Huntington Rubber Company, Division of New Idria, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 17, 1982

260 N.L.R.B. 1008 (N.L.R.B. 1982)

I)DtEISI()NS ()O NAII )NAI I.AB()R REL.ATIO()NS BOARD)
Huntington Rubber Company, Division of New
Idria, Inc. arid United Cement, Lime and
Gypsum Workers International Union, AFIL-
CIO-CIC. Case 14-CA- 13924
March 17, 1982
DECISION AND ORDER
By MI NMB RS FANNIN(G, JFNKINS, ANI)
ZIMNII RMAN
On March 3, 1981, Administrative Law Judge
Jerry B. Stone issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions 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 attached Decision
in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decid-
ed to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions
of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his
recommended Order, as modified herein. 2
1. In his Decision, the Administrative Law Judge
found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by
posting, on or about May 6, 1980,3 a memorandum
stating, inter alia, that if the Company refuses to
bargain following the Union's assertion that it has
obtained signed authorization cards from 51 per-
cent of the employees the Union could: (1) call an
immediate work stoppage for recognition; (2) re-
quest a Board election; or (3) request that the
Board count the cards at a public hearing. The Ad-
ministrative Law Judge concluded that the memo-
randum constituted a threat that Respondent would
gain knowledge of the identities of the card signers
and take appropriate retaliatory action. Respondent
argues in its exceptions that the Administrative
Law Judge's inference that Respondent would re-
taliate against the card signers is not supported by
the evidence, and the memorandum contained no
' Responldent has excepted to ccertaini -retdihili t fdings Ilarle I hi Ite
Adnministrati:, I ;xv Judge 11 is th[e Boad's estahlished pohlio 11t to
oveirrule an adilTittstrati c lass iltdge sl rcsoltlions iAith re peCt IO redi
hilit) unIless the lear prepordllcrairlc At All f the relccal/t csIdcIlli C. B
vinces Lis thill the rlsollutiolls are iliTorrl t Sirt daitrd I)rt H [i[[ PrlXlri.
In., 91l NI R 544 (1950). cnifd 18 1 2d1 1,2 (lid tr u51ll Ae hilisc
carefill?, examillned Ihe recordl d fin d 1fi hasts ,to reersing his tilrldltgs
2 The AdlTIIMistratice I aNi Judge L ecillltlllcdi tlet.he Iu'LlaIlIe of a hroiad
"in anly (ther nlalller" order Wc do iotI hclec thai Repoi tlallen' u liltalr
labor pracicies are so egrCegiouls or rIdlepread Is, to deCrlosllrtirite i gti er
al disregard for thel emplo, ces' fulrndalilneltal lstulltors right' alld, there'-
tfre, a need for slici an order Ac ldtiligl, ACt II sha Itll I the ti li 1ll
tnended ()rder antdl 1ltitiC tot p t tld lor it arlarros, "ill iIN like or relLtei
maniner" ortder llt'lrkrnoI t/ ofod I. 24 NI RB I lII7 I Il
7
9)
In accordalnce sith lis partilal dis rilt ill ()/,tr tp( lIrit l ( rpraftI,
250 NiRB 14 It 1980). Melmiher Jenkinrs kouldt iasard Ir tleresC tl the
hackpal due hasedl n tile ft rmnula set forth th eretl
All dates are ill I tN(I e Urll'es Iheceicl ipecltficall \ sllted ut olher\ It.'
260 NLRB No. 133
threats against the card signers. We find merit in
Respondent's exception.
The record indicates that, on April 1, Respond-
ent's vice president and general manager, Donald
P. Reiter, conducted an employee meeting during
which he displayed, through the use of several pro-
jected transparencies, Respondent's existing wage
and benefits package, a sample union authorization
card, and a statement outlining some hypothetical
consequences of unionization. 4 In conjunction with
his explanation of the meaning of the sample au-
thorization card, Reiter stated that, if the Union
obtained signed cards from over 50 percent of the
employees, the Union would take the cards out in
Reiter's office and lay them on his desk. The Ad-
ministrative Law Judge found, and we specifically
adopt the finding, that Respondent's statement with
respect to the Union's presentation of authorization
cards to Respondent conveyed a threat to the em-
ployees that the identities of those who signed
union cards would be revealed to Respondent, fol-
lowed by appropriate reprisals. In reliance on The
Luntdy Packing Company, 233 NLRB 319 (1976),
the Administrative Law Judge reasoned that "there
is no reason for informing employees that signed
union cards will be made known publicly other
than to let the employees know that the names of
union adherents could be ascertained and appropri-
ate reprisals taken."
The Administrative Law Judge concluded that
Respondent's statements concerning union cards in
the May 6 memorandum were violative of the Act
for the same reasons that Reiter's April I state-
ments with respect to union cards were violative.
We believe that the two situations are distinguish-
able, however. Respondent's statement at the April
I meeting that it would gain possession of the
union cards conveyed the message to the employ-
ees that the identities and union sentiments of the
card signers would be revealed to Respondent, and
raised the possibility that Respondent would retali-
ate against the employees who signed union cards.
Further, as noted above, Respondent's April I
statement was made in the context of several other
Employer unfair labor practices. In contrast, Re-
spondent's May 6 memorandum, on its face, merely
states that the signed union authorization cards
may be counted by the National Labor Relations
Board at a public hearing. The memorandum con-
tains no statements indicating that Respondent
would gain possession of the union cards or learn
in it al\l .li u Tl i t ii t' AdI . .lllllllfl , , ir i l \ If Ju ldgI s fIilnlilgs Ih.l
liling I \pril l I ig(L e tirnillig Rt spioilltnitl I rlilligl Retter. utllaltill T
llB1l ' ;i1 1, -.(l lll ng as ret e Ill leist ( d Ol i 1th i ulllll utilltn lll if all
Il elllsi i tI 'a I. l[Is Il grti l illr . ilr. s t l II Il IIt t' J IIt ll III ' ai Lti lll I hN Ih'
cllrlplI \ets NItl l II " t11 t i ll iii IIi t lll r l)t l 111 i , Ill t ilila gCTICTllIIt
1(K)8
HLTNFINGTON RUBBFR COMPANY
the identities of the card signers. As such, it cannot
be said that Respondent's May 6 memorandum un-
lawfully threatened or coerced Respondent's em-
ployees. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the com-
plaint allegation that Respondent interfered with,
restrained, or coerced its employees on May 6 in
violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
2. We further find, contrary to the Administra-
tive Law Judge, that Respondent has not interfered
with the employees' union activities in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by issuing warning let-
ters to employees Della Epperson, Bernard Huss,
and Barbara Spegal. The evidence fails to establish
a sufficient causal connection between the employ-
ees' union activities and Respondent's disciplinary
action. The record shows that Huss' and Spegal's
union activities were limited to their signing union
cards and attending union meetings at a local hotel.
The evidence fails to show that Respondent had
any knowledge of their union activities prior to is-
suing the warning letter. With respect to employee
Epperson, the evidence reveals that Respondent
had knowledge of her union activities prior to issu-
ing the warning letter, but the record is devoid of
evidence showing that the issuance of the warning
letter was in any way connected with Epperson's
union activities.
The evidence reveals that on June 9 and 11 em-
ployee Marcia Hampton complained to Respondent
that employees Epperson, Huss, and Spegal had
been harassing her about her conversations with
Donald Reiter, Respondent's vice president and
general manager. As outlined in the Administrative
Law Judge's Decision, the employees accused
Hampton of seeking preferential treatment from
Reiter and of being a "brown noser." Respondent
responded quickly to Hampton's complaints, inves-
tigated the incidents by speaking to Hampton and
procuring a signed statement from her, and issued
warning letters to the three employees.
The evidence, indicating that Respondent had no
knowledge of Huss' and Spegal's union activity and
an awareness of Epperson's union activity, when
viewed in light of Respondent's legitimate reasons
for issuing the warning letters, does not establish a
violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. We shall,
therefore, dismiss the complaint allegations that
Respondent violated the Act by issuing employees
Epperson, Huss, and Spegal warning letters in
order to discourage employees' union activities.
3. In his Decision, the Administrative Law Judge
concluded that on June 13 Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(3) by failing to grant Epperson the
maximum allowable annual wage increase' because
5 Pursuant to Respondcnl
'
,i anlnual pcrfornanll< alilatit i ofll its rnl
ployees, Respondenlt dclternllned thai ppcronll i11 s cnitlc d teo) 1 Siage ilI
she had received a verbal warning from Quality
Control Manager Robert K. Stephens in May6 and,
as discussed above, a written warning letter on
June 11 from Assistant Quality Control Manager
Robert L. Wade. In view of our previous finding
that Respondent's June 11 warning letter with re-
spect to Epperson was not violative of the Act, it
is necessary to analyze the Administrative Law
Judge's additional 8(a)(3) finding in light of our
Decision in Wright Line, a Division of Wright Line,
Inc., 251 NLRB 1083 (1980). Under the Wright
Line test of causation, the General Counsel is first
required to establish a prima facie case in support
of the inference that an employee's protected union
activity was a motivating factor in the employer's
decision to discipline the employee. If such a show-
ing is made, the burden then shifts to the employer
to demonstrate that the same employer action
would have taken place even in the absence of the
protected conduct. 7
With respect to Respondent's failure to grant
Epperson the maximum allowable annual wage in-
crease, we find that the General Counsel has estab-
lished the required prima facie case of unlawful mo-
tivation by showing that Respondent based its deci-
sion not to grant Epperson the full wage increase
on the unlawful verbal warning directed against
Epperson in May. It is necessary, therefore, to ex-
amine the record to determine whether there is evi-
dence sufficient to show that Respondent would
have failed to grant Epperson the maximum allow-
able annual wage increase even in the absence of
Epperson's protected activity.
Epperson received the performance evaluation
which is the subject of the 8(a)(3) allegation on
June 13. The standard performance evaluation
form indicates that an employee is evaluated ac-
cording to his attendance record, quality of work,
ability to be versatile in other areas, and attitude
toward his job and coworkers. Epperson's 1980
performance evaluation shows that Supervisor
Wade determined that Epperson's attendance
record was outstanding, her quality of work and
ability to be versatile was excellent, and her atti-
tude was poor. On the basis of Epperson's receipt
of two warnings from Respondent (one not unlaw-
ful and one unlawful), Wade characterized Epper-
son's attitude as poor, and recommended that she
receive less than the maximum allowable annual
wage increase.
creasc of p 4 ercenl in tcd, of the ITaiimu m all oa hle amunlt of 10 7
ptrcellt
" 'c srpcitll'tlIs adoIpt the \ndminlllratlt' l.as Judge', finding that
Stephenis SNab l980 ux rhal .arilllng thalt I-ppersoin should nolt dliscus the
I rl- ill Rspondetnl',s rectr oonm I iiltzlc ScC S(a)( I) of Ihe Act
: Sec. getcralil. , Hright I ,in, , ,,, 1()8ih 41
1009
I0F CISIONS OF NATIONAL ABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The record shows that in June 1979 Epperson
received excellent ratings in all evaluation catego-
ries from her then supervisor, Stephens, with Ste-
phens noting, inter alia, that Epperson "has a very
conscientious and enthusiastic approach to a de-
manding job." Stephens concluded the perform-
ance evaluation by recommending that Epperson
receive the maximum allowable wage increase.
Further, Epperson's 1978 performance evaluation
reveals that Epperson's then supervisor, Gary Led-
ford, recommended that Epperson receive the
maximum allowable wage increase despite his de-
termination that Epperson's attendance, quality of
work, and ability to be versatile were good and
that Epperson's attitude needed improvement.
Respondent argues that the implementation of a
new evaluation scale during the 1980 performance
evaluation period resulted in Epperson's wage in-
crease being computed in a more systematic
manner. Respondent contends that a comparison of
past evaluations and correlative wage increases to
the 1980 performance evaluations and wage in-
creases is invalid due to the implementation of the
new evaluation scale. Although the implementation
of a new evaluation scale may have indicated that
a "poor" attitude rating corresponded with a small-
er wage increase, the ultimate cause for the wage
determination is found in the underlying reasons
for the poor attitude rating. We conclude that,
when viewed as a whole, the evidence is insuffi-
cient to show that in the absence of Epperson's
protected activity Respondent still would have
failed to grant Epperson the maximum allowable
wage increase. Respondent failed to produce evi-
dence showing that similar reductions in wage in-
creases were imposed against employees Huss and
Spegal as a result of the June warning concerning
the harassment of other employees. We conclude
that Respondent has failed to meet its burden, and
we, therefore, affirm the Administrative Law
Judge's conclusion that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act on June 13 by granting
Epperson less than the maximum allowable wage
increase.
AMENDED CONCI USIONS OF LAW
We hereby affirm the Administrative Law
Judge's Conclusions of Law, as modified below:
Substitute the following for Conclusion of Law
3:
"3. By issuance of a written warning to Della
Epperson on June 12, 1980, relating to an oral
warning given to Epperson on May 6, 1980, and by
denying Della Epperson the maximum allowable
wage increase, Respondent has discouraged mem-
bership in a labor organization by discriminating in
regard to tenure of employment, thereby engaging
in unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act."
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,
Huntington Rubber Company, Division of New
Idria, Inc., Hannibal, Missouri, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the said recommended Order, as so modi-
fied:
1. Substitute the following for paragraph l(a):
"(a) Issuing written warnings and verbal repri-
mands; announcing and granting wage increases;
announcing and granting safety program changes,
intensification, and benefits; denying wage in-
creases; and otherwise discriminating against em-
ployees in regard to their hire or tenure of employ-
ment, or any term or condition of employment be-
cause of their union or protected concerted activi-
ties."
2. Delete paragraph 2(c) of the Administrative
Law Judge's recommended Order and reletter the
remaining paragraphs accordingly.
3. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(d):
"(d) Rescind and expunge from Epperson's per-
sonnel files the Stephens' written warning of June
12, 1980, relating to an oral warning given to Ep-
person on May 6, 1980, and notify Epperson in
writing that this has been done and that evidence
of this unlawful warning will not be used as a basis
for future discipline against her."
4. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(h):
"(h) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex-
ercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of
the Act."
5. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.'
' I hlc IIItl tI IlLIt Il ITIgt U g L X IIiIttileII I I ice aln Itu eJ I nc lud-
cd to c.rla
.
thil cnpJ1 sacsT,' ight, undetr ilC N.liona I aihor Reilatiolls
Act, ;p, ainllt'ldt.'d
1010
HUNFIINGTO()N RLUBFR COMPANY
APPENDIX
NoTICtc To ENiMPiO'tEES
POSTED IBY ORI)I-R OI: THI-
NATIONAI. LABOR RFL.ATIONs 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.
The Act gives employees the following rights:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choice
To engage in activities together for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection
To refrain from the exercise of any or all
such activities.
WE Wll.. NOT announce or grant wage in-
creases; issue written warnings and verbal rep-
rimands; announce or grant safety program
changes, intensification, or benefits; deny wage
increases; or otherwise discriminate against
employees in regard to their hire or tenure of
employment, or any term or condition of em-
ployment because of their union or protected
activities.
WE Wil 1, NOT threaten employees with loss
of their statutory right to present grievances
or contact management because of their union
activities or protected concerted activities.
WE WII.I NOT threaten employees that the
identity of those who sign union cards will
become known and that there will be appro-
priate reprisals therefor.
WE WIL.i NOT coercively interrogate our
employees as to their or other employees'
union activities, sympathies, desires, or beliefs.
WE will.l NOT promise employees safer
working conditions, participatory safety pro-
grams, wage increases, or other benefits to dis-
suade them from union activity or support for
United Cement, Lime and Gypsum Workers
International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC.
Wt: WIL.L NOT create the impression of sur-
veillance of employees' union activities by
statements that we have reports of their engag-
ing in union activity.
Wt; will. NOT interfere with employees'
protected rights by prohibiting all discussion
of unions on our property.
WE WILt NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed you in
Section 7 of the Act.
Wi:r wirl. make Della Epperson whole for
any loss of pay or other benefits suffered by
reason of our discrimination agaisnt her, with
interest.
WE WItLL rescind and expunge from Epper-
son's personnel files the Stephens' written
warning of June 12, 1980, relating to an oral
warning given to Epperson on May 6, 1980,
and notify Epperson in writing that this has
been done and that evidence of this unlawful
warning will not be used as a basis for future
discipline against her.
HUNTINGTON RUBBER COMPANY, DI-
VISION OF NEW IDRIA, INC.
DECISION
S A I EMENT OF THE CASE
JERR'Y B. STONE, Administrative Law Judge: This pro-
ceeding, under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, was heard pursuant to due notice
on August 26 and 27, 1980, at Hannibal, Missouri
The charge was filed on June 16, 1980; the complaint
in this matter was issued on July 15, 1980. The issues
concern whether Respondent has engaged in various acts
of interrogation, threats, promises, and interference relat-
ed to employees' rights to engage in union or concerted
activity, and thereby has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act. The issues also concern whether Respondent has
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act by issuance of
reprimands to certain employees and by denial on June
13, 1980, of the maximum allowable wage increase to
Della Epperson.
All parties were afforded full opportunity to partici-
pate in the proceeding. Briefs have been filed by the
General Counsel and Respondent and have been consid-
ered.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my obser-
vation of witnesses. I hereby make the following
FINDINGS OF F.CT
i. THE BUSINESS 01 THI IMPI ON ER
The facts herein are based on the pleadings and admis-
sions therein.
Huntington Rubber Company, Division of New Idria,
Inc., Respondent herein, is, and has been at all times ma-
terial herein, a corporation organized under the laws of
Nevada and duly authorized to do business under the
laws of the State of Missouri.
Al all times material herein, Respondent has main-
tained an office and place of business in the city of Han-
nibal, State of Missouri, herein called Respondent's Han-
nihal, Missouri, installation. Respondent maintains an-
1011
DI)ECISI()NS ()F NAIO()NAL l AB()R REI.ATIONS BOARD
other installation in the State of Oregon. Respondent is,
and has been at all times material herein, engaged in the
manufacture, sale. and distribution of rubber products
and related products. Respondent's installation located at
Hannibal, Missouri, is the only facility involved in this
proceeding.
During the year ending June 30. 1980. which period is
representative of its operations during all times material
hereto, Respondent. in the course and conduct of its
business operations, purchased and caused to be trans-
ported and delivered at its Hannibal, Missouri, installa-
tion rubber and other goods and materials valued in
excess of $50,000, of which goods and materials valued
in excess of $50.0(X) were transported and delivered to
Respondent's installation in Hannibal, Missouri, directly
from points located outside the State of Missouri.
As conceded by Respondent and based on the forego-
ing. it is concluded and found that the Respondent is,
and has been at all times material herein, an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6)., and (7) of the Act.
II. I HI IASBOR OR6 ANI/ZA I[ION INVOI \V SI)t
United Cement, Lime and Gypsum Workers Interna-
tional Union, AFL-CIO CLC, is. and has been at all
times material herein, a labor organization within the
neaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
lil. I'lt lNi N:AIR I ABOR PRAC(IIlCICS
A. Preliminary Issues: Supervisory Status2
At all times material herein, the following named per-
sons occupied positions set opposite their respective
names, and have been and are now, supervisors of the
Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the
Act, and its agents: Donald P. Reiter-- ice
president/general manager; Robert K. Stephens-quality
control manager: Robert L. Wade-assistant quality con-
trol manager; Gary Ledford--manufacturing manager,
and Ronald Meyer factory services manager.
B. Background
1. Respondent is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and
distribution of rubber and related products. Respondent
has facilities in Oregon and Missouri. Its Missouri facili-
ty, located in Hannibal, Missouri, is the only facility in-
volved in this proceeding
2. Respondent commenced its operations at its Missou-
ri facility in June 1977. Later. around January 1979, Re-
spondent moved its operations from its initial Missouri
facility to another facility nearby.
3. Respondent's employee complement has fluctuated
from June 1977, to August 198(). Its highest number of
employees was 160. As of August 1980. its employee
complement numbered a little over 14(. None of the tes-
timony or evidence relating to the size of Respondent's
employee complement was specifically related in time so
as to revcal the number of employees around March,
April, May, and June 198(. Roughly, it would appear
lih ait, tre hat ,d 1 ll tilht pleadings a1id ill t-t lltlll thCrIilu
from the contentions of the parties and the evidence pre-
sented that the number of employees employed in
March. April, May, or June 1980 was somewhere in the
area of 120 to 160 employees. Approximately 50 percent
of Respondent's employees are women.
4. Respondent's employees at Hannibal. Missouri, were
not, as of August 1980 and at no time prior thereto. rep-
resented by a labor organization. An organizational effort
by a union was undertaken in mid-1978, and an organiza-
tional effort by a different union commenced in the latter
part of March 1980. At the times of both union organiza-
tional efforts, Respondent countered with a meeting
wherein a Respondent official announced the granting of
a wage increase and spoke of existing benefits and in op-
position to unionization.3
5. Della Epperson was employed on June 16. 1977, the
date Respondent commenced operations at its Hannibal,
Missouri, facility. Epperson has continued to be em-
ployed from June 16, 1977, and was employed as of the
date of hearing of this matter on August 26 and 27, 1980.
6. Respondent has evaluations of employees on their
anniversary dates of employment and in accordance with
such evaluations grants merit increases. From June 1977
to August 1980 Respondent has also granted two cost-of-
living increases. Thus, in October 1978, Respondent
granted employees a cost-of-living increase. Again
around April 1, 1980, Respondent granted employees a
7-percent cost-of-living increase.
7. On or about June 9, 1978, Supervisor Gary Ledford
evaluated Della Epperson's work performance, accorded
her a "good" for attendance, quality of work, and versa-
tility. and indicated that Epperson "needs improvement"
in attitude toward job and coworkers. Ledford recom-
mended the maximum increase available, a 12-percent in-
crease, due to year's past performance. General Manager
Reiter approved such recommended wage increase on
June 19, 1978.
8. On or about June 11, 1979, Supervisor Kent Ste-
phens evaluated Della Epperson's work performance, ac-
corded her an "excellent" for attendance, quality of
work, versatility, and attitude. Stephens also commented
that "Della has demonstrated the ability to make sound
decisions and do what needs to he done without help or
supervision. She has a very conscientious and enthusias-
tic approach to a demanding job. I'm assured that every-
thing Della works on will be followed through to com-
pletion and will be done correctly." Stephens recom-
mended that Epperson receive a 12-percent wage in-
crease due to year's past performance. Apparently by
mistake, this recommendation of a 12-percent increase
exceeded the determined maximum increase of 10.7 per-
ceiit. A wage increase equivalent to a 10.7-percent in-
crease was authorized and approved on or about June
27, 1979
9. Around December 1979, and continuing at least to
February 1980. there was a problem, in the nature of
communications, existing among the inspectors on Re-
'(ictiltll r ltilagi r Rctlr tic tfied lo I i ihc cffiCl Iill h 9 i I7X8 hle hadi
tld 1 l)clla; I-pp crsonll on Junic l , 1~.}s, of' iltc ,[l mllliig pan rallc. Ihlat
thcI' ,ow1 1 tiiii '; tLII I t pJ rthe Nt, ; is ' l ill 11n Ji)llt, Jtill o1 S crtrCtlheCr
1")78., ;lld t / ilt2 {;1! [it r '~' x;1k cl'Lct'Lc ill ()clohel 1978
I012
FVN IIIN61I0N RUBBE11R (-it)'kIPAN'SN i
spondent's first shift Tilhe inspectors on the first shift
were Della Epperson and (ilenna nMiller I)espite this.
Stephens, in charge of qualil. and control. sought to
secure a pay raise for the inspectors
10. As indicated. the referred-to problem with inspec-
tors ilas still in existence in Fechruary 1)8(. rs hen W'ade
became the assistant quality control manager Al such
time Stephens had a meeting with inspectors. introducned
Wade as their immediate supers isor. told the irnspeclors
that he w'anted them to start off Kwith a clean slate and
that he wanted the inspectors to get along \with one an-
other. T'here is no ev idencee of an\ discussion with the
inspectors in a group or individuall. as to such prohlems
after February 1980.
11. On or about March 17. 198(). Respondent posted a
notice advising employees of an opening for a "shuttle
operator." On or about March 2(0. 1980. Della Epperson
and Glenna Miller made application to Manufaclturing
Manager Ledford for the "shuttle operator" position At
such time l.edford indicated thilat he thought that Epper-
son was joking about the application for the shuttle oper-
ator's job Despite this. it is clear that Ledford accepted
Epperson's application for the shuttle operator's position
Later, it appears that F pperson heard directly or indi-
rectly that an employee named Sparks had indicated that
Ledford would "bury" her and make the job hard for
her if she secured the shuttle operator's position.
On the morning of March 21. 1980. around II a.m.
Reiter4 approached Epperson at her work station. " What
occurred is revealed by the following credited excerpts
from Reiter's and Epperson's testimony:
Excerpts from Reiter's testimony:
Q. Did you talk with her about it?
A. Yes, I did
Q. Where did you talk with her?
A. At her work station.
Q. Do you know when it was''
A. Not specifically. but it had to be before March
21st or on March 21st.
Q. Was anybody else present when you talked to
her'?
A. Yes. I do remember Glenna Miller, now
Glenna Atkins present. There may have been one
other person, but I don't really recall.
Q. What was said?
A. Well, I approached Della at her work station
and I thought we had a pretty good rapport at the
time. I walked up to Della and I said, "Della,
what's this I hear about you applying for the shuttle
operator's job?" She said, "Yes, I have." I said,
"Are you really sure you want to do that. You
were happy in quality control I thought." She says.
"It pays more money, but I'm not so sure I want
the job." I said. "Why not?" She said. "Well, the
' Vice president and general manalger
The fatct are bhsied leii a cornmpos.te eof th crredilled .apects of Ihe tie-
timonyl Of tppers.l. itaid Reiter I hfe crslns oit t llllls .arr susi.ic ll llil
Iy similar exceplillg Ilpper,.on, sileIIi sl0 IIIdlC..itd that Reiite I iB. ll iedl
that if Ohi i.'u sluill, ahl,, ol nl taking the Ioh thai she ,hol 1ti1 I I cdtoird
know Con.siderillg all of thie lesimIlol\ aid l the llg l e]oIslsillc l l a
of the cefnt'. I an pers uletdl. 1I;Il RHcllcr 1lHl lcll-l i 11h.1 I 1ppire lll 5nh tlId
see Ledford either s a. if she \siallled Ihe Iloh oir nrli
rumor is runnliing around the plant that if I take that
job (Oar\ is going to hur men."
I said. "I)clla. I'm disappointed to hear you sas
that I thtought you trusted me anld knew I \souldinl't
allows that to happeni" I think she commelited to
the fact thatil anything is possible. I said. ''Well.
I)clla,. I'ml sorrN to hear you say that, hut swhether
\ou belie e me or riot I would not let something
like that happen. As a matter of fact. you probhabl
could try out on that machine as was done with
other people and if it doesn't work out you'll liid
out about it real quickly. and you can go back into
quality control and no harm done" It's always
gratifs ing to me to see someone get a higher grade
of pay itl a higher classified job
I then believe I said,. "If you've got this problem.
Della. I suggest you get it oiff your chest and sit
dounll iwith (jary" I said. "You've got a good rap-
port 'You call discuss matters with him. Tell him
\, hat you've heard." I said. "I'm sure he'll back up
what I said that he'll give you a few days on the
machine and if you don't like it fine." But I said to
discuss it svith him. "He's not going to do that and
I'm surprised that you think he would." That was
about the end of the cons ersation.
Excerpts from Epperson's testimony:
Q. What did he tell you to do'
A. He told me that if I was really serious about
not w anting to go ahead and take the job if it was
offered that I should let (iary know immediately.
Epperson then went to Quality Control Manager Ste-
phens and told him that she was withdrawing her appli-
cation for the shuttle operator's position.
Around 1 p.m. on March 21, 1980. Ledford called Ep-
person to his office. At such time, Ledford offered the
shuttle operator's job to Epperson. Epperson told Led-
ford about the "rumor" or remarks made by Sparks indi-
cating that Ledford would bury her or make it hard oni
her if she took the shuttle operator's job. Ledford told
Epperson that he had not said anything like that. that he
did not know where Bruce Sparks had got his informa-
tion, that he should not be going around saying such
things. Epperson indicated to Ledford that she would
not take the job. Apparently Ledford, in an attempt to
persuade Epperson to take the job, told Epperson that
she was stubborn and pigheaded. In sum, Epperson de-
clined the job and an employee named John Cormier re-
ceived the job on March 21, 1980.
12. On March 21, 1980. as Epperson was leaving Led-
ford's office, she made some remarks in the presence of
Wilson, Ledford's secretary. What Epperson stated is re-
vealed b> the following credited excerpts from Wilson's
testimony >:
' I Cl1l[ '11soiiII ll ht'r c, tilolln i III the i pi lit Iol%-l l cr F pper
-e l
'
, der1tlll. ll r []t' l tlhcre l14 Ilft rt'lchllwll ts hil~,'d m1 a c. ol|l~d ra
slsi1il. It ll i .i.lt. d l11 i',tllt rl0 151-11 .t ] I ppct1 5 II 1 dlr.. t 1 a I -ll
diallllg 11er llllll rir.. illld .1 l Ir lterestl I1 hi proce dlltlg '. heln cellsidered
II/ tit 1lo11 1 i sl cphtr' l ,
'
.ltilllllit d. qiiAtsllll tgli of }Ipper.(l ll ahmsll Ihe
t tll lpporl [ie /1illlsng hlrcil
1)1A
I)4)CISI()NS ()t NATIONAl. I. AIB()R RF'L.A'l'IO()NS It()ARI)
Q. Tell us Swhat she said when, what happened
when she came out, what did she say?
A. She just walked out of the office. shut the
door behind her and she camrie through the office
and she said, "He's more full of s-t than Reiter."
and she had a cigarette and she put it out and she
walked on1 out the door.
13. After the foregoing evets, apparently after work,
Epperson contacted the home of (ilenn Webb. What oc-
curred with respect to Epperson's contact with the
Union and the commencement of union activity is re-
vealed by the following credited excerpts from Epper-
son's testinlony:
Q. When did you contact Mr. Webb?
A. March 21, 1980.
Q. What was said at that time?
A. Yes, I called, and Glenn was not at home. I
talked to his wife, Karen, aind she told me that she
would relay my message and have Glenn return my
call, w\hich he did later oil that eveningg I told him
that myself and several other employees were inter-
ested in forming a union at Hunltiigton Rubber
Company and would like to know w hat steps it
would take to do this.
He told me to prepare a list of names of employ-
ees and that he would come and see me during the
weekend, which he did.
Later, around March 23 or 24, 1980, Webb contacted
Epperson at her home. What occurred is revealed by the
following credited excerpts from Epperson's testimony:
Q. What occurred at that time?
A. He talked to me. I told him some of the prob-
lems that we had, the discontentment. He told me
that we could be represented by Cement, Lime and
Gypsum Workers, but that he would not start an
organizing campaign until Mr. Lewis arrived. At
this time I did sign a union authorization card.
Epperson signed the aforesaid union authorization card
on March 23 or 24, 1980. Despite this, Epperson dated
said card, and Webb dated the witnessing place on such
card as March 21, 1980, the time Epperson originally
sought out the Union. 7
Later, on Wednesday or Thursday, March 26 or 27,
1980, Webb and Harold Lewis of the Union met Epper-
son at her home and reported that they had contacted
several employees and were going to go ahead and try
to organize the employees at Huntington Rubber Compa-
ny. Commencing on or around March 24, 1980, Epper-
son spoke to employees about the Union and their will-
ingness to see union representatives. Following this, the
first union meeting was held on April 17, 1980. Among
the employees who attended the April 17, 1980, union
meeting were Bernard Huss and Barbara Spegal. There-
after there were other union meetings and union talk.
* Although the midalinlig 1l Ithe card "as apparenrll Illteillled 1 I'llr-
nish aid and support for ILppersonl as orf M varch 21. 198()., tpppersrl,n. a the
hearing. leslified fralnkly arid forrlhrighdtl s i1 Iis ihe crre dille tf Slgnl-
ing
C. l'vcrrls oJ March 31. 1980
T'he faict are clear that Respondent was aw are of
union acti ity by its employees during the last part of
March 198(). O()n March 31. 198(. Respondent posted a
notlice to employces as follows:
HUN'IINGTON RUBBER COMPANY
INTEROFFICE MEMO
TO: All Employees-DATE: 3/31/80
FROM: Don Reiter
SUBJECT: Plant Meeting
You are invited to attend a plant meeting to be
held from 3 to 4 o'clock on Tuesday, April 1, 1980.
I do not expect the meeting to go beyond 4 o'clock.
For those of you who are not attending during
working hours, you will be paid for the time at the
overtime rate.
The intent of the meeting is to inform you as we
have done in the past of the state of the economy,
the health of our business, future company plans,
etc.
Please try to attend as I'm sure you will find it
most informative and worthwhile.
As indicated later herein, the meeting referred to in
the above notice was held on April 1, 1980. As had been
indicated, Respondent's plant commenced operations in
June 1977. Following such commencement and until
April 1, 1980. Respondent's vice president and general
manager, Reiter, had had several meetings with employ-
ees on individual shifts. Further, Reiter had had two
meetings with all employees. Thus, in 1978, during the
time of an effort by the Union to organize the plant,
Reiter had held a meeting in June, July, or September
1978. At such 1978 meeting, Reiter had presented Re-
spondent's views and arguments as to why employees
did not need a union. At such 1978 meeting, Reiter had
announced a wage increase for employees.8 Reiter had
also held a plantwide meeting in 1979 concerning a ques-
tion of plant expansion.
It should be noted that prior to March 1980 Respond-
ent had thought of certain improvements in its safety
program. However, no significant action had been decid-
ed upon, and no positive steps had been taken as to such
program.
Respondent became aware, during the last week of
March 1980, that employees were engaging in union ac-
tivity. At such time Vice President Reiter decided to
grant its employees an across-the-board 7-percent cost-
of-living increase, to institute some changes in a safety
ti he parlies tlltenlptd toI liligle helt
'
quciie ol l i the ,ailllnluciiu iCeni
ailld graill oI IheC 1"78 .ige illCrease LIs hiackgrlnlm d "CiderlCi tia.sing i
helrillg lpo its dctc Iwrililtii of Ihe AIllegailoil, thaut he anllluIInetllieil
,iid grlltilng it tie '1](8) Siage ilirealSe ,a s Ulll.a fulI SuffisCC it I, a,,.
tihet e idellte lacks prohiltis' terriis Io estiablist ha tha ie graltling oit tle
1978 ' agle Ilicrca,lse as air as', nll afi l 'cltl hy tie qultillln if unllin iac-
tIlits Ihe h ackgriiound ltl C (iitl does. hMLcctfr illlialte that RehspulldetI1
stiltz'd Ihe lrllnoulizcenllit (If such wage illcr:reaS iIn ilh ;I rnalller a, Il
.iLsIe cltiploicsc iil helie' e Ih1al the age iiirealsc 11i 1978X ,;S grilllied to
dlSStiidt tihe cnlphiIPi s I rorll tini illltn isll"l(
1(014
illNI INGI (N Ri Ullts R C()MP'ANY
program. to have aL plantwvide meeting, and to announce
its grant of wage increase and changes in its safety pro-
gram. In this regard. Respondent had made arrangements
by mid-March 198( for employing Ron Meyer as direc-
tor of factory services." Considering all of the facts exist-
ing at the lime. Reiter decided that the time was ripe for
a plantwide meeting to announce benefits, to present ar-
guments concerning why employees should oppose
unionization, and to introduce Meyer, whereupon, as in-
dicated, Reiter announced that there would be a meeting
on April 1, 1980.
D 7Tlhe April 1, 1980, M.eetingt"
On April 1, 1980, Reiter made a speech to all employ-
ees. Reiter commenced such speech as is revealed by the
following excerpts from his testimony. "
Q. Referring to those exhibits, please, tell us what
was said.
A. I opened the meeting by an announcement to
the people that this was another plant meeting simi-
lar to ones we have had in the past. The purpose of
the meeting, one of the purposes was to bring them
up to date and tell, or dispell any rumors about pos-
sible layoffs, but to bring them up to date as far as
the national economy is concerned, the local econo-
my and the state of affairs at Huntington Rubber
Company, so that they knew where we were and
where we were going.
I took a few moments to discuss the high infla-
tion rate and rising interest rates and the fact that
International Harvester, our largest customer, had
been on strike since October and was continuing on
strike and it had seriously affected our production. I
knew it was quite apparent to them there was a
slowdown in our sales
I also mentioned to them that we expect them to
go back to work soon and that we did not expect
any serious effects over, the recession was here, and
it was going to get deeper. We denied any serious
effects at Huntington Rubber Company for the rest
of the year. It's not a rosy picture, but that is what
I told them.
9 Considering the totality of facts, the liming of events, and the o serall
testimony of Reiter, I am not persuaded that his testimony is reliable io
reveal that the wage increase and changes in safet) program Aere deler-
mined prior io his kno',ledge of union actlivsil by emplilees or upon
reasons unrelated to Ihe employee,' union acti itry Reiler's testinlon, v,;ls
uncorroboraled and appeared to be shifting as lo the details thereto Ac-
cordingly. the logical consistency of all the facts warrant the inferences
that the esents iook place as set forth herein
"The facts are based upon a on mposile of the credited aspects of the
testlimon) if all imtnesses and the logical consistency of facts. Virtually
all of the witnesses testified to the effect that Reiter's speech (excepting
as to introduclory remarks. announcement of a wage increase, and an-
nouncemenl of Improements in a safel) program) w as in accord ltilh
transparencies projected for viewing hy the emplosees Epperson's tesli-
mony differed as to whether Reiter's slalements were qualified in manti
respect, As to sucah differences In Epperson's testimony, I discredit her
test mony
" During his remarks about intenslfication of the safert programn
Reiter told the employees that there v ould he a formation of committees
at both management and lo,,er leels. and that the Company vas going
Io get people (cenlpl ,icesl to parilclpale on the lconlmiltees
I referred to other plant slowdowns and layoffs
and reminded them that, of past statements that I
had made to them in previous meetings that when
you come to work at Huntington Rubber Company
,we do everything we can to make you feel secure.
This is not to say that we have never had a layoff,
hut we would do everything we possibly can and I
cited cases when work got slow we ask you to do
other things.
Q. Did you introduce anybody at this meeting'
A. Yes. I did. Ron Meyer had just been hired. I
believe it was his second day on the job. He was
hired March 31st and this was April Ist.
Q. He was hired March 31st?
A. Yes. That was his first day of work. He was
actually hired, in principle we had come to a deci-
sion he would come to work in the middle of
March, but this was his second day on the job and I
introduced Ron as factory services manager. I also
introduced Mike Johnson who was in the past
comptroller of Huntington Rubber Company and
now assistant comptroller at another level and was
there at the meeting, and Jerry Morris, a new main-
tenance supervisor for the second shift, was also in-
troduced.
Q. Go ahead. You were talking about the eco-
nomic situation.
A. I described the economic situation to them
and tried to assure the people that for the time
being I didn't see anything to worry about at Hun-
tington Rubber Company and not to expect any
changes. I then announced to the people that one of
the duties of Ron Meyer would be, among other
things, safety and personnel, and basically he would
wear many hats as my assistant. Ron said a few
words inviting people to come to him with their
problems and assured them that then he would be
talking to them occasionally.
I then briefly touched on the fact that we were
going to intensify our safety program, not introduce
a new one, but intensify our existing one. I told
them that they would be seeing in the future a
safety program initiated and perhaps after that an
eyeglass program.
I believe I also told them that the safety shoes,
the majority of the cost, would be borne by the
company, but the eyeglasses we had decided would
probably be entirely borne by the company and it
made no difference whether or not you used pre-
scriptions or not.
I then announced that with the rapid cost of
living, the rapid rise in the cost of living, the infla-
tion rate was approaching 20 per cent and the inter-
est rate was in the neighborhood of 13 or 14 per
cent, that we were going to, we had decided to
give a 7 per cent wage jump across the board, and
explained the reason for this is minimum wage is
creeping up and that not because our people were
being underpaid. We thought they were being fairly
paid and above average for the area, but because
our base entry rate was not being adjusted. The in-
1015
I)I'C'ISI()NS ()F NA I()NAI I AO()R RFI.AII()NS t()ARD
div iduals were getting their increases on a steady
basis, but that entry rate was remaining untouched
I-The last time we had done anything to affect the
entry rate was back in 1978.
Q. In October 1978'
A. Yes. And that it was not time to do it again
and I reminded the people that this was a wage ad-
justment that ii no way would affect their annual
performance, pay increase. With that I reminded
them that we have been able to do a pretty good
job. we thought, in the way. in the amount of their
annual increase and that if they were coming up in
the future with an annual performance review that
they could probably expect on the average about 10
per cent additional increase.
I then put on the screen. I thought it was impor-
tant that they understand for the first time, their
pay increase guidelines. Prior to this it was only
available to the supervisors in their evaluation.
After having projected for viewing by the employees a
transparency showing the employer's pay guidelines,
Reiter spoke concerning the same as is revealed by the
following excerpts from his testimony:
Q. (By Mr. Kuelthau) Would you explain that.
A. Yes. I told them that in an effort to eliminate
or to standardize in judgment of one supervisor to
another supervisor and get a more fair evaluation in
1979 we initiated these guidelines, and that there
were three major areas in which we would evaluate
employees. They were quality of work, their attend-
ance, and the third their attitude as to how they got
along in their job and with their fellow co-workers.
Each category was rated equal and that we had a
point system that, quality of work, for example, the
maximum, or the number of points you could get
was one through five. Five would be outstanding
and one would be poor.
The same was true of the attitude category and
the same was true for attendance category. At the
end of the evaluation these three categories, the
points would be added up and then related to a
table which would dictate what the maximum per
cent of entries that this individual would receive.
Q. Did you explain to them that this was not re-
lated to the cost of living increase?
A. Yes. I did. I told them that this was how they
were evaluated annually at the performance review.
After having discussed the 7-percent cost-of-living
wage increase and the pay guidelines, Reiter proceeded
to discuss the question of benefits, unionization, and Re-
spondent's policy. In presenting such discussion, Reiter
essentially used transparencies which were projected for
viewing by employees. These, in major part, were the
same transparencies shown employees in 1978 when the
Union was trying to organize Respondent's employees.
Reiter did not read a speech but spoke consistently with
the meaning of communication set forth by the transpar-
encies.
The first page illuminated by Reiter was a transpar-
ency bearing a picture of a diesel semi-tractor-trailer
with the following words: "Huntington air intake hoses
are dependable! They are made with thick, rigid walls
and strong back ribbing to withstand the stress of high,
underhood temperatures during long hauls."
The second transparency shown employees was as fol-
low s:
YOUR PACKAGE
WAG:ES
.... EQUAL OR ABOVE AVERAGE ....
ANNUAL. INCREASE- 10 1%
.... PERIODICAL WAGE ADJUSTMENTS
. . . SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL ----- $.10
& .15/hr.
At this point Reiter compared the 7-percent cost-of-
living increase that he had previously announced with
the last known negotiated increases at area plants, such
as Atlantic Building, Hannibal Cement Plant, and Ameri-
can Cyanamid located at Palmyra, Missouri, where these
negotiated increases were 8 percent, 6.5 percent, and 8
percent, respectively. '2
The third transparency shown employees was as fol-
lows:
WORKING CONDITIONS
.... NO TIME CLOCKS
.... TWO PAID 15 MINUTE BREAKS
. . . VERY CLEAN PLANT
.... EXCELLENT REST ROOMS AND
LUNCH ROOM
.... AIR CONDITIONED PLANT
The fourth transparency shown employees was as fol-
lows:
VACATION & HOLIDAYS
.... 2 WEEKS AFTER I YEAR
.... 9 PAID HOLIDAYS
NEW YEAR'S DAY
MEMORIAL DAY
GOOD FRIDAY
INDEPENDENCE DAY
LABOR DAY
THANKSGIVING DAY
FRIDAY AFTER THANKSGIVING
CHRISTMAS EVE DAY
CHRISTMAS DAY
The fifth transparency shown employees was as fol-
lows:
MEDICAL PLAN
.... LIFE INSURANCE
.... DENTAL
.... MAJOR MEDICAL
.... LOSS OF TIME PAYMENT
... ROUTINE HEALTH CARE
: Although Reiter did not identify these plants as unionized plants,
such plants were ul inrlled, arid ii il proper to concluade Ihat employees
would he avare of such stalus
I()lh
HUNTINGTON RUBBER COMPANY
.... PENSION
.... NON EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTORY
The sixth transparency shown employees was as fol-
lows:
RECOGNITION OF GOOD WORK
.... AMOUNT OF ANNUAL INCREASE
.... BEST PEOPLE-BEST JOBS
.... PROMOTIONS
The seventh transparency shown employees was as
follows:
CONTINUATION OF WORK
.... MOVE EMPLOYEES AROUND WHEN
THEIR DEPARTMENT IS SLACK
.... TRY TO MAKE WORK INTERESTING
The eighth transparency shown employees w as as
follows:
LITTLE THINGS!
.... CHRISTMAS PARTY
.... THANKSGIVING TURKEY
.... CHRISTMAS TURKEY AND FRUIT-
CAKE
.... PAY ADVANCES
.... WORK OUT PERSONAL PROBLEMS
.... DIRECT LINE TO TOP MANAGEMENT
Reiter spoke to the employees concerning the referred-
to benefits as is revealed by the following credited ex-
cerpts from his testimony:
Exhibit 8H, the little things. I said these are little
things but when you put them together they're ex-
pensive things and they are truly benefits. I listed
the Christmas party, the T hanksgiving turkey, the
Christmas turkey, fruitcakes, the fact that we give
pay advances to people in a time of need. I remind-
ed them that we are not in the banking business, but
there have been a number of people who have had
a need for pay advances and we don't like to do
this, but we try to help out where we can.
I also, I believe, reminded them that this is some-
thing, like anything else, if it's taken advantage of
we would remove it, but we were giving pay ad-
vances.
I told them I tried to work out personal prob-
lems. My door was always open. I can't work mir-
acles. but I would be willing to discuss problems
with anyone who wanted to discuss them with me.
Then I said one thing that is very important is that
you have a direct line with top management. We
have an open door policy and I don't want to de-
stroy that. That's all I said about that on this partic-
ular exhibit.
The ninth transparency shown employees revealed
two copies of a union authorization card. such as the tbl-
lowing:
THE O01., CHEMICAL AND ATOMIC WORKERS
INTERNATIONAI UNION, AFL-CIO
AUTHORIZATION
Name ------
Address----
Name of Company
Department--
Phone No.
-City)-
-- -- Location-
--- Shift Hrs.
I hereby designate and authorize the Oil, Chemi-
cal and Atomic Workers International Union.
AFL-CIO, as my collective bargaining representa-
tive in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of em-
ployment, and other terms and conditions of em-
ployment, I also hereby authorize said union to re-
quest recognition from my employer as my bargain-
ing agent for said purposes.
Date Signature-----
Reiter read the authorization card and spoke concern-
ing the same as is revealed in major effect by the follow-
ing credited excerpts from his testimony:
Then I said with Exhibit 81 which I flashed on the
screen w hich is an authorization card that I be-
lieved was used by the International Union for Oil,
Chemical and Atomic Workers and I said at a time
like this when you are thinking about the union it is
important that you understand what an authoriza-
tion card is. I invited them to take a minute and
read it. After a minute or so that they read it. I read
it to the people.
Q. You read the card'
A. I read the card to the people. I said. let me
tell you how the union will use these cards. With 30
per cent of the work force signing these cards the
union can petition for an election. If they get great-
er than 50 per cent they can use these cards to
come to me and to make, demand recognition. I
told them to think carefully before they signed the
cards because you are signing your right away if
you sign this card. You are allowing the union rep-
resent, the union to represent you with manage-
ment.
Q. You're referring to specific cards'?
A. This is the card I had on the screen. This is
the card that I was referring to. I said this is a typi-
cal card. It may or may not be the one they have
seen, but I said this is one that we know they had
all seen before
Q. Did you know whether any cards had been
circulated in the plant'
A No, I did not
Q. Did you know what union was-
A. (Interrupting) No. I did not.
Q. Go ahead.
A I said to the people that this is a very impor-
tant card and I wanted them to be aware of the fact
that. n hat this card meant. I said. do not be pres-
sured into signing this card If you really want to
sign it, it's your right As I' e told you before if
1017
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
you want a union this is the way to get it. If you
don't want a union don't sign the card, but it's your
right and it's up to you.
I said often times you are pressured in the park-
ing lot or pressured in your living room and you
just sign it. I said to think about it before you sign
it . .
Reiter also told the employees that if the Union had
over 50 percent of the employees to sign cards that the
Union could make a demand upon it for bargaining.
Reiter told the employees that, if such a demand were
made, the Union would take the cards out in his office
and lay them on his desk.
The 10th transparency shown employees was as fol-
lows:
WHAT CAN A UNION GUARANTEE?
*.... DUES-$100-$150/YR.
.... INITIATION FEE-$2-$150
.. .. POSSIBILITY OF STRIKE
.... EQUAL PAY REGARDLESS OF JOB
PERFORMANCE
.... NO WORK OUTSIDE YOUR JOB DE-
SCRIPTION
.... OLDEST EMPLOYEE GETS BEST JOB
REGARDLESS OF YOUR PERFORMANCE
... . POSSIBILITY OF FINES
.... CUT OFF YOUR LINE TO MANAGE-
MENT
.... EVERYTHING IS NEGOTIATED
The 11th transparency shown employees was as fol-
lows:
.... NO UNION CAN GUARANTEE OUR
PACKAGE
EVERYTHING IS NEGOTIATED!!!
As has been indicated, Reiter made remarks consistent
with the transparencies at the time of the showing of the
same. Following the show of and discussion of the I Ith
transparency, Reiter read a statement of the company
policy concerning unions as is revealed by the following
excerpt from the exhibit containing such policy:
Company Policy Regarding Unions:
While the company recognizes that labor unions
may have been necessary in the past and may be
necessary elsewhere to assure employees the full
benefits of their work, we do not believe that
unions are necessary here. Therefore, it is our
policy that the company will develop and maintain
personnel policies and programs and it is the duty
and responsibility of each manager and supervisor
to administer them, so that the human dignity of
each employee is preserved and all employees are
assured job security, equal opportunity for advance-
ment, wages and supplementary benefits and work-
ing conditions that will encourage them all to resist
Joining a union.
E. Contentions: Conclusions
The General Counsel alleged in effect and Respondent
denied that Respondent by Vice President Reiter, on
April 1, 1980, at a meeting with all employees, granted a
wage increase, promised an employee participatory
safety programs and safer working conditions, told em-
ployees that union organizational activities would guar-
antee strikes and layoffs, threatened employees with re-
duction of working hours or layoffs, created the impres-
sion of surveillance, threatened employees with changed
working conditions, loss of merit increases, and loss of
promotions for outstanding performance in order to dis-
courage membership in the Union and because employ-
ees were engaged in organizational efforts. As indicated,
the allegations were many. Further, the allegations as set
forth or the evidence as litigated revealed related issues
of whether the announcement of the wage increase was
in a manner as to interfere with employee exercise of
Section 7 rights and whether there were promises of new
benefits concerning the safety program.
The facts clearly reveal that Respondent announced
the 7-percent cost-of-living wage increase in such a
manner as to interfere with employee rights under
Section 7 of the Act. Thus, the announcement of such
wage increase following shortly after the commencement
of union activity and in the context of an antiunion
speech or presentation revealed at least an implied mes-
sage that the wage increase was given to dissuade em-
ployees from engaging in union activity. Such conduct
alone is violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Further,
evidence of such conduct establishes a prima facie case
that in fact the Respondent granted such wage increase
to dissuade the employees from engaging in union activi-
ty. In this case, the testimony of Reiter to the effect that
the wage increase was decided upon prior to the event
of union activity and without regard to union activity
was not persuasive because of demeanor considerations
as well as timing of events. Thus, such prima facie case
has not been overcome. Accordingly, it is concluded and
found that the Respondent's grant of a wage increase on
April 1, 1980, to be effective on April 7, 1980, constitut-
ed conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act as al-
leged.
It is clear also that Reiter announced on April 1, 1980,
that an intensified safety program was to commence, that
there would be new safety requirements regarding the
wearing of safety equipment, new' procedures as to the
safety program involving employee participation, and
new benefits accorded by new or added percentage con-
tribution as to cost by Respondent concerning safety
glasses and shoes. As of the time of the announcement
concerning the safety program and benefits, Respondent
had not completely determined the program or benefits,
and Reiter so indicated. The presentation of such an-
nouncement of a proposed changed safety program, em-
ployee participation therein, and new benefits, in the
context of an antiunion presentation, reveals that Re-
spondent promised such changes in its safety program
and benefits to dissuade employees from supporting the
Union. Such conduct is violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act. It is so concluded and found.
1018
HUNTINGTON RUBBER COMPANY
As noted, Reiter indicated to employees that the selec-
tion of a union would "cut off your line to manage-
ment." Such statement is not correct as a matter of law
and under the circumstances constitutes conduct viola-
tive of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Thus, Section 9(a) of
the Act sets forth that,
. . . any individual employee or a group of employ-
ees shall have the right at any time to present griev-
ances to their employer and to have such griev-
ances adjusted, without the intervention of the bar-
gaining representative, as long as the adjustment is
not inconsistent with the terms of a collective-bar-
gaining contract or agreement then in effect: Pro-
videdfurther, That the bargaining representative has
been given opportunity to be present at such adjust-
ment.
Reiter's statements under such circumstances constituted
a threat that employees would be denied a statutory
right of presentation of grievances as provided in Section
9(a) of the Act. Such statement by Reiter constituted
conduct violative of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
As to the allegations and contentions concerning the
fact that, if the Union made a demand for recognition,
union cards would be seen by Respondent, the litigation
was broader than the complaint allegations, and the facts
reveal conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The facts do not establish, in my opinion, that Respond-
ent created an impression of surveillance. However, as
indicated, the litigation of these facts was broader. The
facts establish that Respondent communicated to employ-
ees that if the Union persuaded over 50 percent of the
employees to sign cards the Union would make a
demand for bargaining and under such circumstances the
Union would show the cards to Respondent.
The Board's pronouncement in The Lundy Parking
Company, 223 NLRB 139 (1976), is controlling in this
case. The Board in The Lundy' Parking Company cited
with approval V.L.R.B. v. Finesilver Manufacturing Co.,
400 F.2d 644, 646 (5th Cir. 1968). In such case, the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals set forth in effect that the
truthfulness of a statement did not insulate a statement
from being a threat or being violative of the Act if cir-
cumstances revealed the intent of a threat. The Lundv
Parking Company case reveals a pronouncement in effect
that there is no reason for informing employees that
signed union cards will be made known publicly other
than to let the employees know that the names of union
adherents could be ascertained and appropriate reprisals
taken.
Accordingly, it is concluded and found that Respond-
ent threatened employees that the identity of those who
signed union cards would become known to it and that
appropriate reprisals would be taken. Such conduct is
violative of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
As to some allegations that Respondent by Reiter, on
April 1, 1980, at the meeting with employees, made
threats or statements violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act, the facts do not support such allegations. Reiter's
presentation of arguments against the need foir unioniza-
tion was in major effect skillfully executed. Thus. the
facts do not establish that Reiter told employees that
union organizational activities would guarantee strikes
and layoffs. Rather, Reiter skillfully set forth the benefits
the employees had. and that the Union could as their
bargaining agent take positions which would possibly
eliminate the way benefits were then accorded. Thus,
Reiter indicated that the Union could guarantee the pos-
sibility of strikes. At first blush the use of the word
"guarantee" in such context appears ambiguous. In actu-
ality, it appears that the word is virtually meaningless in
such context and is not ambiguous. In effect, Respond-
ent's presentation injects the possibility of strikes and
does not reveal the same to be inevitable. As to the ques-
tion of whether Reiter threatened employees with reduc-
tion of work and/or layoffs. with changed working con-
ditions, with loss of annual merit increases, and with loss
of promotions for outstanding performances, Reiter's
presentation merely reveals that the Union as bargaining
representative might bargain for changes in existing con-
ditions. Respondent's statements in such regard come
within the purview of protection of Section 8(c) of the
Act.
F. .4pril 1-17, 1980, Interrogation
Epperson credibly testified to the effect that she had
two conversations with Supervisor Kent Stephens in
early April 1980 before April 17. 1980. The first conver-
sation took part in early April and concerned the re-
marks made by Epperson on March 21, 1980, about Led-
ford and Reiter, The second conversation took place at a
later time but before April 17. What occurred in the con-
versation between Stephens and Epperson is revealed by
the following credited excerpts from Epperson's testimo-
1nI 3
Q. Who was present?
A. Just Kent and myself.
Q What swas said?
A. After asking him whatever I needed to ask
him about, the part of problem that I was in there
for, Kent mentioned the union activitv, and he
asked me what my feelings were about the union. I
told him that I didn't want the union to come in.
Q. Told him what?
A. I told him that I did not want the union to
come in.
Considering the foregoing, I conclude and find that
the facts reveal that Respondent, by Stephens, in early
April 1980. interrogated Epperson about her union
desire. There is no evidence to reveal a legitimate basis
for Respondent's inquiry. Nor is there evidence that Ste-
phens gave Epperson assurances that there would be no
reprisals if she answered the inquiry. Under such circum-
stances, Stephens' interrogation of Epperson was coer-
cive and violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. It is so
concluded and found.
' I Id cii red it [I'p h 11 1 It"Ii,,i .n 1 hi, ii itt I p. rll .l i ',r l
SItphll,, ' 1C'llll l i s p() lh c ' Ilrltl e (i f CirtI .Ic11i hia ,lu i llorsIrl.tlll hI
gcytnI 11l Rc'pondcll pcrwllladc th.it It' a gil ullrcll.lbel %rilt-l tl I- 11% 1
Ix1kic
1014
DECISIONS OF NATI()NAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
G. Events of MVay 6. 1980
On or about May 6, 1980, Respondent posted the fol-
lowing memorandum:
TO: ALL EMPLOYEES
The United Cement, Lime and Gypsum Workers
Union is actively trying to get you to sign authori-
zation cards. Why'? As a means of answering this
question we have drawn up a series of questions and
answers:
WHAT IS A UNION AUTHORIZATION
CARD?
A signed statement from an employee stating that
he wants the union to be his collective bargaining
agent.
DOES SIGNING A CARD OBLIGATE YOU?
Yes. It is a legal statement that you want the
union to represent you.
WHAT DOES THE UNION DO WITH THE
CARDS IT COLLECTS7
There are two possibilities:
a. If the union gets cards signed by 30% of our
people, they can petition the National Labor Re-
lations Board for an election, or
b. If the union gets cards signed by 51% of our
people, it may send us a letter asking us to bargain
IF THE UNION ASSERTS THAT IT HAS 51%
OF THE CARDS AND ASKS THE COMPANY
TO BARGAIN. MUST THE COMPANY DO
SO?
No.
WHAT CAN THE UNION DO IF THE COM-
PANY REFUSES TO BARGAIN IN THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES?
The union has three possibilities:
1. It can call an immediate work stoppage for
recognition.
2. It can request an NLRB election, or
3. It can request the NLRB to count the cards
at a public hearing.
The main thing you should realize is that signing a
card is a very meaningful thing. It legally assigns a
person's right or representation to the union.
Nobody should sign a card unless he is willing to
accept all the consequences and obligations of such
representation.
Very truly yours.
/s/ Don Reiter
Donald P. Reiter
Vice President and
General Manager
The General Counsel contends and Respondent denies
that Respondent by the use of this memorandum violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by in effect threatening that
Respondent would gain knowledge of those who signed
such cards. Considering the memorandum, I am persuad-
ed and conclude and find that the memorandum consti-
tutes a threat that Respondent would gain knowledge of
those who signed union cards and take appropriate repri-
sals. Such conclusions and findings are based on the same
reasons as previously set forth relating to Reiter's state-
ments made on April 1, 1980, concerning cards. Accord-
ingly, I conclude and find, as alleged, that Respondent
has violated Section 8(a)( ) of the Act.
H. May 1980 Creation of Impression of Surveillance 4
In May 1980, Supervisor Stephens spoke to Epperson
again as is revealed by the following credited excerpts
from her testimony:
Q. Directing your attention to the month of May
1980, did you have occasion to speak to him?
A. Yes. Kent asked me to come to his office, and
he said that it had been reported again through the
grapevine that I had been in the restroom twice that
morning and overheard discussing the union.
I told him that I had been in the restroom about
11:30, that Peggy Morris, another employee, was in
the restroom with me at the time, that she was talk-
ing about a man that she knew that had been
dumped from his job. She did not, nor did I, men-
tion Huntington Rubber Company or any specific
union, and I didn't even know for sure what she
was talking about. My only comment was, "Oh,
yeah?" I also told Kent that there was another em-
ployee in the restroom at that time.
Q. Do you know who that other employee was?
A. Yes, I do. Anna Cunningham.
Q. (by Mr. Kuelthau): Beg your pardon?
A. (Anna Cunningham continuing): I told Kent
that I had not been discussing the union, and-
Q. (Mr. Kuelthau interrupting): I'm sorry. I did
not hear what you said.
A. I told Kent that I had not been discussing the
union. His reply was, "Well, make sure you don't
do it."
The General Counsel alleges and Respondent denies
that Respondent, by Stephens, during the month of May
1980, created the impression of surveillance of employ-
ees' union and/or protected concerted activities, by tell-
ing employees that he knew of their conversations. Con-
sidering the credited facts. I am persuaded that the facts
establish that Respondent, by Stephens, as alleged, cre-
ated the impression of surveillance of employees' union
and protected concerted activities. Such conduct is viola-
tive of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. It is so concluded and
found.
t !ht' I,;Ihtt Irte ha~.ei *,, Il ti rc(lilttid Atspct, if the tcslimllmw if l p-
person t,) r silmilar reLiOlls fiI forthl itlh Ihc i redihtJhI l reM il.ioll a1 to
lhe Is uit. ,I i l llltrr)giltioll of i lppers.rl IeprClolti set torih, d, credit
SICphtr lt
'
ite1iiiiin 1 n ill . III IlIL. C 111il Ih. tar.lis l I rlird '(i r idCtrlllg Sic-
pherls' rrielrlilithllil Ot J elll 12 18() I s} t I I' lrll lre riri i lld . I ririg l
: ppersi- a i. ir l g hei. i gis.r iii li, h, 1t81), iE app ril thlat thc .. arir
i og it) lpple -n ,cI tforth herein cillrCdI .irOtUTiid %1\ 6. I N(II
1020
Ht' N IN( I N RL;t BkIIR C(()MP'ANY
The CGeneral Counsel also alleges and Responldent
denies that Respondent, by Stephens, dCuring the month
of May 1980(). imposed an ocrl]s broad no-solicitation
rule againsl one of its emploxces, . hich in effect prohih-
tied all discussion of the U'nion on Respondent's proper-
ty.
Considering the credited facts. I am persuaded that the
facts reseal that Respondent. as alleged, imposed a rule
which prohibited all discussion of the UnT1ion in Respond-
ent's restroom. Such rule clearls interfered with. re-
strained, and coerced employces il the exercise of
Section 7 rights and is violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
The General Counsel alleges and Respondent denies
that Respondent, by Stephenls during the month of May
1980, issued a verbal reprimand to Epperson.
The basic facts concerning this issue are the facts relat-
ing to Stephens' cons ersation with Epperson ii May
1980, about reports that she had been overheard talking
about the Union in the restroomr. her denial that she had
been talking about the Union in the restroom, and Ste-
phens' admonition that she should not do it (talk about
the Union in the restroom). At first blush, the facts
would indicate that Stephens gave warnings about future
conduct and not a reprimand about past conduct The
statements, however, cannot be viewed in a vacuum. The
overall facts. in total context, as later set forth, reveal
that in June 1980, Respondent construed that it had, by
Stephens, given Epperson a verbal warning in May 1980
because she was a disruptive influence. The facts in total-
ity persuade that the verbal warning referred to was in
fact the statements made hby Stephens in effect that Ep-
person should not talk in the restroom about the Union.
Although the overall facts reveal that Epperson, until
mid-June 1980, did not construe that she had received a
warning or reprimand, Wade told Epperson on June 13.
1980, that she had received a verbal warning in May
1980 from Stephens.
Considering all the facts in total context, I am persuad-
ed that the facts reveal that Respondent by the conduct
of Stephens in May 1980, in the context of Respondent's
later actions of memorandum and oral statements to Ep-
person, issued a verbal reprimand to Epperson in May
1980 in order to dissuade her from engaging in protected
concerted activity. Such conduct by Respondent is viola-
tive of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
I. Events of June 9. 1980
On June 9. 1980, employee Marcia Hampton had an
occasion to speak to Vice President Reiter. After her
conversation with Reiter. fellow employee Huss spoke to
her concerning her conversation with Reiter. Later, the
same day, fellow employees Spegal and Epperson spoke
to her about her "relationship" with Reiter. What oc-
curred with respect to Hampton's conversation with
Reiter, with Huss. and \with Epperson and Spegal is re-
vealed by the following credited aspects of Hampton's
testimony. 16
, Suuch IUIC l '. A, at Ica, llttpo,'d on [ ppcrpon
I found it arlipll Io L appear i rt a oinlplelcls trtihful 'Itlles Al
though the niilil, 1i, in ,tMlllloil t At rio1t IlitiH o1 greall. I finrd H nampion's
Q Marcia, there's been some talk in the last two
dabs about the encounter that you had with Buddy
Huss I)o you remember w'hen it was, the first one?
A IlThe first one was on June 9
It was after lunch, between the lunch break and
the afternoon break.
Q. And was anybody else present?
A L arry Swank
Q. And where did this occur?
A. It occurred at my wrork station.
He stopped by-I had been talking to Don Reiter
before-
Q. (Interrupting) You had''
A. Yes. And Buddy and Larry came from their
work station over to mine. and Buddy said, "I saw
you sucking ass, I see you were talking to Don
Reiter. What did he want?" I told him that it was
not really any of his business, and they walked on.
Q Now, thereafter, did you have any contact
with anybody else about talking to Reiter?
A. Yes. When I went in on the afternoon break, I
was sitting at a table with Barbara Spegal, Della
Epperson, Peggy Morris and Sandy Slaughter. Bar-
bara said to Della, "I think I'll stop Don Reiter the
next time he walks by and see how far I can stick
my nose up his ass."
Then she turned to me and said, "Don't you
think I'd make a good brown noser, Marcia? You
should know."
Q. Did you have another talk with them or did
they mention it again to you?
A. Yes.
Q. Before we get to that, did Della say anything?
A. Yes. She said that, was joking around and said
that she was probably going to get fired but that
she didn't care. She wouldn't be the first one in line
for unemployment and welfare benefits.
Later on June 11, 1980, Hampton had another conver-
sation with Reiter. Again Huss spoke to Hampton as is
revealed by the following credited excerpts from Hamp-
ton's testimony:
Q. What happened that day?
A. I was talking to Reiter again, and when he
left, Buddy Huss again came over to my work sta-
tion, and he said, "You're sure spending a lot of
time talking to Don Reiter," and he asked me sever-
al times what he wanted.
Q. What did you tell him?
A. I told him nothing, and he went on.
Q. And did Barbara mention it to you?
A. Yes. At noon, Barbara said that she saw me
talking to Don Reiter again and she told me that
she thought I was getting to be a brown noser.
Later, on June II, 1980, Hampton reported to Reiter
that some of the employees had been harassing her about
her conversations with him. What occurred is revealed
tsi llmi n5 1t< he more riabhle than thati i the other itlntnrse and credit
her Ie.liiliog liter . II C. tlll il ,1silh IhCe tctinlrn' of other titnresses
1()21
I)V CISI()NS ()F NAII)NA\I. I.AIB()R RFIAT l IONS BO()ARD)
by the following credited excerpts from Reiter's testimo-
ny:
I.ater, and I don't recall whether it was the same
day or another day, Marcia stopped me walking
past her w ork station again and she said, "Don. I've
got a problem. I'm being harassed by other employ-
ees for talking to you" I said, "You've got to be
kidding me." She said, "No. They're harassing me
and making it difficult for me. Is there something I
can do about this?" I said, "Well, tell me about it."
She told me that after I had left from talking to
her the first time that, the first event was Buddie
Huss and Larry Swank, a co-worker of Mr. Huss,
leaving their work station and walking over to Mar-
cia's work station and stop Marcia and interrogated
Marcia as to why she was talking to me. I believe
Marcia reported that Buddie said, "I saw you suck-
ing ass with Reiter. What did he want?" Marcia
said she told him, "It's none of your business." I
don't recall whether he asked the question again,
but he then walked away. Marcia took that not too
kindly.
The next incident was later that day, I believe, in
the lunch room when Marcia went into the lunch
room and sat at the table with Sandy Slaughter. I
believe Marcia said Peggy Morris was there and
Della Epperson and Barbara Spegal. Barbara Spegal
was really talking to Della and said, "How far do
you think I can get if I stop Don Reiter the next
time he walks by me and I stick my nose up his ass,
what do you think?" She turned to Marcia and said,
"What do you think, Marcia, you should know,"
and with that Della offered her support and chimed
in and said-
MR. Bi(ii]AN: (Interrupting) I object to that char-
acterization.
JUD(n;t STONE: Well, I sustain the part about offer
the support. That's a comment. I'll strike that part.
Go ahead. Testify what she said.
A. (Continuing) Della said, "Oh, I don't care if
they fire me. I'll be the first in the welfare line and
in the unemployment line." This was reported to
me by Marcia verbally and Marcia asked me if
there is something we can do and I said, "Yes. there
is something. We don't have to put up with harass-
ment of fellow employees. This is a pleasant place
to work and we will keep it that way." I said,
"Would you be willing to sign a complaint to that
effect," and she said yes. She asked me if her identi-
ty had to be revealed and I said no that she didn't
have to reveal it that we would keep it in confi-
dence.
I said, "At some point in time it may be revealed.
Is that a problem with you?," and she said no, "No,
it's not. I have to work with the people, I just want
the harassment stopped." I said, "O.K., let me see
what I can do about it."
On the same date, Reiter spoke to Meyer about the in-
cident as is revealed by the following credited excerpts
from Reiter's testimony.
I then called Ron Meyer into my office and I
said, "Ron, we have got a problem out on the floor.
Marcia has complained that Della Epperson, Buddie
Huss and Barbara Spegal are harassing her," and I
said I wanted it stopped.
I said it's degrading morale and if we permit this
action it will tear the plant apart. I said, "I want
you to investigate. Talk to Marcia. Talk to Bob
Wade, Gary Ledford and decide on the course of
action, but if you find that Marcia will stand behind
her complaint, issue warning letters to all three of
them," and that was the end of that discussion.
On the same date, Meyer followed Reiter's instructions
and spoke to Hampton. At such time, Meyer took a
statement from Hampton in longhand.'7 Later, a memo-
randum dated June 13, 1980, from Meyer to Reiter, in-
cluded apparently the written version of Hampton's
statements as originally set forth in longhand. At some
point of time, on June 13, 1980, or within several weeks,
Hampton signed the memorandum indicating apparently
her agreement to the statement.
On June 11, 1980, following Meyer's taking of a
longhand statement from Hampton about the incidents of
June 9 and 11, 1980, Ledford spoke to Huss, around 3
p.m. At such time, Ledford gave Huss a written warning
as follows:
INTEROFFICE MEMO
FROM: Gary Ledford Date: 6-11-80
Hannibal, Missouri TO: Bernard Huss
63401
SUBJECT: WARNING-Non-compliance with
Company Regulations
You have failed to comply with the company
regulation:
Not informing your supervisor prior to absence.
Non-compliance with company safety regulations.
Disregard for equipment.
Excessive lateness.
Other
Because of the above you run the risk of being
dismissed unless an improvement is observed.
This is a written warning notice. It has been re-
ported that you have harassed another employee on
the job. This causes a disruptive influence in the
plant, this condition will not be allowed to continue
and any further action will result in termination.
SIGNATURE:- DATE:--
What was said between Ledford and Huss is revealed
by the following credited excerpts from Ledford's testi-
mony.
Q. What did you tell him had occurred?
A. I told him that another employee had com-
plained and had signed a written complaint that he
It iS rnl(l eslablished as to whether Hamplon signed or initialed the
statemenlt when wvritten in longhalnd
1022
HUNTtNGiI ON RUBBE~tR COMPAt'NY 2
had stopped at this person's work station and made
comments about ,hat they had been doing, or who
they had been talking to, something along that line.
Q. Did 3ernard Huss ask you who made this
complaint?
A. Yes. he did.
Q. And what did you tell him vchen he asked
that'
A. I told him that the complaint ,as given in
confidence and that I would not reveal the name of
the person who had made the complaint.
Q. Did he also ask what he had allegedl y dollc'
A. Yes, and I told him that I could not tell him
the exact words, because that would betray the con-
fidence of the person who had made the complaint.
Q. Let me just showx you what's been pre, iously
identified as General Counsel Exhibit 7-H. II con-
sists of two pages. Is that the wvarning you gave to
Bernard Huss on June 1 I'
A. Yes, it is. This copy doesn't have the signature
on it. I believe the signature is supposed to be up
here. It was up here at the top.
Q. But Huss did sign it.
A. Yes, he did.
It appears that the warning wias on a form xith the
portion set forth as beginning with: "This is a ,k ritten
warning notice . . . setting forth the warning and basis
therefor.
On June 11, 1980, around 3 p.m. Ledford spoke to
Spegal. At such time, Ledford gave Spegal a warning es-
sentially similar to the one given Huss excepting such
warning used the word "may" instead of "will" as re-
gards "any further action may result in your termina-
tion." Spegal argued and asked questions about the basis
for the "warning" as is revealed by the following cred-
ited excerpts from her testimony:
Q. Was anyone else present besides yourself and
Ledford?
A. No.
Q. What happened then9
A. I walked in and he shut the door and I asked
him why he called me in the office. He said that
somebody had complained that I had been harassing
her. I asked him what he meant. He said they put
out a written complaint against me. I asked him
who it was and he wouldn't tell me. I asked him
what I said and he wouldn't tell me. I told him I
didn't understand that. Then he read the written
warning to me and he wanted me to sign it and I
told him that I didn't agree with it and I felt like I
hadn't harassed anybody. He told me to go ahead
and sign it, that that didn't mean whether I agreed
or didn't agree. It just meant that I had seen that
letter.
Then I said that I'd never heard of anybody get-
ting wrote up for harassment before. He said yes
that people have been fired right on the spot for
that. I said, "Well, I never heard of such a thing."
He said yes it was true.
Q. Did anything else occur at that time?
A. I asked him againl w h, I mean who I h;ar-
assed and what I said and lie told me that I couldnl't
kno\ ., that he could riot sa ,arid I said, "Well. I still
don't understand \what it was all about," aid he told
me that I kne . He said. "You know x what it's all
ahout. Barbh.' Then I left.
(. Did iou talk to Mr .cdford allt more that
A. Not on that day.
Q. Did you ha ̀ e occasion to speak to him on the
foillowing day, the 12th?
A. Yes, I did. I went into his office before 7
o'clock arid told him that I would like to have a
written copy of my letter. my harassment letter.
Q. What, if any-thing, did he say?
A. He gave it to me and then we went into his
office. I asked him again who I said it to and what I
said and he told me again that he couldn't tell me. I
asked him how come I wasin't given a verbal xarn-
ing like everybody else does and he told me it de-
pended oin the seriousness of it I said, "How come
me and the person I'm supposed to have harassed
weren't brought into your office to discuss it?" To
discuss it like everybody else usually does. you
know.
Q. Anything else said at that time'
A I asked him again who I said it to and what is
it. I asked him, I said, "If it was that bad what did I
say?" He said, "No, Barb, there waisn't no profanity
in it It's just what you said."
Q. (By Mr. Begian) After directing your attention
to June 13th did you have occasion to speak to Mr.
Ledford on that day?
A. Yes, I did.
Q Where did you speak to him?
A. He came back to my work station.
Q. Was anybody else present?
A. Tony Blackford.
Q. What uwas said?
A. I asked him for a written letter stating who I
w as supposed to have harassed and what I said and
he told me he couldn't give it to me.
On June II, 1980, around 3:15 p.m., Supervisor Wade
presented to Epperson a written warning which was
signed at such time by Epperson. Such \xarning was as
follow s:
To: Della Epperson
From: Bob Wade
Re: Attitude
June 11. 1980
In April you were given a verbal warning by Mr.
Stevens that you were a disruptive influence to the
plant work force. This was reported to him by
other employees.
This is a vritten warning that this condition has
not been corrected and a contimuation of this action
10 3
1)1 ('ISI()NS ()F1 NATI()NAI I At()R RI I AII()NS l()iARI)
will result in the ternminatior of sour empl(o enlnrt
This action w as again precipitated by complainr s of
other employees.
Your signature is required to this warning notice,
to acknowledge receipt of this wkarning. It does not
acknowledge that you agree or disagree.
/s/ Della Epperson
June 11. 198()
3:15 p.m.
At such time. Epperson denied that Stephens had
given her a verbal warning. Epperson questioned Wade
about the warnings and as to who had made the charges.
Wade's credited testimony reveals that he had heard
"rumors" that E pperson had been engaged in union ac-
tivity prior to June II I. 198(). Questioning of Respond-
ent's witnesses otherwise did not establish knowledge of
union activity by Spegal or Huss prior to June I1, 1CX(0,
The General Counsel alleges and contends that Re-
spondent on June 11, 19X80, issued warning letters to I p-
person, Spegal, and Huss, and has failed and refused
since such date to rescind such warning letters. These al-
legations are not really disputed, The General Counsel
alleges and Respondent denies that the "'wariings" were
issued in order to discourage employees from engaging
in union activities and other concerted activities for their
mutual aid and protection.
Considering all of the facts in total context, I find
merit in the General Counsel's contentions. Thus. the
overall facts reveal a basis for Respondent's belief that
Epperson, Huss, and Spegal were engaging in conduct
relating to union organizing activity in their remarks and
actions directed toward Hampton. First. Respondent had
a reasonable basis to believe that Epperson might be
prone to support a union as a result of her actions on or
about March 21. 1980, relating to a job opportunity. Any
question that Respondent might have had would appear
to have been eliminated when it had reports that Epper-
son was talking about the Union in the bathroom. Fur-
ther, Wade, as of June 11, 1980, had heard "rumors" of
Epperson's union activity. Considering this, in connec-
tion with the remarks actually made by Epperson on
June 9 and 11. 1980, 1 am persuaded that the June 11,
1980, w'arning letter given to Epperson was in order to
discourage employees' engaging in union or protected
concerted activities. The totality of events indicates that
the remarks of the employees (Huss and Spegal) consti-
tuted criticism of the Employer or those who sided with
the Employer. Such remarks occurring during the time
of a union campaign indicate in effect an ongoing cam-
paign. Epperson's remarks on June 9 anrd 11, 1980, how-
ever, were of such a nature that one could hardly believe
that a warning letter or reprimand would be issued The
facts reveal that the Respondent made no attempt to as-
certain Epperson's, Huss', or Spegal's version of what
had occurred. The facts also reveal that Respondent
would not specifically reveal to Epperson, Huss, and
Spegal what each had actually done. or who the conl-
plainant had been. The remarks actually made by Epper-
son, Huss, and Spegal were of such a nature that ordinar-
ily one would not perceive a real basis for Respondent's
not being specific as to the complaint or complaints, The
remarks made by Spegal and Huss to Halmpton are of the
type that w arning letters might have been warranted
C'onsiderilg, howxever. the type of remarks made hb Fp-
person and the issuance of a w Warning letter, the vague-
lness of Rcespondent ill the w artilig letters and in remarks
to Fpperson, Huss, aind Spegal as to the basis of the
warning letters and as to the complainants. the overall
faclts establish that the warnings wecre issued to interfere
with the employees' engaging in union or protected con-
certed activities. Such conduct is violative of Section
X(a)(3) and (1) of the Act It is so concluded and found
J. Events of June 12. 1980
()n or about June 11 or 12. 198() Vice President Reiter
and Supervisor Stephens discussed the fact that Wade
would be making the annual review of Epperson's work
performance. Reiter told Stephens in effect that he be-
lieved that it w\as necessary that there be documentation
of an "oral warning"' given by Stephens to Epperson.
Thereafter, apparently onl June 12, 1980, Stephens pre-
pared a memorandum for the file as follows:
TO(): File - -I)ATE 6-12 X0
FROM: Kent Stephens
SUBJECT: Oral Warning
()n 5-6 80, I cautioned Della Epperson that I
had received a report from another employee to the
effect that she \wias a disruptive influence I warned
her that if these reports were accurate, and if she
failed to disconitinue the offensive behavior, she
would he subject to severe action.
K /he1( Ivernt oj June 13. 1980
On or about June 13, 1980, Supervisor Wade made an
annual performance evaluation of employee Epperson.
O()n June 13, 1980, Wade met with Epperson, discussed
the evaluation, and had Epperson to set forth her com-
ments as to the evaluation. The completed evaluation
with comments was as follows:
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
NAME OF EMPLOYEE1 BEING EVALUATED:
Epperson, Della
STARTING DATE OF EMPLOYEE: June 16,
1977
ATTENDANCE RECORD OF EMFLOYEE
FOR PAST YEAR: Outstanding
QUALITY OF WORK SHOWN BY EMPLOYEE
FOR PAST YEAR: Excellent
ABILITY (OF EMP1 OYEE TO BE VERSATILE
IN OTHER AREAS: Excellent
AlTTITUDE EMPLOYEE HAS TOWARDS HIS
J()13 AND HIS C(O-WORKER: Poor
COMMENTS ()F EMPIO()YEE: I disagree with
the attitude-it seems to me it would show up in
my attendance & other items upon which evaluation
is made.
/s/ Della Epperson
10()24
HUNFIINGi ON R1,I1ltlFR COMt~.PA-NY 02
Employee's signature
COMMENTS OF SUPERVISOR:
[X] RECOMMEND 8.4 c; INCREASE DUE TO
YEARS PAST PERFORMANCE
[ I RECOMMEND INCREASE HE SUSPEND-
ED tINTIL. EMPI OYEF IMPRO(VES WORK
HABITS
t ] RECOMMEND EMPI.OYEE STAYS AT
PRESENT RATE DUE TO RECENT RECI AS-
SIFICATION AND INCREASE IN WAGE.
(Suggest Employee be evaluated I (one) year from
reclassification date.)
/s/ Bob Wade,
Supervisors signature
DATE 6 13 80
What occurred otherwise on June 13. 1980. in the con-
versation between Wade and Epperson is as revealed by
the following credited excerpts from Epperson's testimo-
ny iM
Q. What occurred at this time on June 13 xvith
Mr. Wade'
A. Bob told me that he v as going to give me my
annual performance evaluation. He told me that he
had given me an 84 per cent, which xas not the
maximum. and the reason he was knocking down
my raise was because I had received a verbal 'xarn-
ing from Kent Stephens and a Nwritten warning from
himself. He said that he had given me excellent in
all other categories, in attendance, in ability. and in
the quality of miy work.
I told Bob that I had not been given a verbal
warning by Kent. and he told me that he wasn't
going to argue the point but that I had been. I
asked him what about. and he said that I ,xas given
a verbal warning in May by Mr. Stephens concern-
ing when I xxas overheard in the bathroom discuss-
ing the union To my knowledge, Kent Stephens
did not give me a verbal wxarning. If he did, he did
not state that's ,w'hat it was.
On June 13, 1980. Respondent gave Epperson a wage
increase of 8.4 percent instead of the maximum allowable
wage increase of 10.7 percent
The General Counsel contends and Respondent denies
that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act by denying Della Epperson on June 13. 198(), the
maximum wage increase allowable.
Considering all the facts. I am persuaded that the facts
preponderate for a finding that Respondent denied the
granting of the maximum allowable wage increase of
10.7-percent to Della Epperson on June 13. 1980, be-
cause of its belief that she was engaged in union or pro-
tected concerted activities. Thus, the facts reveal that
Respondent for the past few years had granted Epperson
the maximulm alloxahle xslge increase evel i-hen her
11 I'I oI hA lpperton ll ad.I I largel, ,ol%1%tICl A, I
Ilq[%1111 [1ht'l 1 I'llltl t: l'tC q l h l ;Ippear t he a1 111l( , t,11L. ,Itlh-
righl. nlld (Il l lrni ' \k1[11 % ( .' 11Md"l lg 1111 ;1l 11d l[t. ghl :l '0lll1'1Cll1i k "l
1.Als. I . i.,ll it I:1 Ilon' l c' 1 1HT10,11, \ i \%L'r thal Ot \\kk1.d\ \Fh4.d[c ii 111
111(
"attitude" had not been deemed the best Epperson's
credited testimlonl reveals that she was told by Wade
that the reason she was not receiving the maximum al-
lovable wage increase was that she had received a
verbal warning from Stephens and from Wade The facts
reveal that the only warning that Epperson had actually
receixed from Stephens was a warning by Stephens in
Ma 198() relating to Epperson's talking about the Union
in the restroom. l As found, Wade's warning on June 11,
1980,() was to dissuade Epperson from engaging in union
and protected concerted activity. Thus, the sum of the
facts reveal that Respondent did not grant Epperson a
10.7-percent wage increase on June 13, 1980, because she
had engaged in union or protected concerted activities.
Such conduct is clearly violative of Section 8(a)(3) and
(I) of the Act. It is so concluded and found.
1\. IHI! IltIlCI OF0 IHIf UNI:AIR LABOR PRACTICi.s
UPON (OMMIERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section 111,
above, occurring in connection with Respondent's oper-
ations described in section 1, above, have a close, inti-
mate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flons of commerce.
V. IHIE Ra MN I)Y
Havinlg found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices. it will be recommended that Respondent
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It having been found that Respondent issued repri-
mands to Della Epperson, Bernard Huss, and Barbara
Spegal in violalion of Section 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act.
it xwill be recommended that Respondent be required to
rescind and to expunge such reprimands from its files.
It haxing been found that Respondent denied Della
Epperson the maximum wage increase allowable, in vio-
lation of Section 8(a)( 3) and (I) of the Act. the recom-
mended Order will provide that Respondent make her
" hole for loss of earnings or other benefits within the
meaning and in accord with the Board's decisions in FI-
W1: Woolworth Company. 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Flor-
ida Steel Corporation. 231 NLRB 651 (1977), 2" except as
"' I n1ot' that \' ale J' unei II. 14(), .lrinlng g ( tIppcrllon referred I1o
ian April I148ll arnllJng hs Slciphlii Sltepher ,' Jtllei 12 198. mil emiratl-
dumlli rct'cired c to a Mac, bh . I"i). c.artlliig Ctr idtlcrlnig all {hi. fal,. I daill
pcr,uadecdl lhit 'teplclmi ,lid Illt :.oiider his talking to Eppcr',ot 1il April
148(i ahoil the tellti ,I tl iarih 21. 149,. I t he a warninlg Rather Sic-
phIctrl comdcrcdl Ihl tih hadl git ll E ppers-ii a "i. arnilg Ill Max 1980
.ibouti lilktilg III ilt hlrl llc Rc.potelll licntlphl ( lSguise I ,1 rea-
--ii kilC r-tilin g 1'Tpcr',ii -c1]illultioi app,:irs to haie hs error rculihcd
iII olre-il c iliiitg i 1ih
L
,tctall s..,Iltilg hs tiephenI I itrthcr, .sen if
I-. .oCrtcelcd kttllilg.s hadl hcrl prrr.rl haed, il x%.tiltl appear that th.
";lllti c p hl" [ ril tr0ct clid i1e Illltnl ilJ Ill i lntaiti ' Coll(idcriiig lhi
iIl I TI/;i tiii tiTiittii % 'I i n'etC. e ct ItT lhe pit'l k h It " iilltIliici" had hCtil
Ldaicd t, I wt heiii t c\i - ,Ic 'i it 'oolld llO .ippric r hIt thc list) dill
SCC t cn c tl t x Ii ihct,- P irr. ,vtl ,, .H- , IIS Ni Ri t 71t icige 1i
Sci gll o ticillc,1 Ic / i b'lcii c & II, .''i' (i ,' 5 Ni Rlu 'Iis iltrci
1 5
I)tV'ISI()NS (OF NA'I()NAL LAO()R RELATIONS O()ARD
specifically modified hy the wording of such reconl-
mended Order.
Because of the character of the unfair labor practices
herein found. the recommended Order will provide that
Respondent cease and desist from in any other manner
interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the
Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon
the entire record in the case, I make the following:
CoNCI USIONS OFi LAW
1. Huntington Rubber Company, Division of New
Idria, Inc., Respondent, is an employer engaged in
commerce wvithin the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act
2. United Cement, Lime and Gypsum Workers Inter-
national Union, AFL-CIO-CI. C is, and has been at all
times material herein, a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By issuance of reprimands to several employees and
by denying Della Epperson the maximum allowable
wage increase, Respondent has discouraged membership
in a labor organization by discriminating in regard to
tenure of employment, thereby engaging in unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act.
4. By the foregoing and by interfering with. restrain-
ing, and coercing its employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent engaged
in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 21
The Respondent, Huntington Rubber Company, Divi-
sion of New Idria. Inc.. Hannibal, Missouri, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Issuing warning letters, verbal reprimands. an-
nouncing and granting wage increases, announcing and
granting safety program changes, intensification and
benefits, denying vwage increases and by otherwise dis-
criminiatinig against employees in regard to hire or tenure
of employment, or any term or condition of employment
because of their union or protected concerted activities.
(b) Threatening employees with loss of statutory right
to present grievances or contact management because of
their union activities or protected concerted activities.
2' I I' Ihe cl l IIt, e e lcphins are filled i', proxided h) Se. 1I12 4,6 'i
lilt Rule, aild Rcgulaltlll s of tIih1 National IlFahbrl RClatio IIIII .lrid, Ith
tilllings, tlrl Icu io IIIS. llld I1. c'lllllllt.lll Id ()ld I r hII rC l ira ll.t I , illelicd
ihr SC. 102 48{ A lhe RUle, .ntidl R'guilaltllr. he adop.ird h the Ilctltd and
Ia] I ll i' IIi
.
1711-i lg , ' O irLiI\ I. I ( )Il., r.,AI11 :ItIht'c r i''cici
(c) Threatening employees that the identity of those
who sign union cards will become known and that there
will be appropriate reprisals therefor.
(d) Coercively interrogating employees as to their or
other employees' union activities, sympathies, desires, or
beliefs.
(e) Promising employees safer working conditions, par-
ticipatory safety programs, wage increases, or other
benefits to dissuade them from union activity or support
for the Union.
(f) Creating the impression of surveillance of employ-
ees' union activities by statements that Respondent has
had reports of their engaging in union activity.
(g) Interfering with employees' protected rights by
prohibiting all discussion of unions on Respondent's
property.
(h) In any other manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act except to the extent that
such rights may be affected by lawful agreements in
accord with Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is
found will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make Della Epperson whole for any loss of pay or
other benefits suffered by reason of the discrimination
against her in the manner described above in the section
entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other re-
cords necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Order.
(c) Rescind and expunge the warning letters issued to
Della Epperson, Bernard Huss, and Barbara Spegal on
June 11, 1980.
(d) Rescind and expunge the Stephens' memorandum
of June 12, 1980, relating to an oral warning given to
Epperson on May 6, 1980.
(e) Post at Respondent's plant at Hannibal, Missouri,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 2
2
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 9, after being duly signed by Re-
spondent's representatives, shall be posted by it immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by Re-
spondent for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicu-
ous places, including all places where notices to employ-
ees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
lI IS FURH FHFR ORI)IRIF.I) that the allegations of unlaw-
ful conduct not specifically found to be violative herein
be dismissed.
IIl tle c'Int Iha[ thi (irder i ctlioirt cd h, a Judgnciment of a Uited
SliltL, Co ur ofr Appeaals. ti ill he Ihlli rea;ding '"Toslcd hb
()idecl of the Nallilonai l Ih abor Rclllnl,, Boall" shall rea d t'oted Pursu-
l tol I Judgillclllt (If ti l lled Stlte, Court ,t' Aippical, Infi rcing all
()idte (,1 the NilltllaJ I lahOI Relatlloll B1oard"
1026