Tylertown Wood Products

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 26, 1980

251 N.L.R.B. 515 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

TYrLERTOWN WOOD PRODUCTS 515
Tylertown Wood Products and United Furniture
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Local 282.
Case 15-CA-7153
August 26, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
PENELLO AND TRUESDALE
On April 21, 1980, Administrative Law Judge
Bruce C. Nasdor issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel
filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and Re-
spondent filed an answering brief to the General
Counsel's exceptions.
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.
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 complaint herein be, and it
hereby is dismissed in its entirety.
I In its exceptions the General Counsel argues, and we agree, that the
Union was entitled to be notified of the layoffs and that Respondent was
obligated to bargain over the effects of the layoffs. However, in agree-
ment with the Administrative Law Judge, we find that in this case the
Union had actual notice of the layoffs and that Respondent in fact did
bargain over the effects of the layoffs.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BRUCE C. NASDOR, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard in Tylertown, Mississippi, on June 18-20,
1979. The charge and amended charge against Respond-
ent were filed by the Union on December 21, 1978, and
February 5, 1979, respectively. The complaint alleges in-
dependent violations of Section 8(a)(1) and a refusal to
bargain in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein called the Act).
Upon the entire record, including my observation of
the demeanor of the witnesses, and after due considera-
tion of briefs, I make the following:
251 NLRB No. 48
FINIINGS OF FACT
i. JURISD)ICTION
Respondent is a division of New Orleans Furniture
Manufacturing Co., a Louisiana corporation, engaged in
the manufacture of furniture parts at its furniture dimen-
sion plant in Tylertown, Mississippi. During the preced-
ing 12-months, a period representative of all times mate-
rial herein, Respondent in the course and conduct of its
business operations purchased and received goods and
materials valued in excess of $50,000, directly from
points located outside the State of Mississippi, and sold
and shipped goods valued in excess of $50,000, directly
to points outside the State of Mississippi.
Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
II. THE lABOR ORGANIZATION
United Furniture Workers of America, AFL-CIO,
Local 282 (herein called the Union) is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
I. Whether Respondent, by its vice president, D. F.
Walker, interrogated, threatened, or coerced employees
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. Whether Reverend Casey Holmes, Jr., was an agent
of Respondent, and if so, did he engage in violations of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. Did Respondent unilaterally lay off employees and
thereafter fail and refuse to bargain with the Union con-
cerning the layoffs in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5)
of the Act.
4. The appropriate remedy if a violation is found.
B. The Facts
Tylertown Wood Products is a division of New Or-
leans Furniture Manufacturing Company. Another divi-
sion, Oklahoma Furniture Manufacturing Company, has
a contract with United Furniture Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, covering its production and maintenance em-
ployees.
On August 25, 1978,' an election was conducted
among the production and maintenance2 employees of
Respondent at its Tylertown Wood Products plant in
Case 15-RC-6322. A majority of the valid votes was cast
for the Union, and on September 5, it was certified as
the collective-bargaining representative.
During the Union's organizational campaign, the unit
consisted of approximately 100 employees.
I All dates are in 1978. unless otherwise indicated
2 The appropriate unit is:
All full-time and regular part-time production and maintenance em-
ployees, including leadermen. production clerks, the draftsmen and
the quality control employees employed by Respondent at its Tyler-
town, Mississippi. location, ecluding all office clerical employees,
fire launchers. guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
T'LERTOWN WOOD PRODUCTS
516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Edna Rose Wilson, a production clerk, was called by
counsel for the General Counsel as a witness to testify
with respect to paragraphs 7(a) through (e) of the com-
plaint. She testified that approximately 3 days prior to
the election, D. F. Walker, vice president of Respondent,
called her into a plant conference room between 9:30
and 10 a.m. and asked her to identify the employees re-
sponsible for initiating and supporting the Union. Ac-
cording to Wilson he told her that he had been advised
she was one of the union leaders. Wilson denied being a
leader in the union campaign and Walker allegedly asked
her to identify the union supporters. She testified that
Walker told her he would not fire any employees for
being involved with the Union, but simply wanted to
know their names so that he might have an opportunity
to talk with them. Walker allegedly stated that if the
Union was voted in, the plant would be closed, and if
Wilson ever repeated the conversation he would call her
a liar.
Wilson testified that on four or five occasions during
the latter part of July through the first of August, em-
ployees handed out leaflets announcing union meetings.
According to Wilson, on the days following the distribu-
tions Walker asked her what was said at the union meet-
ings. Wilson testified that she admitted attending these
meetings, but refused to provide information as to what
was said except she told Walker that the employees
agreed to stick together and not be persuaded to change
their minds or, "to let Mr. Walker turn us around."
Walker testified recalling two occasions when he
talked to Edna Rose Wilson about the Union. According
to Walker, some time during the first week of August, he
learned from an office employee that Wilson had re-
ceived a black eye from her husband because she refused
to attend a union meeting. He heard that she had come
to work and had fainted that morning, and an ambulance
was called to come and get her. Thus she was not at the
plant that morning for any length of time. Walker testi-
fied that the next day Wilson came to work and he took
her into the conference room and closed the door and
asked her what happened. She confirmed what Walker
had learned the day before and according to him, he
stated to her that it was not worth getting beat up over.
If her husband wanted her to go to the union meeting
she should go to the union meeting. He stated further to
her when the time comes to vote, nobody is going to
know how you vote. You vote the way you want to, but
do not let anybody beat you up for, or against, going.
According to Walker, Wilson stated that she appreciated
it and would do it.
Walker testified that the second conversation occurred
a week or 10 days after the conversation set forth above.
According to Walker he was told by the same office em-
ployee, Sue Carter, that Wilson wanted to talk with him
about the Union. Walker testified that Wilson asked him
why he was opposed to the Union, and Walker replied
that he was not opposed to the Union as such, but was
opposed to the division that it caused between employees
and management. She then asked what would happen if
the Union won the election. Walker replied that after the
election was held if the Union wins there would be a
certification by the Labor Board and after that, a union
representative would get in touch with management rep-
resentatives and they would sit down and start negotiat-
ing a contract. Walker testified further that on 7, 8, or
maybe even 10 occasions, he had heard rumors from em-
ployees that some of them had been told that if the
Union won the plant would be closed. Walker avers that
on each occasion he would tell the employees that there
was not a word of truth to that, neither he, nor Leather-
man, president of the Company, could make that deci-
sion. Regardless of whether they wanted to close or not
would not be left up to them, but rather it was a board
of directors' decision. Walker specifically denied Wil-
son's testimony regarding threats and interrogation.
Wilson and employee Daisy Owens testified that
Wilson received a black eye after the election and it had
nothing to do with her refusal to attend a union meeting.
Daisy Owens testified that on August 22 or 23, Odell
Lee, a foreman, approached her and said that she was
wanted in the front office. She left her machine and met
Walker in the front office where he introduced her to
Reverend Casey Holmes, Jr., and Walker immediately
left the office. According to Owens, Holmes stated that
he had known Walker for a long time and understood
that a union campaign was in progress and an election
was fast approaching. Holmes stated that Walker told
him that Daisy Owens was one of the union leaders and
asked him to discover why they wanted the Union.
Owens testified that Holmes further stated that Walker
and Leatherman were christian hearted people and if
given a chance would correct all the injustices suffered
by employees which would remove any need for a
union.
Employee Sedonia Slocum testified that about a week
or a week and a half before the election she was called
into the office by her supervisor, Odell Lee. She testified
that when she went to the office she met Cliff Arinder,
former plant manager. Arinder in the presence of Walker
introduced her to Reverend Casey Holmes, Jr., a baptist
minister. Arinder allegedly stated, "this is Sedonia, what-
ever she tells you, you can put your foot on it, because
he is a straight going person." Then Arinder and Walker
left the office. Holmes allegedly stated that he and
Walker had been friends for a long time, and asked
Slocum if she would not be better off without a union.
Holmes, according to Slocum, promised that Walker
would correct the problems at the plant if employees
would give him another chance by voting against the
Union. Holmes allegedly said that all the employees had
to do to correct their problem was to go to the front
office and call Walker at his office in Columbia, Missis-
sippi. Slocum testified that she replied that employees
had done that before without success and if the Union
came in the plant, their problems could be resolved.
On August 23, Willie Rudd, International vice presi-
dent of the Union, arranged to meet Holmes at his
church in Columbia, Mississippi. That evening Rudd ac-
companied by Robert Span, International representative
and employees Daisy Owens, Sedonia Slocum, Bobbie
Dilon, and Anthony Dillon went to the church. Rudd
testified that at the meeting he initially began, by asking
Holmes what his role was in the union campaign.
TYLERTOWN WOOD PRODUCTS 517
Holmes allegedly stated that he was merely a concerned
citizen and minister who had a right to know how the
employees felt about the Union. Rudd replied that
Holmes' concern was suspect, having come only a few
days before the election, and he asked Holmes if Walker
or Leatherman paid him to sell out the employees.
Holmes denied being on Respondent's payroll but ad-
mitted receiving a financial contribution from Walker
and Leatherman for his church. Rudd asked Holmes
what purpose would they have for making a financial
contribution to his church and Holmes responded that
they were just friends of his. Rudd asked Holmes how
he became involved with the campaign and Holmes re-
sponded that Walker had called him and told him he had
a problem in the plant and asked for his assistance in
communicating with black employees about the Union.
Holmes asked if Rudd was proposing a checkoff in the
contract and Rudd responded that he probably would.
Then Holmes countered with, suppose the Company will
not give it. Rudd answered that they would cross that
bridge when they came to it. Holmes asked what would
happen if Rudd called the people out on strike, who was
going to take care of them? Rudd told Holmes that the
Union does not call people out on a strike, rather, in the
event of a strike the people vote for it by secret ballot. It
would be their decision, and furthermore, if there was a
strike, the Union would support the employees financial-
ly. Holmes allegedly also asked during the conversation
who was going to take care of the people when the plant
closes down. Rudd responded, who said the plant was
going to close. Holmes allegedly repeated that if it were
to close who would take care of the people. Rudd told
Holmes that he had apparently been reading too much of
the Company's propaganda, because that is one of the
oldest tricks in an organizing campaign, and one of the
first threats made, that if the Union came in the plant
would close down. In his experience and years of orga-
nizing he, Rudd, had never seen that happen. Rudd told
Holmes that he should be at the plant trying to help the
people, rather than doing what he was doing, because its
been his belief and teaching, that the duty of a minister
was to try to help people rather than to harm them.
Holmes told Rudd he was not going to sit there and
listen to anymore of his insults and as far a he was con-
cerned the meeting was over. Rudd testified he apolo-
gized to Holmes and told him he was sorry if he had in-
sulted him. Rudd testified that before the outburst they
discussed the dinner to be held at Mae's Restaurant and
he asked Holmes who was paying for the dinner, to
which Holmes responded he was. Rudd said if that is the
case, the dinner was his idea and Holmes was paying for
it, he would appreciate an invitation. Rudd also asked
him if any of the company officials were going to be at
the dinner and he said no, that the dinner was only for
the employees. Rudd asked him what the purpose of the
dinner was, and Holmes allegedly responded, to chat, so
he could find out how the employees felt about the
Union. Rudd told Holmes that by now he should know
how the employees felt about the Union because he
talked to some of the leaders and supporters. He stated
further that they would not be having an election
Friday, if the majority of the people had not signed au-
thorization cards for union representation. Rudd repeated
that he would appreciate an invitation to the dinner and
Holmes stated that he did not think that would be possi-
ble, but he would check and let Rudd know. Holmes
stated there were some other concerned citizens in-
volved in the dinner, but he could not tell Rudd who
they were. The meeting ended with Holmes advising
Rudd that he would call him the following day and let
him know whether or not he was invited to the dinner,
but Rudd never received a call.
On the following day Rudd went to the restaurant to
attend the dinner and as he was serving himself, Day,
personnel director, told Rudd he could not attend the
dinner or speech. Rudd therefore left the premises.
Walker testified that he had known Reverend Holmes
for 12 to 15 years when Holmes was in Columbia, Mis-
sissippi. Holmes subsequently moved to Atlanta, Geor-
gia. Walker admitted making contributions to the church,
the first in the summer of 1977. Moreover, since around
1967, the Company at Christmastime mails donations to
12 or 15 Baptist churches. They donate to the Marion
County Baptist Association. Walker testified that he was
contacted by telephone by a Richard Price, an insurance
agent in Columbia. Price wanted to know if it would be
possible for Reverend Holmes to talk to the employees at
Tylertown. Walker told him he was not sure, but he felt
that some arrangements could be made. On the following
day Walker advised Price that if Holmes talked to the
employees as a concerned citizen on his own, with the
Company being left totally out of it, he did not see a
thing wrong with it. According to Walker, Holmes had
been very active in the civil rights movement, and was
well respected in both the black and white community.
Walker talked directly to Holmes, and Holmes wanted to
know whether he could come over to the plant and talk
to the employees. Walker advised him that there was no
way that he could do that. Holmes then asked Walker
whether there was an employee at the plant that he
could talk to, to get some feeling of what is going on.
Walker advised Holmes that he was sure he knew some-
one that he could introduce him to, and when Holmes
came to the plant Walker introduced him to Daisy
Owens. According to Walker, he learned from several
people that Owens was well respected and a leader in
the community. Walker testified that he did not intro-
duce Reverend Holmes to any other employee at any
time. He qualified this comment to the extent that when
Holmes came to the office he introduced him to some
management individuals and clericals.
Walker testified that he learned about the dinner at
Mae's Restaurant from Price, and that Price paid for the
dinner. He testified further that he instructed Day and
Odell Lee, a supervisor, to be at the meeting to identify
company employees, because as a result of the meeting
with Holmes the day before, Holmes was concerned that
there would be heckling or disruptions at the meeting.
Day and Lee were to make sure that the only people at
the dinner were employed by the Company, and then
they were to leave.
TLERTOWN WOOD PROI)UCTS
518 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LA1()OR RELATIONS BOARD
Walker denied that he and Letterman instructed
Carter to make arrangements for the dinner, in the pres-
ence of Wilson.
Wilson testified that Holmes came to the plant on the
Friday preceding the election. That would make the date
August 18. He also testified that Arinder's last day
worked at the Company was July 26.
Edna Rose Wilson testified that Arinder resigned
around the middle or last part of June.
The Layoffs and Bargaining
In 1973, a buss planer was installed to perform the
planing on the rough lumber in the mill. There were re-
peated bearing failures causing excessive wear due to
heat, vibration, and locked bearings. In addition, during
August, the cutter head shaft was broken or cracked,
and a new part had to be welded in place. Suffice it to
say, that the planer, continually malfunctioning, was a
continuous and constant problem for Respondent. On
August 23, the level of vibration and noise reached the
point where an examination was necessary which re-
vealed that welds had broken loose and bearings had
again worn out. A new set of bearings was ordered and
other repairs were made. On August 23, the planer was
put back into operation, but the vibration continued to
be excessive and to increase over the next couple of
days. Finally, the vibration reached such a level that
management felt it was a hazard to employees, in that
there was a possibility welds could break, and at 5,000
revolutions per minute if the cutter head broke loose and
flew off, it could harm or kill employees in the area.
Thus, the planer became inoperative and the work which
was to be processed through the rough mill could not be
performed.
On August 30, when the planer was shut down, Re-
spondent sent certain employees home because it did not
have any work for them. Respondent expected it would
be able to resume production, and the employees were
instructed to report back on a certain day. The testimony
and documentation reveal immediate efforts on the part
of Respondent to locate a used planer which could be
put into operation immediately, and production resumed.
Furthermore, Respondent solicited quotations for a new
planer and its efforts in this regard continued. Charles
Harrison, who was Respondent's sales manager at the
time, testified that based on figures provided by Buss
Automation of Lenore, North Carolina, the cost of a
new planer reached between $235,000 and $240,000. The
new material handling equipment necessary to utilize it
would run approximately $86,000. Moreover, this new
equipment would require an additional 6,000 square feet
of floor space necessitating a new building which would
be approximately $45,000. Approximately $12,000 to
$15,000 would be required for installation and to connect
the equipment to various electrical air and dust collec-
tion systems.
Walker testified that Respondent did not initially con-
sider sending employees home on August 30 to be a
layoff as such. It is undisputed that hardly a week went
by that there was not some delay or problem with the
planer. Walker was the individual who instructed Harri-
son to tell the people to go home, and he told Harrison
to get the maintenance department to see what could be
done. He assumed that the planer could be repaired, as in
the past, and he gave instructions that the employees
should come back to work on Tuesday of the following
week. Respondent was faced with the fact that approxi-
mately 2,000 individuals at the various furniture compa-
nies would be affected if deliveries could not be effectu-
ated by Respondent. Moreover, it is in the fall of the
year when the furniture industry is at its peak. Accord-
ing to Walker, that afternoon the Company attempted to
locate kiln dried plain lumber which it could utilize
during the emergency period of shutdown in order to
maintain its operations. The lumber was not available.
On August 29, Rudd sent a letter to Respondent re-
questing bargaining and seeking data. On September 5,
Respondent answered this letter, furnishing the informa-
tion sought by Rudd. Respondent offered to meet with
the Union at any time during the week of September II,
reserving the option to change this until a definite date
was agreed upon.
Rudd testified he first learned about the layoff from
Daisy Owens, an employee who is president of the local,
when she telephoned him on August 30. On September
1, Owens again called Rudd and told him that the re-
porting date had been changed from September 5 to Sep-
tember 11. Thereafter, there was a -day layoff of rough
mill employees on August 30, a 2-day layoff on August
31, a 4-day layoff on September 1, followed by the an-
nouncement of an indefinite or permanent layoff on Sep-
tember 8.
On September 12, Rudd called Walker to set up a
date, time, and place to begin negotiations. The date of
September 20 was agreed on. Rudd then told Walker
that he had been informed of the layoff of some of the
employees, and that he wanted to know why. Rudd testi-
fied that he was informed that the planer had broken
down in the rough mill, that the Company was working
on it, and they would have it repaired as soon as possible
and the employees could go back to work. Walker told
Rudd in this conversation that Respondent did not know
when the employees would be recalled because Respond-
ent at that time did not know whether it could repair the
present planer or procure a new one. Rudd testified that
he told Walker he hoped that Walker's taking so long to
reopen the plant had nothing to do with the outcome of
the election, and Walker responded that it did not. On
September 14, Rudd sent a letter to Walker requesting
immediate bargaining with reference to the plant closing
and laying off of the employees. Rudd advised Walker
that the Union considers the layoff to be an unfair labor
practice. The letter was received by Respondent on Sep-
tember 18.
At the first meeting Rudd renewed his request which
he had made in the August 29 letter for certain bargain-
ing unit information. Walker responded that he had
mailed the information. Representing the Union at these
negotiations was Rudd and an employee negotiation
committee consisting of Daisy Owens, Edna Rose
Wilson, Eddie Magee, Sonny Magee, Suelon Rowell,
and Helen Holmes. Respondent was represented by
Walker, Day, and Shirley Burkett, Walker's secretary.
- - __ - ___ _ -- - ___ ------ ------- -
TY1.FRT0()UWN WOOD PRODUCTSCT 519
Walker brought up the September 14 letter stating that
the Union's unfair labor practice accusations were not
true since the machine broke down and it was beyond
Respondent's control. Walker stated that there was no al-
ternative on August 30, other than to keep employees at
the plant without any work for them to do. Further-
more, Respondent investigated to see if the planer could
be repaired and whether there was any work in inven-
tory or overstock. The overstock had been used up in
the previous week, and when the planer broke down the
maintenance people checked and determined that it
could not be repaired. Rudd requested additional infor-
mation relating to hospitalization insurance, and Walker
gave the premium cost with the amount contributed by
Respondent and the employee. Rudd asked what had
been done to repair the planer and Walker responded
that they were still working on it but to complete repairs
would cost about $18,000 and could take up to 6 months.
Rudd's testimony and Respondent's minutes reflect that
Walker made reference to Rudd's September 14 letter,
and Walker gave a report of the reasons for the layoffs,
the estimated cost of the replaced planer and a general
discussion of efforts on behalf of the Respondent to
locate a used planer. Rudd and other committee mem-
bers asked if the layoffs were by seniority or by depart-
ment and Walker responded that the layoffs had been by
departments. Rudd commented that he understood that
some people on layoffs had more seniority than those
working, and Walker replied that Respondent considered
layoffs by department to be the only fair way. He point-
ed out that it would be impractical to train employees in
one department to work in another department for a
week. Rudd asked if Respondent would continue to op-
erate as much of the plant as it was able, and was told
that it would. Walker explained the problems of main-
taining insurance for employees who might find other
jobs, in response to Rudd's question as to whether Re-
spondent would maintain insurance coverage. Walker
stated that if layoffs were extensive, he would recall
senior employees and layoff junior employees. Walker
agreed to make a public statement dispelling the rumor
that the layoffs had anything to do with the Union.
Rudd asked if Respondent would continue paying insur-
ance premiums for laid off employees, and Walker stated
that he did not know if any wanted to return but he
would investigate the matter and let Rudd know Re-
spondent's position at the next meeting. Rudd acknowl-
edged that he knew that the work in the plant would
gradually run out unless the Company got a new planer
or new orders. The parties did agree to the method of
recall from layoff in the contract which was eventually
consummated. The latter part of this first meeting was
spent discussing the Union's contract proposals.
Initially, Walker had suggested in response to Rudd's
demand that instead of volunteering the statement to dis-
pell any rumors that plant closure might have to do with
union activity, employees should call Walker. The Union
pressed the issue that Walker should volunteer it to a
newspaper or radio station and finally Walker agreed.
When contacted by the newspaper, Walker stated that
the plant would be reopened when a new planer was
procured, and that the plant had not been closed because
of the Union.
The second negotiation session was held on September
27. Rudd began the meeting by asking if any progress
had been made in repairing the planer and recalling the
laid-off employees. Walker advised Rudd that the present
planer could not be put back into operation because of
the expenses, and there was also the problem of whether
or not OSHA would approve the utilization of the pres-
ent planer. Therefore Respondent has decided to replace
the planer. Walker stated that he had compiled a list of
laid off employees and he would see what could be done
about recalling these employees. Rudd wanted to know
about the status of hospitalization insurance coverage for
laid-off employees and Walker responded they were cov-
ered as long as the premium was paid and that employ-
ees often continued paying the premium when they are
on leave of absence. Walker did not know whether or
not there were any provisions for the payment of premi-
ums in the event of the layoffs. There was further discus-
sion as to whether layoffs would be on a departmental or
plantwide seniority basis.
At the third meeting on October 5, Rudd inquired of
Walker as to any progress in repairing or replacing the
planer. Walker told him that no progress had been made,
but Respondent was continuing to search for a planer
pursuant to Rudd's request, and would provide a list of
companies that had been contacted in Respondent's
search for a new planer. Rudd inquired as to whether
Respondent had recalled any employees, and Walker re-
sponded no one had been recalled and that by October
10, the Company expected to be caught up with every-
thing. Inasmuch as there were no new orders, the plant
would be completely shut down.
Rudd asked that Respondent put the Tylertown em-
ployees to work at its nearby furniture plant in Colum-
bia, Mississippi. Walker agreed to do this as jobs became
available. Then discussion ensued with respect to the
turnover rate at Columbia, and how long the hiring
process might take. Rudd requested that Respondent
notify the laid off Tylertown employees about the avail-
ability of jobs in Columbia, but Walker took the position
that the notification should be done by the Union's nego-
tiation committee. Some days after this third session,
Walker sent Rudd a list of companies that had been con-
tacted with respect to a new planer.
On the following day after the third session, Respond-
ent laid off nine employees in shipping, the machine
room, and finish room.
At the fourth bargaining session on October 16, Rudd
inquired again about Respondent's progress in replacing
the planer. Walker responded that a planer had not been
found, but that Respondent was continuing the search.
By this time most of the employees had been laid off and
a committee member asked how much longer people
would be working in the plant. Walker told her it would
be approximately I week, except for one order which
would run for a longer period. Rudd inquired as to
whether anyone from Tylertown had applied for work at
Columbia. Walker told him no, and explained that 20
people had been laid off in the upholstery department at
TRTWN WOOD PRODUCTS
520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Columbia, and the Company was trying to place them,
so there are no openings. Any future openings would be
filled with the laid-off employees at Columbia.
At the fifth meeting on October 27, Rudd asked what
progress had been made with respect to reopening the
plant, and Walker responded that Respondent still had
not located a planer but was hopeful of purchasing one
in Indiana. Rudd again asked about health insurance cov-
erage for laid-off employees. Walker stated that letters
had been sent out informing employees how far behind
the insurance payments were, how much was due, and
when to come to the office to make payments. Walker
agreed with Rudd, that people would be covered up to a
certain period of time. Rudd asked why Respondent
would not pay the premiums and Walker replied that he
did not know which employees had taken other jobs.
Walker stated that so far, only 10 people had shown a
desire to remain covered by the health insurance, by
showing up in response to a prior letter. Rudd asked
why Respondent had not hired some of the laid-off em-
ployees in Columbia, and Walker told him that only two
had applied, and the Company still had employees from
the upholstery department in Columbia who had not
been placed.
Between the fifth and sixth session, on November 3,
Respondent laid off an additional nine employees.
At the sixth session on November 6, Rudd asked
Walker his position with respect to payment of health in-
surance premiums for the employees. Walker responded
that Respondent would not make these payments, if em-
ployees wanted coverage, they would either have to mail
in their payment or come to the plant and make their
payments.
At the meetings of December 4, 5, and 11, the discus-
sions centered around contract negotiations.
On January 5, 1979, Respondent laid off six employees
who were the last ones working at the plant. The 10th
bargaining session was held on February 16, 1979. The
parties discussed the complaint which is the subject of
this decision and Rudd asked Kullman, Respondent's at-
torney, who was in attendance at this session, what Re-
spondent was going to do with respect to reopening the
plant. Kullman responded that Respondent was still look-
ing for a new planer, but had been unsuccessful thus far.
The parties continued to engage in contract negotiations.
After the 10th negotiation session, during March 1979,
Rudd and Walker were in contact by mail and telephone.
Essentially, Respondent communicated to the Union that
unless the contract was agreed to in the near future, the
Tylertown facility might permanently close, because of
the uncertainty of labor costs. Rudd proposed resump-
tion of negotiations, and a meeting was held on April 6,
1979.
At this, the 11th meeting, Walker informed Rudd that
if a contract was agreed to he would recommend to the
board of directors that a planer be purchased and the
plant reopened, with a target date of July 1, 1979. Rudd
questioned Walker's authority and effectiveness in
making recommendations, and Walker replied that in 25
years he had never had a recommendation rejected.
At the 12th and final negotiation session on April 16,
the parties reached accord and signed a contract based
on the Union's Oklahoma agreement. This 2-year con-
tract does not contain checkoff which the Union had
consistently sought throughout the negotiations.
CONCLUSIONS AND) ANAI YSIS
I view the testimony of Edna Rose Wilson as fabricat-
ed, and not worthy of belief. As the weaknesses in her
story were gradually brought to light on cross-examina-
tion, she became increasingly hostile, left the witness
stand, menacingly approached counsel for Respondent,
and lapsed into irrationality and incoherence. After being
told repeatedly by me and counsel for the General Coun-
sel to retake the stand, I finally threatened to strike all of
her testimony. At that point, she took the stand. It
should be pointed out that counsel for Respondent cross-
examined her courteously and in a well modulated tone,
he was not argumentative, nor did he in any way pro-
voke such an outburst.
D. F. Walker appeared to me as a truthful and reliable
witness. He was careful to be accurate and credibly ex-
plained the context and reasons for any conversations he
had with Edna Rose Wilson about the Union. Accord-
ingly, I fully credit Walker's testimony and specifically
discredit Wilson's testimony. I therefore recommend that
the allegations that Walker interrogated, threatened, or
coerced employees be dismissed. 3
I believe that Walker testified honestly with respect to
his and Respondent's relationship with Reverend Casey
Holmes, Jr. I specifically discredit the testimony of Se-
donia Slocum. Her testimony conflicts with Walker's
and, as stated earlier, I found Walker to be a credible
witness. Moreover, Slocum was evasive on cross-exami-
nation and her testimony that the plant manager, Cliff
Arinder, introduced her to Holmes, a week or a week
and a half before the election is, in my opinion, a fabrica-
tion. The facts reveal that Holmes came to the plant on
the Friday preceding the election, and Arinder left Re-
spondent's employ at least 3 weeks prior to the incident
alleged in Slocum's testimony.
Holmes did not testify, and although the testimony by
Slocum and Daisy Owens is hearsay, I can accept it, but
not for the truth or falsity of the statements attributed to
Holmes. If Holmes is an agent of Respondent then some
of the statements attributed to him during the conversa-
tion with Daisy Owens, and during the meeting at the
church in Columbia, Mississippi, would be violative of
Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. In my view the evidence does
not support the proposition that Holmes was an agent for
Respondent. I view the credible evidence as reflecting
that Holmes came to the plant on one occasion, and was
introduced to one employee. It was Rudd, the Union's
vice president, who arranged the meeting with Holmes
at his church. No evidence whatsoever was adduced
with respect to Holmes' address, if there was any, at
Mae's Restaurant. In my view Holmes was not placed in
a position to be identified with management in the eyes
of the employees, and to translate to them the policies
and desires of management. This language is used by the
: Out of a complement of 100 employees, only Wilson testified that
Walker engaged in violations of Sec. 8(a)(l) of the Act.
TYILERTOWN WOOD PRODUCTS 521
Board in The Huntington Hospital. Inc., 227 NLRB 316
(1976). 4 Accordingly. I will recommend dismissal of
those allegations relating to the Reverend Casey Holmes.
Jr.
The record clearly demonstrates that the failure of the
planer made the plant inoperable, leading inevitably to
the layoffs. Respondent could not have anticipated that
on August 30. the planer would prove to be inoperable
as a result of malfunctions on several days prior thereto.
Thus, how could Respondent inform the Union it antici-
pated laying off employees? It is beyond dispute that at
the third negotiation session on October 5 Respondent
made it very clear that by October 10 it expected to be
caught up in its orders, it had no new orders, therefore it
would have to close completely and lay off the remain-
der of the employees.
As the evidence discloses, Respondent laid off employ-
ees incrementally. It would be ridiculous to expect Re-
spondent to telephone or write the Union each and every
time throughout this period, on every occasion when
three employees or five employees were laid off. The
parties were in contact throughout the period of the lay-
offs, and met on 12 occasions to discuss the affects of the
layoffs on these employees,5 and to negotiate a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement. I am convinced by all of the
evidence that Respondent engaged in good-faith bargain-
ing from the beginning,6 and eventually entered into a
collective-bargaining agreement with the Union. A
review of the bargaining sessions clearly discloses give
and take on both sides with respect to the contract itself,
' Cf. Montgomery Ward & Co.,. Incorporated, 228 NLRB 750 (1977)
t Indeed Respondent compiled and mailed information to the Union
even prior to receipt of the Union's official certification
T riplex Oil Refining Division of Pentalic Corporation, 194 NLRB 500
(1971}.
and a great deal of discussion as to the employees in
layoff status. Moreover, the Company gave in to many
of the union demands with the exception of continuing
the payment of insurance for laid-off employees and
checkoff. When the Union requested data and had ques-
tions, Respondent complied in a timely manner. The Re-
spondent also made a statement to the newspaper as to
the basis for the layoff, so as to dispell any rumors link-
ing same to union activity or the election results. I will
therefore recommend that the 8(a)(5) allegation in the
complaint be dismissed.
CONCI USIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The allegations of the complaint that Respondent
has engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(a)(l) and
(5) of the Act have not been supported by substantial
evidence.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following:
ORDER 7
It is recommended that the complaint herein be, and it
hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
7 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 10246 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Hoard, the find-
ings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as pros vided 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 fr all purposes
TLERTOWN WOOD PRODUCTS