Star Fivers, Inc.

STAR FIBERS 789 Star Fibers, Inc. and Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL-CIO, CLC. Case 11-CA-13125 September 25, 1990 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS CRACRAFT, DEVANEY, AND OVIATT On November 27, 1989, Administrative Law Judge Stephen J Gross issued the attached deci- sion The Respondent filed exceptions and a sup- porting brief The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authonty 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 rulmgs, findings, and conclusions only to the extent consistent with this Decision and Order The judge found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by implicitly threatening to impose adverse worlung conditions if the em- ployees voted to be represented by the Union We disagree with the judge The Respondent's vice president, Richard Beals, made the following statement in speeches to em- ployees during the course of the Union's organiza- tional campaign If we are forced to run this plant with a union, I won't be a nice guy about it Thmgs will be stnctly business and we'll do what is best for the company Penod That may make you a lot worse off than you are now Do you want to take that chance? The judge found that the employees could rea- sonably understand this statement to be a reference to the way in which Beals would operate the plant if the Union won the upcommg election, rather than as a reference to a bargaining posture Beals might assume in contract negotiations with the Union Contrary to the judge, we do not find Beals' statements to be violative of the Act They were made as part of a lengthy prepared speech given by the Respondent's officials to employees regard- ing the collective-bargaining process and the ef- fects of unionization on other comparable facilities The overall "theme" of the speech given by Beals and the other company official was collective bar- gaining and negotiations with the Union and we find that the allegedly threatening statements clear- ly related to the posture Beals would take dunng negotiations with the Union As the judge conced- ed in his decision, "if Beals had been clear that he was refemng to the collective bargaining process in his I-won't-be-a-nice-guy remark, there would be no violation of the Act" We find, contrary to the judge's ultimate determination, that it was clear that Beals was referring to the stance he would take durmg collective bargaining with the Union and that his statements were permissible and nonth- reatening, and not in violation of the Act ORDER The complaint is dismissed MEMBER CRACRAFT, dissenting Contrary to my colleagues, I agree with the judge's finding that the Respondent violated Sec- tion 8(a)(1) of the Act More specifically, I agree with the judge that Vice President Beals' statement, set out in the ma- jonty opinion and m the third paragraph of the judge's decision, reasonably could have been per- ceived by the employees as an implied threat to impose adverse working conditions if the employ- ees voted to be represented by the Union, and that it was therefore violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act I See Mack's Supermarkets, 288 NLRB 1082, 1098-1099 (1988), Jones Plumbing Co, 277 NLRB 437, 441 (1985), Childress Buick, 270 NLRB 1091, 1092-1093 (1984), Thurston Motor Lines, 257 NLRB 1262, 1267 (1981) 2 1 Member Oviatt finds that even assuming arguendo that Beals' state- ments were an Implied threat to impose adverse working conditions on employees if they voted to be represented by the Union, the statements were isolated and de mmums Member Oviatt notes that the few state- ments made by Beals are the only alleged unlawful conduct the Respond- ent is accused of engaging in during the several-month union organiza- tional campaign He further notes that every case cited by his dissenting colleague in support of her position involves numerous violations of Sec 8(aX1) and (3), as does Polymer Prints, 281 NLRB 431, 432 (1986), relied on by the judge In the present case, there is only a single alleged 8(aXI) violation Member Oviatt is unwilling to find a violation here based on Beals' Isolated and innocuous statements 1 Contrary to my colleagues, I do not find it "clear" that Beals was referring to the stance he would take during bargaining Beals' statement itself describes how he would "run this plant with a union," not how he would "bargain with a union" 2 Although my colleagues primarily disagree with me that Beals' state- ment reasonably could be perceived by the employees as an implied threat, Member Oviatt also finds that assuming arguendo Beals' state- ments were an Implied threat to Impose adverse working conditions, they were nevertheless isolated and de mmums Member Oviatt is correct that in each of the cases I have cited in sup- port of my finding of an unfair labor practice, the employers (unlike the Respondent in the instant case) engaged in other, often extensive, unlaw- ful conduct in addition to the unlawful statements on which I am focus- ing However, in none of these cases did the Board expressly or implied- ly condition its finding of unlawful statements on the presence of the other unfair labor practices found therein A solitary unfair labor practice is not, simply on the basis of its singu- larity, an Isolated and de mmmus unfair labor practice In any event, the speech in question in this case, including the statement itself, was made by the Respondent's executive vice president and general manager to all the employees in a series of group speeches over a 2-day penod On that basis alone, I find It not to be isolated and de minims 299 NLRB No 117 790 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD However, in agreeing with the judge's unfair labor practice finding, I do not rely on his subsidi- ary finding about the employees' subjective inter- pretation of Beals' statement The test of interfer- ence, restraint, and coercion under Section 8(a)(1) of the Act does not turn on the employer's motive or on whether the coercion succeeded or failed The test is whether the employer engaged in con- duct which, it may reasonably be said, tends to interfere with the free exercise of employee nghts under the Act American Freightways Go, 124 NLRB 146, 147 (1959) Donald R Gattalaro, Esq , for the General Counsel Fred W Suggs Jr and R Allison Phinney, Esqs (Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart), of Greenville, South Carolina, for the Respondent DECISION The Facts STEPHEN J GROSS, Administrative Law Judge Re- spondent Star Fibers manufactures staple fiber from nylon resin and produces filtered pellets from nylon waste at a facility in Edgefield, South Carolina Starting in October 1988 the Charging Party, the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (the Union), campaigned to organize the employees at Star Fiber's Edgefield plant Star Fibers opposed the Umon's effort 1 On January 4 and 5, 1989, Star Fibers' management called employees into meetings in groups of about 10 The main speaker at each of the meetings was Star Fiber's executive vice president and general manager, Richard Beals (Star Fibers admits that Beals is an agent and supervisor of the company ) The employees all knew Beals, knew that he is "all business," and knew that he is not an easy type of person for employees to deal with At each of the meetings Beals began his talk by attack- ing the Union's claims and by comparing the situation of employees in a number of unionized plants with that of the employees at Star Fibers After spending about 600 All parties agree that Star Fibers is an "employer" engaged m "com- merce" and that the Union is a "labor organization" words on those subjects, and after agreeing that Star Fibers could "run this plant with a union," Beals said, just before ending his talk If we are forced to run this plant with a union, I won't be a nice guy about it Things will be strictly business and we'll do what is best for the company Period That may make you a lot worse off than you are now Do you want to take tht chance? Beals emphasized the quoted language, looking direct- ly at the assembled employees as he uttered the memo- rized words, and used a tone that sounded as though "he was getting mad" Conclusion The quoted statement can be heard as a reference to how Beals would deal with representatives of the Union in the course of collective bargaining if the Union won the election And I will assume, for present purposes, that if Beals had been clear that he was referring to the collective-bargaining process in his I-won't-be-a-nice-guy remark, there would be no violaton of the Act But to assembled employees, the reasonable meaning of the quoted words is that if the employees voted to have the Union represent them, then Beals, in his interac- tions with employees, would be even less nice toward the employees than he already was And that, in turn, might make the employees "a lot worse off than [they] are now" The General Counsel showed, moreover, that a number of employees did indeed interpret Beals' utter- ance that way Thus, Beals' statement amounts to a threat Beals said, "on his own initiative for reasons unrelated to economic necessities and known only to him" (in Gissel's words2), that he would act differently toward the employees if they voted in favor of the Union, and that that change might adversely and substantially affect the employees' circumstances Star Fibers thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act See Polymer Prints, 281 NLRB 431, 433 (1986) [Recommended Order omitted from publication ] 2 NLRB v Gusel Packing Co, 395 US 575, 618 (1969)