Texaco, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsDec 14, 1979

246 N.L.R.B. 1021 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

an employer engages in conduct which goes beyond that required to inform an employee of a preuiously made disciplinary decision, the full panoply of protec- tion accorded employees under Weingarten ma be applicable. The pivotal question in such instances is whether, on the one hand, an employer. in summon- ing an employee to appear before management, is concerned solely with the administration of discipline or, on the other hand, seeks additionally to obtain facts, evidence, or an admission in support of the dis- ciplinary action taken. In the instant case, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that Respondent's purposes in summoning each of the employees here involved betfore a repre- sentative of management were: (1) to inform the re- cipient of the discipline imposed: (2) to warn of fur- ther discipline if the conduct in question continued: and (3) to afford each of the individuals an opportuni- ty "to explain or defend himself." Respondent excepts, inter alia, to the Administra- tive l.aw Judge's conclusion that the meetings here in question were held partly for the purpose of affording employees an opportunity to explain or defend them- selves. Rather, Respondent contends that the meet- ings were called solely to inform the employees of the disciplinary decisions previously made and to deter- mine whether they understood why discipline was being imposed. As previously noted, the relevant facts are not in dispute and are briefly summarized below. On April 17, 1978, Acting Foreman Brown pre- pared, signed, and, under circumstances hereinafter described, tendered to employee G(uidinger a letter informing Guidinger of his 5-day suspension tbr ah- senteeism. Respondent's action was based on a review of (uidinger's employment record which showed that during his tenure he had almost consistently filed to meet the Company's attendance standard, for which reason he had been disciplined in the past. The letter begins with the statement: "This letter will confirm our conversation on April 17 wherein you were ad- vised that you were assessed a 5-day disciplinary sus- pension for excessive absenteeism." His prior unsatis- factory record was summarized in this letter which concluded with a "final warning" that his failure to improve could result in his immediate discharge. After preparing and signing the aforesaid letter, Brown called Guidinger into his office and handed it to him. Guidinger immediately asked for union repre- sentation, which request was denied. Brown then told Guidinger to sit down and read the letter. Guidinger did and thereupon objected to what he believed to be an unfair entry: namely, designating as absenteeism a prior 3-day suspension. Brown explained the Compa- nv's position. The meeting was then terminated at Guidinger's request. Texaco, Inc. and Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Local 1-591, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO. Cases 19-CA 10344 and 19 CA 10784 December 14. 1979 DECISION AND ORDER BY MlMHBIRS JLNKINS. M1URPllY. ANI) TRUITfSDAIt On May 16. 1979, Administrative Law Judge Jer- rold . Shapiro issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief and the General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge only to the extent consistent herewith. The Administrative Law Judge found, on facts which are uncontroverted in all material respects, that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by compelling five employees to attend meetings called for the purpose of disciplining them while, at the same time, denying their requests for union repre- sentation at those meetings. Specifically, the Adminis- trative Law Judge, having found that the meetings here involved were "disciplinary interviews," con- cluded that the instant case is governed by the Board's decision in Certified Grocers.' Therein, the Board, construing the Supreme Court's opinion in Weingarten,2 held that an employee's statutory right to representation applies to any interview, whether labeled investigatory or disciplinary, which the em- ployee reasonably believes may result in disciplinary action being taken against him. More recently, the Board reexamined its Decision in Certified Grocers and in Baton Rouge3 held that an employee has no Section 7 right to union representa- tion at a meeting with his or her employer convened solely for the purpose of informing the employee of, and acting upon, a previously made disciplinary deci- sion. However, the Board also cautioned that, where I(eri/led Grsocer oCf('alifrnia, Lid., 227 NLRB 1211 (19771. enforcement denied N I R B v. (erirfied Grocerr f (California, Ltd. 587 F 2d 449 (9th Cir. 1978) 2 N.. R.B v J Iet ingarren, Inc. 420 IU S. 251 (1975). In Weingarten, the Supreme ('ourt staled that an employee has a right under Sec 7 1 the ct to union representation at anll nestigalorN ntervlew uhere he employee rea- smnabl) believes that the inkestlgation will result in dlsciplnar action 'aton R-ouat 4ar iftork ('npan. 246 NI RB 99s I9791 246 NI.RB No. 164 1021TEXACO, INC. DECISIONS OF NATIONAL ABOR RELATIONS BOARD Similarly, on May 9, 1978, warning letters were prepared by General Foreman Fair, signed by him, and, on the same date, tendered separately to employ- ees Peterson, Hudson, Heller, and Mainard.4 As in the case of Guidinger, each of the above letters made reference to the disciplinary meeting to which the em- ployee was thereafter summoned, set forth the spe- cific act of misconduct for which the individual was cited, and concluded with a warning of further disci- pline if the conduct in question continued. Likewise, after preparing and signing the aforesaid letters, Fair called the employees into his office one at a time and, while denying their requests for union representation, tendered to each a copy of his respective letter. There is no significant variation in what occurred as each employee was handed his letter. Fair told Pe- terson to read it. When Peterson had finished., Fair asked if he had any comments. Peterson said no. Fair advised that a copy of the letter would be placed in Peterson's personnel file, whereupon Peterson left the office. When Hudson finished reading his letter, Fair asked whether he had any comments. Hudson made no reply. Fair then admonished Hudson verbally. Hudson remained silent and the meeting was termi- nated. Similarly, Fair asked Heller if he had any com- ments after the latter had finished reading. Heller did not answer. Fair continued with a verbal reprimand, pausing every so often, according to the Administra- tive Law Judge, "as if' waiting for Heller to make some reply." Heller remained silent throughout the entire meeting. Fair read aloud the contents of the letter to Mai- nard, telling Mainard to follow along with the copy he had handed him. According to Mainard: He asked me if I had any questions or com- ments. And, I said "no." He said something to the effect that "you're going to have to be careful about this kind of thing," and then said that was all. It is clear on the record before us that, at a time prior to the meetings here in question, Respondent had decided to take specific disciplinary action against the five employees in this case. Moreover, it is clear from a reading of each of the letters mentioned above that Respondent intended to and did treat both the written notice of' disciplinary action and the meet- ings during which they were tendered as integral parts of the disciplinary process. Likewise. the uncon- troverted evidence herein demonstrates that no de- Peterson had earher submitted to all inlesigatori intervies bh F air with out requ esting union represcntiltlon. I air himself uas an eyes itness IT the incident hish resulted iIl the d.letsion Io discllilne l udso. I leller. and Mainard fense offered by the employees who were summoned to the aforesaid meetings, or by any representative speaking in their behalf, would have deterred Re- spondent from its disciplinary decisions. There is no evidence that Respondent needed or desired to obtain admissions of misconduct by the employees disciplined nor can such a purpose be in- ferred from the evidence. As previously mentioned, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that all em- ployees were offered an opportunity to explain or de- fend themselves. This offer, however, was not de- signed to obtain information to support Respondent's discipline.' Rather, it constituted an essential part of the communication process during which an effort was made by Respondent to determine whether the employees understood the reasons for disciplinary ac- tion, their concurrence therewith aside. Whether called "counseling" as Respondent urges, or by some other term, such conduct does not demonstrate, nor are we persuaded, that Respondent went beyond the parameters established in our Baton Rouge decision so as to warrant the protection accorded employees by Weingarten.6 Accordingly, we hold that the employees in this case were not entitled to representation at the disci- plinary meetings here in question and, therefore, that Respondent did not violate the Act by compelling their presence at those meetings without benefit of the representation they requested. In view of the above, we shall dismiss the com- plaint herein in its entirety. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board hereby orders that the complaint be, and it hereby is. dismissed in its entirety. Member Jenkins does not rel oin the principle expressed In this sentence. ' Member MurphN agrees that the meetings herein were not investigator interviews at which the employees were entitled to the presence of a union representatie See her concurring opinli.n in Baton Rouge I4'atur 4'orik ('irnpaot,,, supra I)ECISION SIAIEM[NI OF() IL CASE JIRROID) H. SHAPIRO. Administrative L.aw Judge: he hearing in this consolidated proceeding wias held on Febru- aIrN 28 1979, and is based on unfair labor practice charges filed by Oil, (Chemical and Atomic Workers Local I 591. ()il. ('hemrical and Atomic Workers International Union, A:l ('10() herein called the Union, in Case 19 (A 10344 on April 24, 1978. and in (ase 19 (CA 10784 on September Ihe t rnon is adimittedis a. l.lbr lrgllaniatir n within thie nilcni g o Sec 2(q) ,1 the Ai 1022 dinger about his suspension. The letter dated April 17 be- gins with the declaration: "This letter will confirm our con- versation on April 17 wherein you were advised that you were assessed a 5-day disciplinary suspension for excessive absenteeism," and sets out the dates of the suspension. Con- tinuing. the letter states that "during our discussion you were reminded of previous discussions regarding excessive absenteeism on February 23. 1973," and in detail describes this warning. The letter then describes in detail Guidinger's unsatisfactory attendance record for the approximate 10 years of his employment and the several warnings issued to him by various supervisors for his poor attendance. The letter directs Guidinger to correct his attendance problem by arranging for all of his personal business to be con- ducted outside of working hours and, in the event of illness. to seek and obtain prompt medical attention. It concludes with the warning that this was Guidinger's "final warning" and that he must maintain "an acceptable absentee record" from that date forward or his failure to do so "could result" in his "immediate discharge." On April 17. 1978. after Foreman Brown signed the aforesaid letter, he called Guidinger into his office and handed him the letter. Guidinger immediately asked whether the letter involved a matter of discipline. Brown answered yes. Guidinger asked for a union representative. Brown denied this request. He instructed Guidinger to sit down and read the letter. Guidinger read the letter and observed that in computing his current absenteeism record the Company had included the 3 days he was absent from work in October 1977 when he was suspended fr excessive tardiness. Guidinger remarked that he did not think it was fair that these 3 days were counted against him in determin- ing whether he was absent excessively. Brown explained that all of Guidinger's time away from the plant was con- sidered absenteeism and that Guidinger was needed for work during the 3 days in question. Guidinger asked whether the meeting was ended as. in his view, there was no use in continuing the discussion. Brown answered, "if you want it to be," whereupon Guidinger left the office after repeating that he thought it was unfair that the Company had used his 3-day suspension in determining whether he was absent excessively. Brown replied by repeating his pre- vious answer. 2. Respondent denies employee Peterson's request for union representation On May 5, 1978, machinists Ron Peterson and Joe Fer- rario were repairing a piece of equipment. Peterson was seated on a workbench waiting for Ferrario to complete a part of the job which only one employee could perform. The machinists' assistant foreman, Gaylord Greenough, ob- served him sitting and asked him not to sit on the work- bench. He repeated this request twice, but Peterson ignored him and continued to remain seated despite the fact that Greenough implicitly threatened him with discipline. Gree- nough promptly reported this incident to the machinists' general foreman, Charles Fair, who later that day spoke to Peterson about the incident in his office. Fair stated he had heard Greenough's side of the story and asked Peterson for his version. Peterson gave his side of the story and, in reply to Fair's questions, admitted having understood that G(ree- 26, 1978. The General Counsel of the National Labor Rela- tions Board, herein called the Board, on November 3, 1978. issued an amended consolidated complaint in these cases alleging that Texaco. Inc., herein called Respondent,2 has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act. Specifically, the amended complaint, as amended further at the hearing, alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by denying the re- quests of five employees for union representation at meet- ings between these employees and supervision where disci- plinary action was imposed by Respondent. Respondent filed an answer denying the commission of the alleged un- fair labor practices. Upon the entire record, including my observation of the witnesses, and upon consideration of the briefs of the par- ties, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Setting The facility involved in this proceeding is Respondent's petroleum refinery in Anacortes, Washington, where the Union represents a bargaining unit of approximately 240 employees including the Company's machinists. During the time material herein the employees' terms and conditions of employment were governed by a collective-bargaining agreement between Respondent and the Union. B. The Facts I. Respondent denies employee Guidinger's request for union representation John Guidinger has been employed by Respondent for approximately 10 years. During his tenure of employment he has almost consistently failed to meet the Company's attendance standard for absenteeism and as a result, prior to 1978 was issued several verbal and written disciplinary warnings for excessive absenteeism. Also in October 1977 he was given a 3-day suspension for excessive tardiness. On April 17, 1978. he was suspended for 5 days for excessive absenteeism. The question presented for decision involves this latter suspension. In suspending Guidinger on April 17, 1978, for excessive absenteeism, Respondent based its decision on the Compa- ny's records which showed that Guidinger's current absen- teeism was excessive under the Company's standard. This, plus Guidinger's past record of excessive absences for which he had been warned, resulted in his suspension for 5 days pursuant to the Company's system of progressive dis- cipline. On April 17, 1978, D. L. Brown, the acting foreman for Guidinger's department, prepared a letter informing Gui- 2 Respondent in its answer to the complaint herein admits that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec. 2(6) and (7) of the Act and meets the Board's applicable discretionary jurisdictional stan- dard. TEXACO, INC. 1023 I)E (CISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD nough was asking him to get off the workbench and told Fair he realized that it was a serious matter but that none- theless he had not obeyed Greenough's instruction. Fair stated that Peterson's failure to obey Greenough was a seri- ous matter. Peterson explained that he had been tired and was not able to do any further work on the job until Fer- rario was finished. The meeting ended with Fair indicating that he would consider Peterson's and Greenough's versions of what had taken place but could not promise Peterson that he would agree with his story. It is undisputed that Peterson did not ask for union representation during this interview. On May 9, 1978, Fair prepared a warning letter ad- dressed to Peterson for his failure on May 5 to obey Assist- ant Foreman Greenough. The letter warned Peterson that future incidents of this nature would not be tolerated and that Peterson's failure to obey this letter of reprimand would most likely result in "severe disciplinary conse- quences." The letter describes the basis for the warning, explains to Peterson why his conduct on May 5 warranted disciplinary action, indicates that on May 5 Peterson in his interview with Fair had admitted his guilt, and lectures Pe- terson about his obligation as an employee of Texaco to obey supervisors. Later that day, May 9, Fair called Peterson to his office and gave him a copy of the warning letter. But first Peter- son asked Fair for union representation. Fair denied this request. handed Peterson the letter, and told him to read it. When Peterson had finished reading the letter, Fair asked whether Peterson had "any comments," Peterson said no. Fair stated that a copy of the letter would be placed in his personnel file, whereupon Peterson left the office. 3. Respondent denies the requests of employees Hudson, Heller, and Mainard for union representation On May 4, 1978, Machine Shop Foreman Fair met with the machinists and, among other things, spoke to them about coffeebreaks. He told them that coffeebreaks were not to be taken sitting down, should not be excessive, and were to be taken on the job. On May 5, 1978, at approximately 9:30 a.m.. Fair ob- served machinists Hudson, Heller, and Mainard were not at their respective places of work but were in the valve depart- ment drinking coffee. Fair yelled out for them to return to their respective workplaces and stated that in view of his remarks the previous day about coffeebreaks it seemed as if the employees were deliberately challenging his authority and he did not intend to stand for this. He instructed Hud- son, who was the Union's unit chairman, to keep the em- ployees "in line" since he was their leader. Hudson stated this was not his job. Fair concluded by stating that he in- tended to take some sort of disciplinary action against the employees and wrote the names of the three on a sheet of paper. Shortly after, later the same day, Heller and Hudson visisted Fair in his office. They stated that Mainard should not be disciplined because he had been in close proximity to his work station. Fair stated that everyone, including him- self, had to obey the Company's rules and that he thought they had challenged his authority by their conduct and if in fact it was their intent to challenge him then he accepted the challenge. Hudson indicated that Fair should go ahead and issue them warning letters if this was his intent. Fair indicated he would probably do this.3 On May 9. 1978, Fair prepared warning letters for Hud- son, Heller, and Mainard and, as described infra, issued them later that day. Hudson's warning letter, dated May 9, begins with the declaration: "This letter will confirm our conversation on [May 9] wherein we discussed the incident that occurred on May 5, when you were visiting in the valve department." Continuing, the letter describes Hudson's conduct which prompted Fair to issue the warning letter and then advises IHudson that "your actions in this instance indicate to [Fair] a lack of responsibility as a Texaco employee [who is] ex- pected to follow all rules and act accordingly" and that Hudson's conduct was directly opposed to the instructions Fair had given the machinists on May 4. The letter con- cludes with the warning: "I am giving this letter as a warn- ing that future incidents of this nature will not be tolerated. Furthermore, I am anticipating that this letter will suffice and further discussions of this nature will not be needed." I[eller's warning letter, dated May 9, begins with the dec- laration: "This letter will confirm our conversation on Ma' 9, 1978, during which we discussed your actions on May 5. 1978, when you were eating and visiting near a valve test stand." Continuing, the letter describes Heller's conduct which prompted Fair to issue the warning letter. Fair then writes, "Your actions not only reflect a lack of responsibil- ity as a Texaco employee. but they also directly oppose the information we had discussed during [the May 4 employee meeting]." and warns Heller, "I will not tolerate any such future action [and] as an employee of' Texaco, you are to obey all rules and act accordingly." Fair concludes the let- ter with the statement: "In giving you this letter of warning I am telling you that future incidents of this nature will not be tolerated [and] I anticipate that this letter will suffice and that we will not need to have future discussions of this na- ture." Mainard's warning letter, dated May 9. begins with the declaration: "This letter will confirm our discussion today in which we talked about your actions on May 5, 1978, when you were visiting in the valve department." Continu- ing, the letter describes in detail why Fair felt that Mai- nard's May 5 conduct was improper: points out that Fair, on several prior occasions. had discussed Mainard's failure to remain at his work station: and observes that Mainard's history of misconduct indicates "a total lack of responsibil- ity as a Texaco employee and a total disregard for plant rules." Fair ended the letter with the warning: "This letter is a warning that I will not tolerate future incidences of this nature [referring to Mainard's alleged failure to stay at his assigned work station]. Furthermore, failure on our part to observe all Company rules, including the requirement to remain at your work assignment, will most likely result in severe disciplinary consequences." On May 9. after preparing the aforesaid warning letters. Fair called all three employees into his office, one at a time. and gave them their respective letters. It is undisputed that immediately prior to receiving their warning letters all thlree employees requested union representation and that Fair de- 'The description ,)t hal took place on Mas 5. 1978. is hased upon a composite o1 the testimony t Iair Hudson. and Heller 1024 vie s." Ihe Board found nothing in the text of the 11 'cm- gtrtenl opinioil. or in either of the two cases Quatiis fiu- /wcluring ('ompati, and Mobil Oil ( orporehion,? approved by the Court in It eingarlen to support the view that If eingtrlcn is onl1 applicable to investigators inter- views. In fact, as the Board observed. in ['eingarten the Supreme Court approved the broader principle. reflected in Mobil Oil, that it is a violation of an employee's Section 7 "right to engage in concerted activity by seeking the assist- ance of his statutory representative if the employer denies the employee's request and compels the employee to appear unassisted at an interview which may put hisjob security in jeopardy." (Id. at 1214.) I.ikewise. I note that in Qualli fjg. ('o. the Board similarly made clear that its decision was not limited to an inter'iew that was "purely investiga- tive" but that it pertained to an, interview where the "sub- ject matter related to disciplinary offenses." 195 NI.RB 197. 198 199. In .m-oco Oil Conipa',,ry the Board dismissed the conm- plaint where, after an employee repeatedly insisted upon union representation, the emploer's superintendent simply informed the employee of his suspension in one sentence and made no attempt to question the employee, to engage in any manner of dialogue, or to participate in any inter- change which could he characterized as an interview. In dismissing the complaint. the Board regarded the precedent of ( er/ificd Grocers, vupra, upon which the Administrative L.aw Judge relied to find a iolation of Section 8(a)( ) of the Act. as inapposite "because there the respondent em- ploy er after refusing its emploece's request for the pres- ence of a union shop steward proceeded nevertheless with the planned interview, discussing the employee's work rec- ord and commenting negatiels thereon." 238 NL.RB at 552. 2. Anal sis The record establishes that employees Guidinger. Peter- son, ludson. Nlainard. and Heller, who were admittedly denied union representation, reasonably believed that their meetings with supervision would result in disciplinary ac- tion and for this reason requested union representation. Guidinger requested union representation when Supervisor Brown admitted to him that their meeting concerned disci- pline. Peterson's request for union representation was ex- pressed soon after Assistant Foreman Greenough threat- ened him with discipline for refusing to obey an order and soon after Foreman Fair had questioned him about this incident. Hudson, Heller, and Mainard had been threat- ened with disciplinary action by Foreman Fair on May 5, shortly before Fair summoned them to his office and car- ried out his threat. These circumstances. plus the fact that all of the meetings involved herein took place in the office of a supervisor, provide a reasonable basis for employees Guidinger. Peterson, Hudson, Heller, and Mainard reason- ably to expect disciplinary action or other adverse action as a result of their meetings with supervision. Respondent does not quarrel with the fact that when the employees' requests lfr union representation were denied they had a reasonable e 195 NIRB 197 1972). 196 NlRB 1(52 i 192. 238 NlRB 551 1978). nied their requests. What took place when Fair. on MNay 9. issued the warning letters to the employees is undisputed and is as follows. Fair handed Mainard a copy of his warning letter and read the letter to Mainard. Fair then asked whether Mlai- nard had any "questions" or "comments." Mainard an- swered no. Fair stated, "'You are going to have to be caref'ul about this kind of thing" and indicated that the meeting was over. Fair handed Heller his warning letter and asked him to read it. When Heller finished reading it. Fair asked whether Heller had any "comments." Heller did not answer. Fair stated that he could not have this sort of conduct in the shop and that if the employees cooperated with Fair "this sort of thing" would not have taken place. He reminded Heller that at the Ma 4 meeting with the machinists he had spoken to them about coffeebreaks and that, in view of this, what took place on May 5 should not have occurred. While making these statements Fair paused every so often as if waiting for Heller to make some reply. Heller re- mained silent throughout the entire meeting. Fair handed Hudson his warning letter and asked him to read it. When Hudson finished reading the letter. Fair asked whether he had any "comments." udson made no reply. Fair stated that it was Hudson's job as the Union's unit chairman to take a responsible attitude and not to ad- vise any of the employees to act improperl. Hudson re- mained silent. This was the extent of what was stated. C. C'oncllusionn' r Findinzgs I. The applicable principles of law, In eitigartn4 the Supreme Court upheld the Board's determination that Section 7 of the Act gives an employee the right to insist on the presence of a uion representative as a condition of participation in an interview which the employee reasonably believes will result in disciplinarN ac- tion. In Certified Grocers of Cali/brnia, Ld.' a majority of a Board panel held that the Weingarten decision applied and that the employer violated Section 8(a)(1) b denying an employees' request for representation. They found that the Section 7 right to representation applies not only to "inves- tigatory interviews" where an employer is deciding whether or not to impose discipline but applies as well to a meeting called by an employer for the purpose of notifying an em- ployee about a disciplinary decision already reached. but where in addition to notifying the employee about the disci- pline imposed. the employer interviews the employee con- cerning his work performance which resulted in the disci- pline. The Board rejected the view that under W'eingaren an employee is entitled to have a union representative pre- sent only at an "investigatory" interview, and no other. The Board noted that the Supreme Court's opinion in eingar- en alludes to both "interviews" and "investigatory inter- views" without finding that an employee's Section 7 right to union representation exists only at "investigator inter- 'N l..RB v. J Weingartin, Irn, 420 S 251 (1975). '227 NLRB 1211 (1977) (Members Fanning and Penello: Member Wal- ther dissentingl TEXACO, IN('. 1025 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR REI.ATIONS BOARD basis for tearing disciplinary action. Rather, Respondent takes the position that the rule of Weingarten is not appli- cable to the meetings between employees and supervision in this case because "Weingarten is limited to interviews to elicit facts, not to impose discipline" and the meetings in- volved in this case "were never held for the purpose of investigation." The Board has rejected the view that Wein- gurten is only applicable to "investigatory interviews." In Certified Grocers, as described supra, the Board held that the Section 7 right to representation applies to meetings between an employer and his employee where the employer notifies the employee that he or she is being disciplined but chooses to conduct an interview with the employee con- cerning the employee's work performance which resulted in the disciplinary action.9 I am persuaded that the instant case is governed by the Board's Decision in Certified Grocers. The record reveals that prior to Foremen Brown's and Fair's meetings with the employees herein that Respondent had decided to disci- pline the employees and that Foremen Brown and Fair met with the employees for the purpose of informing them of their discipline and to inform them that this discipline was a preliminary step to further discipline if they continued to engage in similar acts of misconduct and to afford the em- ployees an opportunity to explain or defend themselves. In other words the meetings in dispute in this case constitute disciplinary interviews held preliminary to imposing further discipline upon the employees if they should continue to transgress. That Foreman Brown intended to conduct a disciplinary interview when he notified Guidinger of his 3-day suspen- sion for absenteeism is demonstrated by the following. The letter notifying Guidinger of his 3-day suspension does not merely inform him of this disciplinary action; rather it de- scribes in detail his poor attendance record and the previ- ous warnings issued to him and sets out certain things that Guidinger could do to improve his attendance record and concludes with the threat of further discipline, i.e., dis- charge, if Guidinger failed to follow this advice and im- prove his attendance. Moreover, in the letter Foreman Brown states that "this letter will confirm our conversation on April 17" and at another point states that "during our discussion you were reminded." (Emphasis supplied.) Plainly the text of the letter indicates that it was not Fore- man Brown's intent simply to hand Guidinger the disciplin- ary letter without allowing him an opportunity to explain or defend himself. Any doubt that Brown intended to con- duct a disciplinary interview when he met with Guidinger is removed by what took place at this meeting. Brown, instead of merely handing over the letter to Guidinger and dismiss- ing him from the office, told Guidinger to remain in the office and, in Brown's presence, to read the letter. And then, when Guidinger challenged the fairness of using his prior 3- day suspension in computing his current absenteeism, Brown explained why the 3 days had been included in the 9 1 recognize that the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declined toi enforce the Board's Decision in Certified Grocers and interprets iWeingarten as only applying to "investigatory interviews." See N L. R.B. v. Certfied Gro- cers of Califirni, Lid. 587 F.2d 449 (9th Cir. 1978). However, with all due respect to the views of the court, it is well settled that it is my duty to apply Board precedent which the Board or the Supreme Court has not reversed. E.g,