Ford Motor Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 22, 1980

251 N.L.R.B. 413 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

FORD MOTOR COMPANY~ 413
Ford Motor Company and Dennis Siriani and Doug-
las West. Case 7-CA-15120
August 22, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND PENELL.O
On February 13, 1980, Administrative Law
Judge Frank H. Itkin issued the attached Decision
in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,'
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt his recommended Order,2 as modified
herein.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi-
fied below, and hereby orders that the Respondent,
Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, Michigan, its of-
ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order, as
so modified:
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a):
"(a) Offer to promote Dennis Siriani and Doug-
las West to the supervisory positions which they
were unlawfully denied during June and November
1978, and make them whole for any loss of earn-
ings which they may have suffered by reason of
such unlawful conduct, in the manner set forth in
the section of this Decision entitled 'The
Remedy."'
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
I In adopting the Administrative Law Judge's finding that Respondent
violated Sec. (a)(3) and (4) of the Act by denying employees Siriani and
West promotions to supervisory positions, we agree with him that Re-
spondent's asserted reason, the presence of more qualified employees, was
pretextual. We therefore find it unnecessary to rely on the Administrative
Law Judge's additional ground that Respondent was motivated "in sub-
stantial part" by an unlawful purpose
2 The Administrative Law Judge recommended, inler alta, that the
Board order Respondent to promote employees Siriani and West to the
supervisory positions they were unlawfully denied. We shall modify the
recommended Order, in accord with Board precedent, to require Respon-
dent to offer Siriani and West such promotions Richboro Communii,
Mental Health Council. Inc., 242 NLRB 1267 (1979).
251 NLRB No. 66
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had an opportu-
nity to present evidence and state their positions,
the National Labor Relations Board found that we
have violated the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and has ordered us to post this notice.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our
employees concerning their intentions to take
concerted legal action against us with respect
to our promotion policies.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with
discharge or deny them promotions if they
take concerted legal action against us with re-
spect to our promotion policies.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with
the denial of promotions if they file unfair
labor practice charges with the National Labor
Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT reprimand or otherwise
harass our employees in retaliation for their
having filed unfair labor practice charges with
the Board.
WE WILL NOT deny promotions to our em-
ployees because they have filed grievances and
contemplated further concerted legal action in
protest over our promotion policies and be-
cause they have filed unfair labor practice
charges with the Board.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in
Plant Protection Association National, Local
100, or in any other labor organization, by
denying promotions to our employees because
they have engaged in union or other protected
concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ-
ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to
them in Section 7 of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended.
WE WILL offer to promote employees
Dennis Siriani and Douglas West to the super-
visory positions which they were unlawfully
denied during June and November 1978, and
WE WILL make them whole for any loss of
earnings which they may have sustained by
reason of our unlawful conduct, with interest.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY
Ford Motor Company and Dennis Siriani and Doug-
FORD MOTOR COMPAN
414 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DECISION
FRANK H. ITKIN, Administrative Law Judge: An
unfair labor practice charge was filed in this case on
May 3, 1978, and was amended on December 1, 1978. A
complaint issued on June 29, 1978. An amended com-
plaint issued on September 7, 1978, and was further
amended at the hearing. The hearing was conducted in
Detroit, Michigan, on December 5, 1978, and on January
23, 24, 25, and 26, 1979. Briefly, General Counsel alleges
that Respondent Ford Motor Company violated Section
8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, by coercively interrogating employees con-
cerning their intentions to take concerted legal action
against the Company with respect to its promotion poli-
cies; by threatening employees that they would be denied
promotions or discharged if they took concerted legal
action against the Company with respect to its promo-
tion policies; by threatening an employee with the denial
of a promotion for having filed an unfair labor practice
charge in this proceeding; by harassing an employee in
retaliation for his having filed an unfair labor practice
charge in this proceeding; and by denying employees
Dennis Siriani and Douglas West promotions to supervi-
sory positions because they had filed grievances, had
threatened further concerted legal action in protest of
the Company's promotion policies, and had filed an
unfair labor practice charge in this proceeding. Respon-
dent Company denies that it has violated the Act as al-
leged.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of
the witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs of
counsel, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
Ford Motor Company is an employer engaged in com-
merce as alleged. Plant Protection Association National,
Local 100, is a labor organization as alleged. The Com-
pany and the Association are parties to a collective-bar-
gaining agreement covering the Company's security
guards. Charging Parties Siriani and West are security
guard employees of the Company and are members of
the Association. On or about March 1, 1978, Siriani and
West filed a grievance pursuant to the collective-bargain-
ing agreement protesting the Company's promotion poli-
cies. (See G.C. Exh. 5, p. 1.)' Company Shift Supervisor
Stanley Nietubicz rejected this grievance on behalf of
the Company at its first stage. (See G.C. Exh. 5, p. 2.)
The Association did not attempt to appeal or process this
grievance to its next stage. However, as will be discussed
below, Siriani and West continued to press their com-
plaint and protest over the Company's promotion poli-
cies. Summarized below is the testimony and related doc-
umentary evidence of record pertaining to the grievance
and ensuing protest by Siriani and West over the Compa-
ny's promotion policies; the conduct of various company
representatives in response to this grievance and protest;
and the testimony and related documentary evidence of
record pertaining to the Company's promotion policies
and implementation thereof.
A third employee, C. Maschot, also signed this grievance According
to Siriani Maschot later dropped the grievance.
A. Employees Siriani and West Pursue Their Protest,
Company Manager Keller Meets With the Employees
on April 15, 1978
Dennis Siriani testified that he has been employed by
the Company for about 10 years; that he has been a secu-
rity guard at the Rouge plant since October 1974; and
that Jack Keller is the manager of his department. Siriani
recalled that during late March 1978, following the re-
jection of his grievance pertaining to the Company's pro-
motion policies, Manager Keller asked, "if [he] could
talk to him for a minute" privately. Siriani agreed. Ac-
cording to Siriani:
[Mr. Keller] asked me if I had any problems in the
Company to keep them in the Company. He heard
that I was on the outside of the Company and he
was quite concerned.... [He] offered to go to
World Headquarters, or to his boss, the IR man-
ager, or anybody higher than him if I wanted to,
and see if I could resolve this, but keep it within the
Ford Motor Company.
Siriani recalled a second conversation with Manager
Keller on or about April 5, 1978, in Keller's office. Sir-
iani testified:
Douglas West and myself wanted to go up and talk
to Mr. Keller. We arranged it on that date to go up
and see his secretary and tell him we wanted to talk
to him.
Well, we went in and Douglas West asked Mr.
Keller what did it take to be a security supervisor.
Mr. Keller replied that they have certain board of
management people that conduct-they sit down
and talk who they think should be promoted, and
there are certain things that you get promoted by.
One was apprehensions, how much court time you
have as a guard, absenteeism, and your attendance
record, and he went on and he said that he didn't
have the only judging at that time, that his shift su-
pervisors, as well as the supervisors under him, had
a great deal to say on who was to be promoted.
At that time we were going to get up and leave
after we heard what he had to say, and he stood up
and he was becoming angry, and threw a pencil on
the desk and said, "God damn it, I want to know
what you two people are up to." We sat back down
and he told us that he heard rumors that we are
going to sue the Ford Motor Company. We re-
sponded that we didn't verify that at the time and
. . . [he] said that we had caused so much turmoil
within his guard section and the morale of the de-
partment was down because of us two people, and
at that time he asked us again, "are you going to
sue Ford Motor Company?"
He said that people who put lawsuits into the Ford
Motor Company are not looked upon favorably,
and at that time there was-there was-well, the
conversation about ended, and he said, "I wasn't
going to promote you two anyway."
FO)RD MO) CMP~ANY 415
Douglas West testified that he has been employed by
the Company for about 7 years; that he is a security
guard at the Rouge plant; that Keller heads his depart-
ment; and that he, with coworker Siriani, filed a griev-
ance protesting the Company's promotion policies. The
grievance, as noted, was rejected at the first stage.
Thereafter, West and Siriani, without success, attempted
to persuade the Association to appeal the grievance.
West also consulted private counsel and coworkers con-
cerning the subject of the grievance. West "asked" his
coworkers "if they would come down and be a witness
for" him "to see if we can get a labor charge against
Ford."
Later, on or about April 5, 1978, West attended the
meeting with coworker Siriani in Manager Keller's
office. West related what happened at the meeting, as
follows:
Myself and Dennis went to Mr. Keller, and he in-
vited us into his office and we sat down, arid I
asked Mr. Keller, we wanted to be promoted, and
Mr. Keller told me that he had heard through
rumors that myself and Dennis were suing the Ford
Motor Company, him, and the Union, and he asked
me to confirm that. I said, I don't know what you
are talking about, and then he said to me that there
were certain qualifications that they look for in a
person before they are promoted, and he gave us an
example, neatness, absenteeism, and college, which
he used the figures as accountable for ten percent of
the final decision, our past work record, and that
we possessed none of these. Myself and Dennis was
not management material, and he said to me that
there is no way that I am going to promote you
two fucking boys, and he also said that we had cre-
ated turmoil in his department, all the way from the
Rouge plant up to R & E and all the way up to
staff security, and he increasingly got mad.
He got up from the table, and he pounded on the
table and he said, damn it, I want to know what
you are up to, and I made a joke of it by saying I
am up to about five foot eleven, and he asked me,
he said, well, I wasn't going to promote you two
fucking boys anyway. He offered us a cigar, and he
made a little joke about something and I can't recall
the joke, but after the joke he told me, he said, that
Ford does not look favorably upon people who sue
them and as far as he was concerned, that myself
and Dennis was not going to be promoted, and we
were going nowhere in the Ford Motor Company.
Jack Keller testified that he is employed by the Com-
pany as manager of its fire, safety, and security depart-
ment. Keller recalled the above meeting with employees
Siriani and West on or about April 5, in part as follows:
They asked what it took to get promoted which I
just described. They then said that they had no in-
terest in a rotation or clerical kind of assignment;
they wanted to be supervisors right then.
This discussion went on probably 30 or 40 min-
utes and we went over the same material, over and
over and in different ways. They felt that they were
more qualified than anybody we had; there was no
merit in being a clerk. I made an inquiry based on a
rumor that I had heard that they were going to, one
or both of them, going to sue us. I asked if they
awere. I heard this rumor and it was causing some
disturbance among people 'cho had asked about it.
Mr. West replied, "sue who. I don't know any sue."
The point was made several times that they wanted
to be supervisors and wanted to be supervisors right
then. I indicated I was not going to make them su-
pervisors then, and that perhaps there were people
in line ahead of them.
Keller denied, inter alia, that he told West and Siriani
that "they would never be supervisors."
I credit the above testimony of Siriani and West. They
impressed me as trustworthy and reliable witnesses.
Their testimony is in significant part mutually corrobora-
tive and is also substantiated in part by the testimony of
Keller. Their testimony, as recited above, withstood ex-
tensive cross-examination. Keller, on the other hand, did
not impress me as a forthright and candid witness. His
testimony (as discussed in sec. D inia) \,as at times
vague and unclear. I am persuaded here that Keller, an-
gered by the grievance and related activities of Siriani
and West, made the statements and engaged in the con-
duct attributed to him by Siriani and West.
B. Supervisor Thomas Wooldridge v Warning to
Employvee Siriani on April 6. 1978
Siriani recalled that on April 6, 1978, the day follow-
ing his meeting with Keller, as recited supra, he had the
following conversation with Supervisor Thomas Wool-
dridge in the presence of Supervisor Stanley Nietubicz:
Thomas Wooldridge asked me how everything was
going, and I replied so-so, and he asked me-
Thomas Wooldridge asked me if I could take my
promotion problem to the Union. I told him that I
did, and he said, well, why don't you take it to the
National. I said I couldn't because it was stopped at
a local level. He then replied that with all the
power of the Ford Motor Company and all the at-
torneys that they had, that we could end up getting
ourselves fired.
At that time, Mr. Nietubicz became very angry and
. . told Wooldridge, "don't say nothing else," and
Mr. Nietubicz sent me home.
Shift Supervisor Stanley Nietubicz recalled the above
incident, in part, as follows:
[Wooldridge] had told Mr. Siriani that he should
not have filed the grievance. Mr. Siriani responded
by saying, I have every right to file a grievance as I
have been deprived in promotions and so forth.
Wooldridge then responded by saying, the Compa-
ny has a lot of legal people who are intelligent, and
they have ways of getting rid of people. At this
time, I injected myself and stated to him that this is
FORD MOTOR COMANY
416 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not true, that if a man does his job, the Company
does not do this. At this time, I instructed both
people to discontinue the discussion.
Supervisor Thomas Wooldridge recalled the above in-
cident, in part, as follows:
Well, I just indicated that-I kind of asked it as a
question, I says, well, how do you feel about Ford's
legal might, their sophisticated system of legal
people. I thought that we have a good group of
lawyers. And-that-how they felt about having to
contend with this?
Wooldridge denied, inter alia, telling Siriani "that he
should not be filing suits against the Ford Motor Compa-
ny" that "if he filed such suits he would not get promot-
ed": or that the "Company would have ways of seeing
that he would be discharged." Wooldridge, however, ac-
knowledged asking, "Mr. Siriani if he thought the Com-
pany would have any recourse against him during any
proceeding." Wooldridge claimed that this statement was
intended to "mean" special consideration being that they
had some grievance going."
In addition, West recalled that on or about this same
day, April 6, Supervisor Mervin Darr asked:
[West], do I know the reason why the morale was
so low, and I told him I felt it was because of the
promotion policy that was involved, and the way
people deserved promotions and are not getting
them, and he asked me . . . what about your law-
suit, and I said, I am not going to talk to anybody
about anything about that, and Mr. Darr said . . .
come on you can tell me, and I said, I am not going
to talk to anyone about any lawsuit.
Darr "left."
Supervisor Mervin Darr denied, inter alia, asking West
"anything about lawsuits" during his "conversation"
with the employee on or about April 6. Darr, however,
acknowledged discussing "career development" with
West on or about that day; West criticized the Compa-
ny's "hiring practices"; and "there were some type of re-
flection made by Mr. West of some type of action being
taken .... " Darr also acknowledged: "I heard some
rumors of some type of suit. It may have been early in
April. It could have been late in April. I'm unsure. It
was sometime after the grievance."2
Supervisor Nietubicz also testified that prior to March
1, 1978 (when the above grievance was filed), he had
recommended both West and Siriani for promotion to su-
pervisor. His recommendations, as discussed below, were
turned down. Supervisor Nietubicz recalled that during
March 1978 he again recommended West and Siriani for
promotion to supervisor. Supervisor Nietubicz, as he fur-
ther testified, was told about this same time by his super-
visor, Jerry Roddewig, that "Siriani had to learn to keep
his mouth shut." Supervisor Roddewig denied, inter alia,
2 Counsel does not allege that this April Darr-West lcidcelt vsolated
the National Lahbor Relations Act The ab(oe testimony was receiNd for
h;ackground purposes only
making such a statement. Roddewig, however, acknowl-
edged that:
[In a] conversation . . . that I had with Siriani in
February, where I heard that he was unhappy, I
asked him if he were making comments . . . about
our policy to other security people. And he agreed
that there were some discussions of our security-
promotion practices. And, I suggested that if he
were not to be in such a hurry for promotion, and I
don't remember again the words, but to calm down.
The consideration was near, or something of that
order, for promotion opportunities.
I credit the above testimony of Siriani with reference
to his conversation with Supervisor Wooldridge on or
about April 6, 1978. Siriani's testimony is substantiated in
significant part by the testimony of Shift Supervisor Nie-
tubicz who also impressed me as a trustworthy and reli-
able witness. Supervisor Wooldridge, on the other hand,
did not impress me as a credible witness. His testimony
was at times evasive and vague. I note that Wooldridge
admitted referring Siriani during the above conversation
to "Ford's legal might" and possible "recourse" against
the employee.
In addition, I credit West's testimony with reference to
his conversation with Supervisor Darr on or about this
same day. Although Supervisor Darr generally denied
referring to "anything about lawsuits" during his conver-
sation with the employee, Darr acknowledged that he
discussed "career development" with the employee; that
the employee criticized the Company's "hiring prac-
tices"; and the employee mentioned "some type of action
being taken." Darr also acknowledged hearing "rumors
of some type of suit." I was not impressed with the testi-
mony of Supervisor Darr in this and other respects, as
will be discussed further below.
Further, I credit the testimony of Supervisor Nietubicz
that he recommended both Siriani and West for promo-
tion before and after the filing of their grievance in
March 1978. I am also persuaded here that Supervisor
Roddewig apprised Supervisor Nietubicz that "Siriani
had to learn to keep his mouth shut." Although Supervi-
sor Roddewig denied making such a statement he did ac-
knowledge discussing with Siriani the employee's "com-
ments about policy" and "suggested" that the employee
"calm down." On this record, Nietubicz impressed me as
a more reliable, candid, and credible witness than Super-
visor Roddewig.
I note that Supervisor Nietubicz and Supervisor
Brady, whose testimony is more fully discussed below in
section D, have retained counsel for Charging Parties in
connection with their pending complaint against Ford
before the Michigan Civil Rights Commission. Their
complaint is based on alleged age discrimination and
they are undeniably displeased with the Employer's pro-
motion policies. Nevertheless, on the entire record in this
proceeding, including the demeanor of the witnesses, I
am persuaded that Supervisors Nietubicz and Brady,
long-time employees of Ford, have credibly testified in
this proceeding.
FORD MOR COMPANY 4 1 7
C. Supervisor Alan Dudek L Statements to Emplovee
Weston November 22, 1978
Employee West testified that on or about November
22, 1978, Supervisor Alan Dudek approached him at
work and had the following conversation:
Mr. Dudek came up inside the shelter, and he asked
me how come I hadn't been checking cars, that he
had been watching me since the beginning of the
shift, and he knew of times that I didn't have my
hat on, and he knew what time I went on my break.
he knew what time I went across the street to get a
drink of water at [gate] 10-center because there is
no water at [gate] 10-south, and that if I would stop
concentrating on losing lawsuits and spending
money on attorneys, that I might go somewhere in
the Ford Motor Company.
I told him he doesn't know what he is talking
about. He replied to me, we will see if I don't know
what I am talking about, and that is all that was
said.
West acknowledged that he had not been stopping and
checking cars. He explained the "reason" as follows:
Because, if you know gate 10-south, that particular
time, those people, they open up the gates at 6 p.m.
and the people go on breaks and they go on lunch,
and they go in and out, in and out, and if you are
not watching yourself, you will get run over very
easily. There is no traffic light, and no stop [sign],
there are no anything. There is two lane traffic, that
is enough to get one lane by, one car by.
Shift Supervisor Alan Dudek denied, inter alia, that he
had "harrassed employee West on November 22" for his
filing a charge with the NLRB. Dudek claimed that on
that day "I had observed some deficiencies in Mr. West's
performance"; "he was seated and out of uniform"; he
"was not wearing his hat at the particular time"; later,
"the guard shelter . . . was abandoned" and West was
observed "50 to 60 feet away from it conversing with an
unknown fireman at the time"; and, later, "10-south
gate" was "abandoned" and West was "seated in 10-
center gate." Dudek recalled that he "confronted guard
West" by "first off complimentling] him on how nicely
he looked, clean, [and] shaved." Dudek assertedly faulted
West for, inter alia, not conducting and recording "vehi-
cle spot checks." West assertedly replied: "[l]t was a
waste of his time." Dudek also faulted West for "aban-
doning . . . the post [and] his failure to be in full uni-
form." West assertedly replied that "Dudek" was has-
sling him." Dudek denied, inter alia, making various
statements which were attributed to him by West, as
quoted above. However, Dudek acknowledged stating to
West, in part, that "if he [West] would have complied
with Management in the past [he] probably wouldn't be
in the position he is in today." Dudek claimed that he
"meant" by the above statement that "if [West] would
have taken the indicator from Management . . . educa-
tion or pursuance of education, was something that he
should forsee as being a route to travel tosards a possi-
ble promotion, that he should have taken it as a strong
indicator." Dudek acknowledged, however, that he did
not "explain" his statement to West. Elsewhere. Dudek
testified:
I said, Doug [West], if you would have been \xilling
to comply with Management in the past, you proh-
ably won't be in the position you are today--in ref-
erence again to my referring to Management's deci-
sion as far as spot checking vehicles . .
Dudek did not "believe" that he mentioned "a lawsuit"
in the above "conversation." West admittedly was not
given a "write-up" for this incident.
I credit the testimony of employee West as recited
above. Supervisor Dudek's testimony was at times e a-
sive, contradictory, and unclear. He did not impress me
as a trustworthy witness. I am persuaded here that he
made the statements and engaged in the conduct on or
about November 22, 1978, as related by West.
D. The Companys Promotion Policies and
Implementation Thereof
As stated, the unfair labor practice charge in this case
was filed by Siriani and West on May 3, 1978. There-
after, during June 1978, the Company promoted Ann
Luyckx and Terry Murphy to available supervisory
guard positions at its Research and Engineering Center
and at its World Headquarters Building, respectively.
(See G.C. Exh. 7.) Later, during November 1978, the
Company promoted James Ash and Chris Carter to
available supervisory guard positions at its Rouge plant
and Research and Engineering Center, respectively. (See
G.C. Exh. 6.) Siriani testified that he joined the Compa-
ny's guard unit in 1974 and that he has more seniority
and experience than the above employees who were pro-
moted, except for Carter who "came in the department
approximately 2 weeks before" Siriani. West also testi-
fied that he joined the guard unit in 1972 and that he too
has more seniority and experience than the above em-
ployees who were promoted to supervisory positions.
Shift Supervisor Nietubicz testified, based on his obser-
vations of the work of employees Luyckx and Siriani.
that:
[There] is no comparison. Dennis Siriani is totally
qualified in every area. He has been assigned the
training of Ms. Luyckx and guard personnel in the
office area, and he is excellent in responding, he is
excellent in initiating incidents in regards to narcot-
ics, thefts . . . and also excellent in the office. N1
Luyckx was average in the office, was average as a
guard, and hardly had any experience or in. olve-
ment in these areas throughout the plant in her time
with me.
Shift Supervisor Nietubicz similarly testified that em-
ployee West also "would be above her [s. Luyckx] in
qualifications." Likewise. Shift Supervisor Nietubicz
rated employees Sirani and West more qualified for pro-
motion than employees Ash and Carter. Shift Super\,isor
NietubicZ had recommended both West and Siriani for
FORD MOTOR COMPANY t
418 I)DE-CISIO)N S ()F NATIONA. IAB()OR RELATI()NS O()ARI)
promotion before and after March 1, 1978X, and upper
Management had turned down his recommendation.
Supervisor Francis Brady testified that he has worked
for tihe Company in the security department for about 28
years; that he has been a supervisor for about 5 years;
that employees Siriani arnd West have worked under his
supervision; and that both Siriani and West are qualified
to be supervisory personnel. Supervisor Brady also testi-
fied that, based on his observations of the work of em-
ployees Siriani, West. Carter, aid Luyckx, he considered
both Siriani and West qualified for promotion to the
available supervisory positions; that he had recommend-
ed Siriani for promotion prior to March I, 1978X; and that
he had recommended both West and Siriani for promo-
tion after March I. 1978.
In addition, Supervisor Brady related the following in-
cident:
I was asked the last part of October of 1978 by my
shift supervisor, Mervin Darr, to make a list of po-
tential candidates for either clerks or supervision,
and he gave me the guard card index system so I
would go through all the guards in our area, and I
went through and I made this list and I started off
with guard Siriani. guard West and there were a
total of seven all together. I returned this list in the
privacy of the section supervisor's office to my shift
supervisor there
[Darr] did state to me that the first two, meaning
Siriani and West, would not be able to stay on the
list, because of this action taking place here today.
Here, because of a claim with the National Labor
Board, I suppose.
Supervisor Brady explained: "Because of [the] Siriani
and West complaint to the National l.abor Relations
Board, I took it to mean they were taken off the list. In
other words, they were to be discounted."
Supervisor Mervin Darr acknowledged that he had re-
ceived a proposed promotion list (C.P. Exh. 1), from
Brady about October 1978. Darr denied, inter alia, telling
"Mr. Brady that Mr. West and Mr. Siriani's names could
not stay on the list of p-omotion candidates because they
filed charges with the Board." Darr claimed that Brady
"brought uLp the subject and I [Darr] deferred it." Darr
testified:
He [Brady] said, if you'll note that the two top
names on the list may not be taken kindly, I think
were the terms, upstairs . . . And my comment to
him was that if these are the people that you wish
to submit, we'll submit them on their merits.
Shift Supervisor Nietubicz has been employed by Ford
for about 38 years. He acknowledged that he has been
displeased with the promotion policies in his section. He
noted that "a fair number of people" are "upset because
of the way Mr. Keller promoted people." He admittedly
"contacted" and is represented by counsel for the Charg-
ing Parties concerning his personal complaint over the
promotion policies and presently has a complaint pend-
ing with the Michigan Civil Rights Commission claiming
age discrimination. On cross-examination by counsel for
the Company, Nietubicz testified, in part, as follows:
Q. So, you are very unhappy with the Compa-
ny's method of promoting people? Is that correct?
A. No, you are wrong. I am not unhappy with
the Company. The Company has been real good to
me for 38 years. I am unhappy with some parts of
Management.
Q. Are you unhappy with Mr. Keller'?
A. On occasions I have been, yes.
Q. Are you unhappy with his way of promoting
people?
A. ()n the basis of-some of them have been very
unfair, yes.
Q. You are upset with him?
A. I wouldn't say upset. The thing is, they don't
follow my line because I am a great believer that
people that get promoted should get this through
being deserving in the performance of doing some-
thing for the Company.
Supervisor Brady similarly acknowledged that he too has
contacted and is represented by counsel for Charging
Parties in his age discrimination case against Ford pend-
ing with the State Civil Rights Commission.
Jack Keller, manager of the Employer's fire, safety,
and security section, testified that, "when considering an
individual for promotion," the following "factors are
considered:"
[T]he personal observation of the shift supervisor,
the area supervisor, the section supervisor and
myself; probably comments we get from outside the
department, commendations for some individuals;
education will be considered; the man's demonstrat-
ed performance; .. . the recommendations of the
supervisors up and down the line, their comments;
the needs of the job.
Keller also noted that the "demands of the job, the time,
the opportunities, may cause you to deviate and to have
to put [in] a person that is not fully qualified. You [take]
the best of the persons that are qualified at that time to
do the job." Keller claimed that he makes the "final de-
cision on promotions," "with the concurrence of salaried
personnel . . . in consort with [his] senior supervisors. " a'
Manager Keller further testified that Siriani and West
were not promoted in June or November 1978 because
"there were other more qualified candidates at that
time"-"they were not considered the best at that time
of the qualified candidates." Keller agreed that both Sir-
iani and West were considered for these promotions.
Keller claimed that the filing of the "grievance" and
unfair labor practice charge in this case had no effect on
. %r1t OC c III l't l lllTI . i T RIII ll ICtCla. Astltri.l l , l Ihc .l[ p I .
NI
'
I% llIillC Il pl ll 1 I .I* 1-i, tl It l eI 1 oc, I ttII .l ,I I I . -t ll II]C
NPe ila llJ ,