become in- volved with the Union prior to their separation from Respon- dent's employment rolls; and Personnel Manager Ray Adcock testified in the same vein. I do not credit the testimony of Kemp Brown , Lawson Brown, Major Wrenn, Sr., Cooper Williams, or Ray Adcock, not only because their demeanor and the manner in which they testified did not impress me, but also because the reasons which Respondent advanced for the terminations were not persuasive and because of the serious acts of interference, restraint, and coercion in which Respondent indulged, fol- lowing the discharges, to inhibit its employees freely to accept or reject the Union as their bargaining agent. With respect to Goodson's work qualities, she testified that on only three single occasions , all of which occurred approxi- mately 3 weeks before her discharge on April 9, Superintend- ent Cooper Williams told her to perform housekeeping chores around her machine, not to leave her work station, and to keep her machine closed at all times . However, these direc- tions by Williams were not in the nature of warnings and no notations were made or placed in Goodson's personnel folder regarding any dissatisfaction by Respondent with Goodson's work performance. Goodson further testified that she had been complimented on three occasions during her employ- ment by Leadman Major Wrenn . Thus, she testimonially related that on March 13, Wrenn visited her work station and Wrenn "told me [Goodson] I was doing a good job and asked me if I liked my work." Again, on March 28, Wrenn told Goodson that "There is not a machine I can put- you on that you don't work at well." On the same date, Wrenn volun- teered to Goodson that "Cooper Williams had asked him how I was doing on my job and he told him I was doing a good job." - Major Wrenn, Sr., testified that he had been critical of Goodson's job performance on only two occasions, all of which occurred about 3 weeks before her separation, and he admitted that he had never made any written notation of any asserted shortcomings for her personnel file.' Moreover, Wrenn conceded , when questioned concerning the quality of Goodson's work, that "when she started off, she was real brilliant. She did real good work." He further acknowledged that he had informed Goodson that "if she kept on continuing like she was doing, she was going to make a full hand." Wrenn also confessed that he "probably gave her [Goodson] more" compliments, but could not recall the exact dates on which these occurred. Superintendent Cooper Williams executed a personnel "write-up" for Goodson, her first, on March 18, which was addressed to Personnel Manager Ray Adcock and in which he stated that "I have talked to Major [Wrenn] about J. Goodson (822), about not keeping her work area clean & keeping the 721 Ins machine runing [sic]. This is her first 5 Wrenn related on the stand that, 3 weeks before Goodson's discharge on April 9, he had a conversation with Cooper Wilhams in which-the latter inquired into Goodson's progress Wrenn told Williams that Goodson's performance was at times satisfactory and at other times below par. This was the last and only occasion on which Wrenn apprised Williams of Goodson's capabilities POLORON PRODUCTS OF MISSISSIPPI, INC. wright [sic] up." Despite the fact that Wrenn's testimony does not disclose that he had any further complaints about Goodson's work which he conveyed to Williams, the latter again "wrote-up" Goodson for the same alleged-misconduct on April 5, the very day on which she solicited the union membership of Levon Flowers and Kemp Brown, the stepson of Lawson Brown, Respondent's supervisor. According to Respondent, Flowers was discharged solely because of poor work performance, predicated upon his fail- ure to keep his machine running, taking extended rest peri- ods, and excessive absenteeism. In his testimony, Flowers stated that he was never told, during the period of employ- ment, that he was not making progress at the plant, and Superintendent Cooper Williams admitted that he never noti- fied Flowers of any work deficiencies or cautioned the em- ployee of the penalty of discharge if Flowers failed to cut the mustard at his job. Leadman Wrenn testified that Flowers' work performance was below expectation from the very out- set of Flowers' employment, and that Wrenn had spoken to Flowers on a few occasions about these deficiencies. Never- theless, Flowers was permitted to retain his job despite these shortcomings until shortly after he had signed a union au- thorization card at the behest of Goodson. Indeed, as early as ]February 23, Superintendent Cooper drafted a "Progress Report" for Flowers on which Personnel Manager Ray Ad- cock commented, "Cooper, what is the problem with this employee-Is he trying?" Again, on March 9, after Williams prepared another Report, Adcock noted, "You need to take action on this." Moreover, on March 23, Adcock inscribed the following on a report: "Cooper-This employee must improve or action needs to be taken." Once more, despite these asserted admonitions by Adcock reaching up to March 23, Respondent nonetheless retained Flowers on its payroll for almost 3 more weeks before it discharged him on April 12, 7 calendar days after he signed a union designation. Based upon the testimony of Jane Goodson and Levon Flowers, which I have heretofore credited, I find that, on April 3, Goodson obtained authorization cards from the Union and that, on April 5, she proffered one of them to both Flowers and Kemp Brown, the stepson of Respondent's Supervisor Lawson Brown, for signature. I find that Flowers executed the designation but that Kemp Brown, declined to do so. I deem it both plausible and reasonable to infer, as I do, that, following Goodson's solicitation of Flowers and Kemp Brown, the latter informed his stepfather of this hap- penstance, and that Lawson Brown thereupon brought this intelligence to the attention of Cooper Williams, Major Wrenn, Sr., and Ray Adcock. I further find that, on or about April 19, Wrenn told Flowers that Goodson had been a good worker, and that both Goodson and Flowers had been dis- charged because they possessed and/or had signed union authorization cards. Accordingly, I find and conclude that Respondent terminated Jane Goodson on April 9, and Levon Flowers on April 12, not because of any shortcomings in their work performance, but because they had joined and assisted the Union. By the foregoing conduct, I conclude that Re- spondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Statute. I turn next to a consideration of the General Counsel's contention that Respondent indulged in other acts and con- duct which inhibited its employees' freedom to choose or 7 Bank of St Louis, 191 NLRB 669, 673 (1971). 707 reject a collective-bargaining representative, in violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. The complaint alleges that, on April 22, Supervisor Billy Joe Matthews coercively interrogated an employee concern- ing union activities at the plant. Employee James Robert Ray testified without contradiction that, prior to leaving his em- ployment with Respondent on April 22, he learned that the Union had embarked upon a campaign to obtain exclusive representation among the employees.6 While at work on that date, Ray engaged in a conversation with Matthews during which Matthews "telled me they was fixing to change me around, and asked me had I heard anything about the union...." When Ray responded in the negative, Mat- thews "laughed and walked away." In the context of this case, and when viewed against the backdrop of the incidents to be chronicled hereinafter, I conclude that Matthews' inter- rogation of Ray was violative of Section 8(a)(1). The General Counsel asserts that Respondent violated Sec- tion 8(a)(1) of the Act by a speech which Vice President and General Manager Harlon Hoffman delivered to his assem- bled employees on April 26, a copy of which is attached to this Decision and marked Appendix B. In that address, Hoff- man stated: Let me say again that we do not believe a union is needed here and we are dead set against a union coming into this plant. We don't need union problems on top of all the other problems we have. Our parent company lost over $8 million last year, and we contributed to that loss. Now is not the time to add union troubles. If someone tries to get you to sign a card, my advice to you is to tell them that you want no part of the union and for them to go away and leave you alone. If they won't leave you alone, let us know about it and we will see that something is done. If he comes to your house, you don't have to let him in if you don't want to. Don't sign a card just to get somebody off your back , because you may find that you have them on your back for the rest of your working life. Don't jump in and make a mistake that you could live to later regret. [Emphasis supplied.] I find, in the context of this entire letter and the Respondent's other conduct herein, the Respondent's request that any em- ployee subjected to constant badgering by union proponents to sign a union card should report the incident to Respon- dent's officials may reasonably be interpreted as a not too subtle attempt by Respondent to persuade its employees to inform management as to the identity of the Union 's adher- ents, and tended to restrain and coerce employees in their right to engage in protected union activities . I therefore con- clude that, by Hoffman's foregoing statement to his em- ployees, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1).' In his complaint, the General Counsel also charged that Hoffman violated Section 8(a)(1) when he warned the assem- bled employees in his speech of April 26 that they would lose their employment with Respondent if they executed union authorization cards. Employee Eugene Taylor testified that, during his address, Hoffman stated that "if he found out anyone was signing union cards it could cost them their jobs" 6 Matthews was not called as a witness in this proceeding 708 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD because "he wasn't going to have a union ." Employee Russell Morris was also present at the meeting at which Hoffman spoke to the employees. It is his testimony that, in the course of Hoffman's speech, the latter remarked that "we didn't want, a union and some of you may have signed one of these cards . . . if you have, and we find it out about it, that you may as well as find you another job." In his testimony, Hoff- man maintained that he steadfastly adhered to the written text of the speech which contains no reference to any threat of discharge if employees signed union designations . I accept his testimony in this regard, primarily because Maude Robi- son, another employee who attended the meeting and who was called as a witness on behalf of the General Counsel, explicitly denied that she heard Hoffman utter such a threat in his address. I shall therefore dismiss this allegation from the complaint. The complaint further alleges that, on April 26, after Vice President and General Manager Harlon Hoffman's speech to the assembled employees, Production Manager Bill Still un- lawfully interrogated an employee concerning the latter's union activities and warned that employee to steer clear of the Union's-campaign . The employee involved, William Turner, testified that, on April 26, Still inquired whether Turner had been present at the meeting at which Hoffman delivered his talk to the work complement. Turner answered in the affirm- ative. Still asked what Turner thought about the speech and the union matter, and Turner replied that "it was nice either way it goes." Still then warned that "if I was you I would stay out of this mess," an obvious reference to the Union's organi- zational drive. Still was not summoned as a witness and, hence, Turner's testimony stands undenied. Based thereon, I find and conclude that Still's questioning of Turner and the concomitant warning uttered in their conversation offended the provisions of Section 8(a)(1). Employee Turner also testified that, on May 6, Leadman Lawson Brown entered the blow mold department in which Turner worked. In an ensuing discussion, Brown inquired whether Union Representative Howard Underwood had vi- sited Turner's home. Underwood was well known to Respon- dent's officials as the Union's most active organizer, as evi- denced by the contents of the speech which Harlon Hoffman delivered to his employees on April 26. Turner replied that Underwood had not called upon him, whereupon Brown an- nounced that if Underwood came to Brown's abode, Brown proposed to beat "his damned ass." Brown denied that any such colloquy occurred. I do not credit his denial. Accord- ingly, by the foregoing interrogation of Turner,- I conclude that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The General Counsel contends that Respondent unlaw- fully surveilled the union propensities of its employees when, on May 3, its officials monitored the employees' receipt of union handbills as they entered and departed the plant gate. At the hearing, Respondent conceded that, on the day in question, Personnel Manager Ray Adcock, Superintendent Bill Elmore, Superintendent Sammy Everett, and Quality Manager Matt Shankle positioned themselves on the plant parking lot near the gate and observed Union Representative Howard Underwood, employee Alberta Taylor, Jane Good- son, and Mrs. Madlock distribute union circulars to the em- ployees. However, Respondent seeks to justify the legality of its supervisory presence in the parking lot on the ground that it was designed to keep peace and to identify any individual who might indulge in violence or other misconduct.,In this connection, Respondent explained that , in 1970, another la- bor organization, the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, embarked upon an organizational campaign which culminated in a Board-conducted election on Decem- ber 23, 1971, in which the Steelworkers was decisively de- feated at the polls. During that campaign, a strike ensued and the Steelworkers engaged in a variety of acts of misconduct which found their way into a complaint which the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued against that union. Hence, Respondent argues that the pres- ence of its supervisors near the plant gate was legally privi- leged because it was simply a "spontaneous reaction to the reappearance of Union people at the entrance to the parking lot," which constituted a plausible reason for positioning the officials in the area. I find no merit in this argument . Respon- dent's surveillance of the handbilling occurred hard on the heels of the Union's open organizational efforts. No work stoppage had been precipitated or had been threatened. Re- spondent offered no evidence to demonstrate that the distri- butions had in any manner disrupted traffic at Respondent's installation, or that they had indulged in any acts of violence or vandalism. In sum, I find and conclude that Respondent's action in stationing supervisors near the plant entrance was for the purpose of discouraging and deterring employees from engaging in handbilling activities , a right guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act, and that the Respondent thereby offended Section 8(a)(1) of the Statute.' IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with Respondent's operations de- scribed in section I , above, have a close and intimate relation- ship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. V THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is en- gaging in certain unfair labor practices, I shall order that, it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. I have found that Respondent discharged Jane Goodson on April 9, 1974, and Levon Flowers on April 12, 1974, for reasons proscribed by the provisions of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. I shall therefore recommend that Respondent make them whole for any loss of pay which they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination practiced against them. The backpay provided for herein shall be computed in accordance with the Board's formula set forth in F W Woolworth Com- pany, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum computed in the manner prescribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). I shall also recommend that Respondent offer Jane Goodson and Levon Flowers immediate and full reinstatement to their for- 8 Tex Manufacturing Company, 180 NLRB 808 (1970) POLORON PRODUCTS OF MISSISSIPPI, INC. 709 mer jobs or, if they norlonger, exist, to substantially equivalent employment. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclu- sions, and upon the entire record in this case, I hereby make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discharging Jane Goodson and Levon Flowers, thereby discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employment, in order to discourage their engagement in ac- tivities on behalf of the Union , Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 4. By interfering with , restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices banned by Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDERS (a) Offer to Jane Goodson and Levon Flowers immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if they no longer exist, to substantially equivalent employment and make them whole for any loss of pay which they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination practiced against them, in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon, request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due herein. (c) Post at its facility in Batesville, Mississippi, copies of the attached notice marked Appendix A.10 Copies of said no- tice, on forms to be provided by the Regional Director for Region. 26, after being duly signed by Respondent's author- ized representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason- able steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 26, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed as to those allegations not specifically found herein. 10 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 be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." Respondent, Poloron Products of Mississippi, Inc., Bates- ville, Mississippi, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging employees, thereby discriminating in re- gard to their hire and tenure of employment, in order to discourage their engagement in activities on behalf of United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, CLC. - (b) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their union activities. (c) Requesting employees to report the identity of union proponents to officials of the Company. (d) Warning employees to refrain from engaging in pro- tected,- concerted activities. (e) Engaging in the surveillance of its employees' union activities. (1) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. 9 ] n 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 APPENDIX B POLORON PRODUCTS OF MISSISSIPPI, INC REMARKS BY HARLAN HOFFMAN I am going to read this speech and in the back there some- one will read along with me-this is so that no one can come along later and say I said something else. I have called you together today because something has come up which is of very serious concern to you and our company. It has been brought to my attention that within the past several days, some of you have been approached by outside union organizers and a few union pushers right here in the plant in an attempt to get you to sign a union card. So that there is no mistake about the company's position in this matter, let me say right here and now we do not want you to sign a union card and we do not want a union in this plant. We have more than our share of union troubles in the last few years, and believe me, we don't want any more of it. In March of 1970, a union tried to get into the plant. They succeeded in getting some of our employees out on strike for several weeks. All the time, those strikers went without their paychecks, and they could not draw unemployment money. During the strike, the union, and some of the strikers shouted and harassed our employees as they came to work. Tacks and nails were put in the driveway, and many of our employees were threatened. A striker carried a gun, and we believe that 710 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cars were shot at and tires slashed by strikers. The strike and the bitterness went on-for several weeks. Following an investi- gation, the National Labor Relations Board issued an official complaint-against the union. The Federal Government was prepared to prove- before a trial judge that the union was guilty of threatening and coercing employees, throwing tacks and nails in our driveway, pushing and shoving employees and even carrying guns on the picket line. The union agreed to a secret ballot election to be held by the government so that they would not have to go through a trial. In that election, the union was smashed by a vote of better than two to one-that election was just before Christmas of 1971. Many of you weren't here at that time, but those of you who were with us then will remember. Some of our employees learned a bitter lesson that has been learned by thousands of other union members in the State of Mississippi. Some of the strikers lost their fobs-even permanently. - That's just one of the reasons we don't want a union in here. The reason-the union called a strike to begin with was because we wouldn't knuckle under. And we never gave in. We dragged them through the Labor Board investigation and we pushed them into an election until they were beaten so badly we never heard from them again. Now, another outside organizer from a different union-the Rubber Workers Union-is working on you. His name is Howard Underwood. This Mr. Underwood has come here to Batesville with the same sales pitch and pie-in-the-sky promise to try to fool you again where the other union lost out before. I was told this morning that he either gets in here or goes back to work for a-living. There was many good reasons why we are taking a strong stand on this umon issue. You see on television and read the newspapers every day about the strikes and trouble that unions cause. We have already had more than our share of union trouble, and we don't want to run the risk of union strikes, strike violence, or other trouble here again. We feel that outside interference by this union could be a very danger- ous thing, and we don't want to run the risk of a union strike or other trouble here. Things are tough enough right now with the energy crisis and all the other problems we have facing us. If there is one time that we do not need to run the risk of union trouble and the uncertainty that goes along with it, the time is now. We do not want a union. This Rubber Workers Union is famous for the strikes it has called. A couple of years ago, this same Rubber Workers Union called a strike at Walker Manufacturing Company over in Aberdeen, Mississippi. That strike lasted for four months-over 400 employees were out of work without, pay and without unemployment money all that time. The very next year some Rubber Workers Union called a strike at KBH Company in Clarksdale, Mississippi. That stake lasted for 9 months. All the time, the company continued to operate and replaced many strikers. Just think what would happen to you if you had to stay-out on strike with this Rubber Workers Union and go without your paycheck for 9 months. Mr. Underwood and the, people pushing the union will tell you anything you want to hear in order to get you -to sign a card. A card such as this-(held up card). They will promise you anything-they will lie to you-they will sweet talk you-but my- advice to you is DON'T SIGN- A CARD. Those cards are dynamite. Signing a union card is just like signing a blank check to the Union. Those cards can give the umon the power to take all sorts of dues, fees, and assess- ments out of your paycheck without you ever seeing the money. Ask Mr. Underwood to sign a contract guaranteeing you the wages he had promised. I'll bet he won't do it. Some- one told me this morning that some people had been offered up to $100 if they could get 50 cards signed. Now, why would it be worth that much to the union? On top of that, signing a union card could put you under the control of the union where they could slap union fines and penalties on you. I know of one case where the Rubber Work- ers Union fined a woman member over $500 because she didn't go along with the union bosses and went, to work during a strike. Not only could the union fine you, but they could go into court to collect those fines and garnish your wages to get the money. So the next time you hear this sweet talk from the union pushers, just ask yourself one question-"what's in it for him-what's he getting out of this." Why is Mr. Underwood willing to come into town on a big fat expense account, use up a lot of gasoline and stay at the Skyline Motel here in Batesville? His salary and ex- penses are coming out of the paychecks of Rubber Workers members somewhere else. Why is he willing to spend that money here? The one reason and the only reason this man wants to get control over you is because he knows you get a regular paycheck every week and he wants part of it. The company doesn't pay the union-you do. In short, the union is after your money. You can protect your money and your freedom if you DON'T SIGN A CARD. The union pushers may say they only need a few more cards. They may tell you that you are the last person in your department to sign-up-this is a lie they often use to try to trick people into signing union cards. They may also tell you that if you get $2.50 an hour now-they'll get you $3.50 an hour or $4.50 an hour or even $5.50 an hour. Don't be fooled by that kind of talk The company pays your wages-not the union. The company signs your paychecks, and for as long as you work here, it will be because the company keeps you on the payroll, not the union. The union pushers may even threaten you to get you to sign a card. They may tell you that you will be fired if you don't sign one. This is another lie. You will not be fired for refusing to sign a card. If any of you are threatened about this union thing, I want you to tell me about it We're not going to stand for threats or intimidation by anyone. We have no intention of standing by and seeing our people coerced by union push- ers or anyone else. The only way you can make them go away is to tell them. Refuse to sign a card-hand it back to them-tear it up if necessary, but don't sign it. POLORON PRODUCTS OF MISSISSIPPI, INC 711 Let me say again that we do not believe a union is needed here and we are dead set against a union coming into this plant. We don't need union problems on top of all other problems we have. Our parent company lost over $8 million last year, and we contributed to that loss. Now is not the time to add union troubles. If someone tries to get you to sign a card, my advice to you is to tell them that you want no part of the union and for them to go away and leave you alone. If they won't leave you alone, let us know about it and we will see that something is done. If he comes to your house, you don't have to let him in if you don't want to. Don't sign a card just to get somebody off your back, because you may find that you have them on your back for the rest of your working life. Don't jump in and make a mistake that you could live to liter regret.