Sumter Plywood Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 21, 1974

208 N.L.R.B. 563 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

SUMTER PLYWOOD CORPORATION 563
Sumter Plywood Corporation and UBC, Southern
Council of Industrial Workers, United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO,
CLC. Cases 10-CA-9937, 10-CA-10041, and
10-CA-10070
January 21, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
On August 31, 1973, Administrative Law Judge
John M. Dyer issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the 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
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, as modified herein.
1. We agree with the Administrative Law Judge's
findings that certain acts and conduct of Respondent
were violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. We also agree with the Administrative Law
Judge's finding that Respondent discharged employ-
ees Virginia Ingram, Barbara Ward, and Mary Ezell
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3). Crucial to this
finding was the Administrative Law Judge's credibil-
ity resolution that Respondent's representatives Sam
Massengill and Carrel Black agreed to a relaxation of
the Coke rule during the meeting of March 6, 1973.
The record supports this finding, and we will not
disturb it.
3. We cannot agree with the Administrative Law
Judge that the General Counsel established that
employee Susie Steele was discharged in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
We find merit in Respondent's contention that,
under Rubin Brothers Footwear, Inc., 99 NLRB 610,
the General Counsel had the burden of proving that
Steele did not engage in the misconduct alleged to
have caused her discharge.
We conclude that it was not established that two
incidents of alleged misconduct by Steele that
occurred outside the plant were of no concern to
Respondent. While it is true that Steele was allowed
I We are satisfied on the basis of the entire record that Respondent's
contention that the Administrative Law Judge was biased and prejudiced is
without merit
The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge It is the Board's established policy not to
to return to work when the strike ended, Massengill's
uncontradicted testimony indicates that Respondent
had not had sufficient opportunity to evaluate the
reports about Steele's misconduct.
In regard to the incident that took place within the
plant, Respondent obtained a statement signed by
eight employees indicating that Steele had precipitat-
ed the argument. Under these circumstances, we
conclude that Respondent adduced sufficient eviden-
ce to demonstrate it had a good-faith belief that
Steele had engaged in misconduct warranting her
discharge. Therefore, the General Counsel became
obligated to prove that Steele engaged in no
misconduct.
However, Steele's testimony indicates that threats
were exchanged by Steele and Pearl Ward. Also, the
testimony of General Counsel's supporting witness
Coates indicates that it was Ward who was backing
away while Steele, with clenched fists, was making
threats. In light of this and even allowing for the
Administrative Law Judge's credibility resolutions in
favor of Steele and Coates, we find that the General
Counsel did not sustain his burden of proving that
Steele engaged in no misconduct. Accordingly, we do
not find that Steele was discharged for discriminato-
ry reasons, and we shall dismiss the complaint as to
her.
AMENDED CONCLUSION OF LAW
Substitute the following for the Administrative
Law Judge's Conclusion of Law 3:
"3. By discriminatorily terminating Virginia In-
gram, Barbara Ward, and Mary Ezell on March 8
and not thereafter reinstating them to their positions
because of their actual and suspected union sympa-
thies and activities and their concerted activities,
Respondent engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act."
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, Sumter Plywood
Corporation, Livingston, Alabama, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
overrule an Administrative Law Judge 's resolutions with respect to
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc, 91 NLRB 544. enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3, 1951). We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings
208 NLRB No. 87
564 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
set forth in the said recommended Order, as so
modified:
1. Delete from subparagraphs 2(a) and (b) the
name of Susie Steele.
2. Substitute the attached notice for the Adminis-
trative Law Judge's notice.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a trial in which the Company, the Union, and
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board participated and offered evidence, the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board found that we violated the
law and ordered us to post this notice, and we intend
to carry out the Order of the Board and abide by the
following:
WE WILL NOT ask our employees about their
union sympathies, activities, desires, or member-
ship.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that it
would be useless for them to have a union or that
we would not allow a union in the plant.
WE WILL offer Virginia Ingram, Barbara Ward,
and Mary Ezell full reinstatement to their former
jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substan-
tially equivalent positions, together with all of
their rights and any backpay due them.
WE WILL NOT discharge, lay off, or refuse to
hire or rehire any employee in order to try to
discourage our employees from being or becom-
ing members of UBC, Southern Council of
Industrial Workers, United Brotherhood of Car-
penters and Joiners of America. AFL-CIO, CLC.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their rights to self-organization,
to form labor organizations, to join or assist UBC,
Southern Council of Industrial Workers, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Ameri-
ca, AFL-CIO, CLC, to bargain collectively with
representatives of their own choosing, or to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from any or all such
activities.
All our employees are free to become or remain
union members.
SUMTER PLYWOOD
CORPORATION
(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 compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, Peachtree Building, Room 701, 730
Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30308,
Telephone 404-526-5760.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN M. DYER, Administrative Law Judge: The UBC,
Southern Council of Industrial Workers, United Brother-
hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO,
CLC, herein called the Union or Charging Party, filed
charge 10-CA-9937 on January 11, 1973,1 and an
amended charge on January 24 alleging that Sumter
Plywood Corporation, herein called Respondent or the
Company. violated Section 8(a)(1) by various acts and
conduct. The Union filed charge 10-CA-10041 on March
15, and charge 10-CA-10070 on April 2 and amended the
latter charge on April 7. These two charges allege that
Respondent discharged certain of its employees in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(3) and (1).
The Regional Director for Region 10 issued a complaint
in the first case on February 16 asserting that Respondent
had violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by various acts.
Respondent filed its answer on February 26, admitting the
service and commerce allegations but denying that it had
violated the Act in any way. The hearing in Case
10-CA-9937 was postponed and the Regional Director for
Region 10 issued an order consolidating cases, complaint
and notice of hearing on April 27. This document which
combined the three above cases added to the allegations
that Virginia Ingram, Barbara Ward, and Mary Ezell were
discharged on March 8, and Susie Spence Steele was
discharged on March 14, in violation of Section 8(aX3) and
(1) of the Act. Respondent filed its answer on May 2, again
admitting the service and jurisdictional allegations and that
the four individuals were fired on the dates alleged but
denied that their discharges violated the Act.
All parties were afforded full opportunity to appear, to
examine, and cross-examine the witnesses, who were
sequestered, and to argue orally at the hearing held on
May 22 through May 25 in Livingston, Alabama. Respon-
dent has filed a brief which has been carefully considered.
In considering a number of the 8(a)(1) allegations in this
case I am mindful of the fact that the Company did not
I Unless otherwise stated all events herein occurred during 1973.
SUMTER PLYWOOD CORPORATION
produce supervisors Cameron Barber and Charles Ivey. It
was stipulated that Ivey left the Company 's employ on
November 17, 1972, and that Cameron Barber left or was
discharged on April 15, 1973. It was further admitted or
stipulated that Barber and Ivey had supervisory status at
the relevant times of alleged 8(a)(1) conduct . Respondent
offered no explanation as to why the two men were not
produced to testify in the instant proceeding . Therefore,
where the testimony of 8(a)( 1) conduct alleged to have
been made by Barber or Ivey is, in itself , credible, I will
find that such violation occurred . Some items of alleged
8(a)(1) misconduct appear to have rational explanations
which I have credited and in such instances I have found
that the Act was not violated.
In regard to the 8 (a)(3) and 8 (a)(1) allegations of
discharge of the four individuals , the basic question is
whether Respondent 's animus towards the Union was such
that it sought to kill a budding union organization in its
plant by seizing on a pretext to eliminate known prominent
union sympathizers and/or discharged them for their part
in concerted activities . Respondent contends that it
discharged three of these individuals because they know-
ingly and deliberately violated established company rules,
and discharged the fourth , Susie Steele because she had
threatened another employee 's life in the plant . In regard
to Steele , General Counsel 's theory basically is that the
Company did not investigate the facts and that the facts
show that Steele was not an agressor but was a threatened
employee and that her discharge by Respondent is a
further effort by Respondent to rid itself of a union
adherent and one who had engaged in the concerted
activity of a strike.
I have found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) by the discharge of each of the four individuals and
will recommend an appropriate order.
On the entire record in this case , including my evaluation
of the reliability of the witnesses based on the evidence
received , my observation of their demeanor , and the nature
and manner in which responses were made , I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT AND THE
LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent is a corporation engaged in the manufacture
of plywood and lumber products with an office and place
of business in Livingston , Alabama . During the past year,
Respondent sold and shipped finished products valued in
excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside the
State of Alabama.
Respondent admits and I find that it is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
Respondent admits and I find that the Union herein is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
11. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
565
A. Background and Undisputed Facts'
Respondent 's plant , from the diagram in evidence as
Respondent 's Exhibit 1 , appears to be about 500 feet long
by about 300 feet wide . The Company started in operation
in the fall of 1971. Basically the Company receives green
logs, soaks them , and then peels the veneer off, drying the
veneer and with presses and glue machines making veneer
panels. Chips of plywood or broken pieces are gathered
and either used or shipped to another location . Most of the
action in this case , insofar as the discharges are concerned,
took place in and around the dryer tables where pieces of
veneer are ejected from the two dryers onto the two drying
tables. The drying tables are supposed to have four women
who catch the veneer as it comes out onto the table, grade
it, and place it in an appropriate pile. The dryers and the
drying tables are located at the end of the plant . There are
two restrooms available for the employees , the closest
being some 200 to 250 feet from the dryer tables . The other
restrooms are located on the other side of the lunchroom,
approximately 350 feet from the dryer tables. On the
second floor above the lunchroom are the foremen 's offices
which have an outside stairway leading to them from the
ground floor.
There have been some changes in the supervisory
hierachy since the plant started . Basically the plant is split
into the green end and the drying end with a supervisor in
each area . The plant was running on a three -shift basis at
the times relevant to the 8 (a)(3) and ( 1) actions in this case,
with each shift having a foreman for either the green end or
the dryer end . Sam Massingill is the personnel manager
and has been from the inception of the plant . Carrell Black
at one time had been the plant superintendent, and during
the relevant period was promoted to the position of
production manager . Earl Bollinger had been a green end
foreman and was promoted to superintendent . Cameron
Barber was a foreman on the dryer end on the second shift
and Charles Ivey was a foreman on the same shift.
Until at least April 1973 the Company had no written
posted rules of any sort . There were some rules which were
given out by the foreman or in some cases by the personnel
manager and Respondent had a system of writing up
individual warnings for infractions of its rules. In the
beginning the employees had been allowed to eat or drink
cokes at their work stations and could secure food and
drink in the lunchroom . Around October 1972 a new rule
was announced in the safety meetings held by personnel
manager Sam Massingill . Massingill told those employees
who were in the meeting held for the second shift
employees at the dryer end that they would no longer be
allowed to have food and drinks at their machines . He gave
as the reason for this restriction that stringent rules were
being promoted by the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration stating that their rules prevented employ-
ees from eating or drinking at their machines . Although
Massingill and some other company supervisors told the
employees that these were rules being enforced by the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration Act, they
knew that there really were no such rules from OSHA.
When this rule was put into effect the employees were
566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
still allowed to get some relief from their machines by
having one of the sweepers take over their spot at the dryer
table while they went for a coke or to go to the restroom.
The consensus of testimony appears to be that where a
foreman was around employees were supposed to notify
the foreman where they were going but if none was present
and they could get someone to take their place, they could
leave. The consensus of testimony further indicates that the
rule about notifying foremen was more honored in the
breach than in the observance.
Sometime around February while Virginia Ingram was-
on leave from her job for an operation, second shift dryer
end foreman Cameron Barber told those on his shift that
they could not get relief any longer if they had to go to the
restroom, that those left at the dryer table wouldjust have
to keep up until the person got back. He also told them
that they would not be allowed to drink cokes at any time
except during the 20-minute lunch period.
According to Virginia Ingram, whose testimony in this
regard is undenied, a union representative came to her
house sometime around July 1972 and talked to her about
the Union and she attended some union meetings which
began around August 1972. The meetings, for the most
part were held at Arthur Lee Gaines' cafe in Bellamy,
Alabama, some 14 miles from Livingston. Mrs. Ingram
played a part in organizing the union meetings and on at
least one occasion prepared an announcement to be read
over a local Livingston radio station, WYLS. The an-
nouncement said, "there will be a party for the employees
of Sumter Plywood held at Arthur Lee Gaines' cafe,
Bellamy, Ala. Sunday, August 27, 5:30 p.m. There will be
free refreshments. Sponsored by Virginia Ingram, Bella-
my."
According to testimony this announcement was played
over a local radio station on the bulletin board program
which is a public service announcement "swap shop" type
on the radio every day. During the meetings in August and
by visits to employees' homes, etc., union authorization
cards were solicited from a number of employees and on
September 12, 1972, the Union filed a petition with the
National Labor Relations Board, designated Case
10-RC-9346. The petition stated on its face that the Union
had requested recognition from Respondent on September
6 but had received no reply. It was stipulated by the parties
that a copy of the R petition was received by Respondent
within a week of September 12. Virginia Ingram was the
union observer at the election held by the Board at the
Company on November 15, 1972. The Union won that
election but Respondent filed objections to the election
and the Union was finally certified by the Board on May
16. The Union continued to hold meetings at Gaines' Cafe
in Bellamy on the first Sundays of the month and such
other meetings as were called.
B. The 8(a)(1) Violations
Around September 28, foreman Cameron Barber told
Virginia Ingram he wanted to see her in his office about a
personal matter and took her upstairs to the foreman's
office. Barber told her he wanted to talk about the Union,
that he had been in a union job elsewhere and did not want
to be involved in the Union and asked why she wanted it.
She told him she wanted a union for better insurance,
wages, and hours. Barber took out a little book or pad and
showed her some rates at another plant again stating that
he did not want the Union in this plant. He asked whether
the girls would approve of the Company furnishing them
with gloves and she said speaking for herself it would be
nice. He asked whether he had treated the employees so
badly saying he thought he had been good to them and
asked what he had done to make them want a union. She
told him that he was nice to them at times but at other
times he was just as mean as he could be.
She testified that the conversation with Barber lasted
approximately 1 hour. Virginia Ingram testified that there
had been some talk among the employees in the plant
about the possibility of the Company furnishing gloves and
she stated that it was possible that some of the employees
could have mentioned this to Cameron Barber or that she
might have done so.
Company testimony indicated that a salesman for a
particular type of glove left some six or eight pairs of gloves
at the Company stating that if the employees liked them
they should place an order at a local store. The Company
gave these sample gloves to the employees working at the
dryer tables and that was the end of the gloves from
Respondent.
From Ingram's testimony it does not appear that an offer
of gloves was made as a promise of benefit to the
employees for refraining from union activities nor was the
giving out of gloves following the union election victory a
"payoff" for refraining from union activity. I therefore
would dismiss such allegations of the complaint.
Virginia Ingram stated that she was told by others that in
regard to the "party announcement" for August 27 which
was read over the radio, that her name was announced as
the sponsor for the party. No one from the Company ever
made any mention of this announcement to her.
There was testimony by Mr. Ezell, a partner of the radio
station, WYLS, that Sam Massingill, Respondent's person-
nel manager, called him on the telephone asking if there
had been any announcements over the radio concerning
meetings of the Company's employees. Mr. Ezell said that
he did not know but would check the bulletin board
announcements. He found it, called Massingill and read it
to him. Massingill asked, or Ezell volunteered, to send
Massingill a copy of the announcement and did so.
Massingill testified that one of the company vice
presidents had heard the radio announcement and asked
Massingill to find out what the party was about, in that the
announcement sounded like the Company was sponsoring
a party. Massingill called the radio station and corroborat-
ed the testimony of Ezell in that he had the announcement
read to him and received a copy of it thereafter.
The complaint alleges that this request of Massingill's
constitutes surveillance of employees' union activities and
violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Virginia Ingram had
stated that the announcement was worded as a party rather
than as a union meeting because the employees were
desirous of keeping their activities hidden from the
Company. In the circumstances here, including the
wording of the announcement, the fact that Virginia
Ingram 's name was read over the radio station with the
SUMTER PLYWOOD CORPORATION 567
announcement , and the request of Massingill to find out
what the party was about , I cannot find that his actions in
requesting or securing the information amounts to surveil-
lance in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and I
would , therefore , dismiss this allegation of the complaint.
As noted previously , Barber was not called by the
Company and did not appear as a witness . Virginia Ingram
impressed me as a witness who sincerely tried to tell the
truth without stretching matters and I find that she was in
the main a good credible witness. I credit her testimony as
to her interrogation by Cameron Barber and find that
thereby Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
interrogating her as to her union membership , activity, and
desires.
Virginia Ingram testified that on the day of the election,
November 15, 1972, while she was waiting for the other
observers to arrive , Production Manager Carrel Black
came over to her and started talking about the Union and
asked why the employees wanted a union . She responded
that they wanted better wages and better insurance. He
asked her about the amounts of money that the Union was
paying to the union organizers who were attempting to
organize the plant . She responded that if they compared
their salaries with his she did not see anything wrong with
it.
Carrel Black testified that he could not remember the full
discussion but was talking to her "about the Union and
what could they do for you. And I explained to her how
my daddy got messed up with this union once before and I
couldn ' t see that it would benefit anybody." He stated that
he did not remember asking if she was for the Union, but
knew she was since she had acted as the union observer
earlier that morning and he had been in a conference the
previous day when she was present and it was announced
that she would be the union observer . He states the
conversation with her lasted some 5 or 10 minutes.
In essence , Carrel Black's testimony substantiates that of
Virginia Ingram in that he stated he discussed with her
what the Union could do for her. She testified that he
asked what they wanted from a union and what a union
could do for them . I find that Black 's interrogation of
Virginia Ingram regarding her union desires and his
statements which were an effort to discourage her
participation in the Union violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
Barbara Ward testified that in late September or early
October 1972 she went to the office to get a sliver taken out
of her hand by foreman Barber . While in the office he
asked why they wanted a union and was telling her about
the disadvantages of the union and that money would be
taken out of their paychecks. He showed her a booklet
from another plant paying different wages, holidays, etc.,
saying that the union only had a I-day advantage on
holidays. Barber further told her that at one time he had
been in a union plant and the union people were nothing
but crooks , that all they wanted to do was to get money out
of the employees ' pay. He stated that there had been some
grievances filed against him at the other plant but he
always had something up his sleeve anytime a grievance
came in against him and that he would never leave the
plant with a grievance against him, that he always had a
way of getting out of it.
While in the office talking , foreman Ivey came in and
asked her why they wanted a union stating that the union
representatives were making a lot of money and would get
a lot more out of it if they got the plant organized. Ivey
also said that they were making more money than some of
the other plants in the area and that it would be stupid for
them to get into the union , that a lot of people in the plant
did not want it. She told Ivey that the people had a right to
vote to see whether they wanted it or not , that she was 100
percent behind the Union . Barber stated that the Union's
saying they would get more money was not going to do the
people any good , that he was getting paid his money and
the Company was not going to give out any more than they
wanted to , so it would not do them any good to get the
Union , that there would never be a union in that plant.
She testified that she was in the office for over an hour
and that a good bit of the conversation during that time
was taken up with Barber and Ivey talking and questioning
her about the Union.
Barbara Ward appeared to make a sincere effort to recall
the events and answered candidly . I found her to be a
credible witness on the whole. There is nothing implausible
in her testimony concerning her interrogation by Barber
and Ivey and her testimony , that of Ingram and of Robert
Thomas below show that Barber and Ivey were hostile to
the union and seeking to dissuade employees from it. I
conclude that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act by Cameron Barber's interrogation of Barbara Ward,
his warning her that having a union would do the
employees no good and that the Company would pay them
what it wanted and that if they did get a union , filing
grievances against him would be to no avail because he
would have some way to get out of them . I further find that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by foreman
Ivey's interrogation of Barbara Ward as to why she and
other employees wanted a union in the plant.
Robert Thomas , who was employed by Respondent
between January and November 1972, testified that about
3 weeks before the election foreman Ivey asked him if the
Union was organizing at the time Thomas worked at
American Can Company . He replied that it was , but that
when the Union finally got in he was not working there
anymore . He asked Ivey why he wanted to know about
this. Ivey replied that he felt that Thomas might have been
one of those who was trying to get the Union organized at
this plant and then asked what Thomas was going to do,
whether he was going to vote for the Union or the
Company . Thomas replied that he was "with ya'll."
Again there being no contradictory testimony offered by
Respondent and with no explanation as to why Ivey was
not produced to testify and Thomas ' testimony appearing
to be credible, I credit it and find that Respondent, by its
foreman , Charles Ivey , violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
by interrogating Robert Thomas as to his union activities,
thoughts , and desires.
Thomas testified that on one occasion after he had
passed out some union authorization cards foreman Ivey
approached him and said something to the effect that he
568 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
had not known Thomas was active for the Union. The
testimony is not precise.
General Counsel alleges this conversation to be the
creation of an impression of surveillance of the employees'
union activities and that Respondent knew which employ-
ees were active on behalf of the Union. Thomas' testimony
was not that exact. I am unable from the testimony in the
record to find that Ivey's remarks to Thomas constituted
an impression of surveillance of the employees' union
activities and, accordingly, I would dismiss that allegation
of the complaint.
C. The 8(a)(3)-Concerted Activity Violations
John Lee Barnes , the president of the Local Union, was a
gray-haired man in his 60's who seemed to be a bit
forgetful at times but was sure that the women were being
discriminated against in the matter of their not having
cokes at their jobs.
At the union meeting held on the first Sunday of March
(March 4), there was a discussion about the transfer of
Clifton Collier from an oiler job to a lower paying job and
the placing of a white employee in Collier's position.
Among other topics discussed was the complaint that the
women at the dryer tables were not being allowed to get
cokes except during the 20-minute lunch break. The
participants in the union meeting decided to elect a
grievance committee to see if they could confer with the
Company concerning these matters. Appointed as commit-
tee members were John Lee Barnes, Virginia Ingram,
Barbara Ward, and Roy Campbell. Barnes stated he would
make the arrangements and on either Monday or Tuesday
spoke to Personnel Manager Massingill asking for a
meeting to discuss some problems. Massingill agreed and a
meeting was arranged for the following morning. The four
members of the committee agreed to assemble outside the
plant but Campbell did not appear. Mary Ezell who had
driven Barnes to the plant was drafted by the three
members of the committee to become a committee member
and went into the plant with them. At the time the plant
was shut down due to a power problem and was not
supposed to start up until later that morning. Superintend-
ent Black met the group and conducted them to his office
and Massingill joined them.
There was a great deal of testimony concerning the
discussions which took place in the office that morning.
After examining all of the testimony, what follows is a
synthesis of that conversation reconciling divergent parts
where possible and crediting other parts where reconcilia-
tion is not possible.
The meeting began with John Lee Barnes stating that
they wanted to discuss the question of Clifton Collier, that
his people had been down too long to take a backward step
at this point. He was interrupted by Personnel Manager
Massingill who stated that if Barnes meant that the
Company was following a policy of racial discrimination
that was not true. He said the Company had a policy of no
racial discrimination and that the only two foremen who
were promoted from the ranks had both been black.
Massingill also stated that the blacks in the plant held the
highest paying jobs there. Massingill was then asked why
Collier had been removed from his job, given a lower paid
job and been replaced by a white employee. Massingill and
Black stated that the Company had tried to train Collier to
do the work but that Collier improperly oiled some of the
machines and that two or three machines had broken down
because of his improper oiling. They continued to try to
train him but found they could not do so and therefore he
was placed on a different job. To the question of why
Collier had been replaced by a white man, Black said that
the decision to promote Joe Bates into his job had nothing
to do with his being white, but rather he was placed there
because he had previous experience as an oiler with
another company.
Virginia Ingram stated that she was not supposed to be
put back on her regular job because of medical restrictions,
having just gotten out of the hospital and she was supposed
to be on light work. Massingill said he had checked with
her doctor as to what kind of work she was to perform and
the doctor said the work she was performing was all right
as long as it was not too heavy or too much and that in
consultation with the foreman they had determined to let
her work on the table for 2 hours and then relieve her for
sweeping duties for the next 2 hours.
A question was asked regarding the discharge of one
man when two had engaged in a dispute in the plant. Black
or Massingill stated that one man actually hit the other and
had been discharged. It was stated that the one who had
been hit had been aggravating the second man by hitting
him with a board although it could have been accidental.
One of the committee members asked why Charlie Miller
had been fired and the Company explained that he had
been fired for excessive unexcused absences, that he was
always absent on Mondays. Barbara Ward complained
about having to bring a doctor's excuse every time she was
out for minor physical problems. The Company stated it
was their policy to be sure that the employee was ready to
come back to work by insisting on a doctor's excuse stating
that the employee was physically ready and available for
work. The Company alluded to this having something to
do with their insurance.
Barbara Ward said she did not like the present coke
policy in that they could not drink cokes on the job and
that it was hot out there. It was pointed out that there were
water fountains around. She said that the water tasted bad
and it made her sick and the only thing that she could
drink was cokes. Black suggested that if she needed to
drink cokes she should bring a thermos bottle of cokes and
keep it at her work station. Ward stated that it was unfair
for foremen to take coke breaks in the office and the
employees were not allowed coke breaks. She said when
Massingill put in the original rule but they could not have
cokes out on the job, that when the job permitted they
could take a short break and go to the lunchroom and
drink a coke there, but later Cameron Barber changed the
rule and said the girls at the dryer tables could not dank
cokes except at lunch time. She said this was not fair when
others were taking coke breaks. She also said it did not
seem right to have to ask a foreman every time she wanted
to go to the bathroom, that the foreman was not there all
the time since at times they were in the office and
sometimes were out in the yard. They also complained that
Barber had recently told them they could not be relieved
SUMTER PLYWOOD CORPORATION 569
by a sweeper in order to go to the bathroom which meant
that the work could pile up. Ward said she had been given
a warning the previous week about going to get a coke.
Black said the warning slip was not for just getting a coke
but for walking off the job without telling the foreman
where she was going. The committee again pointed out that
a foreman might not be around when someone needed to
go to the bathroom and the present system was not fair.
Ward said that if she was going to get a warning every time
she wanted a coke they were going to have to get a lot of
warning slips. Black said he knew of no reason for them
having to report to a foreman if they wanted to go to the
restroom but if there was a foreman in the area it would
not do any harm to tell the foreman because they could not
get in trouble by telling him. Black said an employee could
be relieved any time they needed to go to the bathroom
and Massingill added that he saw no reason why the girls
could not be relieved by a sweeper in order to go to the
bathroom.
Returning to the subject of cokes either Black or
Massingill stated that Occupational Safety and Health
Rules provide that there should not be any litter or roaches
or rats in the area where the employees work and that the
litter problem in the plant had gotten so bad because of
employee neglect that it attracted rodents and bugs and
made the work area hazardous. Ward or Ingram said that
if they could have permission to drink cokes back there (at
the dryer tables) the employees could certainly see to it
that the paper cups were put in the trash barrel. Black or
Massingill said the employees had not been putting litter in
the trash barrel although they had been warned about it.
Committee members said there was only one trash barrel
back there and they needed more in order to keep the place
clean and that nobody ever came by to empty the trash
barrel. Either Massingill or Black said that whenever
someone with a forklift came by the employees could
direct him to take the trash barrel up front and empty it
and they would look into getting a second trash barrel.
Either Massingill or Black said the employees did not need
cokes until it got hot. Committee members responded that
it was already hot back there and they needed the cokes
now and that if they got permission to dunk cokes, they
would see that the place was kept clean. Massingill said
that one person could leave the table and get cokes for
everybody and if they kept the place cleaned up and did
not throw cups on the floor but put them in the litter barrel
he felt it would be all right. Black agreed. The meeting
concluded with Johnny Barnes stating that he hoped that
no one would get fired because of this discussion with
management . Both Massingill and Black assured the four
employees there would be no repercussions from the
meeting.
I have credited the employees' version of the relaxation
of the coke rule over Black and Massingill's. In the
Company's cross-examination of the witnesses , it sought to
bring out that the Company had stringent rules about
employees leaving their jobs and there was some evidence
that a very few employees had been warned or given
warning slips by supervisors for leaving jobs unattended.
An analysis of the warning slips introduced into evidence
shows that for the preceding 9 months until the time of
this discussion with management , for the entire 3-shift
operations there were three written warnings for a person
walking off the job and going to the lunchroom, three
warnings for walking off the job and going to the
lunchroom when the person had been told to do something
else, and three warnings for leaving the job without being
relieved This latter category does not appear to be
comparable because at the time of the meeting with
management none of the female employees at the dryer
tables were getting relief . These warning slips were not
explicit and could apply to not getting relief at shift change
time or at other times . The other warnings put in evidence
by management either follow the date of the discharges in
this case or are not really comparable to any of the
activities complained of here . In addition to the above is
the March 2 warning to Ward for:
You walked off of yourjob to visit other people at there
work stations. You were seen talking to Dorothy
Watson at 5:25 p.m. and earlier with Wilson Washing-
ton.
and the February 3 warning to Ezell; "Your walking off of
your job at 5:15 p.m." Ezell stated that she signed the
warning after being told by Barber that it was for reporting
late and she said she did not read it. The warning to Ezell
as shown above was dated on another date than that
testified to.
Johnny Barnes testified that the employees on the "green
chain" drank cokes and take breaks particularly when the
"green chain" broke down, which was every so often. After
some discussions about how rigid the rules were , Massingill
testified that in this meeting Black said it was not a
requirement to have to notify the foreman if someone has
to go to the bathroom. They did state that it was best to do
so if a foreman was available so the foreman would know
where a person was and not have to wonder whether they
had gotten hurt, sick, or gone home. The company
representatives testified that if there was a problem of
bringing cokes into the plant area they would look into it,
that maybe when hot weather came they could relax the
rule if they could be convinced that the litter could be kept
off the plant floor. Asked what it would take to convince
them the litter could be kept off the plant floor other than
by allowing the employees to try it out, management
representatives digressed and then later tried to explain it
by saying that they could tell that if the employees kept the
lunchroom picked up . No mention whatsoever was made
by either the employees or the management representatives
that such a statement was made during this meeting. If that
was to be the test then surely it would have been so stated.
This explanation appears clearly to be an afterthought in
an attempt to justify Respondent 's version of the event.
The clearly obvious way to tell if the employees were going
to keep the plant area free of litter would be to try it out, if
not plantwide , then in one particular area . This logical
extension of the remarks follows an admitted talk about
securing additional garbage cans for that area and having
the garbage cans emptied by a forklift driver.
Respondent goes to great lengths in its testimony and in
its cross-examination in an attempt to establish that this
was a rule change which should only have been announced
570 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by a supervisor or foreman to all employees and that the
committee members going back to their jobs and telling
other employees of the rule change was an assumption of
the Company 's prerogatives and was intended as harass-
ment of the Company by these employees.
This position is rather "far-fetched" when it is remem-
bered that this was a group of employees unsophisticated
and untutored in labor relations , who were acting on
behalf of the local union and the employees in meeting
with the production manager and the personnel manager
of the plant , (two of the highest officials present at the
Company) to discuss employee problems . Massingill, who
had announced to the employees the original coke rule,
was in this instance with Superintendent Black announcing
a relaxation of the rule for these employees at least in that
particular section of the plant . Barnes clearly felt from his
testimony that the rule was not rigidly enforced in the
other plant areas, stating that there was discrimination
against the women since he , among others , was drinking
cokes down at the "green chain" end.
Further support for this conclusion comes from the fact
that apparently both Black and Massingill were surprised
that employees were not being given relief by the sweepers
when they had to go to the bathroom. Despite Respon-
dent's contention that it was necessary to have four
employees pulling veneer off the round tables at all times
there was an acknowledgment that the Company had
changed the practice and had three employees pulling
veneer and one employee grading it . The employees
complained that it was tough to keep up and became
impossible when it was necessary for one to leave and they
had no relief . Management told them that three pulling
and one grading was only a temporary thing which would
probably be changed.
I have concluded that the committee members were
under the impression when they left this meeting that the
coke rule had been relaxed , provided that the employees
kept the work area cleaned up and allowed no litter on the
floor . If management had not intended such a result
neither Black nor Massingill made it clear to these
employees . Representing the Union and the employees
they felt that a harsh rule had been relaxed by those with
authority to do so. They did not consider there to be a
necessity for someone to make a formal announcement,
but gave the good news to their fellow employees when
they reported to work . Respondent's attempt to portray
their actions described below as deliberate violations of
company (unwritten ) rules and as an attempt to harass
management is ludicrous.
The four committee members worked on the second shift
and when the three ladies reported that afternoon they told
their companions at the two dryer tables that the coke rule
had been relaxed and that they could send one girl up to
get cokes for the group and bring them back to the table.
Virginia Ingram worked on dryer table no. 1 and Barbara
Ward and Mary Ezell worked on dryer table no. 2. After
being at work between a half hour and an hour , Ward went
and got cokes for the girls at table no. 2. On the way back
one of the cokes spilled and Mary Ezell did not get one.
Fifteen minutes to a half hour later Virginia Ingram went
to get cokes for those at table no . I and a coke for Ezell.
On the way back from the lunchroom she was stopped by
foreman Cameron Barber . Ezell, in the meantime, had
gotten a splinter in her hand and was going towards the
foreman 's office to get it removed . Barber told Ingram that
she could not bring cokes into the plant . She told him that
the union committee had a meeting with Massingill and
Black that morning and Massingill and Black had given
them permission to drink cokes at their work stations.
Barber said to go ahead and drink those and not to bring
back any more . Ezell testified that after getting the splinter
in her finger, she had gone to see Bollinger who told her to
see Cameron Barber about it. After waiting for Barber for
a few minutes they started towards the office and Barber
asked Ezell "Mary, how come you'all didn 't come to me
with your , meeting, with your problem?" She told him that
it was not concerning him then , that his name did not come
up in it . He said that when he heard about it , it made him
damn mad . When they came up to Virginia Ingram , Barber
questioned Ingram about the cokes and she told him
Massingill and Black had given them permission to have
them in the plant . Barber said that Black and Massingill
did not run the damn job , that he did . Barber told her to go
ahead with them but make sure those cokes were the last
ones they drank in there . Ezell got her coke and went by
the lunchroom and drank it, threw the cup in the garbage
can and went upstairs where Barber washed her hand off
and put a bandage on it . While in the office Barber told
Ezell that Carrel Black and Massingill always got the
employees off of their backs and put them on to his.
When Ezell left the office she went back to her table and
told Virginia Ingram that Barber had complained to her
about not taking the problem to him and that it made him
damn mad . At that time dryer no . I was broken down and
Virginia Ingram was sweeping the area.
Earl Bollinger, who was a nervous and not impressive
witness, testified that while in the plant, foreman Barber
approached him and asked if Sam Massingill could run the
plant and he said no , not as far as he knew . Barber said
that Virginia Ingram had gone to the lunchroom and
gotten cokes and was taking them to the work area when
he asked her about it . Barber related that Ingram said
Black and Massingill in a meeting that morning had given
them permission to have cokes at the job . Bollinger said
Black and Massingill had told him of a meeting with
employees and asked Barber to bring Ingram to his office.
Some 10 to 15 minutes after Ezell had returned to her job
Cameron Barber told Ingram , Ward , and Ezell he wanted
them in the office and had other employees take their
places. Respondent's counsel sought to establish that only
Ingram had been called to the office and that Ezell and
Ward took it upon themselves to go there . However, their
testimony is clear that they were called to the office and
there is no countervailing testimony . When they got to
Bollinger's office , Bollinger asked Barber what the problem
was and Barber said he wanted Bollinger to tell the
employees that they could not break any rules, that they
had gone and gotten cokes and had drunk them. Bollinger
then told Ward and Ezell to leave , that he was going to talk
to Ingram . Barbara Ward said that if it was about the
cokes, they were in on it too . Bollinger repeated that he just
SUMTER PLYWOOD CORPORATION 571
wanted to talk to Ingram and they were sent back to their
jobs.
Ingram testified Bollinger asked what was wrong and she
replied that Massingill and Black had said that they could
drink cokes on the job at the meeting a group of employees
had with them that morning . Bollinger said that Black and
Massingill had not said that . She repeated that they had
given such permission . Bollinger told Ingram that having
cokes in the plant was a violation of the Occupational
Safety and Health rules, knowing that such was not true.
After some further discussion Bollinger told her to go
home and come back in the morning . She told him she did
not want to go without having talked to Massingill or
Black first because they were the ones who had given them
permission to drink cokes in the plant . She asked
permission to call them . Bollinger started to call them and
said no, he was not going to do so . Again she repeated that
she wanted to talk to them before she left the plant. He
made a telephone call and talked to either Massingill or
Black . Bollinger told her that they had said they had not
given permission for cokes and for her to go home and
come back the next day . She was refused permission to talk
to either Black or Massingill on the telephone. Bollinger
told Cameron to go get her purse and take her out. She said
that she would pick up her own things , that no one was
going to pick them up for her. Barber went with her and
did not give her a chance to talk to anybody . She went
back down to the plant and picked up her sweater and
purse and was escorted out of the plant by Barber.
Bollinger testified that when he sent her home he had no
intention of discharging her.
There was no testimony that Ingram had told any of the
employees that she would return the following day. Ward,
Ezell, and some of the others talked in the lunchroom and
decided that if Ingram did not return to work by 8:30 p.m.,
which would have given her enough time to go home and
return to the plant , they would ask Cameron Barber what
her status was. Ward was also concerned because she rode
with Ingram . At 8:30 dryer no. I was still shut down and
one of the glue pressers and another machine in the dryer
end of the plant were shut down , and the flow of materials
on table 2 had nearly stopped . Ingram left dryer table 2
and went towards Cameron Barber who was at a press.
Mattie Lake , Foster, and some of the employees followed
Barbara Ward . She and Barber met near the glue
machines . Ward asked Barber to close down dryer no. 2
for 5 or 10 minutes , that they wanted to talk to him about
Ingram . He asked why they wanted to close the dryer
down and she said so she could talk to him about Ingram.
Barber said he was not going to close down the dryer and
would talk to them at II o'clock when the shift closed.
Ward said , "no, we want to talk to you now because we
might not get a chance to see you at I I." Barber said he
had had enough hell that day and did not have time to fool
with them . By that time , according to Barbara Ward and
Mary Ezell , a number of the employees had come up
behind her . Barber said that if they did not get back to
work he would fire them . They said they wanted to ask him
about Virginia Ingram . He told the whole group to go back
to work and nothing would be done about it, but if they
did not he would terminate every one of them . Again Ward
said, "Cameron , we only want to ask you one question,
where is Virginia Ingram ?" He said it was no damn
concern of hers where she was and to get on back to work
Ward said they were not going back to work until he gave
them an answer . Barber said "come on down to the office
and I will terminate every one of you ." He left and started
walking towards the office. The rest of the group followed
behind him . He went up the steps to the supervisor 's office
and closed and locked the door. Barbara Ward , who had
tried to keep up with him, attempted to open the door and
found it was locked . The group of employees gathered
below at the steps and she went down telling them that the
door was locked . About that time the green end chain had
broken for lunch and the whole group of employees came
and gathered around near the foot of the steps leading to
the office waiting for Barber.
Massingill testified that he received a call from Cameron
Barber that night stating that there was a problem at the
plant , that he had confronted Virginia Ingram for leaving
her job and going and getting cokes and a delicate
situation had come up and he should return to the plant,
that a group of employees were sitting in front of the
lunchroom and said that they would not go back to work.
Black and Massingill both got to the plant and went up to
the office where Barber and Bollinger were . Massingill
stated that he talked to the vice president of the Company
and also to Respondent's attorney , Jolly. After conferring
for some 15 minutes Black and Bollinger went down to talk
to the employees By this time all the employees in the
plant were gathered at the steps outside the lunchroom.
Black asked the group what was the matter . Barbara Ward
spoke up and said that all they wanted to do was ask one
question, where was Virginia Ingram . Black said she had
gone home , that she and Earl Bollinger had a misunder-
standing , and that she would be back to work in the
morning. Ward said that if they had sent her home about
the cokes , she was the first one to go get them and that she
was sure that Earl Bollinger had seen her do so . Black said
that you are not supposed to have cokes . She replied that in
the morning that Black had said that they could have cokes
as long as they put the cups in the garbage can. He said
that he did not say that . She told him that he had said that
to the four employees who were in the office and that is the
reason why they went and got the cokes. Someone else
spoke up and asked whether Ingram had been fired. Black
said no, that she would be back to work tomorrow on her
regular shift . Black stated that if anybody wanted to
discuss the matter on an individual basis he would be in his
office and would talk to them there . The employees went
back to work.
The Company sought to give an impression that some
veneer might have been lost by the work stoppage and that
there could have been a danger of fire but there was no
testimony that there was any wood lost or that anything
had been lost except the production for that period of time.
The next morning Ingram went to the plant as she was
told to do so by Bollinger , and Ward and Ezell went to talk
to Black following his invitation of the previous evening to
talk to them individually about the matter . Ingram was
told that they were busy and to go home and come back
that afternoon and she left . After Ingram left, Ruth
572 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Spencer. Mattie Lake , Alberta Gannon , Mary Ezell, and
Barbara Ward were waiting to talk to Black concerning
grievances . Ruth Spencer went in and talked to Black and
when she came out Ward went in and talked to Black. She
said she told him three women could not pull off the table
at one time and that they needed a fourth . Black said they
would do something about it , it was just something they
were trying out at that time . That afternoon Ward rode
with Ingram to the plant and when they got there Bollinger
asked both of them to come into the office . Ezell was
standing near the office . Ingram went into the office first
and was told that they had only one thing to tell her, that
she was terminated . She asked what he said and he
repeated "you are terminated ." She asked what he meant
by that and he said you are fired . Ingram came out
carrying her check . Ward was called into the office and
Bollinger said "Barbara, after careful consideration, we've
decided to terminate you. Here is your check and get off
our property." She came out of the office and saw Ezell go
in and later come out with her check . Ezell testified that
when she got to the plant that afternoon Bollinger met her
at her car and said he wanted to see her in the office. When
she got there she asked him what it was about and he said
he would see her in a few minutes and have a seat . Virginia
Ingram and Barbara Ward came to the office and Ingram
was called in first . When she came out they asked if she
had been fired and she replied , "yes, I 've got to get off the
company property ." Barbara Ward then went in and came
out with her check and then Ezell was called in . Bollinger
said. "Mary , here's both your checks . You are fired. Get
off company property."
On that morning a meeting of company officials was
held consisting of Massingill , Black , Bollinger , Respondent
President McCloud , and a chairman and a vice president
of Respondent's parent company plus Respondent's
attorney , Jolly. Black and Massingill testified that they
discussed the events of the previous day and a decision was
made to terminate Barbara Ward based on "the fact that
she had been in the meeting the previous morning, that
there couldn 't possibly have been no misunderstanding."
Massingill further stated that Ward had "purposely,
wilfully violated policy , the rules of the Company as
related to walking off the job , going to get a coke when she
felt like it, and the fact that she had made the statement to
both Mr. Black and I that previous morning that if she was
to be given a warning every time she wanted to get a coke
the foreman had better get a stack of warnings a foot high.
Her unsatisfactory employment record was considered."
The only thing shown as to any unsatisfactory employment
record is that a written warning had been given to Ward
one time previously for walking off the job . Nothing was
said that any performance of hers was bad , only that her
performance records had been reviewed . Black testified
that Ward was terminated because she had been given a
warning slip for walking off the job and for having said it
would take a stack of warning slips a foot high if she were
to be warned for going for cokes every time and according
to him it appeared there was no way to make a good
employee out of her if she was going to defy company
rules.
Bollinger testified regarding Ward that , "they reached
the conclusion that there could possibly be no misunder-
standing from what had been said in the meeting." He
added that she was discharged for knowingly violating the
rule.
As to Ingram , Massingill stated they decided to fire her
since she had been in the meeting and there could possibly
have been no misunderstanding that she had wilfully
violated the rules by getting cokes and bringing them into
the work area. Massingill added that she was confronted
with this by Bollinger in the office and had no desire to
listen to the reasons he gave and she was beligerent and
would not listen to him when he discussed the rule about
not permitting cokes in the work area . Black said the
Company decided to terminate Ingram for violating the
company rules deliberately and defiantly.
Regarding Ingram , Bollinger said they decided to
discharge her "because she had been given written
warnings before and it was obvious that she was not going
to heed this warning and that there was no other
alternative but to terminate her."
As to Mary Ezell, Massingill stated that she was
discharged due to "The fact that Mary Ezell had been
present in a meeting the morning before, she knew that the
rule had not been changed. The fact that she had willfully
violated this policy of going to get cokes without
permission of the supervisor, that she had done this
knowingly , that her actions that night leading to a work
stoppage that resulted from her knowing that this rule had
not been changed , apparently she was second in command
of the work stoppage ." He later adds to this that he found
out that she had had a coke in the plant.
Black states the reason for Ezell 's discharge that she was
fired for the same reason as Barbara Ward, was doing the
same thing, and had been given a warning slip a couple of
days prior to her termination . He concluded that Ezell was
"just deliberately harassing management."
Bollinger says they decided to fire Ezell because when
she came to his office , "Mary voluntarily said that she had
a part in sending Virginia into the lunchroom to get cokes
to bring back to the other employees." In response to
further questioning he added that in the meeting the day
before she had been told she could not take food and drink
to the work area. He said that the only thing bad about
Ezell was that she had been in the meeting , had been told
not to get cokes and admitted having a part in it.
The reasons given for the three terminations, by Black,
Massingill , and Bollinger are not consistent and are not the
same as those reasons enunciated by the Respondent's
attorney. Clearly the reasons enunciated for the discharge
of Ezell encompassed the fact that she participated in the
work stoppage the evening before when the employees
concertedly sought to find out what had been done with
Virginia Ingram . The other reasons advanced that she had
done the same thing as Barbara Ward is patently false as
the facts disclosed . Clearly, Ezell never left the area to go
get a coke and bring it back to the employees . The only
thing Ezell was guilty of was participating in a work
stoppage that evening and having drunk a coke in the plant
after having participated in a meeting with management
that morning . There was no testimony from any credible
witness that Mary Ezell admitted anything in her brief
SUMTER PLYWOOD CORPORATION 573
appearance at Bollinger's door. All the credible testimony
is that only Ward spoke then. Further if the reason for
discharge is the sending of a person to get cokes why was
there no disciplinary, action sought against the others who
had sent Ingram for cokes? The testimony indicated that
Ingram was carrying a box with five or six cokes in it.
When asked this question Bollinger dissembled saying he
did not understand it.
Massingill 's testimony comes closest to the truth when he
talks of Ezell 's role in the work stoppage and in her being
on the committee.
The fact that Mary Ezell was thought of as the "second
in command" makes it clear that consideration must have
been given to the "first in command" of the work stoppage
the previous evening, Barbara Ward. The fact that the
employees felt strongly enough about Virginia Ingram to
have a work stoppage must certainly have convinced
Respondent of her importance to the employees and to the
local union organization and the esteem in which the
employees held Ward.
Bollinger said Ingram had received a previous warning
and she had not. He later admitted he might be mistaken.
The manner of the committee members, the way in which
the meeting ran and the cautious concern of the union
president as to whether such a meeting would get them
discharged, shows that this was not a group of employees
who would take it upon themselves to knowingly and
deliberately violate company rules.
It is clear as stated above that these employees had the
clear impression that they could drink cokes in the dryer
end of the plant. The conversation as stated above
establishes this. If there was a misunderstanding it was
management 's. That there was some dissension in manage-
ment ranks is shown by Barber 's remarks that he ran that
particular section of the plant and that the production
manager and personnel manager did not do so and his
remark to Ezell that Black and Massingill were trying to
get the employees off their backs and onto his by giving
them permission to drink cokes.
The credited account of the committee meeting with
Black and Massingill , the fact that these employees sought
permission to have the rule changed rather than sit back
and violate it, and the confused, contradictory, and
erroneous reasons given for the three discharges by
management all weigh heavily in favor of a violation.
There is no logical explanation to management admitting it
told an employee she could take a thermos full of cokes to
her work station , stating it knew that Occupational Safety
and Health rules did not forbid cokes on the job, but
telling employees that it did , and then stating it was a firm
rule that employees could not have cokes . Management
also confused the no coke rule with leaving the job. But in
the meeting management representatives were somewhat
shocked to hear that Barber would not allow sweepers to
relieve the employees at the dryer tables so that they could
go to the restroom . After many statements it became clear
that management preferred employees to get permission to
leave their job but if a foreman was not around it was
alright to go to the restroom without notifying a supervisor.
It should be noted that Respondent's written violation
forms has a space for the violation number and on some of
them it is noted as the second or third violation , while these
slips for Ward and Ezell were apparently the first.
Considering all these matters including the lack of
sophistication in labor matters of the committee members
as compared to the high powered group which determined
on the following day to discharge them , the fact that from
the events of those days there was a viable union
organization despite the previous 8(a)(1) violations, and
that despite winning the election some 4 or 5 months
previous , certification had not issued because of the
Respondent 's contesting of the election , it becomes clear
that management seized on a minor episode and sought to
blow it into major conflagration in order to rid itself of the
apparent sparkplugs of the Union . The work stoppage was
considered according to management testimony and the
fact that the Union and its leaders could manage a work
stoppage at that point in the drawn -out R case procedure
was sufficient for Respondent . Recall that Bollinger had no
intention of discharging Ingram when he sent her home,
much less there being anything against Ward and Ezell,
but the work stoppage in protest to the Company's action
brought out Respondent 's forces in full. Respondent seized
on a minor incident feeling that it could use it to retaliate
for the work stoppage , and eradicate the union leaders.
I conclude and find that by the discharge of Virginia
Ingram , Barbara Ward and Mary Ezell , Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act in that it
discharged them both for their union membership and
activities and for the fact that they engaged in concerted
activities in support of the Union and of union members.
On that evening or the next morning following the
discharges , the employees struck and picket lines were
established outside the plant . Some employees crossed the
picket line and on Wednesday morning of the following
week, Barnes took the employees back into the plant. All
the employees were returned to their shifts andjobs and no
question or issue was raised about any employee as to any
conduct engaged in while the strike was on.
One of the returning employees was Suzie Spence Steele,
a first-shift employee who worked at one of the dryer
tables. She went out on strike with the other employees and
remained out until Wednesday morning . When they went
in Black met the incoming group of employees and talked
to them in the lunchroom saying that no one was going to
be fired and they were to go on back to work. Steele went
to her station at dryer table no. I and , while putting on her
apron , heard Pearl Ward (no relation to Barbara Ward)
"cussing." Pearl Ward had gone out on strike originally,
but she and her sister , Ethel Gibbs had both returned to
work on either Monday or Tuesday and had worked the
third shift before Wednesday morning. Pearl Ward was
getting ready to leave while Ethel Gibbs was going to work
another shift on the same dryer table with Suzie Steele.
Steele testified that she turned around and asked Pearl
Ward if she was referring to her and Pearl Ward said she
knew they would all have to come back in sooner or later
and that she was referring to anybody, that she would kill
somebody that morning, that she was mad. Steele contin-
ued to put on her apron. Pearl Ward 's sister, Ethel Gibbs,
said that whatever her sister says she'll do, she'll do
because she ain't got no better sense . About that time Pearl
574 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ward began to open her pocketbook and to back up with
her hand in her pocketbook. Steele told Pearl Ward that if
she pulled a gun or anything out of there she would put
Pearl Ward's "lights out." Steele testified that Ethel Gibbs
came around the table and picked up her pocketbook and
started to open it and said to her that "if my sister don't her
[sic] you I will." Steele told Ethel Gibbs that if she pulled a
pistol or anything on her she would "put both you all's
lights out." Steele testified that on one occasion she had
heard Gibbs threaten to use a pistol on somebody and had
seen a pistol in Ethel Gibbs' pocketbook in the plant.
About that time Earl Bollinger came up to the group and
asked what was wrong. Steele told Bollinger that Pearl
Ward was threatening to shoot her and that Ethel Gibbs
had said that if her sister didn't get her that she would.
Bollinger said, "Aw, forget about it and go on back to
work," and turned to Pearl Ward and told her she had
better get on out of the plant, that she should have been
half-way out of the plant by that time. Steele turned
around and started to work pulling veneer off the table.
She testified that she did not take a purse to work, had on a
pair of jeans and had nothing in her hands but her gloves.
Around 9:30 that morning Earl Bollinger came out and
made a search around the tables, called Ethel Gibbs over,
talked to her then left and went back to the front of the
plant. About 10 minutes later her foreman told Steele that
another girl would pull in her place and he wanted to see
her. He told her to gather her belongings. She said that she
did not have anything but her apron and gloves. He told
her to get her pocketbook. She said that she did not bring a
pocketbook with her. He asked are you sure and she said
she was quite sure. They went towards the front of the
plant and he told her to come to the office. She told him
that she was not going to go to the office by herself, that
she wanted Union President Johnny Barnes to go with her.
She testified that Barnes had told the employees when they
went back in that morning that he was there on behalf of
the Union to protect them and if they had any questions or
anybody was sent to the office to contact him and he
would come along and represent them. Barnes was sent for.
In the office Steele started to say something and was told
to knock it off. Black handed her an envelope with her
name on it with her check inside, saying you are
terminated. When she asked why, she was told for
threatening a girl and to remove herself from Respondent's
property.
Suzie Steele is 3 or 4 inches shorter than either Ethel Mae
Gibbs or Pearl Ward, and while Pearl Ward is thin, Ethel
Mae Gibbs is a much larger woman than Suzie Steele
Pearl Ward testified that on that morning she was
looking at the employees who were coming into the plant
and in particular at Suzie Steele. She said Steele asked what
she was looking at her for and called her a string of foul
names. Pearl Ward said she replied that Suzie was another
one. Steele said she would kill her, using some more foul
language. Pearl Ward said she reached over, got her purse
and put it on her arm, got her coat, and she started to back
up and that Suzie Steele said if she opened her purse she
would break her neck and at that time Steele had her hand
in her pocket. She says that another girl said let's go and
as they went out of the plant they saw Massingill who
asked her what had been said and she said Steele had
threatened to kill her. A group of the employees who
were leaving the plant went to the office with Massingill.
Ethel Gibbs testified she did not know what happened
that morning between her sister and Susie Steele but she
looked around and saw her sister backing up and Steele
walking towards her. She says that after her sister had left
the work area she heard Steele say that she would kill her,
and she spoke up and told Susie that she would not do that.
She testified that she had never taken a real gun into the
plant but had taken a play gun into the plant. During
cross-examination she admitted that at one time she did
have a pistol permit and had owned a pistol but said it was
torn up. She admits that she may have told people that she
had a pistol permit but does not remember ever showing
anybody a pistol in the plant. She stated that she carried a
purse every day and thought that Suzie Steele was about to
fight with her sister but that she did not know. She stated
that her sister was backing up while bent over with her
belongings clutched to her stomach. She did not know
whether her sister carried a pistol or not, or whether her
sister had a permit to carry a pistol. The two sisters live
together.
During cross-examination of Suzie Steele and in the
presentation of its own case , Respondent sought to show
previous behaviour of Suzie Steele as it concerned Ethel
Gibbs. Nell Taylor, an employee who worked through the
strike, and Ethel Gibbs testified that when they left the
plant on Tuesday after having worked the third and first
shifts, they drove in Nell Taylor's car to a store about 2
blocks away. While Nell Taylor was in the store, Suzie
Steele, with several strikers drove up and pulled behind or
to the side of Nell Taylor's car so that Taylor's car was
blocked. Steele stated that she could not back up when
Taylor came out because a car was coming down the road
but backed up within a few moments. Taylor and Gibbs
testified that Steele said that she wanted something in that
car that-Ethel Gibbs. Steele backed up and Taylor left.
Taylor and Gibbs testified that Steele's car followed
them back towards town and turned off before the river
bridge. Taylor who lives on the other side of Livingston,
Alabama, stopped at the sheriffs office but the men
there were busy so she drove to her home. Gibbs had
parked her car at Taylor's home and ridden to work with
her. On reaching her house, Nell Taylor called the plant
and spoke to Black telling him that Suzie Steele had
blocked the road on her. Black advised Taylor to contact
the police for protection.
Black testified that from what Nell Taylor said he
thought that Suzie Steele and other strikers had blocked
the road in front of Nell Taylor's home and for that reason
he advised them to contact the police. A policeman
escorted Ethel Gibbs' car back to the plant from where she
drove by herself to her home. While sitting on the front
porch talking with her sister, Pearl Ward, Suzie Steele
drove up with several employees in her car. Pearl Ward
went and sat in another car in the front yard and listened
to the conversation between Gibbs, Suzie Steele, and the
others. They said they wanted to talk to Ethel Gibbs about
going back to work, since they had all agreed to stay out of
work. Gibbs replied that she had children to feed and she
SUMTER PLYWOOD CORPORATION 575
could not afford to lose work. The others said they had
kids who got just as hungry and wanted her to stay out.
According to Gibbs, a statement was made that the Black
Panthers had taken over the situation and might kill people
in the plant, that people had been killed in other plants.
That evening when Ethel Gibbs and Pearl Ward went to
work they went to Nell Taylor's house, parked, and went in
her car. When they got to the plant they saw Massingill
and told him of the visit of the strikers.
Personnel Manager Massingill testified that during the
afternoon Black told him he had received a telephone call
concerning Susie Steele and that evening about 10:50 when
Taylor and Ethel Gibbs came to work he talked to them.
They reported the events at the store and at Gibbs' home.
The following day when the shift changed Nell Taylor
came to him and said that there had been an incident in
the plant. Taylor gave him her version of it and as other
employees were coming out of the plant (all of whom
would have been persons who did not stay on strike) he
asked if they had seen the event. They indicated that Pearl
Ward was most directly involved and he asked her version
of it, and took seven or eight employees to his office where
a statement was given by Pearl Ward which the others
signed in his presence. As soon as he got the statement he
got together with Black and Bollinger, called the company
attorney, related the incident, and it was decided to
terminate Susie Steele.
Massingill testified that he was aware of the events at the
store and of the visit to Gibbs' home but decided they were
not serious and not to take any action although he realized
that an employee could be fired for participating in strike
violence. Therefore nothing was said to Steele when she
came back to work. He said the report he received that
morning was that while Pearl Ward was attempting to
gather her belongings and leave the plant Susie Steele
called her names. Pearl Ward did not try to engage in
replies but attempted to leave and that Steele threatened
her. He stated that nothing was said about Ethel Gibbs
playing any part in the confrontation. He admitted that
although a lot of foul language was used, the Company has
no rule on profanity stating that they would not have any
employees if they had such a rule.
Black testified that in discussing Steele with Massingill,
Bollinger , and Shift Foreman Pugh, Massingill reported
the incident in the plant and that Steele had threatened
Pearl Ward's life. After hearing this he sent Bollinger to get
Susie but she said she would not come to the office unless
Johnny Barnes came. He gave Steele her check saying that
was her final check. She wanted to know why and Johnny
Barnes said he would handle it and tell her. He states that
he told Barnes that Susie had been fired for threatening the
life of an employee in the plant and he would not tolerate
it, that she had brought something from outside the plant
into the plant. During cross-examination Black said that
supervisor Larry Demos was present during the confronta-
tion between Steele and Ward and that Steele had
advanced toward Ward and other employees intervened.
(This is the only testimony to this, no one of the
participants having said so and Demos not being present as
a witness.) Black testified he could not say exactly what
was said except that the report to him was that Steele
called Ward a bunch of names and said she would cut her
throat or something similar. Asked whether Ethel Gibbs
was involved Black said he did not recall anyone saying so.
Black admitted he did not ask Steele for her version of the
events because he said others in the plant had already told
him what happened, that Steele was discharged for
threatening another employee in the plant, that she was
bringing something (the strike) from outside the plant into
the plant. Based on the discharge reasons given the
testimony elicited by Respondent concerning what oc-
curred outside the plant is extraneous to the matter to be
considered and only the, conduct within the plant is
relevent to Steele's discharge. Clearly the happenings
outside the plant were not of any magnitude nor even
correctly reported as shown by Bollinger's and Black's
understanding of the "blocking the road" business report-
ed by Nell Taylor. Respondent felt they were of no
moment , since knowing of them before she returned to
work they would have attached a caveat to her return if
they thought otherwise.
What we have then are two versions of that morning's
events, one by strikers and one by those who worked
during the strike. It is apparent that at one point the
Company assumed that Susie Steele had threatened Pearl
Ward with a gun in a purse. For that reason a supervisor
was sent to check on Susie Steele 's purse and its contents,
but Steele had no purse. The question of a gun being in a
purse and a threat to kill was that threat made by Pearl
Ward, her use of her purse that morning and Steele's
knowledge that Pearl Ward's sister owned and had brought
a pistol to work. Steele in the circumstances of Pearl
Ward's threat, and I credit her in this, certainly had a right
to defend herself against a threat of harm. The supervisor's
statement that it amounted to nothing and for Pearl Ward
to get out of the plant, that she should have been long
before then, clearly should have been the end of the matter.
Here Respondent seized on a one-sided investigation, if it
can be called that, of a matter to rid itself of another union
adherent. Respondent apparently was willing to take the
word of any of the employees who had not gone on strike
against that of a striker, because it made no effort to ask
any of the strikers or those working on the first shift as to
what happened. When the supervisor found that Steele did
not have a purse with a gun, Respondent should have been
alerted to misstatements . Vile language may have been
used but as it was stated, if the Company had a rule against
bad language there would be no employees in the plant.
At most this was a minor incident blown to a distorted
size by Respondent in its one-sided "investigation" and it
seized on the events to eradicate a union sympathizer and
activist who had been a striker. I find that by its action in
discharging Susie Steele Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
111. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section II,
above, have been found to constitute unfair labor practices
in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act and,
occurring in connection with Respondent's business
operations as described in section 1, above, have a close,
576 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
intimate, 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 flow of commerce.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent discriminatorily termi-
nated Virginia Ingram, Barbara Ward, and Mary Ezell on
March 8, 1973, and Susie Steele on March 14, 1973,
because of their actual and suspected union sympathies
and activities, and because of their concerted activities, I
recommend that Respondent offer them immediate and
full reinstatement to their former positions or, if those
positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent
positions without prejudice to any seniority or rights and
privileges they may enjoy. Respondent shall make them
whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason
of the discrimination against them, by payment to them of
a sum equal to that which each would have received as
wages from the date of her discharge until she is fully
reinstated, less any net interim earnings. Backpay is to be
computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established
by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289,
with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum to be
computed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. I further recommend that
Respondent, upon request, make available to the Board
payroll and other records to facilitate checking the
amounts of backpay and any other rights due Virginia
Ingram, Barbara Ward, Mary Ezell, and Susie Steele.
Respondent also engaged in interrogation of its employ-
ees concerning their union membership, activities, or
sympathies in an effort to dissuade their participation,
threatened that it would be futile for the employees to
organize a union because the Company would not pay
higher salaries , Respondent's supervisors would nullify
union grievances and that Respondent would not have a
union in its plant, and I recommend that Respondent be
ordered to cease and desist from violating the Act in the
same manner or any manner similar to these violations.
On the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire
record, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Sumter Plywood Corporation is an employer en-
gaged 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 discriminatorily terminating Virginia Ingram,
Barbara Ward, and Mary Ezell on March 8 and Susie
Steele on March 14, 1973, and not thereafter reinstating
them to their positions because of their actual and
suspected union sympathies and activities and their
concerted activities, Respondent engaged in and is engag-
ing in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
2 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec
meaning of Sections 8(a)(3) and ( 1) and 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
4. Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Sections 8(a)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act by:
(a) Interrogating employees concerning their union
membership , activities , and sympathies;
(b) Threatening that it would be futile for the employees
to organize a union because the Company would not pay
higher salaries , Respondent's supervisors would nullify
union grievances , and that Respondent would not have a
union in its plant;
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:
ORDER2
Respondent, Sumter Plywood Corporation , its officers,
agents , successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging employees and refusing to reinstate them
in order to discourage these employees and other employ-
ees from being or becoming union members and for
engaging in concerted activities.
(b) Interrogating employees concerning their union
sympathies , activities , desires, or membership.
(c) Threatening that it would be futile for the employees
to organize a union because the Company would not pay
higher salaries , Respondent 's supervisors would nullify
union grievances , and that Respondent would not have a
union in its plant.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of
their rights to self-organization , to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist UBC Southern Council of Industrial
Workers, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America , AFL-CIO, CLC, to bargain collectively with
representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any or
all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Virginia Ingram, Barbara Ward, Mary Ezell,
and Susie Steele reinstatement in accordance with the
recommendations set forth in the section of this Decision
entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Make Virginia Ingram, Barbara Ward , Mary Ezell,
and Susie Steele whole for any loss they may have suffered
by reason of Respondent 's discrimination against them in
accordance with the recommendations set forth in the
section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents , for examination and copying, all
payroll records , social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports , and all other records
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay and the rights
and privileges due Viiginia Ingram , Barbara Ward, Mary
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
SUMTER PLYWOOD CORPORATION
Ezell, and Susie Steele as set forth in the section of this
Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(d) Notify immediately the above-named individuals, if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States,
of their right to full reinstatement, upon application after
discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the
Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act.
(e) Post at its Livingston, Alabama, plant and office
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 3 Copies
of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 10, after being duly signed by Respondent's
3 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 read "Posted Pursuant
577
authorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees 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 10, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this
Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board "