Missouri Research Laboratories, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 1, 1974

209 N.L.R.B. 952 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

952 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Standard Automotive Components, a Division of
Missouri Research Laboratories, Inc. and Gerald
J. Palmer. Case 26-CA-4794
April 1, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On November 28, 1973, Administrative Law Judge
Robert Cohn issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed
exceptions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions' of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that Respondent, Standard Automo-
tive Components, a Division of Missouri Research
Laboratories, Inc., Hope, Arkansas, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order.
I The Administrative Law Judge found as a fact that the Respondent
threatened Foreman Gerald J Palmer with loss of his job unless he
instructed his wife, an employee of the Respondent, to refrain from union
activities, and on that ground concluded, as a matter of law, that the
Respondent had violated Sec 8(a)(1) of the Act because it had thereby
illegally threatened "spouses" of employees. Absent exceptions, we adopt
his findings in this regard
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT COHN, Administrative Law Judge: Upon an
original charge filed July 9, 1973,1 (subsequently amended
August 20 and August 29) by Gerald J. Palmer, an
individual, against Standard Automotive Components, a
Division of Missouri Research Laboratories, Inc. (herein
the Respondent or Company), the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board, through the Regional
Director for Region 26, issued his complaint and notice of
hearing dated August 29. The complaint alleges, in essence,
that the Respondent has, since January 9, engaged in the
i All dates hereinafter refer to the calendar year 1973 unless otherwise
indicated.
practice of instructing Respondent's supervisory personnel
to require their wives, who are employees of Respondent,
to refrain from participating in union activities; that on or
about April 23 it instructed the Charging Party, a
supervisor, to require his wife to refrain from participating
in union activities and threatened to discharge him if he
failed to do so; and that, finally, on June 21 Respondent
did terminate the employment of the Charging Party
because he failed to require his wife to refrain from
participating in union activities. By its duly filed answer,
the Respondent admitted the jurisdictional allegations of
the complaint, but denied the commission of any unfair
labor practice.
At the trial, which was held before me in Hope,
Arkansas, on September 25, all parties were present and
full opportunity was afforded them to introduce relevant
evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to argue
orally on the record, and to submit briefs. Oral argument
was waived; however, helpful posthearing briefs were
submitted by counsel for the General Counsel and by
counsel for the Respondent which have been duly
considered. Upon the entire record, including arguments of
counsel and my observation of the demeanor of the
witnesse2 I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
Respondent is a corporation with an office and place of
business located in Hope, Arkansas , where it is engaged in
the manufacture and sale of automotive parts such as
armatures , generators , and alternators . During an annual
period the Respondent , in the course and conduct of its
business operations , purchased and received at its Hope,
Arkansas , facility products valued in excess of $50,000
directly from points located outside the State of Arkansas.
During the same period of time , Respondent sold and
shipped from its Arkansas location products valued in
excess of $50,000 directly to points located outside the
State of Arkansas.
I find , as Respondent admits, that Respondent is now,
and has been at all times material , an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein the
Act).
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The complaint alleges , the answer admits , and I find that
International Union, United Automobile , Aerospace and
Agricultural Workers of America (UAW), Local 1091
(herein called the Union), is now , and has been at all times
material , a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
Ill. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
At its Hope, Arkansas, plant, the Respondent employs
2 Cf Bishop and Malco, Inc, d/b/a Walker's, 159 NLRB 1159, 1161.
209 NLRB No. 158
STANDARD AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS 953
approximately 400 to 500 production and maintenance
employees who are represented for collective-bargaining
purposes by the Union. The Respondent's business, as
previously indicated, is the remanufacture of automotive
parts from previously used assemblies which are brought
into the plant, disassembled, cleaned, repaired, repainted,
reassembled, and tested.
Gerald Palmer was employed by Plant Manager Bob
Tolleson on August 1, 1972, as a foreman on the second
shift. Palmer had strong credentials for the job having
worked for General Motors for 21 years of which 19 years
were in supervisory status. After a brief training period of
several weeks in which Palmer became familiar with the
Respondent's particular operations, i.e., rebuilding auto-
motive parts, he became foreman on the night shift
supervising some nine employees.
Approximately a week after he was hired, Palmer, after
consulting with Plant Manager Tolleson, hired his wife,
Norma Palmer, who thereafter worked directly under his
direct supervision. It should be noted that this was not an
unusual circumstance at the Respondent's plant; the
record shows that there were several supervisory personnel
who had their wives or other family relations employed by
Respondent. The job to which Norma Palmer was assigned
was one which is included in the unit represented by the
Union, and Norma Palmer joined the Union after her 45-
day probationary period.
It appears that in January, Respondent determined to
transfer the general foreman of the second shift, George
Damon, to the first shift. When Tolson asked Damon for a
recommendation among the supervisors to be general
foreman of the second shift, Damon recommended Palmer.
Thereafter, on or about February 5, Palmer was promoted
to general foreman of the second shift, which meant that
he had "complete responsibility" therefor.3
B. Norma Palmer's Participation in the Union
Meeting, and the Consequences Thereof
For several weeks prior to April 20, the Company and
Union had been engaged in contract negotiations looking
toward the consummation of a new collective-bargaining
agreement.4 The Union scheduled a meeting of its
members on April 20 to be held at the City Hall in Hope,
Arkansas, for the purpose of explaining the Company's
contract proposals and thereafter voting to accept or reject
them. Approximately 300 employee-members attended the
meeting, and heard the union representative discuss the
proposed contract. He thereafter opened the floor for
3 It should be noted, however, that the second shift was substantially
smaller than the first shift in terms of numbers of employees it appears that
the principal function of the second shift was to prepare the materials for
production so that the first shift could have a ready supply the following
day.
* The existing contract between the parties was scheduled to expire on
April 20.
5 For example , she asked if food stamps and low -mterest loans were
available for fanulies who were hard -pressed because of a strike
e The second employee who spoke at the meeting stated that "he hoped
that anybody that voted for the strike , their family would starve."
I General Foreman Damon testified that he had heard that Mrs Palmer
had made some statement concerning employee benefits during a strike,
and that he passed this information on to Tolleson. The latter testified that
someone had told him that Mrs. Palmer was "quite active in union affairs,"
questions or discussion, and Norma Palmer was one of two
employees who rose for that purpose. Mrs. Palmer,
apparently feeling that the Company's offerings were
insufficient, and further assuming that a strike would result
if the employees rejected the proposed contract, asked
several questions concerning the Union's plans for the
employees' protection in such an event.5 The umon
representative apparently did not directly respond to these
questions but indicated that Mrs. Palmer had the wrong
attitude and that the contract proposals were the best that
could be secured under existing circumstances.6
At the close of the meeting, the employee-members, in a
secret ballot election, voted to reject the proposed contract.
Shortly thereafter, the foregoing conduct of Mrs. Palmer
was reported to Plant Manager Tolleson.? The following
Monday morning, April 23, several employee-umon
members came by Mrs. Palmer's work station and
discussed the matter of the contract proposals with her,
which was observed by Tolleson.
As a result, at approximately 2 p.m. on April 23,
Tolleson called Gerald Palmer into his office to discuss the
matter of his wife's activities. According to Palmer's
testimony, Tollerson advised that he (Tolleson) knew that
Palmer's wife was quite "active" in the Union; that he
(Tolleson) could not do anything to her because she was
represented by the Union, but he could, in fact, terminate
Palmer if the latter did not "take care of her." Following
the conversation, Palmer proceeded to his wife's work
station and told her to "cool it" or he would lose his job.8
Thereafter, Norma Palmer did, in fact, curtail her activities
on behalf of the Union and after some more negotiations
the employees voted, on or about the end of May, to accept
the contract.
As previously noted, the day following the conversation
between Tolleson and Gerald Palmer, the latter had a
conversation with Supervisor Hughey Kidd as follows:
Q. (By Mr. O'Leary) All right. Mr. Palmer, we were
testifying I believe April 24th, the day after you talked
to Bob Tolleson. Now, you spoke to Kidd; right?
A. Yes. He came to me and asked me whether or
not Bob Tolleson had told me that I had to get my wife
out of the union or I was going to get fired and I said,
not really in that sense of the word. He said-I said, I
can understand Mr. Tolleson 's reason , because I said,
we do share the same office and I said, being at
bargaining time there's things that I would know that
my wife shouldn't know if she's going to take an active
part in the union . And so I said, I can understand his
and that she was implying that the Company was not telling the truth
concerning its financial situation
8 Tolleson , in his testimony, acknowledged being aware of Norma
Palmer's activities at the union meeting , and was apparently upset that she
did not believe that the Company was telling the truth when it spoke of its
poor financial situation . However , he denied the threat to Gerald Palmer.
Nevertheless , the latter was quite impressive as a witness and I am unable to
believe that he fabricated that aspect of the conversation. Moreover , unlike
the contention of Respondent in its beef (p. 13) 1 do not construe Palmer's
testimony the following day with Supervisor Hughey Kidd to constitute a
denial of having been so threatened by Tolleson. Furthermore , Mrs Palmer,
thereafter, told employees that if she gave them advice as to the situation,
her "husband would lose his job." Accordingly, to the extent that the
versions differ, I credit Palmer
954 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
position. But I said, yes, in the sense of the word he did Analysis and Concluding Findings
tell me that in one sense of it . And we walked away.
Q. Well, did he say anything else to you?
A. The only thing he stated is that he said in the
past this has came up before and he walked away.
Q. Did he explain what came up in the past before?
A. He did explain to me that some of the other
foreman's had been talked to about their wive's
activities in the union.
Q. Did he name who they had been talked to by?
A. No, he did not.
Although Hughey Kidd was not called as a witness,
several supervisors of Respondent testified that they were
never informed that their family members should not be
active in the Union. Also, Tolleson denied that it was
Respondent's policy to require that the spouses or family
members of supervisory employees refrain from union
activities. Indeed, his testimony is unrefuted that the
mother-in-law of Supervisor Varner Kidd was more
militant on behalf of the Union than Mrs. Palmer.
C. The Reduction in Force and Layoff of Gerald
Palmer
As previously noted, the Company was experiencing
financial difficulties during the Spring of 1973. The
situation apparently became so severe toward the end of
May that the president of the Company, a Mr. DeBlase,
whose office is in St. Louis, Missouri, took over the actual
operation of the Hope facility for several weeks. At that
time, DeBlase ordered Tolleson to reduce overhead in an
amount of approximately $100,000. This was to be
accomplished by normal attrition with respect to nonpro-
duction management personnel, and demoting production
supervisors into rank-and-file production jobs. In his
testimony, which is unrebutted on this point, Tolleson
named a number of supervisory personnel who, during this
period, either quit and were not replaced or were
transferred to lesser positions. Of the three supervisors on
the night shift, one, Art Dotson, was transferred to a
guard's position and subsequently quit; Louis Hughes quit
rather than take a lesser position, and Palmer was
terminated on June 21. Varner Kidd, who was foreman
over disassembly on the day shift, replaced the three
supervisors on the night shift.
Plant Manager Tolleson was the agent of Respondent
who made the decision to terminate Palmer on June 21. He
testified as follows as to his reason for the decision:
Because we were cutting back and he was one of the
less senior employees that we had and as far as I was
concerned we had spent as much training time as we
could and we had to keep other people.
See if'algreen Co, 206 NLRB No. 15, and cases cited.
10 There was rather considerable testimony proffered by some of the
Respondent's day-shift supervisors to the effect that Palmer did not perform
his duties as general foreman on the night shift in a satisfactory manner
However, Tolleson testified that he discounted these type of complaints, i.e ,
I have found that on or about April 23 Plant Manager
Tolleson threatened Gerald Palmer concerning the latter's
job unless he did something to curtail his wife's union
activities. Since this threat, although made from one
supervisor to another, was clearly intended as a conduit to
employees and to influence an employee's conduct, it
constitutes interference, restraint, and coercion within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act .9
On the other hand, I am not convinced that the evidence
preponderates in favor of the General Counsel on the
allegation of violation of Section 8(a)(1), to wit: that the
Respondent has engaged in the "practice of instructing
Respondent's supervisory personnel to require their wives,
who are employees of Respondent, to refrain from
participating in union activities." In support of such
allegation there is only the testimony of Gerald Palmer to
the effect that Hughey Kidd, a fellow supervisor, when
informed by Palmer of the threat, responded that it was
not the first time it had happened. Other supervisory
personnel, however, denied any such policy. In view of the
relative vagueness of Kidd's assertion , I am constrained to
find, as noted, that the General Counsel did not prove this
allegation of the complaint by a preponderance of the
evidence.
Although the circumstances are rendered suspicious by
the threat made by Tolleson to Palmer several months
earlier, I am unable to find that the termination of Palmer
on June 21 was other than a normal consequence of the
economic constriction which Respondent was undergoing
at the time. The following factors have entered into my
conclusion on this matter: (1) Both Gerald Palmer and
Norma Palmer immediately complied with Tolleson's
orders; (2) there is no question but that the Company was
undergoing rather severe economic troubles and that
several supervisory personnel either quit, were laid off, or
were demoted during this period of time; (3) although
Palmer was generally well qualified by his experience and
training in the automotive field, he was required to
undergo training in the Respondent's particular field of
remanufacturing of auto parts, and he clearly did not have
as much experience in this narrow field as some of the
other of Respondent's supervisors; 10 (4) the fact that since
June, although Respondent has hired or rehired some
production personnel, it had not (until the date of the
hearing) rehired or repromoted any supervisors; and (5)
there is no history of union animus on the part of the
company nor any contemporaneous statement by Tolleson
at the exit interview that the layoff was causally connected
with the prior union activities of Norma Palmer. Therefore,
I shall recommend that this allegation of the complaint be
dismissed.
the day people blaming the night people, and vice-versa, and that his only
consideration in laying off Palmer was lack of work. Accordingly, I have
given such testimony by the day shift supervisors little, if any, weight as
respects the reason for the layoff
STANDARD AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS 955
IV. THE EFFECT OF 1HE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent, as set forth above,
occurring in connection with the operations of Respon-
dent, described above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow
thereof.
V. THE RFMEDY
Having found that the Company has engaged in and is
engaging in certain unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce, I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action in order to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon
the entire record in the case, I make the following:
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 26, in
wasting, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this
Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.
IT IS- ALSO ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed
insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically
found.
11 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings , conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
Section 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and
become its findings , conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall
be deemed waived for all purposes.
12 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By threatening the spouses of employees concerning
the union activities of employees, the Company has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The Company has not engaged in unfair labor
practices in any other respect alleged in the complaint.
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 i i
Respondent, Standard Automotive Components, a
Division of Missouri Research Laboratories, Inc., its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening the spouses of employees concerning the
union activities of employees.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its Hope, Arkansas, facility, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 12 Copies of said
notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 26, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of Respondent, shall be posted immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it in conspicu-.
ous places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board having found, after a
trial, that we violated federal law in certain respects, we
hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT threaten the spouses of employees
concerning the union activities of our employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise
of the right to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW), Local 1091, or any other
labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all such activities.
STANDARD AUTOMOTIVE
COMPONENTS, A DIVISION
OF MISSOURI RESEARCH
LABORATORIES, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office,
Clifford Davis Federal Building, Room 746, 167 North
Main Street, Memphis, Tennessee 38103, Telephone
901-534-3161.