The Coca-Cola Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJan 26, 1981

254 N.L.R.B. 823 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

THE COCA-COLA COMPANY The Coca-Cola Company Foods Division and Rich- ard R. Geer. Case 25-CA-11701 January 26, 1981 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND TRUESDALE On September 19, 1980, Administrative Law Judge Richard L. Denison issued the attached De- cision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed a brief in opposition thereto. 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, find- ings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. 2 ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, The Coca-Cola Company Foods Division, Atlanta, Georgia, its of- ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. I The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi- bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con- vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry' Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd.188 F2d 362 (3d Cir 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings 2 The Respondent's motion to dismiss is hereby denied DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE RICHARD L. DENISON, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard at Valparaiso, Indiana, on August 8, 1980, based on a charge filed by Richard R. Geer, an in- dividual, on January 7, 1980. The complaint, issued Feb- ruary 22, 1980, alleges that the Respondent violated Sec- tion 8(a)(l) of the Act by forbidding employee Richard Geer from discussing with other employees his grievance meetings with management, his treatment by manage- ment, and other terms and conditions of employment; and by threatening Geer with reprisals if he engaged in such discussions. The Respondent's answer denies the al- legations of unfair labor practices alleged in the com- plaint. Upon the entire record in the case, including my ob- servation of the witnesses and consideration of the briefs, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION As admitted in the answer, the Respondent is a Geor- gia corporation with its principal office and place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. The Respondent has var- ious facilities throughout the United States including a plant at Valparaiso, Indiana, the only facility of the Re- spondent involved in this proceeding, where it is en- gaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of fruit drink cans and related products. During the calendar year ending December 31, 1979, the Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations, sold and shipped from its Valparaiso, Indiana, facility, products, goods, and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the State of Indiana. During the same period of time, in the course and conduct of its business operations, the Respondent purchased and received at its Valparaiso, Indiana, facility, products, goods, and materi- als valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points out- side the State of Indiana. The Respondent is now, and has been at all times material herein, an employer en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. THE ALI.EGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The employees at the Respondent's Valparaiso, Indi- ana, plant are not represented by any labor organization. However, the Company has provided a four-step griev- ance procedure, set forth in article XVII of its policy statement manual. Thus, an employee may complain orally to the immediate supervisor, and, absent agree- ment, in waiting to the plant manager followed by successive appeals to the manager of manufacturing, and the Division's director of personnel-industrial relations in Houston, Texas, who may, in novel situations, refer the matter to the director of operations. On May 6, 1979, Richard R. Geer, an end press me- chanic with 12 years' service with the Respondent, was promoted into a training program for the job of roving mechanic on the can production line. On November 16, Geer was released from the program and returned to his former job. Geer resorted to the Respondent's grievance procedure, and on November 19 Geer reduced his com- plaint to writing claiming, essentially, that his foreman, John Hipke, had treated him abusively and misused his position to remove Geer from the training program for personal reasons. On November 26, 1979, Hipke's written response stated, in substance, that Geer had been given every opportunity to develop his skills, but showed that he did not possess the mechanical appitude or proper at- titude for the job. Plant Manager Harold S. Louderback sustained the viewpoint of his foreman, and denied the grievance on November 28, whereupon Geer appealed to Manager of Manufacturing A. B. Ketterer at the third step. At this point, on December 1, Geer wrote a supple- ment to his grievance, in the form of a lengthy letter to 254 NLRB No. 99 823 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Ketterer, containing further arguments relating to his case, including accusations of favoritism and discrimina- tion directed toward Louderback. Louderback first saw the letter when it was returned by Ketterer upon the denial of Geer's grievance in mid-December. On Decem- ber 21 Louderback called Geer to his office, and in the presence of Personnel Manager James Young advised Geer that his grievance had been denied and that he had the right to appeal to the fourth step. Louderback then launched into a severe reprimand concerning Geer's writing of the critical letter to Louderback's superior. At this point the versions of the three participants in the meeting become diverse. According to Geer, he entered Louderback's office at 4 p.m. Louderback was holding Geer's denied grievance and 2-page addendum statement in his hand. He was upset, announced "I am mad as hell at you," and said that Geer was taking "shots" at him, at the Company, and his fellow workers. He referred to Geer's produc- tion, and stated that if it dropped under 250,000 ends per shift Geer would have a lot of answering to do. Louder- back referred to Geer's wife, but dropped the topic when Geer insisted that Louderback leave his wife out of the conversation. Then Louderback asked if Geer was going on vacation that week. Geer answered affirmative- ly, whereupon Louderback began "Well, I would sug- gest to you that you-," but Geer interrupted, asking if Louderback was threatening his job. At one point in the conversation Louderback discussed Geer's ability to do his job with an added reference concerning a remark made to Louderback by one James Callahan. Finally, Louderback stated, "If any talk gets around out there on that floor about this grievance and what it pertains and this meeting, I'm coming after you." Then, according to Geer, Louderback threw the grievance onto his desk. From the desk, the grievance fell to the floor from which it was retrieved by Young as Geer was dismissed and left the office. Harold Louderback testified that he was concerned about the two-page supplement Geer had written, but was not upset when he interviewed Geer about the matter in the presence of Young. According to Louder- back, he stated that there were several comments which Geer had made that were not truthful, and that he wanted to explain and clarify them. He said that his basic concern was that some of the inflammatory remarks were directed toward Geer's coworkers, and that he was fearful that employee discussion of the addendum "could result in fisticuffs or something of this nature." He wanted to prevent that from happening. Thus, Louder- back agreed that he might also have told Geer that he could not discuss the matter in the plant or out of the plant. Nevertheless, later in his testimony, when recalled as a witness for the Respondent, Louderback denied threatening Geer with retaliation or forbidding him to discuss the grievance with any employee. James Young, an obviously reluctant witness for the General Counsel no longer employed by the Respondent, testified that the meeting lasted "quite a while." During that time Young said nothing. The subject of discussion between Louderback and Geer was the return of Geer's grievance from Houston with an additional two-page statement by Geer, which Louderback had not seen before. Louderback stated that Geer should have pre- sented the letter as a part of his original grievance if he had wanted it considered. He said that there were some statements in there that were not true, should not have been stated, and "could cause some bad feelings on the floor." After considerable vacillation, Young testified that he did not know whether Louderback stated he would prefer Geer not to discuss the allegedly contro- versial statements in the letter, or whether Louderback specifically instructed Geer not to discuss them. Having carefully compared the testimonies of Geer, Young, and Louderback concerning the incident in ques- tion, I am persuaded that Louderback did in fact order Geer not to discuss his grievance "on the floor" with the employees and threatened to retaliate against him if he did. Of the three witnesses to the conversation, only Geer possessed the ability to actually quote crucial por- tions of the interview. Young's testimony is, I find, at best marginally reliable, marked by an obvious effort to avoid, to the extent possible, displeasing his former em- ployer. Louderback's testimony that he was "concerned" about the addendum but not upset is clearly a misstate- ment when considered in the light of any or the three participants' versions of the conversation. Finally, his ad- mission that he might have told Geer not to discuss the grievance in or out of the plant clearly corroborates rather than refutes Geer's account. I find that the Re- spondent engaged in the conduct alleged in the com- plaint. Since it is also clear that the topics concerning which Louderback's remarks were directed are integrally related and a part of Geer's overali grievance against the Company and clearly tend to interfere with and inhibit employees' free expression of their grievances, I find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act by engaging in this conduct as alleged. CONCI.USIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. By forbidding employee Richard Geer from discuss- ing with other employees his grievance meetings with management, his treatment by management, and other terms and conditions of employment; and by threatening Geer with reprisals if he engaged in such discussions, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. 3. The Respondent has not violated the Act in any re- spects other than those specifically found. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THiE REMIDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged and is engaging in certain unfair labor practices, I find it neces- sary to order that it cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. 824 THE COCA-COLA COMPANY Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER The Respondent, The Coca-Cola Company Foods Di- vision, Atlanta, Georgia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Threatening employees by forbidding them from discussing with other employees grievance meetings with management, their treatment by management, and other terms and conditions of employment. (b) Threatening employees with reprisals if they dis- cuss their grievances, treatment by management, and other terms and conditions of employment, with their fellow employees. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representa- tives of their own choosing, and to engage in other pro- tected concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to re- frain from any and all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condi- tion of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its facility at Valparaiso, Indiana, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."2 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 25, after being signed by an authorized represen- tative of the Respondent, shall be posted by the Respon- dent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main- tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con- 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 find- ings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as pros ided in Sec. 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. 2 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a nited States Coun fo Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court fo Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " spicuous places, including all places where notices to em- ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 25, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPI.OYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE Wll.. NOT threaten employees by forbidding them from discussing with other employees griev- ance meetings with management, their treatment by management, and other terms and conditions of em- ployment. WE Wl.L NOT threaten employees with reprisals if they discuss their grievances, treatment by man- agement, and other terms and conditions of employ- ment, with their fellow employees. WE WIL NOT in any like or related manner in- terfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collec- tively through representatives of their own choos- ing, and to engage in other protected concerted ac- tivities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requir- ing membership in a labor organization as a condi- tion of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended. THE COCA-COLA COMPANY FOODS DIVI- SION 825