Domtar Paper Company LLC

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

May 30, 2007

06-CA-035349 (N.L.R.B. May. 30, 2007)

JD–37–07
Johnsonburg, PA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
DOMTAR PAPER COMPANY LLC1
and Case 6-CA-35349
DONNA KLINE, AN INDIVIDUAL
Suzanne C. Bernett, Esq., of Pittsburgh, PA,
for the General Counsel.
Joseph C. Ragaglia, Esq., of Philadelphia, PA,
for the Respondent Employer.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
Bruce D. Rosenstein, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried before me on
March 13 and 14, 2007, in Johnsonburg, Pennsylvania, pursuant to an Amended Complaint and
Notice of Hearing in the subject case (complaint) issued on February 2, 2007, by the Regional
Director for Region 6 of the National Labor Relations Board (the Board). The underlying charge
and amended charge were filed by Donna Kline (the Charging Party or Kline) alleging that
Weyerhaeuser (the Respondent or Employer) has engaged in certain violations of Sections
8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). The Respondent filed a timely
answer to the complaint denying that it had committed any violations of the Act.
Issue
The complaint alleges that on July 26, 2006,2 Kline reported safety concerns to the
Respondent that related to the collective-bargaining agreement between the United Steel,
Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers
International Union, Local No. 10-701, AFL-CIO, CLC (the Union or Local 10-701) and the
Employer. Thereafter, on August 7, the Respondent discharged Kline. On the entire record,
including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed
by the General Counsel3 and Respondent, I make the following

1 On March 7, 2007, Weyerhaeuser and Domtar Inc. completed a stock exchange
transaction to combine Weyerhaeuser’s fine paper business and related assets with Domtar Inc.
to create a new company called Domtar Paper Company LLC. The parties agree that Domtar
Corporation is responsible to remedy any unfair labor practices, including reinstatement, found
in Case 6-CA-35349 (Jt Exh. 1).
2 All dates are in 2006 unless otherwise indicated.
3 The General Counsel’s motion to correct the transcript is granted.
JD–37–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
Findings of Fact
I. Jurisdiction
The Employer, a corporation with an office and place of business in Johnsonburg,
Pennsylvania, is engaged in the business of manufacturing paper products. The Employer,
during the past calendar year, in conducting its business operations purchased and received
goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. It also sold and shipped from its facility in Johnsonburg, Pennsylvania, goods
valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The
Respondent admits and I find that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
A. Background
The Respondent and the Union are parties to a collective-bargaining agreement
effective by its terms from June 10, 2002 to June 10, 2009 (GC Exh. 5). Pertinent to the subject
case is Section 49 of the agreement that is titled “New Employee Probation Period.”4
At all material times Tom Detwiler held the position of Plant Mill Manager, Grant Forrest
serves as the Paper Mill Manager and Al Rimer is the chief of Human Resources. Joseph
DeCarli holds the position of # 5 Paper Machine (PM) Superintendent and David Benson serves
as # 5 PM Assistant Superintendent. Both Al Mellquist5 and Nicholas Zehr were Team Leaders
during July and August 2006, and served as Kline’s first line supervisor. Employee Joseph
Calla holds the position of Union President.

B. The Section 8 (a)(1) and (3) Allegations
1. The Position of the Parties
The General Counsel alleges in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the complaint that the
Respondent terminated Kline because she engaged in protected concerted activities in violation
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and because she invoked rights under the parties’ collective-
bargaining agreement and/or because of Kline’s relationship with an elected official of Local 10-
701, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
The Respondent argues that Kline’s discharge was at all times undertaken for legitimate
non-discriminatory business reasons unrelated to any union or protected activities in which she
might have engaged.

4 New employees shall be regarded as probationary employees until they have completed
sixty (60) days of work. During the probationary period, the employee is on trial, and the
Company may discipline, discharge, or transfer such employee as determined by the Company
to be necessary, and such action shall not be subject to the grievance/arbitration provisions of
this agreement.
5 Mellquist passed away on October 20.
JD–37–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
2. The Facts
Calla informed Kline that the Respondent intended to advertise to fill a number of paper
machine positions at its facility in Johnsonburg, Pennsylvania. Since Kline wanted to continue
her personal relationship with Calla and move near him, she decided to apply for the position
when it was officially announced. On her employment application, she listed Calla as a
reference. According to Calla, over 260 applicants applied for the positions and 60 were tested
including Kline. Rimer apprised Calla that five applicants were selected for the positions
including Kline who was the top scorer on the standardized tests and in the interview process.
Kline did not mention her relationship with Calla during the interview process nor was she asked
about it.
Calla accompanied Kline to the general orientation that started on July 10, and
suggested that she arrive early in order to select her assignment and be first in line for seniority
purposes. Upon arriving at the facility, Calla introduced Kline to Rimer as his girlfriend in
addition to introducing her to other management officials who were present at the new
employee orientation. Thus, the Respondent learned early on about the relationship between
Kline and Calla. During the orientation process, Kline volunteered that she had previously been
involved as a union officer at her prior employer.
Between July 10 and July 14, Kline attended the required orientation sessions at the
facility. She did not work on Saturday and Sunday, July 15 and 16. Kline reported to her
assignment on the # 5 PM on Monday, July 17.
Benson is in charge of the day to day operation of the # 5 PM and overseas training of
all new employees including permanent employees who transfer into the section. He estimated
that since 2004, approximately 90-100 employees have undergone training. All employees,
including probationary, are required to complete a qualification guide (qual guide) as part of
there training experience (R Exh. 1).6
On Kline’s first day of work, Benson informed her that she had 132 hours to complete
the qual guide requirements that included the on the job training (OJT) portion of the helper
position.7
Mellquist was designated by Benson to be Kline’s principal first-line supervisor during
her probationary period. He in turn, requested other more experienced employees including
Steve Wenner and Jim Ahlberg, to assist Kline with her training and to initial each portion of the
qual guide when the required task was completed.

6 The qual guide provides documentation to aid the employee in meeting the minimum
acceptable level of competence in the qualifications for the position. It is a comprehensive
document of approximately 25 pages requiring that a supervisor or experienced trainer sign-off
on numerous areas of responsibility that the employee must complete in learning the intricacies
of the paper machine operation.
7 I fully credit Benson’s testimony that he told Kline about the 132 hour requirement to
complete the qual guide during her first day of training. Contrary to the General Counsel’s
argument that Benson appeared quite nervous and uncomfortable while testifying, I find that he
was a sincere and trustworthy witness, whose testimony has a ring of truth to it.
JD–37–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
On July 25, Benson requested that Mellquist schedule a meeting with Kline to review her
progress in completing the qual guide requirements and to receive feedback from Kline on how
she was progressing in her training.
The meeting was held at 3:30 p.m. on July 26, with Benson, Mellquist and Kline in
attendance. Benson, in reviewing Kline’s qual guide, immediately noticed that only
approximately 20% of the requirements were completed and signed-off on. He informed Kline
that substantially more of the requirements should have been completed since she had already
used 104 hours of her 132 hour allotment. Benson decided to give Kline some target dates to
try and get her qualified for the PM helper position. He directed Kline to concentrate on getting
all tests completed and handed in by the end of the week on July 28. He also instructed Kline
that her qual guide must be completed by Wednesday, August 2, in order to commence her OJT
on August 3. Benson informed Kline that another meeting would be scheduled for Wednesday,
August 2, to review her progress on these assigned tasks (R Exh. 2 and 3). Benson arranged
for DeCarli to chair the meeting as he would be on vacation.
During the morning of July 26, Kline was requested to attend the regularly held Team
Leader Safety meeting by Mellquist and DeCarli. Kline and Wenner were the only two
bargaining unit employees to attend the meeting (GC Exh. 7). DeCarli testified that he invited
Kline to the meeting and requested her to prepare a list of safety concerns that she had
observed during her first several weeks of employment hoping that a fresh set of eyes might
uncover some areas of concern that the Respondent was not aware of.
During the course of the meeting, Kline discussed a number of safety concerns that she
had either personally experienced or had observed while working in and around the paper
machine. She reported that when she was working in the basement by herself it was very hot
and no one came to check on her status. Additionally, Kline informed those in attendance that
she observed an employee standing on some paper while pushing it into the pulper with his feet
and during a felt change she saw an employee in an awkward position that looked like it had the
potential to become an accident. Wenner confirmed that Kline stated that she had safety
concerns when working in the basement.
DeCarli requested Mellquist to follow-up on some of the safety concerns that Kline
raised at the meeting. Indeed, the Respondent counseled the employee who was standing on
the paper while pushing it into the pulper with his feet. DeCarli knew that Kline was not in the
basement alone as he observed employee Bob Coward accompany Kline to the basement
when they both were assigned clean-up duties. DeCarli testified that Mellquist inquired of
Coward if he left Kline alone in the basement. Coward reported to Mellquist that he was in the
basement with Kline the entire time when they were cleaning up and although not directly
beside her, he was always in the area (GC Exh. 19).
Between July 26 and August 2, Kline continued her training program and sought to
complete the requirements of the qual guide. On the morning of August 2, # 5 PM experienced
a series of breakdowns that caused the machine to be inoperable for approximately 6 or 7 hours
during the day. The breakdown of a paper machine is a significant event and all efforts are
directed toward repairing it. Thus, employees are hard pressed to complete other tasks until the
problem that caused the initial breakdown is corrected.
On August 2, around 4 p.m. and after # 5 PM was up and running, DeCarli convened a
second meeting in his office to evaluate Klein’s progress. Present at the meeting in addition to
DeCarli were Zehr and Kline. Prior to the meeting, DeCarli inquired of Zehr whether in his
JD–37–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
opinion Kline was a good fit for the company. Zehr replied that he did not think so because
Kline was having trouble completing the qual guide in a timely manner and she was tough to
communicate with.
DeCarli started the meeting and noted that Kline had completed all tests by the deadline
of July 28, and the test scores were entered into her qual guide. DeCarli asked Kline if the
qual guide was done and Kline stated, “I don’t know if it is done”. DeCarli observed that the
equipment identifications were not complete nor were the task demonstrations. DeCarli
informed Kline that the qual guide was supposed to be completed by August 2, so she could
start OJT on August 3. DeCarli estimated that the qual guide was 92% complete with the self
OJT still not completed. Kline stated, “I can do the job”. DeCarli informed Kline that the qual
guide should have been completed in 132 training hours. DeCarli apprised Kline that as of July
31 she consumed 144 training hours and on August 2, 179 training hours had been used.
Accordingly, DeCarli informed Kline that she is not meeting the expectations for her training.
DeCarli inquired of Kline whether she had talked to her team leader about getting the resources
to get the qual guide done and Kline replied that she had different team leaders each week.8
DeCarli ended the meeting by informing Kline that she had exceeded the training hours
and did not complete the qual guide in the time set by Benson in the meeting held on July 26.
He informed Kline that the Respondent would look into this further and determine where we will
go from here and get back to her.
Zehr, who also attended the meeting, was instructed to take notes by DeCarli and his
testimony and recitation of events that occurred at the meeting comports with that of DeCarli (R
Exh. 5).
At the conclusion of the meeting, both DeCarli and Zehr observed that Kline appeared to
be upset. Indeed, Kline admitted that she was upset. When she left DeCarli’s office, Kline did
not take her qual guide and pushed the door hard enough against the wall that caused it to
bounce back while she exited the office. While Kline acknowledges that the office door opened
with more resistance then anticipated, she asserts that she apologized to DeCarli for her
actions. According to DeCarli and Zehr, no such apology was given.
By e-mail dated August 2, DeCarli forwarded his notes of the Kline meeting to Forrest
(GC Exh. 10).
Kline completed the remaining 8% of the qual guide requirements late in the day on
August 3. However, Mellquist noted on Kline’s qual guide that she was late with its completion
(R Exh. 1, p. 25). Effective August 4, Kline changed from the day shift to the night shift and
commenced her OJT training on August 4 (GC Exh. 3).
During the morning of August 4, Forrest asked DeCarli about the training progress of
Kline. DeCarli informed Forrest that she was not a good fit and should be terminated.
By e-mail dated August 4, Forrest sent a message to Detwiler stating that Kline is
looking like an employee that we do not want to keep. Forrest noted that Kline was dragging
through the qual guide and exceeding the number of hours for the PM helper position. He also
noted that Kline left an August 2 meeting in DeCarli’s office by banging the door open and that

8 Kline admitted that before each work day started a meeting was convened by the team
leader. Thus, she knew who to contact if help was needed.
JD–37–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
Kline had asserted in the Team Leader safety meeting about working in the basement to clean
up by herself where it was hot and dangerous. The written message ended by stating that we
need to understand what the standard for termination is during an employee’s probationary 60
day period. She is giving us the signals that she is going to be a problem employee. We can
discuss this early next week (GC Exh. 10).
During the late morning of August 7, Forrest convened a meeting with DeCarli and
Benson to seek there input about Kline one more time. Both DeCarli and Benson apprised
Forrest that she was not a good fit especially since she had not timely completed the qual guide,
exhibited an unprofessional attitude when leaving DeCarli’s office on August 2, and was a
difficult individual to communicate with. DeCarli and Benson also represented that Team
Leaders Mellquist and Zehr concurred in this assessment. The notes taken by Forrest confirm
the discussions that took place during the meeting (GC Exh. 11).
Forrest also met with Detwiler and Rimer in the early afternoon of August 7. All three of
these high level officials reviewed the supervisory progress notes concerning Kline, and Forrest
discussed the results of his earlier meeting with DeCarli and Benson. During this meeting it was
also discussed whether the termination of Kline would impact on there ongoing collective-
bargaining relationship with Calla and the Union. It was decided that the performance issues
exhibited by Kline did not comport with the type of employee that should be retained and these
issues must be addressed independently. Thus, it was decided that the termination must be
effectuated despite the personal relationship that existed between Kline and Calla. It was
decided to schedule the termination meeting for 4 p.m. that afternoon with Forrest, Jennifer
Walton, and DeCarli present representing the Respondent. Benson contacted Kline at home
and she was requested to come to the facility at 4 p.m. in advance of her scheduled 7 p.m.
evening shift.
Forrest convened the meeting with Kline on August 7, and explained to her the reasons
that she has not met the Respondent’s expectations of a new employee. He listed a number of
reasons including that Kline was unable to complete the qual guide in a timely manner and did
not exhibit the necessary initiative having only completed 20% of the qual guide requirements
after 90 hours of training. Additionally, he informed Kline that Benson had made her aware on
her first day of employment that the qual guide had to be completed within 132 hours and in
response to a question form DeCarli on August 2 if she had completed the qual guide, she
responded that she did not know if it was completed. Additionally, Forrest said that her attitude
involving the incident of the door slamming when she exited DeCarli’s office and the untrue
statement that she made at the safety meeting were further reasons for her termination. Kline
was given an opportunity to ask questions or make comments but never stated that she did not
have enough time to complete the qual guide and did not mention that the shutdown of # 5 PM
on August 2 contributed in any way to her inability to finish the qual guide requirements. Forrest
testified that Kline’s performance and attitude were the primary reasons for the termination with
the door slamming and the untrue statement made at the safety meeting being secondary
reasons. The notes taken by Forrest, DeCarli and Walton of the termination meeting were
introduced into the record (GC Exh. 11, 14, and R Exh. 6).
3. Analysis
The Board has held that Section 7 protects “concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” No union need be involved, any activity
by a single employee may be protected if it seeks to initiate, induce or prepare for group action.
JD–37–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
Prill v. NLRB (Meyers Industries), 835 F. 2d 1481 (D.C. Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1205
(1988). This protection specifically includes discussions about safety related issues between
two or more employees. Systems with Reliability, Inc., 322 NLRB 757 (1996).
In Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied
455 U.S. 989 (1982), the Board announced the following causation test in all cases alleging
violations of Section 8(a)(3) or violations of Section 8(a)(1) turning on employer motivation.
First, the General Counsel must make a prima facie showing sufficient to support the inference
that protected conduct was a “motivating factor” in the employer decision. On such a showing,
the burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate that the same action would have taken place
even in the absence of the protected conduct. The United States Supreme Court approved and
adopted the Board’s Wright Line test in NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., 462 U.S.
393, 399-403 (1983). In Manno Electric, 321 NLRB 278, fn. 12 (1996), the Board restated the
test as follows. The General Counsel has the burden to persuade that antiunion sentiment was
a substantial or motivating factor in the challenged employer decision. The burden of
persuasion then shifts to the employer to prove its affirmative defense that it would have taken
the same action even if the employee had not engaged in the protected activity.
a. Safety Concerns
The topic of safety is taken very seriously at the Respondent especially since the facility
has the highest incident rate in the company. Accordingly, DeCarli sought to include Kline at
the July 26 Team Leader safety meeting hoping that a fresh set of eyes might uncover some
safety issues that had been overlooked by the Respondent. There is no dispute that Kline
reported safety issues that she had personally experienced or observed at a meeting in which
employees attended. Accordingly, she engaged in protected concerted activities. The issue for
consideration, however, is whether those concerns contributed to Kline’s termination on August
7.
For the following reasons, I find that Kline was not terminated because of her report of
safety concerns at the Team Leader meeting. Rather, I find that Kline’s statement at the
meeting that she was by herself when cleaning up in the basement and no one came to check
on her was false. Therefore, the Respondent relied on this statement as one of the reasons for
her termination on August 7. In this regard, Wenner testified that Kline stated during the safety
meeting that people should be monitored when they are in the basement. DeCarli immediately
took exception to Kline’s statement as he personally observed employee Coward accompany
Kline to the basement to help clean up. Indeed, Mellquist followed up with Coward who stated
that he was in the area with Kline the entire time although not working directly next to her.
Based on the above recitation, I find that Kline’s untrue statement about being in the
basement by herself was what contributed to her termination rather then the reporting of general
safety concerns at the Team Leader meeting.
b. Invoking Rights under the Collective-Bargaining Agreement
The General Counsel asserts that Calla developed an adversarial relationship with the
Respondent when filing and processing several grievances under the parties’ collective-
bargaining agreement. They specifically argue that DeCarli, who was involved in a number of
significant grievances, developed an adversarial attitude when dealing with Calla. For example,
the General Counsel points to a grievance filed by the Union on behalf of employee Mike Haight
who had significant performance issues according to DeCarli. During the course of the
grievance process, DeCarli strongly expressed the position that Haight was not qualified to do
JD–37–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
the job. Ultimately, the Union withdrew the grievance since it agreed that Haight could not
perform the requirements of the job.
In a second grievance filed in September 2004, the Union alleged that laid off employee
Wenner met the requirements for a Journeyman position and with a reasonable amount of
training should be reinstated over less senior employees. In its first step response to the
grievance in late September 2004, the Respondent argued that Wenner did not meet the
qualifications to displace a junior employee in the journeyman position. They relied on the fact
that Wenner, in August 2004, requested and was permitted to take a test to determine if he had
the qualifications to displace a journeyman employee with less seniority then himself. DeCarli
administered the test and the results did not establish that Wenner possessed the required skills
to replace a less senior employee in the journeyman position. In November 2004, the
Respondent in its third step reply to the grievance confirmed that Wenner was placed on lay-off
status in November 2002, and that employees junior to him were retained in journeyman
positions.
The underlying grievance was ultimately referred to arbitration by the Union. Calla
testified that he was looking forward to seeing DeCarli on the witness stand and the Union
taking his testimony apart since another supervisor intended to testify contrary to DeCarli that
Wenner did possess the necessary qualifications to assume the journeyman position.
On July 26, the underlying grievance was settled and the parties agreed that it was non-
precedent setting. In part, Wenner was placed in the general maintenance section of the
Electrical & Instrumentation (E&I) department as an Intermediate “B” employee who after
moving up and spending 18 months in the Intermediate “A” classification as well as meeting
other requirements, could be promoted to the journeyman position (GC Exh. 6).
The General Counsel argues that because DeCarli strongly opposed the position of the
Union in both grievances, he held a grudge against Calla and when the opportunity arose in
August 2006, used this animosity to get back at Calla by recommending the termination of his
girlfriend.
I reject this argument for a number of reasons. First, I note that the underlying grievance
regarding Wenner was initially filed in September 2004 and the test administered by DeCarli
occurred in August 2004, a period of approximately two years prior to Kline’s termination.
Second, it is axiomatic that parties who file grievances that are ultimately referred to arbitration
engage in robust debate and have firm differences of opinion as to the merits of the dispute.
Third, I note that the General Counsel has not alleged any independent 8(a)(1) conduct
including threats or interrogation involving DeCarli. Lastly, I note that Calla acknowledged
during his testimony that the parties have an overall good working relationship.
For all of these reasons, I find that the General Counsel’s theory that the Union’s pursuit
of contractual grievances and the animosity developed between Calla and DeCarli contributed
to Kline’s discharge has not been established.9

9 The parties’ collective-bargaining agreement raises safety issues in Articles 20 and 47.
However, neither Kline nor the Union filed any grievances concerning issues surrounding the
July 26 safety meeting.
JD–37–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
c. Kline’s Relationship with Calla
On July 10, at the general orientation, the Respondent became aware that a personal
relationship existed between Kline and Calla. The record evidence establishes, and neither
Kline nor Calla testified otherwise, that no supervisor involved in the decision to terminate Kline
ever brought up the personal relationship during the probationary period between July 10 and
August 7. The only mention of the relationship took place in a meeting held by Respondent’s
high level managers on August 7, when it was decided to terminate Kline. In this regard,
Detwiler, Forrest, and Rimer raised the issue of whether the termination of Kline would strain the
collective-bargaining relationship with the Union and be viewed in a negative manner by Calla.
It was unanimously decided that the Respondent could not overlook Kline’s performance
deficiencies and that this issue must be addressed independently.
Based on the forgoing, and particularly relying on the record as a whole, I do not find
that the personal relationship between Kline and Calla played any role in the reasons for Kline’s
termination from the Respondent.
d. The Termination
Kline’s termination took place on the 29th day of her probationary period.10 The General
Counsel argues that there was no reason for the Respondent not to have extended her training
period up to and including the maximum 60 day period and to have done otherwise was
pretextual. Additionally, the General Counsel notes that no probationary employee has been
terminated at the Respondent for at least 30 years.
It should first be noted that the contractual provision of a 60 day probationary period for
employees is a maximum and not a minimum. Indeed, the Respondent during the probationary
period, may discipline, discharge, or transfer an employee as determined to be necessary.
I find that Kline’s termination on August 7, was for legitimate business reasons unrelated
to protected concerted activities/and or union activities for the following reasons.
First, I note that of the six employees that were hired around the same time as Kline to
become paper machine helpers on the # 5 machine, Kline utilized the highest number of training
hours (GC Exh. 20 and 21). Second, on July 26, Benson in reviewing Kline’s qual guide
immediately noticed that only approximately 20% of the requirements were completed and
signed-off on. He informed Kline that substantially more of the requirements should have been
completed since she had already used 104 hours of her 132 hour allotment. Third, on August 2,
DeCarli asked Kline if the qual guide was done and Kline stated, “I don’t know if it is done”.
DeCarli observed that the equipment identifications were not complete nor were the task
demonstrations. DeCarli informed Kline that the qual guide was supposed to be completed by
August 2, so she could start OJT on August 3. DeCarli estimated that the qual guide was 92%
complete with the self OJT still not completed. DeCarli informed Kline that the qual guide
should have been completed in 132 training hours. DeCarli apprised Kline that as of July 31
she consumed 144 training hours and on August 2, 179 training hours had been used.

10 While the General Counsel argues in brief that August 7 was Kline’s 29th day of
employment and one day before Kline would have become a member of the Union, the parties’
collective-bargaining agreement provides that even if Kline had become a member of the Union,
she still could have been terminated within the next 30 days.
JD–37–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
Accordingly, DeCarli informed Kline that she is not meeting the expectations for her training.
He ended the meeting by informing Kline that she had exceeded the training hours and did not
complete the qual guide in the time set by Benson in the meeting held on July 26. Third, the
decision to terminate Kline was not based just on the recommendation of DeCarli but rather
enjoyed the unanimous agreement of both first line and mid-level managers. In this regard,
Mellquist and Zehr both informed Benson and DeCarli of Kline’s shortcomings including her
deficiencies in not completing the qual guide in a timely manner and her lack of communication
skills. When asked by DeCarli for his opinion prior to the August 2 meeting, Zehr stated that
based on Kline’s shortcomings in not completing the qual guide in a timely manner and her
ineffective communication skills she was not a good fit for the company. Fourth, Forrest gave
considerable thought and spent a great deal of time in weighing whether Kline should be
terminated. He checked with DeCarli orally on August 4, met independently with Benson and
DeCarli on August 7, held another meeting with Detwiler and Rimer later that day and then
convened the termination meeting giving Kline the opportunity to ask questions or point out
issues in dispute. Forrest credibly testified that Kline never stated that she did not have enough
time to complete the qual guide and did not mention that the downtime of # 5 PM on August 2 in
any way contributed to her inability to timely complete the qual guide.
For all of these reasons, and particularly noting that Kline’s performance and attitude
were the primary reasons for her termination, I find that its effectuation was undertaken for
legitimate business reasons without reliance on Kline’s protected concerted activities and/or
because she invoked rights under the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement or her
relationship with Calla.11
Therefore, I find that the Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act as
alleged in the complaint.12
Conclusions of Law
1. Domtar Paper Company LLC is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent did not engage in violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.

11 Contrary to the General Counsel’s request, I adhere to my prior ruling of not admitting the
Respondent’s position statements into evidence for the reasons stated on the record. In this
regard, the position statements were submitted during the course of the initial investigation at a
time after the August 7 meeting in which the reasons for the termination were explained to Kline
and are confirmed by Forrest’s notes. Thus, even if the Respondent advanced additional
reasons for the discharge after August 7, my responsibility is to evaluate whether the reasons
articulated to Kline on the date of her termination were legitimate or based on Kline’s protected
conduct.
12 If others disagree that antiunion sentiment was a motivating or substantial factor in the
Respondent’s termination decision, I would still find that the Respondent would have taken the
same action even in the absence of the protected concerted or union activities.
JD–37–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
11
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following
recommended13
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed.
Dated, Washington, D.C., May 30, 2007
____________________
Bruce D. Rosenstein
Administrative Law Judge

13 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 purposes.