Carolina Steel Corp.

20 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Carolina Steel Corporation and International Molders & Allied Workers Union, AFL-CIO-CLC. Case 11-CA-6288 June 24, 1976 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On April 14, 1976, Administrative Law Judge Robert Cohn 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 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 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 Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Carolina Steel Corpora- tion, Greensboro and Colfax, North Carolina, its of- ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ROBERT COHN, Administrative Law Judge: On Novem- ber 26, 1975,' a complaint issued pursuant to a charge filed on October 7 by International Molders & Allied Workers Union, AFL-CIO-CLC (herein the Union). The complaint alleges, in essence, that Carolina Steel Corporation (herein the Respondent or Company), violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein the Act), by threatening to warn, and warning, employees for engaging in activities protected by Section 7 of the Act. In its duly filed answer, Respondent admitted the jurisdic- 1 All dates hereinafter refer to the calendar year 1975, unless otherwise indicated tional allegations of the complaint, but denied the commis- sion of any unfair labor practices A hearing in this case was held before me on January 6, 1976, in Greensboro, North Carolina. At the conclusion of the hearing, counsel made brief closing arguments. In addi- tion, helpful, posthearing briefs have been received from both counsel for the General Counsel and counsel for the Respondent, which have been duly considered. Upon the entire record in this case, including arguments of counsel, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES 2 At all times material, the Respondent has been engaged in the business of structural steel fabrication and ware- housing at its Greensboro and Colfax, North Carolina, plants. At Greensboro, Respondent employs approximate- ly 190 production and maintenance employees; at Colfax it employs approximately 90 such employees. As far as the record shows, there has been no labor relations history at either of the aforementioned plants. During the latter part of August, the Union commenced an organizational drive among the Respondent's employ- ees Apparently, this activity soon came to the knowledge of Respondent since, on September 2, the Respondent's president made a speech to the employees in which he urged them to reject the Union.3 On September 10, the Union notified the Company by mail of its organizational campaign, and listed some 59 employees of the Respondent as being members of an in- plant organizing committee who would be assisting in such campaign. The letter was received by the Company on Sep- tember 15. On September 16, the Respondent posted at its Greens- boro and Colfax plants, the following notice: TO ALL EMPLOYEES We have recently received a letter from a Mr. Alex Grant, saying that he is an organizer for the Moulders Union and that a number of Carolina Steel employees are helping him try to get his union into our plants. His letter gives the names of the employees at Greens- boro and Colfax, whom he says are his in-plant organ- izers. This is a union device to try to gain some kind of protection for the men who have signed union cards. The idea is that if he reveals their identity, then our hands are supposed to be tied so that the card signers won't have to follow the rules and cannot be disci- plined. 2 There is no issue raised as to the jurisdiction of the Board or of the status of the Union as a labor organization The complaint alleges sufficient facts, which are admitted in Respondent's answer, upon which I may, and do hereby, find that the Respondent is, and has been at all times material, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec 2(6) and (7) of the Act The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that, at all times material, the Union has been a labor organization within the meaning of Sec 2(5) of the Act 3 However, nothing stated in his speech is claimed to constitute an unfair labor practice 225 NLRB No. 5 CAROLINA STEEL CORP. I am sorry for the men who believe such ideas. As Mr. Dorland told you in his recent talk, a man can join a union or he can refuse to join. If he thinks that he cannot make it on his own, he can work for the union. But if a man believes a union here might bung trouble, lostjobs and lost benefits, he can work to keep it out. One thing is clear. No union member is going to get any more favorable treatment than anyone else. If one of those on the list neglects his own work or interferes with the work of others, he will be severely disciplined or discharged, dust as anyone else in the plant would be for the same activity Since we have been officially notified that these men intend to work for the union inside the plant, each of them is being given an official warning on plant rules. When they signed union cards, we doubt that they intended to be put on a list to the Company. However, the union has done so and we will take appropriate steps. Also on September 16, Respondent's supervisors individ- ually read a statement entitled "Supervisor to Employee" to those employees named as being on the in-plant organiz- ing committee who were present on the job that day.4 The record reflects that it was the procedure for the supervisory employee to call aside the in-plant committee member from the latter's job and read the statement to him "in private" either in the plant area or in the supervisor's of- fice. The "Supervisor to Employee" statement referred to is as follows: SUPERVISOR TO EMPLOYEE , I WANT TO READ A SPECIAL STATEMENT TO YOU SO THAT THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION OF WHAT I SAY YOUR NAME HAS BEEN REPORTED AS A UNION MEMBER WHO INTENDS TO WORK FOR THE UNION INSIDE THE PLANT THE OR- GANIZER FOR THE MOULDERS UNION HAS SENT THE COMPANY A LIST OF EMPLOYEES THAT HE SAYS ARE TO BE IN-PLANT ORGANIZ- ERS, AND YOUR NAME IS ON THE LIST SOME OF THE NAMES DID NOT SURPRIZE US WE KNEW THAT NOTHING WOULD EVER SATISFY SOME PEOPLE THERE ARE OTHERS WHO WE THOUGHT WOULD REALIZE THAT OUR PLANTS ARE ALREADY AHEAD OF OUR COMPETITORS AND THAT OUR BENEFITS ARE FAR BEYOND EVEN THE UNION SHOPS IN OUR AREA MR DORLAND TOLD YOU TWO WEEKS AGO THAT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO JOIN THE UNION, AND THAT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO STAY OUT OF IT AND TO WORK TO KEEP UNION TROUBLE OUT OF HERE MOST OF YOU WHO SIGNED UNION CARDS PROBABLY DID NOT INTEND THAT YOUR NAMES BE REPORTED BY MR GRANT POSSI- The record reflects that although there were 59 names appearing in the Union's letter of September 16, there were only 56 actual employees on the in-plant committee because of duplication in the names or the fact that one of the employees named was no longer employed by the Company It was also agreed among the parties that only 52 of the 56 employees were read the statement on September 16 since the other employees were not at work that day for various reasons The remainder were read the statement when they returned to work within the next several days 21 BLY, GRANT THOUGHT THAT SOMEHOW YOU WOULD GAIN EXTRA JOB PROTECTION IF HE CLAIMED YOU ARE WORKING FOR THE UNION I HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED TO INFORM YOU THAT PUTTING YOUR NAME ON A UNION LIST WILL NOT GAIN YOU ONE EXTRA BENEFIT, NOR WILL IT ALLOW YOU ANY EXEMPTION FROM OB- SERVING THE RULES OF THIS PLANT IF YOU SHOULD NEGLECT YOUR WORK OR INTERFERE WITH THE WORK OF OTHER EMPLOYEES, YOU WILL BE SEVERELY DISCI- PLINED OR DISCHARGED I CALL YOUR SPECIAL ATTENTION TO THE RULE REGARDING SOLICITING DURING WORKING TIME THIS APPLIES TO UNION SOLICITING AS WELL AS OTHER INTERFER- ENCE, AND IF YOU VIOLATE THIS RULE, YOU WILL BE SUBJECT TO DISCHARGE IF YOU WANT TO JOIN THE UNION, THAT IS YOUR BUSINESS WHAT YOU DO ON WORKING TIME IS OUR BUSINESS SINCE WE HAVE BEEN TOLD OFFICIALLY THAT YOU INTEND TO WORK FOR THE UNION WHILE YOU ARE IN THIS PLANT, THEN WE BELIEVE YOU NEED AN OFFICIAL WARNING I HOPE THIS IS CLEAR TO YOU AND THAT YOU WILL CONDUCT YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY 5 As noted above, the original charge in this matter was filed on October 7, in which the Company was claimed to have violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. Following an investigation by an agent of the Board's Regional Of- fice, it was apparently concluded that there was no merit to the 8(a)(3) allegation, but the Region was prepared to pro- ceed to complaint with respect to the 8(a)(1) allegation. This was communicated to the Respondent's counsel by an agent of the Board. Subsequently, on November 11, the Respondent sought to informally adjust the matter by pro- posing the posting of a notice to employees which it had promulgated. This was apparently unacceptable to the Re- gion, who counterproposed its own notice to employees. Such notice was, in turn, unacceptable to the Respondent, and the record shows that on or about November 11 the Respondent posted its own notice, as follows: TO ALL EMPLOYEES: Most of you may remember that the Company re- ceived a letter from the Molders Union in September reporting the names of a number of our employees who, according to the Union, were going to act as an "In Plant Organizing Committee." We did not want to make these names known to all of our employees, but we felt that each person on the Union list should know that he would be expected to follow the Plant Rules just as strictly as anyone else. The appropriate supervi- sors spoke personally with each man on the list, telling him that the Union letter did not confer on him any extra benefits, nor would it allow him any exemption from observing the rules of the plant. The supervisors said, "If you want to join the Union, that is your busi- ness. What you do on working time is our business." A question has been raised as to whether some of our employees who were spoken to by the supervisor 5 The parties stipulated that the foregoing statement was "read only to those employees who were named in the letter from [Union Organizer] Alex Grant as being members of the in-plant organizing committee " There is no evidence that any of the supervisors made any other statements to the em- ployee either before or after the reading of the statement 22 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD considered that they were warned concerning all of their activities, as distinguished from what they did on working time, when they should be attending to their jobs. We want no misunderstanding of our rights or the rights of our employees. When an employee is on working time and is sup- posed to be attending to his work, he is forbidden to engage in any solicitation , distribution or other such activity When the employee is on free time , such as during a lunch period or regular break period, this prohibition does not apply, and he is free to engage in such activity, provided he does not interfere with the work of other employees. We hope this explanation will give you a better un- derstanding of your rights and duties in this regard. Analysis and Concluding Findings It is the theory of the General Counsel that the Respon- dent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights by announcing (through a posted notice) that it was giving prounion ad- herents an official warning on plant rules , and then sum- moning these employees from their work stations for the purpose of hearing a supervisor read to them an official warning on plant rules . In support of his contention, the General Counsel relies on two recent Board cases . Green- field Manufacturing Company, a Division of Kellwood Com- pany, 199 NLRB 756 (1972), and Starkville, Inc, et al, 219 NLRB 595 (1975). In Greenfield, the facts were strikingly similar to those in the instant case. There, the Respondent 's regional manag- er, on receiving a telegram from the Union designating some 34 employees as additional members of the Union's organizational committee, summoned them into the Respondent's lunchroom. There, he addressed the group in much the same language that the supervisors here spoke to the individual employee, i.e., efforts either for, or against, the Union must not "interfere with your work or the work of others," "you will not receive favored or privileged treat- ment and that, you will be subject to disciplinary action, including discharge . . if you violate plant rules or regula- tions."6 The Board, reversing the Administrative Law Judge, who had dismissed this allegation of the complaint, stated as follows: In our opinion, the modus operandi used by Respon- dent in arranging this separate, exclusive assembly of announced union sympathizers appears to be more antithetical to these employees' Section 7 rights than the actual content of Cannon' s message. We find that this singling out of union supporters by calling them out from the midst of their coworkers to attend such a special meeting is invidious , and that it amounts to discriminatory treatment of them and is thus coercive. As for the regional manager's statement , he made no allusion whatsoever to the employees' protected orga- nizational rights and Respondent's correlative obliga- 6 199 NLRB at 756 tions under the Act, but restricted himself to empha- sizing the dire consequences of what Respondent presumed to be a tendency on their part to ignore plant rules. Accordingly, we find that Respondent's method of arranging this meeting of avowedly pro- union employees, and the conduct thereof, is violative of Section 8(a)(1). Indeed, the instant case appears somewhat stronger in several respects than Greenfield- (1) the employees were spoken to by the supervisors alone, "in private," sometimes in the sanctum of the supervisor's office,7 while in the cited case they were addressed as a group in the lunchroom; and (2) in the cited case, the Respondent's regional manager "maintained he had received complaints or impressions that the Union's campaign had induced a deterioration of discipline and work habits . .. ." 8 whereas in the case at bar there is no such contention or evidence. In Starkville, the Board affirmed an Administrative Law Judge's finding that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when the plant manager called prounion employees into his office and lectured to them in language substantially similar to that in the instant case and in Greenfield In Starkville, however, it appears that both the Administrative Law Judge and the Board relied, in part, on the plant manager's demeanor while making his remarks; there is no evidence in the instant case regarding this fac- tor. After a consideration of all of the evidence in the record, as set forth above, I am of the opinion that this case is controlled by Greenfield I am convinced, and therefore find, that the modus operandi used by the Respondent here, as in Greenfield, had an intimidatory and coercive effect upon the employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights, thereby violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.' There remains for consideration the Respondent's con- tention that, following the notification from the Regional Office that a violation of Section 8(a)(1) had allegedly oc- curred, it sought to "clarify" or correct the misunderstand- ing through the posting of its own notice. It is contended by the Respondent that the posting of this notice remedied any prior unlawful conduct by the Respondent, and there- The record is not clear as to how many of the 56 prounion employees spoken to were called into the supervisor 's office or simply called away from their work station to a private place However, it is acknowledged that all were singled out from their fellow employees to be addressed on the subject 8 199 NLRB 756 at In 5 9 In oral argument, counsel for the Respondent appeared to draw a dis- tinction between the right of an employer to warn prounion employees against any engagement in union activities (which he conceded would amount to a violation of the statute ), as distinguished from the right of an employer to warn prounion employees respecting the latters' obligations to adhere to plant rules during an organizational campaign (which he contend- ed would not amount to a violation) It does not appear , in my judgment that the Board has attempted to draw such a distinction , but rather deems more significant the modus operandi used by an employer in "singling out" prounion employees for special treat- ment respecting the necessity of adherence to plant rules while , at the same time, not engaging in such conduct respecting all other employees Equally without merit, in my view , is Respondent's argument that a dis- tinction should be drawn because it did not name or otherwise identify the prounion employees in its September 16 notice However , the impact of the supervisor's summoning the prounion employees from their work stations shortly following the posting of the notice could not have been lost on the other employees CAROLINA STEEL CORP. 23 fore no order or remedy should be forthcoming from the Board I cannot agree. This argument of Respondent proceeds from the wrong premise. It is bottomed, as set forth above, on the proposi- tion that the violation occurred because the agents of the Regional Office thought that the "official warning" of the Respondent could be construed to refer to the prounion employees' union activities and not their adherence to plant rules. However, my analysis of Board precedent is that the thrust of the violation has to do with the manner in which the Respondent goes about giving its prounion em- ployees the "official warning," i e, by singling them out from the remainder of the employees, sometimes in a locus of managerial authority, for the purpose of giving them a lecture or warning respecting their activities in the plant. It is apparent that the notice posted by the Respondent in this case does not approach clarifying or correcting the Respondent's conduct in that regard. Therefore, I find that a remedy emanating from the Board is the only proper and effective remedy in the premises. q . THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth above, occur- ring in connection with the interstate operations of Re- spondent, have a close, intimate, and substantial 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. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record, I make the following. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER to Respondent, Carolina Steel Corporation, Greensboro and Colfax, North Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall- 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Announcing that prounion adherents would receive an official warning on plant rules, and summoning pro- union employees or organizing committee members from their work stations to attend special, private meetings with supervisors for the purpose of lecturing such employees solely about plant rules and penalties for violations. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its Greensboro and Colfax, North Carolina, plants, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen- dix." II Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 11, after being duly signed by the Company's authorized representative, shall be post- ed by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main- tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicu- ous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, de- faced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 11, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. 1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act 3. By announcing that prounion employees were to be given an official warning on plant rules, and by summon- ing prounion employees or organizing committee members from their work stations to attend special, private meetings with supervisors, and lecturing said employees solely about plant rules and penalties for violations, the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. 10 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 In the event the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the 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 " APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT announce that prounion employees will receive an official warning on plant rules, and WE WILL NOT summon prounion employees or organizing committee members from their work stations to attend special, private meetings with supervisors for the pur- pose of lecturing those employees solely about plant rules and penalties for violations. 24 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any of their right to self-organization , to form labor orga- or all such activities. nizations , to join or assist International Molders & Al- lied Workers Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, or any other la- CAROLINA STEEL CORPORATION bor organization, and to engage in other concerted