Honeywell Electronic Materials Mfg., LLC

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 28, 2008

352 N.L.R.B. 1139 (N.L.R.B. 2008)

HONEYWELL ELECTRONIC MATERIALS MFG., LLC
352 NLRB No. 135
1139
Honeywell Electronic Materials Manufacturing,
LLC1 and International Union of Operating En-
gineers, Local 280, AFL-CIO. Cases 19–CA–
30824, 19–CA–30949, and 19–CA–31017
August 28, 2008
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN SCHAUMBER AND MEMBER LIEBMAN
On March 26, 2008, Administrative Law Judge Wil-
liam G. Kocol issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, the
General Counsel filed cross-exceptions, a supporting
brief, and an answering brief, and the Respondent filed
an answering brief and a reply brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has considered
the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, find-
ings,2 and conclusions and to adopt the recommended
Order.3
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, Honeywell Electronic Mate-
rials Manufacturing, LLC, Spokane, Washington, its of-
ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the ac-
tion set forth in the Order.

1 We change the caption consistent with the parties’ stipulation.
2 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an adminis-
trative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponder-
ance 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 Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no
basis for reversing the findings.
The judge inadvertently found that Plant Manager Al Cutrone visited
employee Jeffrey Curry’s work group in “about mid-April.” Based on
the credited testimony, Cutrone visited Curry’s work group in early
April, after Cutrone became aware of the Union’s organizing campaign.
In adopting the judge’s finding that the Respondent violated Sec.
8(a)(1) of the Act by interrupting an employee’s nonwork-related con-
versations with other employees because the employee supported the
Union, where those conversations were short and nondisruptive,
Chairman Schaumber does not rely on the judge’s finding that Supervi-
sor Ray Cropp “had expressed incredulity of [Curry’s union] support in
light of how well Honeywell had treated Curry during his period of
disability.”
3 Effective midnight December 28, 2007, Members Liebman,
Schaumber, Kirsanow, and Walsh delegated to Members Liebman,
Schaumber, and Kirsanow, as a three-member group, all of the Board’s
powers in anticipation of the expiration of the terms of Members Kir-
sanow and Walsh on December 31, 2007. Pursuant to this delegation,
Chairman Schaumber and Member Liebman constitute a quorum of the
three-member group. As a quorum, they have the authority to issue
decisions and orders in unfair labor practice and representation cases.
See Sec. 3(b) of the Act.
Daniel Sanders, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Bruce Michael Cross, Esq. (Perkins Cole, LLP), of Seattle,
Washington, for Honeywell.
Richard E. Pound, International Representative, for the Union.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WILLIAM G. KOCOL, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was tried in Spokane, Washington, on January 15–16, 2008.
The charges were filed on May 1, July 2, and August 16, 2007,1
by the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 280,
AFL–CIO (the Union), and the second order consolidating
cases, second consolidated complaint, and notice of hearing
(the complaint) was issued on October 30. The complaint al-
leges that Honeywell Electronics Materials Manufacturing,
LLC (Honeywell) violated Section 8(a)(1) by telling employees
that there would never be a union at Honeywell, soliciting em-
ployees complaints and grievances and promising increased
benefits and improved working conditions in response to the
Union’s organizing effort, and harassing employees by restrict-
ing employee conversations not related to production/work
issues in response to employee activities in support of the Un-
ion and violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by terminating em-
ployee Terri Bedell because she supported the Union. Honey-
well filed a timely answer that admitted the allegations in the
complaint concerning the filing and service of the charges,
jurisdiction, the Union’s labor organization status, and supervi-
sory and agency status. The answer denied the substantive
allegations of the complaint and affirmatively stated that Hon-
eywell had a well-established practice of soliciting employee
questions, concerns, and grievances that predated the advent of
the Union and that Bedell was fired for good cause.
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed
by the General Counsel and Honeywell, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Honeywell, a corporation, is engaged in the business of
manufacturing and supplying components and materials for the
semiconductor industry at its facility in Spokane, Washington,
where it annually purchases and receives goods valued in ex-
cess of $50,000 directly from suppliers located outside the State
of Washington. Honeywell admits and I find that it is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and that the Union is a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
There are about 363 persons working at Honeywell’s Spo-
kane facility; about 210 are hourly employees, 24 are contrac-
tors, and the rest are salaried, supervision, and management
personnel. An organizing effort on behalf of the Union began
among the machinists in mid-March. Honeywell has been

1 All dates are 2007, unless otherwise indicated.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1140
aware of the Union’s organizing drive since early April. It
voiced its opposition to the organizing drive in discussions with
employees and in literature it distributed to them. During ori-
entation of new employees, Honeywell expresses its employee
relations philosophy as follows:
Honeywell is committed to maintaining union-free
work environments where they currently exist and at all
new facilities.
Honeywell is committed to managing its businesses in
an open, participatory and customer-supportive manner, so
that employees will not consider seeking an [sic] union.
Multiple avenues available for addressing is-
sues/concerns:
• Skip levels & town hall meetings
• HR/Leadership team members always avail-
able
• Code of Business Conduct Leader & Access
Line
Skip level meetings are usually composed of about 8 to 10 em-
ployees whose immediate supervisor is not present, but the next
higher level supervisor and others do attend. About three or
four of these small meetings are held every 3 months. Accord-
ing to a template used by Honeywell managers the purpose of
the skip level meetings it to provide an opportunity to discuss
current issues and concerns the employees have. Among the
topics that may be discussed, according to that template, are
safety, recent rumors or water cooler conversations, leadership,
resources, processes that they would like to see changed, im-
proved, or continued, and frustrations, roadblocks, and best
practices. Among the talking points to be used at these meet-
ings is the desire to keep channels of communication open, that
the skip level meetings are not intended to be the only time for
communication to happen—other avenues such as the open
door policy remain—and the need to ask employees for ideas
concerning the problems they raise at the meeting. Larger
groups of employees attend about one town hall meeting per
month. These meetings cover safety, plant performance, and
other related matters and end with a question and answer ses-
sion where employees are free to raise work related concerns.
Twice a year Honeywell surveys its employees by asking
them to respond online to the following 15 statements:
1. My manager is consistent in the administration of
policy.
2. My manager is sensitive to the need for personal
and family time.
3. Leaders respond to questions, problems, and com-
plaints in a timely fashion.
4. My manager often asks for and listens to my opin-
ion and ideas.
5. I feel that I can talk to my manager when I have
concerns.
6. I feel that there are opportunities for career growth,
skill development and learning in my job.
7. My work environment is safe.
8. I fell [sic] that the Honeywell benefits are competi-
tive.
9. I feel that my pay is competitive.
10. I feel the facility has steps for me to resolve my
problems and concerns.
11. I believe my work environment is positive.
12. I feel that I am properly informed about company
initiatives and future direction.
13. I feel that there is job security at Honeywell.
14. I fell [sic] that my performance is evaluated fairly.
15. I feel my work is appreciated.
Honeywell uses the survey responses to determine if there are
areas that it needs to focus on in the upcoming months.
B. The 8(a)(1) Allegations
The complaint alleges that in mid-April, Honeywell violated
Section 8(a)(1) by telling employees that there would never be
a union at Honeywell’s facility and by soliciting employees’
complaints and grievances and promising employees increased
benefits and improved terms and conditions of employment in
response to the Union’s organizing campaign. Al Cutrone is
Honeywell’s plant manager. At meetings with employees well
before the Union began organizing Cutrone promised to spend
time on the floor with employees to learn the work processes,
but he did not do so until after Honeywell learned the organiz-
ing drive had started. Jeffrey Curry has worked for Honeywell
for about 10 years as a journeyman machinist. He works with a
group of about five employees and a supervisor. Curry was one
of the chief supporters of the Union, and Honeywell knew this.
In about mid-April, Cutrone visited Curry’s work group as they
were having their daily safety meeting at the start of their work-
day. Cutrone mentioned that he had finally gotten down there
to work with them and that he was going to learn their work
processes and what they actually did as machinists. Cutrone
stated that he knew what the employees thought he was down
there for, referring to the Union’s organizing effort, but that
was not the case. Cutrone proposed a bet with the employees.
The bet was if they observed him violating any safety rules, he
would buy them lunch, but if he observed the employees violat-
ing any safety rules, they would buy him lunch. Curry objected
to the wager, stating that the employees would be working and
Cutrone would not and that if Cutrone really wanted to do the
work, the wager might be acceptable. Cutrone rejected Curry’s
suggestion. Then Cutrone asked if the employees had any
safety problems and the meeting ended.
About 15 or 20 minutes later Cutrone approach Curry as
Curry was working. Cutrone said hello and asked how Curry
was doing; Curry had not met Cutrone before and introduced
himself to Cutrone. Curry said he did not know much about
Cutrone, to which Cutrone answered by saying he knew a lot
about Curry. Curry asked why that was and Cutrone repeated
that he just knew a lot about Curry. Curry asked Cutrone why
he was down on the work floor. Cutrone answered that he was
there to learn about their work processes and to understand
what they did. Curry mentioned that Cutrone had been there
for about 2 years and that he and other employees thought that
things were getting worse instead of better and that was the
reason the employees were seeking union representation. Cu-
trone asked Curry what were the problems. Curry said that
there were quite a few, that there were good things about the
HONEYWELL ELECTRONIC MATERIALS MFG., LLC 1141
company and there were bad things. Cutrone asked if Curry
was willing to meet with his leadership team to discuss the
grievances. After thinking about it for a moment Curry said
that he would not be willing to meet with Cutrone’s leadership
team alone, but that he would be happy to meet with them if he
was allowed to have a witness or somebody on his behalf.
Cutrone asked who Curry was talking about, and Curry an-
swered either his personal attorney or a union representative.
Cutrone answered that was not going to happen. Cutrone said
that he needed Curry’s help, that Curry knew the people there,
Curry had been there a long time and people talked to him.
Cutrone said that he would like some of those people to either
write down some of their grievances or at least attend a meeting
with him to discuss the grievances. Cutrone said that commu-
nication was important and that he did not think management
and the employees were communicating well; Curry agreed.
Cutrone said he was going to have to trust Curry, that he
wanted Curry to help him out, and that he would be very disap-
pointed if the employees did not talk to him. Curry replied that
he thought Cutrone was giving him too much credit and that he
did not have control over everyone. Curry said he did not know
if the employees were willing to meet with Cutrone. Cutrone
asked Curry again to have the employees write down their
grievances. At some point during the discussion Cutrone
looked directly at Curry and told him that there will not be a
Union at Honeywell. Curry responded that he did not believe
Honeywell could supersede Federal law in that matter, that the
employees had a right to organize. Cutrone shook his head and
repeated that Honeywell will not allow a union at that facility
and that he could guarantee it.
Later Curry did ask other employees to write down some of
their grievances and they did. Two lists were created. But
Curry decided that it was not a good idea to meet with man-
agement, so he never gave the lists to Cutrone.
Cutrone admitted that he had wanted “to be out and engaged
on the floor” but that his “busy calendar” prevented him from
doing that until he decided to do so in early April by visiting
Curry’s work unit. Cutrone testified that Curry stated that it
looked like Cutrone had decided to appear on the work floor
because of the union activity. Cutrone answered that it was not
the reason. Cutrone testified that Curry raised a number of
issues and that he was surprised because he had not learned of
the issues before. He claimed that he told the employees:
I care about those issues, and for me that they’re communi-
cated so that we can address those issues. So I expressed that
if at any point in time [Curry], other people, a group, et cetera,
wanted to come and sit down and talk whether it be with su-
pervisors, with Human Resources, with me, do so, but bring
the issues forward, and I’m still very happy to sit down with
people to understand what all these issues are since I don’t
know about them.
Cutrone denied that he ever told Curry that there would
never be a union at Honeywell. However, he also unconvinc-
ingly denied that Honeywell told employees that it preferred to
remain nonunion. I have decided to credit Curry’s testimony to
the extent that it conflicts with Cutrone’s. Curry’s demeanor
was convincing; his testimony was detailed and seemed to flow
naturally.
I have described above how Cutrone told Curry that there
would never be a union at Honeywell’s facility and then re-
peated the statement again but adding a guarantee the second
time. By telling employees that there would never be a Union
at Honeywell’s Spokane, Washington facility, Honeywell vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1). Wellstream Corp., 313 NLRB 698, 706
fn. 2 (1994). I have also described, above, how Cutrone solic-
ited Curry to list the issues that caused the employees to seek
union representation and to meet with Cutrone and his leader-
ship team to address those issues. As Honeywell correctly
argues in its brief, an employer who has a past policy and prac-
tice of soliciting employee grievances may continue to do so
during an organizing campaign. Wal-Mart Stores, 339 NLRB
1187 (2003). Honeywell therefore was entitled to continue the
various programs it had that involved solicitation of employee
grievances. But here Cutrone’s interaction with Curry was not
part of any existing program. Instead, the timing of Cutrone’s
arrival on the work floor suggests that it was caused by the
Union’s organizing campaign and not as part of any ongoing
program. Moreover, Cutrone admitted that he frequently re-
minded employees that they should present their grievances
first to their immediate supervisors and to respect the chain of
command. Cutrone’s invitation to Curry to meet with him and
his leadership team was therefore unprecedented. An employer
may not rely on a past practice to justify solicitation of griev-
ances where that employer significantly alters the past manner
and method of solicitation of grievances. Carbonneau Indus-
tries, 228 NLRB 597, 598 (1977). By soliciting employees’
grievances and promising to address them in order to under-
mine employee support for the union, Honeywell violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1). Amptech, Inc. 342 NLRB 1131, 1137 (2004).
Next, the complaint alleges that in mid-April and on August
7 and 8, Honeywell violated Section 8(a)(1) by restricting non-
work-related conversations among employees because the em-
ployees were seeking to be represented by the Union. Cutrone
admitted that he told supervisors to minimize conversations
among employees because “there’s a lot of conversation that’s
just out and about right now because of the discussions around
this Union.” His explanation that he did so out of a concern for
safety as opposed to the content of the conversations appears
exaggerated.
In April, Ray Cropp became Curry’s temporary supervisor.
Curry continued to be open about his support for the Union.
Curry had been on disability leave several months earlier, and
Cropp asked Curry about his disability. Curry said he appreci-
ated the fact that Honeywell had carried his insurance while he
was on disability. Cropp said that he knew what going on,
referring to the Union, that he was not stupid, and that he could
not understand why Curry would take a stand like that after
Curry had said so many good things about Honeywell. Curry
replied that there were some very, very good things about Hon-
eywell and there were some very bad things about Honeywell
that needed to be addressed so that was why they were going in
that direction.
In mid-April, Honeywell’s health and safety manager asked
Curry to participate in a conference call concerning the devel-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1142
opment of a robotic arm for a new machine for Honeywell.
Curry agreed, but asked that the manager clear it with Cropp
ahead of time. The manager then did so. The conference call
lasted from 8:30 to 9:15 a.m.; Curry’s regular break period was
from 9 to 9:15 a.m., so Curry took his break in the smoking
shack after the call ended. After a few minutes into the break
Cropp angrily approached him in the smoking shack and asked
what was going on and what did Curry think he was doing?
After Cropp was reminded of the conference call Cropp stiff-
ened some, said “oh” and turned around and walked away. The
conversation lasted a minute or so. Cropp essentially con-
firmed Curry’s testimony, but explained that he had simply
forgotten that Curry was otherwise engaged that morning. He
denied following Curry around that morning because of Curry’s
support for the Union. But his testimony seemed a bit con-
trived. For example, he testified that after he approached Curry
and was reminded the earlier scheduled event he told Curry:
“I’m sorry. I forgot all about that. It’s okay. Well, as soon as
you’re finished here we’ve got the team meeting going on. Can
you please attend that?”
Curry raises chickens and sometimes gives eggs to fellow
employees. Later the same day as the conference call employee
Steve Anderson approached Curry at his work area. Anderson
told Curry how much he had enjoyed the fresh eggs and asked
if more eggs were available. Curry answered that he did not
have them but would keep Anderson in mind in the future.
Cropp then came to Curry’s work area and angrily said that he
wanted to be professional about this and that he knew talking
goes on in the shop, but he’d like Curry to tell him just exactly
how long Cropp should allow Curry to bullshit with other em-
ployees. Curry answered that he did not know what Cropp was
talking about to which Cropp replied that Curry knew exactly
what he was talking about, that Curry had been talking to
Anderson for about 15 minutes. Curry looked at Cropp and
said he disagreed that the conversation had lasted that long.
After Cropp repeated the question a number of times Curry said
that Cropp was the boss so Cropp should tell him how long he
should be allowed to talk to other employees. At that point
employee Jeff Kauffman began talking to Curry about a work-
related matter. Cropp and Kauffman began talking outside of
Curry’s hearing range. Concerned that the matter was escalat-
ing Curry went to Cropp and Kaufman and asked Cropp
whether they needed to go to HR about the problem they were
having. Cropp angrily answered that he was talking to Kauff-
man. Cropp admitted he broke up the conversation with
Anderson and Curry but claimed that he did so because he was
new, did not know who Curry was talking to and so went over
to introduce himself to Anderson. He again denied he did so
because of Curry’s support for the Union.
Curry then decided to talk to his regular supervisor, Lamont
Cloy. Curry told Cloy about the events with Cropp. They
spoke with Tony O’Neill, a subordinate of Cutrone, who said
he would investigate the matter. Later that day Curry was
summoned for a meeting with Hallie Krogh, a human resources
representative, and Cropp. After someone mentioned that
Curry talked a lot instead of working Curry noted that Krogh
kept computerized records of Curry’s work performance and
Curry asked her whether there was a problem with his work
performance. Krogh replied that there was not, but that the
meeting was not about his work performance. So Curry asked
exactly what it was about. Krogh replied that Honeywell was
instructing its supervisors to clamp down on employees talking
and leaving their workstations. Curry disagreed that he was
talking too much. Curry asked whether the matter would be
documented or would go in his personnel file and Krogh an-
swered that it was not a disciplinary matter and no record
would be made.
In August, Curry was asked to help another work group. At
the end of Curry’s work day on about August 7, the lead person
for the night shift for that work group, Craig Cox, arrived.
Curry had worked with Cox several years earlier. Per normal
procedure, Cox asked Curry what part he had been working on
and how the machines were running. Curry told Cox the part
he was running and that there were no problems. Cox men-
tioned about how they had worked together years ago but then
he looked at Curry and asked if that was Curry’s supervisor
who was standing behind them and looking at his watch.
Thinking that Cox was joking, Curry laughed. Cox indicated
that he was not joking, so Curry looked around and saw Cropp
standing about 10 feet behind them looking and pointing at his
watch. Curry also thought Cropp was joking, so he turned back
and resumed talking to Cox. Cropp then came up to them and
asked Curry what he was doing there, still pointing to his
watch. Curry pointed to his watch and asked Cropp what he
was doing there because Cropp did not normally supervise that
work group. Cropp said that he was serious. Curry then de-
cided to avoid another escalation so he walked away and
punched out. Cloy, who witnessed this event, and Cropp, for
the most part, confirmed Curry’s testimony concerning this
incident. But Cloy testified that he asked Cox what he and
Curry had been talking about and Cox said Curry was trying to
solicit him to be a steward for the Union.
The next day Curry was at another workstation. As Curry
was working, employee Tom Peltier came over and asked
whether Curry had heard that another employee had been fired
under suspicious circumstances. Curry replied that he had
heard the story already. Peltier said okay and kept walking.
The conversation took a matter of seconds. As Curry looked
around he saw Cropp and a lead person looking at him from
about 30 feet away. About 10 minutes later Cropp came over
and asked Curry just what he thought he was doing. Cropp
claimed that Curry was talking all the time and everyone talked
to Curry all day long. Curry looked at Cropp and told him that
he did not agree with that. Cropp again said that he was trying
very hard to be professional and that Curry was not cooperat-
ing. Curry asked what Cropp was referring to, whether it was
Peltier just coming by talking to him. Cropp said no, that was
not what he was talking about, that he was referring to every-
one else that Curry talked to. Curry immediately asked for an
example of who else he had been talking to. After more words
were exchanged Cropp walked away. Curry proceeded directly
to human resources into Krogh’s office. Curry told Krogh that
he was having a serious problem and needed Krogh to do some-
thing about it; Curry said Cropp was harassing him. Cropp
then walked in and joined Curry and Krogh. Cropp asked if the
leadman could join them and Krogh and Curry agreed. Krogh
HONEYWELL ELECTRONIC MATERIALS MFG., LLC 1143
mentioned that she needed to talk to Curry about another mat-
ter. She then handed Curry a subpoena to appear as a witness
on behalf of the Union at a representation hearing to be con-
ducted by the Board. The leadman, Cory Wright, then joined
the group and they all sat down at the conference table in the
human resources office. Cropp asserted that Curry was talking
all the time; Curry stated his disagreement. Curry again asked
Krogh if his performance was substandard. Krogh again as-
sured Curry that his performance was not at issue. Wright in-
terjected that he knew what this was all about, that it was about
the Union. Krogh replied that it was not about the Union.
Wright then claimed that maybe the reason Cropp was only
approaching Curry on the matter was that Curry’s workstation
was the first station that Cropp or anyone would see as they
walked down the hall. Curry then asked several times for ex-
amples of how he was talking all the time. He asked how that
was possible if his work performance was as good as, if not
better than, other employees. Krogh replied that Honeywell
had ordered the supervisors to crack down on excessive talking
and that the employees were to be at their machines at all times.
A fire alarm then sounded and they left the building. The meet-
ing did not resume after the alarm ended.
The facts in the preceding paragraphs are based on a com-
posite of credible portions of the testimony of Cloy, Krogh, and
Curry. Cloy confirmed parts of Curry’s testimony, including
that Krogh said that there were a lot of “distractions” in the
plant, referring to the union drive, and that the supervisors
should keep the employees at their machines and help them
remain “focused” so they can continue to do their jobs. Krogh,
for her part, admitted that Wright raised the subject of the Un-
ion during the meeting in Krogh’s office. Krogh denied that
she made any statement along the lines that supervisors had
been instructed to tighten up on things in the workplace, but I
do not credit that portion of her testimony because Cloy con-
firmed Curry’s testimony to the contrary and Cropp admitted
that he had given the instruction to supervisors. I have consid-
ered Cropp’s testimony. At the trial he was asked whether he
was more vigilant about watching what Curry did during his
workday than other employees. He answered:
Not on purpose, no. I mean naturally where his [work] area
was, he was highly visible and often was approached by a lot
of different members in the area. So there was always con-
versation going on. So naturally I was always interested in
what was going on so I could learn, you know, whether it was
a production issue or is there something I could help with. So
I was always approaching the situation when I saw people
discussing personal, you know, any kind of conversation.
Most of [sic] time I didn’t even ask about what it was about,
but just my approach and it ended up being a natural barrier
between [Curry] and myself automatically, just my approach
of walking up. So he’d be on the defense right off the bat.
This testimony is revealing at several levels. First, Cropp’s
testimony that “there was always conversation going on” is
supported by no one else and seems exaggerated. Read in its
entirety, Cropp’s testimony is that Curry indeed was the target
of his effort to monitor conversations of employees. Cropp’s
excuse that the location of Curry’s work area caused this more
careful monitoring rings hollow. Moreover, in other instances
Cropp’s testimony was evasive and inconsistent; his demeanor
was unconvincing, particularly when I asked him questions
near the end of his testimony.
There are no written work rules concerning employees talk-
ing to each other about nonwork-related matters. Employees
often talk about matters such as sports. Krogh admitted that
personal conversations about nonwork-related matters, like
telephone calls and internet usage, “a little bit is allowed but as
long as it isn’t excessive and interrupting.” She testified that
she did not countermand Cropp’s interruptions of Curry’s con-
versations because she was able to conclude that Curry had
stopped working and was standing and talking. However, this
testimony too is unsupported by credible evidence; even Cropp
did not claim work had stopped during these conversations.
Rather, the thrust of his testimony was that the conversations
were too frequent and too long in duration. Cloy testified that
on one occasion he talked to an employee who he observed
spending too much time going back and forth to the drinking
fountain. He described another occasion involving a perform-
ance improvement plan for an employee who was spending
time walking around the floor, talking to employees and staying
in the packaging area too long.
In December 2004, Curry’s supervisor spoke to Curry about
what the supervisor perceived to be Curry’s excessive talking to
other employees.
Analysis
The evidence described above shows that in April and again
in August Honeywell interrupted the conversations that Curry
had with other employees. Curry was a known union supporter
and was the subject of Cutrone’s unlawful statements. His
temporary supervisor, Cropp, who interrupted the conversa-
tions, knew of Curry’s union support and had expressed incre-
dulity of that support in light of how well Honeywell had
treated Curry during his period of disability. As indicated,
Honeywell does not have any written work rules concerning
employee conversation about nonwork-related matters and such
do occur. There is no credible evidence that the brief conversa-
tions that Curry had with other employees were more frequent,
long lasting, or disruptive than other conversations that Hon-
eywell allows. I take into account the fact that Curry had been
warned before about excess talking, but that warning occurred
more than 2 years earlier. More immediate in time was the
Union’s organizing campaign. I have considered Honeywell’s
argument that its conduct was lawful, but that argument is
mostly based on facts that I have not credited. By interrupting
an employee’s nonwork-related conversations with other em-
ployees because the employee supported the Union, where
those conversations were short and nondisruptive, Honeywell
violated Section 8(a)(1).
C. The 8(a)(3) Allegation
Honeywell contends that it fired Terri Bedell because she
gave a coworker a Honeywell award of $25 for work the co-
worker did on Bedell’s motorcycle. Bedell worked for Honey-
well as a packaging specialist from December 2000, until her
termination on May 1, 2007. She performed quality control
functions on the product produced by the machinists. Bedell
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1144
actively supported the Union by speaking to other employees
about it, distributing union literature, and soliciting signatures
on authorization cards. She also wore a cap that indicated her
support for the Union while at work. By about April 9, Hon-
eywell knew that Bedell among other employees was support-
ing the Union’s organizing effort.
Honeywell has a program where employees can reward and
recognize each other for work-related performance. This pro-
gram, called Bravo, is designed to make “it easy to shine the
spotlight on someone who deserves extra praise for their hard
work and create a memorable moment for them.” The program
has several levels. One level allows employees to give one
another a $25 award for work that goes above and beyond the
daily performance. Employees are limited to giving four such
awards per year. To do so employees go online and enter a
website, indicate the name of the employee to receive the
award, and select from among several phrases to describe the
work effort of the award recipient. The award recipient’s su-
pervisor then receives electronic notification of the award; that
supervisor or the awarding employee then may print the certifi-
cate and present it to the employee. No supervisory approval is
needed to award the $25.
Bedell owns a Harley motorcycle; she broke some parts on
her motorcycle. Ken Gairson is a machinist for Honeywell; he
does some machining work on the side at his home. In October
2006, Bedell asked Gairson if he could take a look at the bro-
ken parts to see if he could repair them. Because this was at the
end of the cycling season in Spokane, she told Gairson that
there was no hurry. They made no financial arrangements.
Gairson later repaired the parts and returned them to Bedell in
March. Although Bedell offered to pay $100 for the work,
Gairson charged and Bedell paid $50.
Bedell regularly gave three or four Bravo awards per year.
On March 22, about the same time she received the repaired
parts, Bedell gave Gairson a Bravo award. The award certifi-
cate indicated that it was from “Terri ‘Biker Babe’ Bedell.”
Bedell selected the following language from among several
choices to explain on the award certificate why she was giving
the award to Gairson: “The pride of a ‘CRAFTSMAN’ is re-
flected in the quality of his work. Thank you for all that you
do.” Bedell printed the certificate, placed it in an envelope, and
asked Gairson’s supervisor, Lamont Cloy, to give it to Gairson.
Bedell told Cloy that she thought Gairson was about the best
machinist she had ever come across and he deserved the award.
She also told Cloy that Gairson had repaired her motorcycle
parts and she was very pleased with the work he had done. She
offered to show Cloy the parts that Gairson had worked on.
The next day Cloy gave Gairson the certificate but Gairson
became concerned about the matter and gave the certificate
back to Cloy. Gairson told Cloy that he felt Bedell gave him
the award because he had done some work on Bedell’s motor-
cycle parts. Gairson and Cloy later had another conversation
and Cloy said he would try and cancel the award.
Bedell had inspected Gairson’s work in the past and had
praised it but never before given him a Bravo award for his
work at Honeywell. But since June 2006, Gairson was working
on the weekend shift. Bedell rarely, if ever, inspected Gair-
son’s work during that time period. At the trial in this case
Bedell candidly admitted that she decided to give the award to
Gairson because he had recently returned the motorcycle parts
to her. She also explained that after receiving the motorcycles
parts she remembered that Gairson was a great machinist.
A week or so later Bedell was summoned to human re-
sources where Krogh and Vicki Singer, a production supervi-
sor, were present. Krogh asked Bedell why she gave the award
to Gairson. Bedell answered that she gave Gairson the award
because Gairson was an excellent machinist. Krogh asked if it
had anything to do with Gairson’s working on Bedell’s motor-
cycle. Bedell told Krogh that she gave Gairson the award be-
cause of his excellent craftsmanship and not as payment for the
work he had done for her. Krogh asked whether Bedell paid
Gairson for the work he had done; Bedell did not answer, in-
stead telling Krogh that she did not think what she and a co-
worker did off of Honeywell property was of concern to Hon-
eywell. About 2 weeks later Bedell again met with Krogh and
Singer. Krogh stated that it looked very coincidental that Be-
dell gave Gairson the award after Bedell received the motorcy-
cle parts. Bedell again told Krogh that the award was not pay-
ment for the parts. Krogh again asked if there were any finan-
cial arrangement for the work and Bedell again gave the same
response. Still later Bedell again met with Krogh and Singer;
this time Terry Samona, Honeywell’s human resources man-
ager, was also present. The same questions were asked and
answers were given. This time Samona mentioned that Gairson
was concerned about possible disciplinary action and had of-
fered to return the $25 to Honeywell. Samona asked why she
signed her name as Terri “Biker Babe” Bedell; Bedell answered
that she wanted to make sure Gairson knew who she was be-
cause he might not know her last name. Samona said the mat-
ter would be investigated further. During this same time period
Samona, Cloy, and Krogh spoke several times with Gairson
who assured them that he did not work on Bedell’s motorcycle
parts while at work. Gairson told them that he thought Bedell
gave him the award because he had worked on the motorcycle
parts and that he had not done work that Bedell had inspected
in quite some time. He also stated that he did not want to get
Bedell in trouble. At some point Gairson placed $25 on a table
in an effort to return the money to Honeywell; Honeywell de-
clined to accept the money. Samona then instructed Cloy to
examine the records to determine how long it had been since
Bedell might have inspected Gairson’s work. Cloy’s search
revealed that Bedell would not have had occasion to see Gair-
son’s work for several weeks before giving him the award. On
April 26, Samona prepared a detailed summary report of the
investigation, recommended that Bedell be fired, and submitted
the report and recommendation to his superiors. An incident
report detailing the reasons for Bedell’s discharge indicated:
Because of the inconsistencies in her story and her inability to
substantiate the business need for awarding this BRAVO,
HONEYWELL ELECTRONIC MATERIALS MFG., LLC 1145
Terri Bedell was found to have violated both Honeywell’s
Conflict of Interest and Theft/Misuse of Property policies.
The Bravo program provides the opportunity to recognize co-
workers and give them meaningful recognition, including
Peer Star $25 awards. However, it is clearly stated on the
Bravo [unreadable] in page, that any abuse or misuse uncov-
ered by continuous audits of the program could result in dis-
cipline, up to and including termination of employment. Ad-
ditionally, Terri appeared to be less than truthful during the
investigation and there is no finished work product that can be
directly identified as Ken Gairson’s for at least six weeks
prior to the BRAVO award being given. Honeywell cannot
tolerate instances where employees knowingly and willfully
disregard established policies. Her poor judgment and disre-
gard for corporate policies are not the kind of behaviors that
we want our employees to emulate.
Finally, on May 1, Bedell was fired. In the presence of Sa-
mona and Krogh, Singer read Bedell’s termination letter to her.
That letter read, in pertinent part:
Effective today, your employment with Honeywell is termi-
nated as a result of your actions on March 22, 2007 which in-
cluded inappropriate use of the Honeywell Bravo system.
Bedell has been the only employee disciplined for improper
use of the Bravo system since January 15, 2005, to the date of
the trial. On the other hand, there is also no evidence that Hon-
eywell has allowed employees to give Bravo awards for non-
work-related matters. Eleven employees have received verbal
warnings, in written form, for operator errors involving parts
that were scrapped and that were frequently valued in excess of
$1000 and higher.
The facts in this section of the decision are based on a com-
posite of the credible testimony of Bedell, Samona, Cloy, and
Krogh. I questioned Samona rather extensively concerning
why he decided to fire Bedell instead of imposing lesser disci-
pline; he explained that what Bedell did amounted to a conflict
of interest and theft and misuse of company property. I credit
this testimony. Samona’s demeanor was convincing and this
testimony fits easily with the record as a whole.
I apply Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d
889 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982), in deter-
mining whether Bedell’s discharge was unlawful. The General
Counsel has shown that Bedell supported the Union and Hon-
eywell knew this. Honeywell opposed the unionization of its
employees and violated the Act in doing so, as I have described
above. Bedell’s discharge occurred during the ongoing orga-
nizing drive. However, Honeywell’s unlawful statements were
not directed at Bedell herself and the timing of her discharge
occurred close in time to the Bravo award that she gave Gair-
son. I nonetheless conclude that the General Counsel has met
his initial burden under Wright Line.
I find that Honeywell could reasonably conclude that Bedell
gave Gairson the $25 not because of any work-related reason
but rather because he repaired her motorcycle parts. The Gen-
eral Counsel argues that the amount of the award was fairly
insignificant, especially when compared to the costly errors that
Honeywell has tolerated from other employees. But Honeywell
persuasively argues that those errors were unintentional
whereas Bedell purposefully gave the award to Gairson. More-
over, at issue was not merely the amount of the award but the
efficacy of the award program itself. Finally, I have credited
Samona’s explanation as to why Honeywell did not give Bedell
a lesser punishment. I note that Honeywell thoroughly investi-
gated the matter and did not act precipitously in discharging
Bedell. I also note the investigation was triggered by the con-
cerns Gairson expressed about the legitimacy of the award and
not by a search for wrongdoing by Honeywell. All this leads
me to conclude that Honeywell has shown that it would have
fired Bedell even in the absence of her union activity. I shall
dismiss this allegation of the complaint.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act by:
2. Telling employees that there would never be a Union at
Honeywell’s Spokane, Washington facility.
3. Soliciting employees’ grievances and promising to address
them in order to undermine employee support for the union.
4. Interrupting an employee’s nonwork-related conversations
with other employees because the employee supported the Un-
ion, where those conversations were short and nondisruptive.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended2
ORDER
The Respondent, Honeywell Electronics Materials Manufac-
turing, LLC, Spokane, Washington, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Telling employees that there would never be a Union at
Honeywell’s Spokane, Washington facility.
(b) Soliciting employees’ grievances and promising to ad-
dress them in order to undermine employee support for the
union.
(c) Interrupting nonwork-related conversations among em-
ployees because employees support the Union, where those
conversations are short and nondisruptive.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.

2 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.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1146
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa-
cility in Spokane, Washington, copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix.”3 Copies of the notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 19, after being signed by
the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by
the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in con-
spicuous places including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material. In the event that, during the
pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of
business or closed the facility involved in these proceedings,
the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a
copy of the notice to all current employees and former employ-
ees employed by the Respondent at any time since April 15,
2007.
(b) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the
Respondent has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed inso-
far as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found.

3 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
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
Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT tell employees that there would never be a Un-
ion at Honeywell’s Spokane, Washington facility.
WE WILL NOT solicit employees’ grievances and promise to
address them in order to undermine employee support for the
union.
WE WILL NOT interrupt nonwork-related conversations among
employees because employees support the Union, where those
conversations are short and nondisruptive.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
you by Section 7 of the Act.
HONEYWELL ELECTRONICS MATERIALS MANU-
FACTURING, LLC