Kansas City Power & Light Co.

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Kansas City Power & Light Company and Local 1613, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO. Case 17-CA-7469 August 8, 1977 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS PENELLO AND WALTHER On May 19, 1977 Administrative Law Judge James L. Rose 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 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,1 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, Kansas City Power & Light Company, Kansas City, Missouri, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. I The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule 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 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JAMES L. ROSE, Administrative Law Judge: This matter was heard before me on April 14, 1977, at Kansas City, Kansas, upon the General Counsel's complaint which alleged that the Respondent, by the statements of three supervisors, engaged in violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 151, et seq. The Respondent generally denied that the three supervisors made the statements attributed to them and contended, in the alternative, that even had such state- ments been made, they constituted de minimis violations of the Act. Upon the record as a whole, including my observation of the witnesses, briefs, and arguments of counsel, I hereby make the following: 231 NLRB No. 43 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. JURISDICTION The Respondent is a public utility corporation engaged principally in the business of production, transmission, sale, and distribution of electrical energy to consumers in Missouri and Kansas, with its principal office located in Kansas City, Missouri. In the course and conduct of its business operations within the State of Missouri it annually derives gross revenues in excess of $250,000. Also in the course and conduct of its business, the Respondent annually purchases and receives goods, products, and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Missouri. The Respondent admits, and I find, that it is, and at all material times has been, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Local 1613, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (herein called the Union), is admitted by the Respondent to be, and I find is, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Factual Background The Union has represented certain of the Respondent's roughly 2,300 employees for a number of years and currently has a collective-bargaining agreement with Respondent covering those employees. Among the employees represented by the Respondent are those who work in the data processing department. So far as is material to this matter, supervision of the data processing is: Pat Friend, department manager; Ron Eddins, supervisor of data processing controls; and Jack Long, supervisor of data processing operations and data answering. While Long has been employed by the Compa- ny for many years, the evidence shows that Eddins has had his position since August 18, 1975. Friend came to work for the Company on September 8, 1975, or approximately 1 year before the beginning of the events in this matter. In connection with implementing the collective-bargain- ing agreement between the Respondent and the Union, the Union has several shop stewards, particularly including Bob Kennedy. The shop stewards present grievances and from time-to-time appear at the various stages of the grievance and arbitration procedure set forth in the contract. On the morning of October 5, 1976, Kennedy was informed by Friend that he was to be present at 11 a.m. that day for a second step grievance meeting. During that discussion the question of whether Kennedy's time would be paid by the Company or by the Union came up. Kennedy stated that he thought it would be paid for by the Company while Friend said he had been advised that at this stage Kennedy's time would be paid by the Union. When Kennedy questioned this, Friend, according to his own testimony, "lost my cool" cursed at Kennedy, and then stated, according to Kennedy: 204 KANSAS CITY POWER & LIGHT COMPANY You've got a lot of potential if you'd just use it. You're probably one of the best operators I have. You can go a lot further and be a lot better if you wasn't so pro Union. Friend's version of this discussion is substantially the same as Kennedy's except this last statement. Friend testified that he said: Look, Bob, you've got some potential here. You're got some leadership ability, you have a chance to do something with yourself, if you would quit being so !ardheaded and quit running into a brick wall every chance you get. Although Friend denied the specific statement attributed to him by Kennedy, he did not deny generally his repetition that he treats union stewards and union management badly and generally is opposed to the Union representing his employees. Given Friend's undenied union animus, noting his demeanor on the witness stand, and noting further that his version of the statement to Kennedy really does not make sense, I conclude that Kennedy's version is more accurate and credible. The discussion between Kennedy and Friend involved a grievance proceeding and, in essence, Kennedy's interpre- tation of the contract that he should be paid by the Company. It was in this context that Friend "lost [his] cool," swore at Kennedy, and made the statement. Friend admits to everything but stating that Kennedy would get along better if he was not so prounion. In this context, where Friend "lost [his] cool" over what appears to be a minor argument involving an interpretation of the contract with a union steward, the statement that Kennedy should "quit being so hardheaded and quit running into a brick wall" has no meaning. That Friend would have told Kennedy not to be so prounion fits. The statements attributed to Long and Eddins followed this event and occurred in December 1976 and January 1977. Briefly, sometime following the Thanksgiving holiday in 1976, Alvina Webb had an early morning conversation with Long, as she did essentially every morning they both were at work. During this particular conversation Webb referred to a notice that had been posted on the bulletin board which she interpreted as being critical of Kennedy's work. She asked Long "Why were they picking on Bob Kennedy?" and Long said, "Because he is a union steward." Betty Sue Hobbs, also a union steward, testified that in early January she had a conversation with Eddins, her immediate supervisor and with whom she converses many times a day. During this particular conversation Eddins stated that Friend hated certain union stewards, namely, Georgia Van Dola, Bob Kennedy, and Bill Koppen, simply because they were union stewards. They caused him trouble, wrote grievances, and kept on him about contract violations. Eddins told her that Friend, for some reason, did not hate the two other union stewards-Bob Casebeer and herself. Hobbs also testified that she had a conversation with Long sometime in December 1976 or January 1977 during which Long said "Mr. Friend wants revenge on union stewards who cause him trouble and he would do anything to get them." To which Hobbs testified that she responded, "Boy, do I know that." Long also told her that Friend would like to get rid of Georgia Van Dola because of problems that they had had with her as a union steward. Eddins and Long denied having made the statements attributed to them. Specifically Eddins testified that he could recall no conversation with Hobbs about Friend's attitude toward union stewards and denied saying to her that Friend hated the union stewards. Eddins however, did not specifically deny conversations with employees about company animosity toward the Union, stating only that he does not remember the specific conversations. Similarly, Long stated that he has a very precise memory, and he denied the statements attributed to him thus: Q. O.K. Did you say any of the things that were attributed to you at that time? A. I have never put those words together in that fashion, no. Q. O.K. Did you ever say anything like what was said this morning. A. All I can say is that I did not say as quoted by Sue Hobbs. Noting the demeanor of these witnesses against the demeanor of Hobbs and Webb, I generally credit Webb and Hobbs over Eddins and Long. Beyond that, however, Eddins and Long were very careful to make their denials in the nature of a negative pregnant. While it appears they generally denied the substance of the statements attributed to them, in reality they denied only the specific words testified to by Webb and Hobbs. I am satisfied that the substance of the conversations testified to by Webb and Hobbs took place even though not necessarily with the precise stringing together of the words. Eddins and Long denied only the specific words and not the substance. I conclude that Eddins and Long were generally attempting to protect their immediate supervisor who, I conclude, has a substantial union animus which manifests itself in his statement to Kennedy in October. In view of Friend's well known animus, it makes sense that the conversation which Webb and Hobbs testified to did in fact take place in the general form and substance testified to. B. Analysis and Concluding Findings Having found that the statements alleged by the General Counsel of Friend, Eddins, and Long did in fact occur, I conclude that implicit in those statements were threats to employees because of their activity on behalf of the Union, particularly acting as union stewards. Such activity is of course protected by the Act, and to threaten employees directly or indirectly, no matter how obliquely it may be, because one engages in such activity is clearly violative of Section 8(a)(1). 205 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Respondent contends, however, that these viola- tions, if they occurred, are de minimis. I conclude that this case is not as trivial as the Respondent maintains or indeed as it first appears. The unfair labor practices here were caused by the union animus of a relatively new department manager. While in other contexts the statements may seem insignificant or isolated, to find such here and to dismiss the complaint would be to invite repetitions by Friend, if not also Eddins, Long, and perhaps, others of the Company's 240 supervi- sors. I conclude that these violations must be remedied in order to insure, to the extent possible under the Act, that the Respondent will cease this activity-threats stemming from a high supervisor's union animus. As correctly noted by the Respondent union animus is not itself unlawful. Where, however, such animus causes supervisors to interfere with employees' rights, then it is. The Respondent notes that it has more than 240 supervi- sors to manage more than 2,300 employees and has a long history of stable relations with the Union. Such is to be commended. This does not however mean that the Respondent did not hire an individual whose attitude is so antiunion that he would disrupt the stable relationship. The Respondent's relationship with the Union does not mean that three supervisors could not or did not commit the unfair labor practices alleged. Not to remedy these unfair labor practices would be tantamount to sanctioning Friend's animus and its results. I therefore conclude that these statements were not isolated but were sufficiently serious to support a remedial order. See, e.g., Carolina American Textiles, Inc., 219 NLRB 457 (1975); Texberry Container Corporation, 217 NLRB 58 (1975). I further conclude that the unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the above findings of fact, conclusions of law, the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER ' The Respondent, Kansas City Power & Light Company, Kansas City, Missouri, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: I. Cease and desist from: (a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act by threatening employees who engage in activity on behalf of the Union as shop stewards. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action: (a) Post at its Kansas City, Missouri, facility copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 2 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 17, after being duly signed by its authorized 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. Reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other materials. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 17, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. 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. 120.48 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." APPENDIX NoncE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing in which all sides were given the opportunity to participate and to present their positions, it has been found by the National Labor Relations Board that we have committed certain unfair labor practices. We have been ordered to post this notice and to comply with its terms: WE WILL NOT threaten our employees because they act as stewards or otherwise engage in activity on behalf of Local 1613, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. KANSAS CITY POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 206