Roseburg Lumber Co.

880 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Roseburg Lumber Company and Lumber, Production & Industrial Workers Union, Local 2608. Case 20-CA-19160 28 February 1986 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS DENNIS AND JOHANSEN On 25 November 1985 Administrative Law Judge Gordon J. Myatt issued the attached deci- sion. The Respondent filed exceptions and a sup- porting brief. The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,' and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, Roseburg Lumber Company, Weed, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order, except that the attached notice is substituted for that of the administrative law judge. 1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find- ings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Ctr. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice. Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights. To organize To form, join, or assist any union To bargain collectively through representa- tives of their own choice To act together for other mutual aid or pro- tection To choose not to engage in any of these protected concerted activities. WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with your free exercise of these rights. WE WILL NOT create an impression that we are engaging in surveillance of your union or other protected activities. WE WILL NOT interrogate you about your union activities and sentiments. WE WILL NOT threaten you with reprisals be- cause you engage in activities in support of the Union. WE WILL NOT threaten to close our mill facility if you select Lumber, Production & Industrial Workers Union, Local 2680, or any other labor or- ganization, as your bargaining representative. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exer- cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act. ROSEBURG LUMBER COMPANY Nancy E. Watson and Lorrie Gray, Esqs., for the General Counsel. Nelson D. Atkin II, Esq. (Spears, Lubersky, Campbell, Bledsoe, Anderson & Young), of Portland, Oregon, for the Respondent. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE GORDON J. MYATT, Administrative Law Judge. On a charge filed by Lumber, Production & Industrial Work- ers Union, Local 2608 (the Union) against Roseburg Lumber Company (Respondent) the Regional Director for Region 20 issued a complaint and notice of hearing on 21 December 1984.1 The complaint alleges, inter alia, that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, by: (1) unlawfully interrogating employees about their union activities; (2) threatening to close its mill if the employees were represented by the Union; (3) threatening to discharge employees for engag- ing in activities on behalf of the Union; and (4) creating an impression of engaging in surveillance of employees' union activities. 2 Respondent filed an answer in which it admitted certain allegations of the complaint , denied others, and specifically denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. 1 Unless otherwise indicated , all dates herein refer to the year 1984. 9 The General Counsel moved at the hearing to amend the complaint to allege additional allegations of unlawful interrogation and threats. Al- though Respondent's counsel objected to the amendments , he represented that he did not need additional time to prepare his defense against the amended allegations. Since the amendments merely cited additional in- stances of unlawful conduct already set forth in the complaint and in view of Respondent counsel 's representation regarding preparation of his defense, the motion to amend was granted. Respondent renewed its ob- jection to the amendments in its brief. The renewed objection is denied. 278 NLRB No. 124 ROSEBURG LUMBER CO. 881 A hearing was held on this matter in Redding, Califor- nia, on 28 March 1985 . The parties were represented by counsel and afforded full opportunity to present material and relevant evidence on the issues and to examine and cross-examine witnesses. Briefs were submitted and have been duly considered. On the entire record in this case and on my observa- tion of the witnesses who gave testimony , I make the fol- lowing FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION The pleadings admit, and I find, Respondent is an Oregon corporation engaged in the business of process- ing and manufacturing lumber products . As part of its operational structure, Respondent maintains and operates a facility in Weed, California, the only facility of Re- spondent involved in these proceedings. During the 12 months prior to the issuance of the complaint herein, Re- spondent purchased and received at its Weed facility goods, materials, and products valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points located outside the State of California. In view of the above, I find Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein , an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The pleadings further admit, and I find, that Lumber, Production & Industrial Workers Union, Local 2608 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background Facts Respondent's facility in Weed is part of a mill complex previously owned and operated by International Paper Company. International apparently operated the mill complex for a number of years and its employees had been represented by the Union. Sometime well before the We to Respondent, however, International shut down the complex and ceased all operations there. The unrefuted testimony indicates that after Respondent ac- quired the Weed property, its operations in the complex were limited solely to the veneer mill.a A box factory which is also a part of the complex was leased to another company for operation. The record discloses that in August 1983 Respondent began retooling the veneer mill plant in preparation for starting production. Martin Grugett, an experienced lumber mill manager, was hired by Respondent as gener- al manager of the Weed complex sometime in 1983. Gru- gett and his family lived in a refurbished company house located across the road from the mill complex. Actual production at the veneer mill commenced sometime in September 1983. At the time the veneer mill became Respondent also operates other mill facilities in several locations in California and Oregon. Its production and maintenance employees at these other locations are represented by unions. operational, Respondent employed approximately 95 pro- duction and maintenance employees. From the time of the preparation for the startup of the veneer mill in August 1983 until the holding of a Board- conducted election in February 1985, the Union engaged in periodic attempts to organize Respondent 's employees. The parties stipulated that the Union filed a representa- tion petition with the Board on 24 December 1984. An election was conducted on 26 and 27 February 1985 among Respondent's production and maintenance em- ployees. During the balloting 94 votes were cast in which 22 employees voted in favor of union representa- tion and 72 employees voted against such representation. The results of the election were certified on 7 March 1985. B. The Incidents that Occurred During the Organizing Campaign 1. Phillip York York, a former lathe operator for Respondent , testified regarding several incidents that occurred during the Union's organizing campaign at the mill .4 York's duties as a lathe operator included sharpening the lathe knives, setting up the lathe equipment which is used to peel the veneer from the lumber, and operating the lathe equip- ment. This work is performed in a 4-by-8 foot area in the mill described as the lathe shack. The lathe operation is the most essential in the production of veneer. The testi- mony describes the lathe operator as the "quarterback" of the mill. The unrefuted testimony reveals that Respondent uses a two-way radio system to maintain contact with the various work areas and with key employees on each shift in the event of maintenance problems and emergencies. The foremen, millwrights, and electricians on each shift carry portable radios clipped to their belts with small microphones attached to their shirts or lapels. Stationary radios are located in the mill office, deck saw, lathe, fire station, and log yard areas . The radio system operates on an open frequency so that it is not necessary to push an on and off button to communicate and all transmissions are heard throughout the system. The radio in the lathe shack was approximately 3 feet from where the lathe op- erator works. York testified that in late June or early July, he was in the lathe shack and heard a transmission by Grugett on the radio. The Union had intensified its organizing cam- paign during this time and was handbilling the employees at the mill several times a week . In addition, the Union held a meeting with a number of employees on 8 July and another several weeks later. York stated he heard Grugett say over the radio that "if this plant goes union, we'd better get out the locks and chains ."6 York testified 4 York quit his employment with Respondent in November 1994. Ac- cording to York, he received an "ultimatum" from Grugett to do his job the way Grugett wanted it done or leave. York then chose to quit his employment with Respondent. 5 Darrell McCarty, a forklift driver for Respondent, also testified that he overheard a transmission by Grugett at this time. According to McCarty, he was standing near an employee who had a portable radio on Continued 882 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD he knew the statement was made by Grugett because he recognized Grugett's voice and because the speaker iden- tified himself by the code word "four" which was Gru- gett's identification symbol. 6 York further testified that a week or two after 8 July, he went into the foremen's office where Grugett was meeting with Shift Foremen Fred Manzella and Tim Pet- tibone.7 According to York, Grugett turned to him and said, "Your shift has the lowest production" and "the lowest recovery." York stated as they proceeded to dis- cuss his production, Grugett said, "I heard you went to that union meeting." York took the position that it was his right to go to the union meeting and Grugett then said Respondent "would shut this motherfucker down if [the employees] go union." When York continued to protest that it was his right to attend the union meeting, Grugett told the employee that "he thought there was hope for [him] with Roseburg Lumber Company and now he was not sure." Finally, according to York, Gru- gett stated that Respondent "might have to make some • changes and if things didn't change in the plant, changes would be made." York further testified that sometime after the union meeting on 8 July, he discovered a blank termination slip in his locker. York acknowledged that he shared the locker with three other employees working other shifts at the plant and that the locker was left open on occa- sion. He had no knowledge of how the termination slip appeared in his locker or who put it there. Respondent's testimony differed considerably from that of York regarding these incidents. Concerning the radio transmission, Grugett stated he called the shift electrician on the radio to repair an electrical relay. The electrician called back and said the equipment to repair the relay was missing and Respondent should get locks. Grugett then replied over the radio that a number of things were missing at the mill and Respondent would have to get locks in order to secure things. Regarding the conversation with York in the fore- men's office, Grugett testified he was holding a meeting with his supervisors concerning plant production when York came into the office. He said York improperly peeled approximately $12,000 worth of veneer because the employee failed to adjust the knife on the lathe. As a result, Respondent had to make an adjustment (presum- ably with the customer). According to Grugett, when he confronted York with the matter, the employee said he could not concentrate because he was nervous. Grugett stated that as they continued to discuss York's job per- formance, York accused Grugett of picking on him be- cause the employee attended the union meeting . Grugett testified he told York it did not matter to him whether York went to the union meeting or not.8 his belt and he heard Grugett say something about locks. McCarty, how- ever, was unable to state in what context he heard Grugett mention the word "locks." 6 Apparently each speaker or area was designated by an identification symbol when transmissions were made on the radio system. r Pettibone's name is spelled "Peddybone" in the official transcript. The record is corrected to indicate the correct spelling of this name. s It is evident from all the testimony that Grugett and York had fre- quent and heated discussions in the mill regarding a wide range of sub- jects. Grugett described these discussions as "debates." The testimony in- Grugett also denied threatening to shut down the mill if the employees went union . He further stated he did not use the profane expression attributed to him by York. According to Grugett, he was "not the most gentlest person" and he did use "mill talk" in the plant and during conversations with employees. He denied, howev- er, using four-letter words and stated that Respondent's owner was the type who would not tolerate the use of such language. Finally, Grugett denied having any knowledge about the blank termination slip discovered in York's locker. Grugett testified the termination slips were kept in Re- spondent's office and only used when placed in the per- sonnel file of any employee who was terminated. Gru- gett stated that until several weeks prior to the hearing, the office employees were lax in keeping the office door locked when no one was there . As a result, several items had been discovered missing. To prevent this, Grugett now followed a policy of keeping the office locked when office personnel had occasion to be elsewhere. Manzella, who was York's shift foreman, stated the conversation between Grugett and York was a "little bit warm" but testified Grugett and York "debated quite often about a lot of things." Contrary to the testimony of Grugett, Manzella was unable to recall any discussion re- garding the Union during this conversation. Nor could he recall Grugett making any statement shutting the mill down if the employees went union or using the profane expression which York attributed to Grugett. Manzella stated he had not heard Grugett use that expression more than two times during his year of employment with Re- spondent and never on the mill floor. Credibility Determinations It is evident from the conflicting testimony that the truth about the above events rests solely on a determina- tion of the credibility of the witnesses. This is never an easy task; especially where the witnesses testify in an un- faltering manner and there is no independent evidence against which the testimony can be weighed . Neverthe- less, it is a task that is required to be performed. Having observed the witnesses carefully during the course of their testimony, about these and other events, I find York's testimony is more worthy of belief and is a more reliable account of the events which occurred. First, my observation of Grugett causes me to con- clude that despite his protestations about using four-letter words in the plant, use of such language was indeed commonplace in the mill; both by the employees and the supervisory officials. As Grugett acknowledged and his demeanor reflected, he was "not the most gentlest person" and he did use "mill talk" on occasion. Al- though the term "mill talk" was not defined in the record, it is apparent that such talk encompassed profani- ty including the use of four-letter words. Furthermore, Grugett's statement that he would not use four-letter ex- pressions because of the attitude of Respondent's owner rings hollow in the circumstances set forth here. The dicates they covered such diverse matters as unionization of the employ- ees, politics and, in the words of Grugett, "anything." ROSEBURG LUMBER CO. 883 comment attributed to Grugett by York did not take place in the presence of Respondent's owner but, rather, occurred during a heated discussion in the confines of the foremen's office in the presence of lower level super- visors. Thus, any constraints on the use of such language which Respondent's owner might have imposed were not present. Nor do I fmd that the testimony of Manzella lends credence to that of Grugett. In general, I find Manzella's testimony to be unconvincing. If Manzella's testimony that he did not recall Grugett threaten to close the mill, using the language described by York, is to be interpret- ed as a denial that the statement was made, it is at best a weak denial. I find, however, that this was characteristic of Manzella's entire testimony. For example, Manzella could not recall any mention of the Union during the heated discussion between Grugett and York, although both Grugett and York testified the matter of the Union was raised; albeit in different contexts. I deem it highly unlikely that Manzella would have forgotten either that York attempted to turn the criticism of his production failures by accusing Grugett of picking on him because the employee attended the union meeting , or that Gru- gett mentioned he knew York attended the union meet- ing during his complaints about York's productivity on the lathe. This is especially true since York's work per- formance on the lathe operation was Manzella's first-line responsibility. Thus, I fmd Manzella was engaging in se- lective recall during most of his testimony and was not giving a reliable account of the events to which he was a witness. Regarding the transmission over the open frequency on the radio, my observation of Grugett causes me to conclude he was dissembling during his testimony about the need for locks in the plant. Whether the transmission arose in the context of his conversation with the electri- cian about the repairs to the electrical relay and the miss- ing equipment cannot be determined except by reliance on Grugett's testimony which I fmd to be untrustworthy. But even if it did, I am persuaded Grugett seized upon the circumstances of the missing relay equipment to ex- press his hostility toward the Union's organizing effort by stating Respondent would have to get out the locks and chains if the plant became unionized. Therefore, I credit York's testimony that Grugett did make such a statement over the radio on this occasion.9 2. Norman Nichols Nichols, a stud-mill operator, testified regarding a con- versation he and a group of employees had with Grugett in the lunchroom. Nichols testified the conversation took place in late July or early August when he and several coworkers were in the lunchroom prior to going on their shift. Nichols initially stated that employee Steven Ham- den was present during this discussion but later testified that he was uncertain whether Hamden • was in the group. Nichols testified, however, that he did discuss the incident with Hamden. According to Nichols, the employees were discussing an article on unionization which had been posted on the bulletin board by Grugett and Grugett joined in the con- versation. Nichols testified Grugett stated, "I've already got the papers filled out. If the plant goes union, we'll close down in 24 hours." During cross-examination by Respondent's counsel Nichols who started out his em- ployment with Respondent as a veneer grader admitted that he had been moved to the position of a jitney driver handling loads of lumber . He mishandled a load on one occasion and was observed by Grugett who ordered him off the jitney and back to his job as a grader. Nichols acknowledged he felt he had been treated unfairly in this instance by Grugett. Grugett denied making any statement to a group of employees in the lunchroom that Respondent would close the plant in 24 hours if the employees became unionized. Grugett stated he posted numerous articles on the bulletin board about the prevailing conditions in the industry. They included articles about plant closings, market conditions, and lumber production. He further testified that he frequently discussed the posted articles with employees and these discussions included articles relating to the closing of unionized plants which could not compete because of the depressed conditions in the industry. Credibility Resolutions My observation of Nichols, a current employee of Re- spondent, causes me to conclude that his testimony was candid and straightforward. When questioned, he readily admitted he felt he had been treated unfairly by Grugett when the latter removed him from the jitney-driver posi- tion. However, I fmd no indication that this incident caused him to testify falsely. Nor do I fmd his testimony unreliable because he first recalled that Hamden was present and subsequently expressed uncertainty as to whether this employee was in fact in the group. I at- tribute this to nothing more than a faulty memory which did not affect his veracity. Moreover, I note that Nichols is a current employee testifying against the interests of his Employer without any evidence of hostility. In my judgment, this lends credence to his testimony. On the other hand, the threat to close the plant if it became unionized is consistent with the threat of plant closure expressed by Grugett to York. Having already found that Grugett's testimony is generally unreliable, and in view of his expressed hostility to the Union's or- ganizing efforts, I do not credit his denial in this in- stance. Thus, I fmd Grugett did make the statement to the employees in the lunchroom about closing the plant within 24 hours if the Union became their bargaining representative. 9 In making this credibility determination, I place no reliance upon the testimony of McCarty concerning the fragmentary portion of the radio transmission that he overheard . It is apparent that McCarty did not hear the context in which the. word "locks" was mentioned and was unable to shed any light on the statement made by drugett over the radio. 884 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. Darrell McCarty McCarty was employed by Respondent as a forklift driver.10 He testified that sometime in June the Union was handbilling the plant and he and four or five other employees were in the lunchroom on break or on their lunch period. According to McCarty, Manzella was in the lunchroom at the time and one of the employees asked Manzella what would happen if the employees went union. McCarty stated Manzella replied, "They'd close the place down." McCarty denied that Manzella in- dicated he was expressing only his personal opinion when he made this statement to the employees. When questioned about this incident, Manzella cast his statement in a different light . According to Manzella, he responded to the inquiry from the employee by stating that if it were his mill, he would probably shut it down if the employees went union . Manzella testified he was only conveying his personal opinion and he felt that it would be a mistake for the employees to go union. McCarty further testified that he had a conversation in his work area with Grugett 3 or 4 weeks before the elec- tion in February 1985. He stated Grugett was "chewing him out about some things." McCarty explained on cross-examination that the "things" he referred to were his complaints about unsafe working conditions at the mill. McCarty testified that during the conversation Gru- gett stated, "I know you're for the union, that you're a union sympathizer and don't deny it." According to McCarty, Grugett also told him that people (employees) had been telling him how McCarty was "crying about things." McCarty denied he initiated the discussion about the Union by telling Grugett that if the plant were unionized, unsafe conditions would not be permitted. Grugett admitted having a discussion with McCarty in January 1985 about the unsafe working conditions in the area where McCarty worked. He stated McCarty had complained to Respondent's safety director about the conditions and made the statement that if the Weed plant had been one of the unionized plants, the unsafe condi- tions would not have been permitted to exist. According to Grugett, he told McCarty that the mill was an old plant and there were problems. He also stated it would not make any difference whether it was union or non- union, it was all Respondent had at that facility and they had to make do until the conditions were corrected. Finally, on rebuttal McCarty testified regarding an- other conversation with Grugett about unionization of the employees.1' McCarty indicated that sometime in 1984 (he was unable to recall any more specific date) Grugett posted an article about a unionized plant where the employees had been on strike for 2 years and re- 10 McCarty had given Respondent his notice to terminate his employ- ment effective the day the hearing was held in this case (28 March 1985). Respondent put on testimony through McCarty's foreman, David Dawson, to establish that McCarty left his shift early without permission the day before his employment terminated with Respondent. McCarty, on the other hand, testified he understood his foreman as granting him permission to leave early once another employee returned from lunch to cover his duties. 11 Although this was not proper rebuttal, Respondent did not object to the testimony and called Grugett to refute it. Therefore , it is considered here. turned to work as a nonunion operation. McCarty testi- fied he thought the article was about a plant located at Grand Prairie but stated he was uncertain because Gru- gett posted many similar articles . McCarty said he was in the lunchroom at the time and Grugett pointed to the ar- ticle and said, "See how good the union did for these guys? They've been out of work for so long." McCarty stated Grugett remarked that "you really have to be stupid to want a union." Credibility Resolutions Regarding Manzella's statement to the employees in the lunchroom, I fmd the testimony of McCarty provides the more reliable version of what was said on that occa- sion. McCarty testified in a candid and forthright manner and his reponses to all questions were direct and uncon- ditional. In contrast, Manzella conveyed the appearance of carefully phrasing his responses so as to make certain no culpability attached to the Respondent. As previously noted, I find Manzella's testimony in general to be unreli- able and I consider his version of his statement about the plant closure to be unconvincing . Accordingly, I find that Manzella did not tell the employees he was express- ing his own personal opinion when he stated that the plant would be closed if they became represented by the Union. Rather, it is evident that he was reflecting the views consistently expressed by Respondent's highest level management official at the mill. Likewise, I credit the testimony of McCarty concern- ing the statements made by Grugett; regarding both the article on the bulletin board and the conversation about the unsafe working conditions in the plant. Having found that Grugett engaged in dissembling during much of his testimony, I find his explanation of these incidents to be disingenuous and untrustworthy. Therefore, I fmd that Grugett did in fact make the statements on these occa- sions in the manner testified to by McCarty.12 4. Steven Hamden Hamden was employed by Respondent from Decem- ber 1983 until June or July 1984. He first worked on the dryers as a relief employee and was later assigned to the swing shift. Hamden testified that on one occasion in March or April his crew was gathered in the lunchroom and a discussion developed about the handbilling the Union was engaging in at the plant . He stated Grugett was in the lunchroom during this time. 13 According to Hamden, as the employees were discussing the handbill- ing and the Union, an employee named Larry Taylor asked Grugett a question about the Union . Hamden testi- fied Grugett responded by saying that if the employees went union, he would shut the plant down. 18 In crediting McCarty, I do not find that the dispute over his having left work early on 27 March 1985 destroyed the reliability of his testimo- ny in this proceeding. At most, it evidenced a misunderstanding between the McCarty and his foreman which in no way affected the veracity of this witness. 13 Hamden was unable to recall at the hearing whether the crew was gathered in the lunchroom to discuss possible shift changes with Grugett. In his affidavit, however, Hamden indicated to the Board agent that this was the purpose of the meeting. ROSEBURG LUMBER CO. Grugett was unable to recall an employee named Taylor who might have worked for Respondent. While he stated he had numerous meetings with employees in the lunchroom regarding shift changes and safety mat- ters, he could not recall a specific meeting in March or April at which Harnden was present. Grugett testified that he had been given instructions by higher manage- ment not to discuss the Union with the employees but if he were asked a specific question, he was to attempt to answer it to the best of his ability. He stated he was in- structed not to interrogate any of the employees about their union activities and not to discriminate against them for engaging h union activities. According to Grugett, he was told to keep a "low profile" on the union matters. Grugett testified this was his practice and if he had been asked a question in the lunchroom by Taylor or any other employee, his response would have been in keep- ing with these instructions. Credibility Resolutions Although Grugett was unable to recall the specific lunchroom meeting which Hamden described and stated his response to employee questions about the Union would have been in keeping with the instructions from higher management, I find his response on this occasion was not as he indicated. Rather, I credit the testimony of Haruden and find Grugett stated he would close the plant if the employees became union. While Grugett's failure to specifically deny the._ statement attributed to him by Harnden might have been due to his inability to recall the particular event, the testimony regarding his response was consistent with subsequent statements I have found were made by Grugett to other employees concerning the consequences of going union. 5. Michael Belcastro Belcastro is a current employee of Respondent and works as a forklift driver. The testimony reveals that like York, Belcastro was a leading supporter of the Union and openly discussed his prounion views with others at the mill. elcastro. testified that in July, after a meeting with several union officials, he was given a-handbill to post on the plant bulletin board. He stated he took the handbill with him as he went to the mill to begin his shift that evening.14 According to Belcastro, as he was walking into the mill Grugett stopped him and asked, "What kind of games are you playing?" Belcastro denied he was playing any games and Grugett then stated three or four people had come to him complaining that Belcastro was bothering them, about the Union. Belcastro denied both- ering anyone but admitted discussing the Union with em- ployees. Belcastro testified Grugett then said, "Well, I'll tell you right now, if this mill 'goes fucking union, I'm going to shut it down. I have been given permission to shut it down." Belcastro said Grugett further stated that he knew everyone who went to the union meeting and 14 Belcastro stated he was working the swing shift at the tune This shift began at 5.30 p.m. and ended at 4.30 a.m. 885 everyone who signed cards. According to Belcastro, Grugett appeared "mad and upset." Belcastro further testified that approximately 5 or 10 minutes later Grugett came over as he was standing by the forklift. He stated Grugett said he knew Belcastro's family and his father and Belcastro should talk to them about the Union. Belcastro stated Grugett then began to give details about Respondent 's financial condition. He testified that Grugett said, "Mt. Shasta was losing $400,000 a month. They were going down, and that we're making $1.5 million a month and we're only clear- ing $5,000 and we bought $44,000 forklifts [sic], and we're on shaky ground. That the only reason we're still working is because it's a nonunion Mill. 15 Belcastro fur- ther testified that Grugett ended the conversation by tell- ing the employee that all he had to do was to give Bel- castro "three white slips" if he came in a minute early or failed to wear his hardhat or for whatever reason. The testimony indicates that the white slips were written warnings for infractions -of the mill rules. When an em- ployee received three such warnings, that employee was subject to termination. Belcastro testified that he did not post the union handbill on the bulletin board after his conversation with Grugett. Grugett's testimony was in sharp conflict with that of Belcastro. Grugett stated that it was Respondent's policy, established for safety reasons, that employees who were not on duty were not to be ' the plant. He stated that any employee who cam "o the plant while not on duty first had to secure a pass from the mill office. According to Grugett, he observed Belcastro in the mill and since it 'was not time for the employee's shift he questioned why; Belcastro ' was on the premises. He told Belcastro he was not on duty and he would have to leave, Grugett stated that Belcastro then merely turned and left the mill. Grugett also testified that he had received a number of complaints from employees that Belcastro was contact- ing them during working hours regarding the 'Union. Grugett denied telling Belcastro that if the mill went union he had permission to shut it down. He further denied that he usedi any four-letter words in his conver- sation with Belcastro. Additionally, Grugett testified that while it was his practice to post production figures at the mill, he never discussed any information regarding Re- spondent's income or cost figures, with employees. Credibility Resolutions Having carefully observed both of these witnesses and bearing in mind the unreliability of Grugett's testimony about other incidents at the mill, I credit the testimony of Belcastro regarding his conversations with Grugett. As previously noted, Grugett displayed a tendency to be disingenuous and to dissemble throughout much of his testimony. His protestation about the use of four-letter words is unconvincing. By his own admission, he en- gaged in flashes of temper at times when dealing with 15 On cross-examination, Belcastro acknowledged that Grugett had never discussed Respondent's financial- condition with him in any prior conversations 886 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees, and I find this anger was verbally expressed in situations where he discussed his opposition to the Union with employees. I find this to be especially true in situations where he was confronting known union adher- ents on this subject. While I am not unmindful that Bel- castro was one of the leaders of the attempt to get union representation in the mill and thus had a vested interest in the outcome of these proceedings, -I find his testimony here was candid and forthright. I further find that Bel- castro's testimony regarding the figures describing Re- spondent's financial condition were not made out of whole cloth. Rather, I find they were based on state- ments made by Grugett to convince Belcastro that Re- spondent could not afford to have its employees at Weed represented by the Union., In sum, I find that during these two conversations Grugett did make the statements attributed to him by Belcastro. C. The Notices on the Unfair Labor Practice Charges On 9 August the Union filed unfair labor practice charges against Respondent. Sometime during the latter part of August or early September, Grugett posted a notice to the employees on the plant bulletin board. The notice began with a recital of Respondent's version of the employees' right to engage or not to, engage in union activities. The notice went on to advise the employees that the Union had filed unfair labor practice charges against Respondent. It stated: Without giving any details, the union claims the company somehow illegally threatened or forced employees because [sic] of the exercise of their rights to engage in or not to engage in union activi- ties. We believe we have not done anything to un- lawfully interfere with your rights! We have too much respect for our employees to attempt to threaten or coerce you. The notice then went on to advise the employees that the Board would investigate the charges and urged their cooperation. (See R. Exh. 1.) On 9 September Grugett sent a copy of a letter refer- ring to the unfair labor practice charges and Respond- ent's position on them to each of the employees. In this letter, Grugett stated: We have learned that the union claims that between June and August 1, Fred Manzella and I threatened employees with plant closure if the plant went union, that I "created the impression of surveillance regarding the union," and finally that I threatened individuals with termination for engaging in union activity. I have discussed these allegations with Fred and I do not`believe that either him [sic], me [sic]' or, anyone else unlawfully threatened anyone with plant shut-down or termination because they were engaged in union activities. Both Fred and I certainly do not intend or expect any remarks which we might have made to be so interpreted. The letter went on to set forth employee rights con- tained in Section 7 of the Act and stated that Respondent "has not and will not interfere, restrain, or coerce any employee in the exercise of these rights." Grugett went on to state that' although Respondent believed the em- ployees at Weed did not want or need a union, Respond- ent would respect their - rights to make the choice. He concluded this letter by stating: One final point that I must make clear is that this letter is not an admission that Roseburg Lumber Co. has in any way violated the law and should not be so interpreted. Don't believe anyone that tells you anything different. [See R. Exh. 2.] D. Grugett's Statements to the Local Chamber of Commerce On 10 September Grugett spoke to the Weed Chamber of Commerce concerning; Respondent's plans for the mill. A newspaper account of the speech was introduced into evidence by the General Counsel. (See G.C. Exh. 3.) The article indicated Grugett told the Chamber of Commerce that, if Roseburg workers refrained from unionizing, they will get the same wages as Respondent's employees in the unionized plants. The article quoted Grugett as stating, "The unions are trying to organize at the plant. We're the only plant in the company that is not unionized and we want to keep it that way." It fur- ther quoted Grugett saying, "Whatever the employees want is what they will get. If the people want a union, we'll go union-if they want nonunion, we'll go non- union." In this speech, according to the article, Grugett stated the unfair labor practice charges against him were unfounded and denied that he threatened to shut down the plant if the employees became represented by the Union. The article further stated that Grugett told his audience the Weed employees would automatically get whatever raises were negotiated at Respondent's other plants. Grugett did not deny the accuracy of the newspaper account of his speech except to indicate that he was mis- quoted in one instance. According to' Grugett, he did not say that Weed employees would automatically get what- ever raises were negotiated at Respondent's union-repre- sented plants. Rather, he testified he told the Chamber of Commerce that hopefully the Weed employees would re- ceive the same wage increases that might be negotiated at Respondent's other plants.- Grugett acknowledged that after the article was printed, he did not at any time con- tact the reporter or the newspaper, to protest about the accuracy of the statements attributed to him. Concluding Findings Having resolved the question that the statements made by Grugett and Manzella to the employees during the organizing campaign were as the employees testified, the ultimate issue here is -whether, in all of the surrounding circumstances, these statements reasonably tended to interfere with the free exercise of employee rights guar- anteed under Section 7 of the Act Respondent argues regarding the situations involving York, Belcastro, and McCarty that the statements to these employees were made to known union adherents who openly expressed their support for the Union. Therefore, according to Re- ROSEBURG LUMBER CO. spondent's theory, the statements were not unlawful under the rationale of the Board's decision in Rossmore House. 1 ° More specifically, Respondent contends that York and Belcastro openly and actively supported the Union's cause and that Grugett learned of McCarty's similar sentiments from third persons at the mill prior to his discussion with that employee. Thus, Respondent urges that under the Rossmore House holding, its officials and supervisors were free to engage in discussions about the Union with these employees and to question them about their union sentiments without violating their rights under the Act. I do not agree with Respondent's expansive interpreta- tion of the Rossmore House decision. A careful reading of that case indicates that while an employer does not vio- late the Act when discussing his views on union organi- zation with employees or questioning open and active union adherents about their union sentiments, a violation does occur if the employer's statements contain express or implied threats or promises. Such threats and promises have been held consistently by the Board to tend to interfere with employee exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. See Haynes Motor Lines, 273 NLRB 1851 (1985); Eagle Headers, 273 NLRB 1486 (1985); J. & G. Wall Baking Co., 272 NLRB 1008 (1984); Horizon Air Services, 272 NLRB 243 (1984). See also dis- sent (Member Dennis), Diversified Products, 272 NLRB 1070 ( 1984). The facts found in the instant case clearly demonstrate that the statements made by Grugett to York in the fore- men's office were patently coercive and unlawful . First, I find that by stating he heard York attended the union meeting, Grugett was creating an impression that he was engaging in surveillance of York's union activities. I find this to be true even though York was a known and open supporter of the Union . The meeting was held away from the mill complex and did not relate to the employ- ee's union activities at the mill . Thus, Grugett's statement suggests he was surveilling York's activities off the plant premises. See Sierra Hospital Foundation, 274 NLRB 472 (1985). In this same conversation, Grugett threatened profane- ly to close the mill if the employees were represented by the Union and then concluded by implying that York's future with Respondent was questionable . I find the first statement to be an explicit threat of plant closure and the latter to be an implied threat of reprisal which tended to interfere with York's free exercise of his Section 7 rights. Horizon Air Services, supra; So-Cal Products, supra; Collec- tramatic, Inc., 267 NLRB 866 (1983). Accordingly, I find Grugett's statements to York on this occasion violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. In a like vein, I find Grugett's conversations with Bel- castro to be coercive interrogation in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. By telling Belcastro that he (Grugett) knew which employees attended the union meetings and signed authorization cards, Grugett was clearly convey- ing the impression that he was engaging in surveillance of all union supporters; regardless of whether they were open or covert in their activities on behalf of the Union. 16 Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176 (1984). 887 Nor does the fact that this statement was made to a known union adherent nullify the coerciveness of Gru- gett's comments. Further, as shown by the prior cita- tions, it is axiomatic that his threat of plant closure was unlawful. Finally, Grugett's threat to issue three white slips to Belcastro for any infraction of Respondent's work rules constituted an implied threat that Grugett in- tended to seek out reasons to discharge the employee be- cause he was engaging in union activities . See Mister Fox Tire Co., 271 NLRB 960 (1984). I further find that Grugett's conversation with McCarty in January 1985 was coercive. Grugett initiated the conversation because of McCarty's complaints about the unsafe working conditions in his work area. By tell- ing McCarty he was a union sympathizer and defying him to deny it, Grugett was placing the employee in a position requiring him to reveal his union sentiments. Contrary to Respondent, there was no evidence at this point to indicate McCarty openly supported the Union or that he had complained about matters other than the unsafe working conditions in his area. In these circum- stances, I find Grugett's comments to be unlawful. Respondent contends that the Board 's holding in Brig- adier Industries Corp.,'' justifies its assertion that Gru- gett's conversation with McCarty was noncoercive. I find that case to be inapposite. In Brigadier the employer learned from third parties that an employee was engag- ing in union activities at the plant. In speaking to the em- ployee, the employer advised him that he could only engage in such activities during breaks and lunch or before and after work. In finding no coercion, the Board held the employer's statements were made to "an open and active union supporter . . . and did not seek a re- sponse." Such is not the case here . Therefore, I find Grugett's comments to McCarty on this occasion violat- ed Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.'s It follows from the prior discussions that Grugett's threats of plant closure, made in response to employee inquiries in the lunchroom in March or April (Hamden's testimony) and again in July or August (Nichols' testimo- ny) were coercive and violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. It is of no significance that on each of these occa- sions the employees initiated the conversations with Gru- gett. While an employer is free to express its views when responding to employee inquiries about the consequences of being represented by a union, its may not threaten them with plant closure and resultant loss of employment or with other retaliatory conduct when responding to their inquiries. Similarly, Manzella's threat of plant closure made in response to employee inquiries in the lunchroom in June was coercive and violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. As previously noted, Manzella was not expressing his own personal views to the employees but, rather , was assert- 17 271 NLRB 656 (1984). 18 1 do not find unlawful Grugett's statement to McCarty, sometime in 1984, that employees had to be stupid to want a union. In my view, this is merely the expression of an opinion privileged under Sec. 8 (c) of the Act. Rich Plan of Western Reserve, 271 NLRB 1010 (1985); W & F Build- ing Maintenance Co., 268 NLRB 849 fn. 1 (1984). 888 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ing the same threat of plant closure expressed repeatedly by Respondent's highest official at the mill. Respondent further contends that even if the state- ments made by Grugett and Manzella were found to be coercive, they were at best de minimis and isolated. I reject this contention out of hand. Threats of plant clo- sure and loss of employment are "hallmark" violations which strike at the very core of employee organizational efforts. Horizon Air Services, supra; NLRB v. Jamaica Towing, 632 F.2d 208, 212-213 (2d Cir. 1980). Nor were these incidents of unlawful conduct isolated. Rather, they occurred on numerous occasions with different groups of employees throughout the Union's organizing campaign. Finally, Respondent contends that any unlawful con- duct that may have occurred was fully remedied by the notices posted and the letters sent by Grugett to the em- ployees. In support of this argument, Respondent relies on the Board's decision in Agri-International Inc., 271 NLRB 925 (1984). In Agri-International, a number of the employer's su- pervisors engaged in unlawful interrogation of employees during a union's organizational campaign. When the em- ployer's highest official at the plant learned of the coer- cive conduct (4 days later), it posted notices on the com- pany bulletin boards and mailed disavowal notices to all the employees spelling out their rights under the Act and pledging not to engage in the coercive conduct in the future. In addition, each supervisor involved in the un- lawful' acts was required in group meetings with the em- ployees to pledge commitment to the statements set forth in the employer's notices. The Board held this was effec- tive repudiation of the supervisors' unlawful conduct and no finding of a violation was warranted. Contrary to the claim of Respondent here, I find that the posted notices and letters to the employees did not effectively repudiate the coercive conduct of Grugett or Manzella. The posted notices clearly indicated Respond- ent did not believe its officials had engaged in any con- duct which interfered with the Section 7 rights of the employees. Similarly, the letters which Grugett mailed to the employees again stated that neither he nor Manzella believed they had engaged in any coercive conduct. Thus, both the posted notices and the mailed letters failed to "specifically and unambiguously" disavow the coercive conduct found to have been committed here. Pilliod, of Mississippi, Inc., 275 NLRB 799 fn. 1 (1985). In the absence of such a specific disavowal, Respondent has not effectively repudiated its unfair labor practices. Pas- savant Memorial Area Hospital, 237 NLRB 138 (1978). Moreover, Respondent continued to engage in similar coercive conduct after the purported disavowal as evi- denced by Grugett's unlawful interrogation of McCarty in January 1985. I reject, therefore, Respondent's conten- tion that the unfair labor practices were effectively repu- diated and no fording of a violation is warranted. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Roseburg Lumber Company is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2), engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Lumber, Production & Industrial Workers Union, Local 2608 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By unlawfully interrogating employees about their union activities and sentiments, Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. By creating an impression that the union activities of employees were under surveillance, Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. By threatening employees with reprisals because they support the Union, Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 6. By threatening to close its mill facility if the em- ployees select the Union as their bargaining representa- tive, Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the, Act. 7. Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by telling employees they have to be stupid to want a union. THE REMEDY Having found Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, it shall be ordered to cease and desist there- from and take certain affirmative action necessary to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed19 ORDER The Respondent, Roseburg Lumber Company, Weed, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Creating an impression of engaging in surveillance of employees' union or other protected activities. (b) Unlawfully interrogating employees about their union activities and sentiments. (c) Threatening employees with reprisals because they engage in activities in support of the Union. (d) Threatening to close its mill facility if the employ- ees select the Union as their bargaining representative. (e) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Post at its facility located in Weed, California copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."80 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 20, after being signed by the Re- spondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by 19 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur- poses 20 If 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 Nation- al 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 " ROSEBURG LUMBER CO. the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond- ent to ensure that the notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. 889 (b) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any allegations contained in the complaint not specifically found to be violations are dismissed.