Valley Die Cast Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 10, 1969

176 N.L.R.B. 498 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

498 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Valley Die Cast Corporation and International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW). Case 7-CA-6601
June 10, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On February 24, 1969, Trial Examiner Robert
Cohn issued his Decision in the above -entitled
proceeding , finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner 's Decision. The
Trial Examiner further found that the Respondent
had not engaged in certain other unfair labor
practices and recommended that the complaint be
dismissed insofar as it related thereto . Thereafter,
the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner 's Decision 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
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the
Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed . The rulings are
hereby affirmed . The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner ' s Decision , the exceptions and brief, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions , and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner , as modified herein.
The General Counsel excepted to the Trial
Examiner ' s conclusion that the Respondent's
no-solicitation rule did not interfere with the
employees ' right to self-organization and to his
recommendation that the allegation in the complaint
to this effect be dismissed . The complaint alleges
that the Respondent maintained and enforced a rule
prohibiting union solicitation at any time on
company premises, and more specifically enforced
said rule by its agent Kazar Kazarian , on or about
January 20 , 1968. The record reveals that the rule,
which is contained in a company booklet , on its face
prohibits solicitation on company property for
membership in clubs or organizations, but does not
specifically refer to labor organizations . The Trial
Examiner found that the rule , at worst, is
ambiguous , and looked to the evidence as to its
enforcement . Although two employees testified to
being unlawfully restricted in their solicitation for
the Union by their supervisor , the Trial Examiner
found "overwhelming " evidence of unrestricted
employee solicitation during nonworking time on the
Respondent's premises , and concluded that the rule
did not interfere with the employees' rights to
self-organization . We disagree. The rule as written
contains a blanket prohibition against solicitation
for membership in clubs or organizations on
company property. This clearly can be read to
include labor organizations . The rule is, therefore,
overly broad and unlawful on its face . The record
does not support the Trial Examiner 's conclusion
that solicitation for the Union on company premises
during nonworking time was of such magnitude that
it may reasonably be inferred that the employees
understood that the rule did not apply to
solicitations for labor organizations. We, therefore,
find that the maintenance of the no-solicitation rule
is patently unlawful and amounts to a violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Mallory Capacitor
Company, 162 NLRB 1404, enfd. in pertinent part
389 F.2d 704 (C.A. 6). However, since the Trial
Examiner failed to resolve the conflicting testimony
bearing upon the two alleged instances of
enforcement of the rule, we shall dismiss the
complaint in that respect.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as
modified herein , and orders that the Respondent,
Valley Die Cast Corporation, Detroit, Michigan, its
officers , agents, successors , and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order, as so modified:
1. Add the following as subparagraph 1(c) and
reletter the following subparagraph , accordingly:
(c) Maintaining a rule prohibiting its employees
from engaging in union solicitation on company
property during -nonworking time.
2. Add the following as subparagraph 2(a) and
reletter the following subparagraphs , accordingly:
"(a) Forthwith rescind its existing rule against
solicitation as published in its employee booklet to
the extent that it prohibits employees from soliciting
membership in union organizations on its premises
during nonworking time."
3. Add the following as the third indented
paragraph of the Appendix attached to the Trial
Examiner ' s Decision:
WE WILL NOT maintain a rule prohibiting our
employees from engaging in union solicitation on
company property during nonworking time.
'In the absence of other exceptions thereto, we adopt, pro forma, the
remainder of the Trial Examiner's findings and recommendations as to
violations of Sec. 8(a)(1).
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT COHN , Trial Examiner : This case, heard at
176 NLRB No. 68
VALLEY DIE CAST CORP.
Detroit , Michigan , on December 3 and 4 , 1968,' pursuant
to a charge filed February 23 (subsequently amended
March 6 and April 17 ), and a complaint issued July 31,
presents the question whether Valley Die Cast
Corporation (herein the Respondent or Company ), by its
agents and supervisors , violated Section 8(axl) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein the
Act), through acts of interference and restraint of
employees ' Section 7 rights hereinafter detailed.'
Upon the entire record, and my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses , and after full consideration of
the briefs filed by counsel for the General Counsel and
counsel for the Respondent subsequent to the hearing,3 I
make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is, and has been at all times material, a
Michigan corporation maintaining its principal office and
place of business at Detroit , Michigan . Respondent
maintains several plants in Detroit , but the plant located
at 1791 Bellevue is the only one involved in this
proceeding.
Engaged in the manufacture , sale, and distribution of
zinc die cast automotive hardware and related products,
Respondent concedes that during the year ending
December 31, 1967, it sold and distributed products
valued in excess of $50,000 which were shipped directly
from its Michigan plants to points located outside of
Michigan . During the same period , Respondent further
concedes that it caused to be purchased and transported to
its Michigan plants goods and materials valued in excess
of $50,000 which were shipped from points located outside
the State of Michigan.
Based upon the foregoing facts , I find , as Respondent
admits , that it is now, and has been at all times material,
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section (2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The complaint alleges, the answer of Respondent
admits, and I find that at all times material , International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW) (herein the
Union), is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
'All dates hereinafter refer to the calendar year 1968, unless otherwise
specified.
'A proceeding against International Union , United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW),
docketed as Case 7-CB-1724 , was originally consolidated for hearing with
the instant proceeding . However , at the hearing herein , counsel for the
General Counsel announced that that case had been settled through the
execution by all parties of a settlement agreement approved by the
Regional Director for Region 7 of the Board . Accordingly, I granted the
General Counsel 's motion to sever that proceeding from Case 7-CA-6601
and return it to the Region for the purpose of policing compliance with
said settlement agreement.
'Also subsequent to the hearing , counsel for the General Counsel served
on the Trial Examiner (with copies served on the other parties ) a motion to
correct transcript of proceedings in certain respects . Having received no
objections from any party , and said proposed corrections being in accord
with my recollection of the testimony , the motion is hereby granted.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
499
A. Background and Statement of the Issues
The Union commenced an organizational campaign
among the Respondent's approximately 450 production
and maintenance employees in January. The first union
meeting was held at the Union ' s "Solidarity House" on
East Jefferson Avenue in Detroit on Sunday afternoon,
January 21. At that meeting, which was attended by a
group of approximately 21 employees of the Respondent,
Union Representative Frank Donley advised the
employees of the asserted advantages of union
representation , instructed them respecting their legal rights
to organize and the proper methods of doing so, and
distributed authorization cards to be signed by the
employees present and their fellow workers . He also
instructed them respecting the signing of a sheet which
was purportedly to contain names of those employees who
wished to comprise an organizational committee, a copy
of which sheet was to be sent immediately to the
Company. Organizational efforts and solicitation of
employees commenced in earnest at the plant during the
following week . It is the contention of the General
Counsel and the Charging Union that some of the acts
and conduct of Respondent ' s agents and supervisors
during this organizational period overstepped the bounds
of legitimate conduct, and therefore interfered with,
restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of their
Section 7 rights, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
B. Alleged Violative Conduct By Foreman Kurt
Skiba
Kurt Skiba was a foreman (an admitted supervisor
within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act) in the
Respondent's toolroom during January, at which time
Ricky Venable was an employee. The latter testified as to
a conversation he had with Skiba in the toolroom about
2:30 p.m. on Tuesday, January 23, at which several other
employees were present.' Skiba recounted some past labor
relations history between the Company and the Union
which related primarily to a time when the employees
went out on strike and the Company employed
"strong -arm" men in connection with the dispute, and
"there was quite a bit of trouble." He also advised the
employees that if the Union were to come into the plant
overtime would probably be eliminated and working
conditions generally would not be as good.
In a conversation in the toolroom around 3 : 30 p.m. on
January 29 involving Skiba, Venable, and Vickers, Skiba,
referring again to the previous labor disturbance at the
Company, stated that the Union had secured some of the
employees' jobs back, but that the Company had, in
reinstating one rather obese employee , transferred him to
the die cast department next to the "hot pot" (a furnace
which generates heat up to 780 degrees), and that the
'The issues herein are almost totally of a factual nature and almost all
involve credibility resolutions. This always-difficult chore of a factfinder is
not rendered less so in the instant case . I will only observe that in making
such resolutions I have carefully considered , as previously noted, the
demeanor of the witnesses , "along with the consistency and inherent
probability of testumony " ( Universal Camera Corporation v. N.L.R.D.,
340 U .S. 474, 496), in the light of the apparent interest of such witness in
the outcome of the proceeding.
'These were, according to Venable , employees Thomas Vickers and Paul
Daroczy and employee named Zeke.
500 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
fellow almost died of the heat. Accordingly, Skiba advised
that even if employees were able to return to work
following a labor dispute, they really would not want to
because such jobs would be less desirable.'
The foregoing statements of Skiba clearly constitute
threats of economic reprisal for engaging in activities on
behalf of the Union, and constitute interference with,
restraint , and coercion of employee rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8(a)(1).
C. Alleged Violative Conduct by Foreman Julius
Piscopo
Pauline Pharms was an employee of the Company in
January, working in the paint department under Foreman
Julius Piscopo (an admitted supervisor within the meaning
of Section 2(11) of the Act). Prior to January 31, she had
been ill in the hospital and had returned to work on that
date after an absence of approximately 2 weeks. She
testified that about 9:30 or 10 that morning, Piscopo
approached her and asked if she knew anything about the
Union trying to get in the plant and she replied in the
affirmative. He then asked her if she was in favor of it,
but she did not answer - simply "hunched her shoulder
up." Piscopo, according to Pharms' testimony, proceeded
to tell her that many of the other girls did not know what
they were doing because if Mike (referring to Michael
Polizzi, the president of the Company) had enough money
he would give them a raise and that was the only reason
they wanted a union. Piscopo continued that if Pharms
signed a "paper for the Union" he would know that she
was against him and the Company while he had thought
that they had been good friends and that she would be
with him. Pharms did not mention that any other
employee was present during the conversation.'
Piscopo acknowledged having a conversation with
Pharms that day but averred that he approached her to
ask where she had been, to which she replied that she had
been sick in the hospital, and said, "I can prove it." When
Piscopo asked "How?" she replied that several employees
visited her (naming Martha Ruby as one ), and that they
had solicited her to sign a union card and had given her
some union buttons and pencils. Piscopo further testified
that employee Donna Combs, an inspector, was working
alongside and said something about the Union, and that
there was an ensuing discussion between Combs and
Pharms in which the latter stated that she was confused.
According to Piscopo, he advised Pharms that the best
thing for her to do was to talk the matter over with her
'The foregoing findings are based upon the credited testunony of
Venable who impressed me as an honest and forthright witness . Skiba's
apparent difficulty with the English language did not , in my judgment,
totally account for his reluctance and evasiveness on the witness stand, and
I do not credit his denial that he discussed union activities with Venable.
Moreover , such denial was somewhat contradicted by the Respondent's
witness, Paul Daroczy (the only other employee named as a participant
who was called as a witness ), who testified that he was present in a
conversation in which it was discussed that the Company would "tighten
up" with overtime if the Union came in However , after a leading question
by Respondent 's counsel , Daroczy observed that the statement was made
not by Skiba, but by the other employees The veracity of this testimony is
rendered somewhat unlikely by the fact that the other participants in the
conversation wer. employees who had evidenced an interest in the Union
by attending the meeting the previous Sunday. In view of these , as well as
demeanor considerations , I do not credit such testimony
'Pharms said that Piscopo noted that she was the only Negro in that
department and that did not make any difference to him , but not to let the
other girls talk her "into anything that was wrong because she would be
without a job."
parents and they would decide "what is right and what is
best for you."
The testimony of Donna Combs is at some variance
from that of either Piscopo or Pharms. Combs recalled a
conversation on the day that Pharms returned from sick
leave, stating that it was in the morning and that she was
helping another employee, Florence Wolanski, when
Piscopo walked up and "started talking about work."
According to Combs' testimony, the next thing she knew
Piscopo was talking to Pharms and she (Combs) "just
could hear off and on . . . [and] . . all I heard, I heard
him tell her he didn't care what she did. Make up her own
mind. But think it over before she does anything. And
even talk it over with her mother." Combs was not certain
that they were discussing the Union but she thought they
were because Pharms had told her earlier that some
employees had come to the hospital and she had signed a
card.
The complaint alleges that on or about January 31
Piscopo coercively interrogated employees concerning
their activities for and on behalf of the Union, and that he
created the impression that Respondent was engaging in
surveillance of its employees' union activities. Taking
Pharms' testimony at its face value, I find nothing therein
to indicate that Piscopo imparted to Pharms the
knowledge or awareness that he or the Company knew
who had signed union cards, who had attended union
meetings, or who was active on behalf 'of the Union, or
that the Respondent or its agents had engaged in conduct
of a furtive nature in order to ascertain this information.'
As I interpret Pharms' testimony, Piscopo indicated that
he would know her union proclivities only if and when she
signed a "paper for the union." 'Accordingly, I shall
therefore recommend that the complaint be dismissed to
that extent.
Also, I am inclined to agree with Respondent that the
General Counsel has not sustained his burden of proving
that the alleged interrogation in this incident (if it
occurred) was coercive. Pharms conceded that she
considered Piscopo a good friend and a good boss, and
that she was "not fearful of talking to him." Piscopo had
similar feelings about Pharms. Under these circumstances,
I am inclined to credit Piscopo's testimony (over Pharms'
denial) that she did volunteer the information concerning
the signing of the union card in the hospital. It is
therefore unlikely that he would have asked her if she was
in favor of the Union. Even so, I am inclined to agree
with Respondent that, in this context, the interrogation
should not be considered coercive. Accordingly, I shall
recommend that this allegation of the complaint be
d ism issed.
D. Alleged Violative Conduct by Kazar Kazarian
The complaint alleges, in essence, that at all times
material the Respondent has maintained and enforced an
illegal no-solicitation rule (a rule prohibiting union
solicitation at any time (on company premises)) which was
specifically enforced by its agent, Kazar Kazarian, on or
about January 20.' In support of this allegation, General
Counsel offered the testimony of Reba Davidson, an
employee of the Company at that time. She testified, in
'Cf. Hendrix Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. N L.R B ., 321 F.2d 100'
(C.A. 5), fn. 7, enfg . 139 NLRB 397; Rosen Sanitary Wiping Cloth Co..
Inc., 154 NLRB 1185, 1188.
'Respondent 's answer admits that Kazarian is a supervisor within the
meaning of Sec. 2(11) of the Act.
VALLEY DIE CAST CORP.
substance, that on January 25 while she and some other
employees were waiting at the timeclock to punch out, she
had a piece of paper or slip in her hand which she
intended to utilize to sign up a fellow employee for the
Union. She stated that Kazarian told her "not to get
signatures while I was inside the plant." On the other
hand, Kazarian testified that at no time during this period
did he have occasion to advise Davidson as to any rule
respecting limitations upon passing out authorization
cards. Barbara Jones, who was named by Davidson to be
one of the employees standing nearby during the
conversation with Kazarian, likewise denied recollection of
Kazarian's advising any employees that they were not to
distribute cards on company premises.
Employee Lynn Harris testified that on Monday,
January 22, at the plant during lunch hour, he was
engaged in securing signatures for the Union when
Kazarian came in and asked him to put the slip away and
"wait until I got outside of the company premises."
Harris stated that no one else was present at the time and
that he complied with Kazarian's directions. Kazarian
testified that he did not remember talking to Harris about
collecting names on a petition on the company premises.
Since about 1964, the Company has distributed to all
newly hired employees a booklet containing, inter alia, the
following language alleged to be violative of the Act:
SOLICITATIONS
Your company and the employees cooperate in many
worthwhile charitable causes, but obviously cannot lend
support to every fund raising enterprise that is launched
in the plant.
The sale of tickets, the circulation of petitions, and
so forth are regarded by many employees as a nuisance.
Thus, solicitation for membership in clubs or
organizations, collections, donations, raffles, and ticket
selling, as well as the sale of merchandise, cannot be
permitted on Company property without written
permission from the Personnel Director.
*
PERSONAL CONDUCT
The following is a list of offenses which cannot be
tolerated. Employees guilty of these or similar actions,
for which there is just and reasonable disciplinary
cause, will be warned and repetition of the offense or a
combination of offenses will result in discharge.
* * * *
22. Distributing or circulating literature , petitions,
written or printed matter of any description on
Company premises , without permission of Management.
[G.C. Exh. 2, pp. 4-7.]
It is by now well established that a rule which prohibits
employees from soliciting union membership on
nonworking time on the employer's premises is
presumptively invalid . Walton Manufacturing Company,
126 NLRB 697, enfd . 289 F .2d 117 (C.A. 5). The
Respondent has not overcome this presumption by
showing that any special circumstances existed which
justified the need for the rule . Rather the Respondent
contends that the rule was never intended to be applicable
to a labor organization as evidenced by the language of
501
the rule itself and also by the fact that it was promulgated
sometime in 1964, some 3 years prior to the Union's
organizational campaign involved herein. Moreover, the
Respondent argues that it never enforced the rule during
the present campaign.
I am in agreement with the Respondent's contention
that the General Counsel has not proven by a
preponderance of the evidence that Respondent
maintained and enforced the aforesaid no-solicitation rule
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.'° Thus, as
Respondent argues, there is nothing on the face of the rule
which refers specifically to solicitation respecting
membership in labor organizations. In these circumstances
the rule, at worst, is ambiguous and evidence was
submitted respecting its enforcement. Taking the evidence
submitted by General Counsel at best, there was presented
only the testimony of two employee witnesses (out of a
unit of some 450) who testified that one foreman in a
single department unlawfully restricted their solicitation.
On the other hand, the record herein is replete with
testimony from witnesses for both General Counsel and
the Respondent who testified that solicitation on behalf of
the Union took place repeatedly on the company premises
during nonwork time without interference from
Respondent's supervisors." In the light of this
overwhelming evidence of employee solicitation during
nonworking hours on the Company's premises, I cannot
conclude that the rule interfered with the employees' right
to self-organization, and will recommend that the
allegation in the complaint to this effect be dismissed.12
Reba Davidson testified to another conversation with
Kazarian which occurred around the timeclock several
days following the incident on January 25, hereinabove
referred to. Employees Alice Bell and Barbara Jones were
also present on this occasion. According to Davidson,
Kazarian said the employees were cutting their throats by
trying to get the Union in because the Company could not
afford to pay more money and that since their department
had the least seniority they would be the first ones to go if
the Union came in. Kazarian recalled the incident, stating
that it was common knowledge among the employees in
that department that it would be terminated at the end of
the model year because of the change which the
automobile companies were making in the 1969 model.
According to Kazarian, Alice Bell then brought up the
issue of job security with him and asked whether their
jobs would be secure if the Union got in. Kazarian replied
that whether the Union got in or not there would be no
jobs available and they would be laid off. Barbara Jones,
called as the witness by Respondent, testified that she
understood that the plant was going to be closed," and
asked Kazarian about it in the presence of Davidson and
Bell. According to Jones, Kazarian said there was a
possibility of that, and that if it happened the employees
would probably be transferred. Jones' testimony does not
reflect that the word "union" was mentioned.14
"There cannot , of course, be a finding of violation respecting the
promulgation of the rule since such promulgation occurred outside the
limitations prescribed by Sec. 10(b) of the Act.
"I refer specifically to the testimony of Davidson, Barksdale , Shorter,
and Lobaldo. Indeed , even Lynn Harris conceded on cross-examination
that the majority of the 75 to 175 signatures he solicited were during
nonworking time on the company premises
"See R. G. Barry Corporation , 162 NLRB 1472, and cases cited therein
at fn. 4
"In the context of the discussion, Jones doubtless meant to say
"department" rather than "plant "
"Bell was not called as a witness nor was it shown that she was
502 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
After a careful consideration o(' all factors , including
demeanor considerations , I credit Davidson ' s version of
the conversation , and find that Kazarian 's statement on
this occasion constituted a threat of economic loss should
the employees support the union campaign . As such, it, of
course , violated Section 8(axl) of the Act, as alleged.
General Counsel offered the testimony of former
company employee Carl Lobaldo who testified, in
substance , that while he was an employee of Respondent
on January 22, Kazarian asked him what the employees
talked about at the union meeting on January 21 . Lobaldo
replied by asking Kazarian whether he had ever belonged
to a union , to which the latter said yes . Lobaldo rejoined
that Kazarian ought to know what they talked about, and
walked away.
Respondent ' s counsel noted an objection on the record
to this testimony since it was not specifically alleged in the
complaint (the complaint alleges unlawful interrogation by
Kazarian on March 2). The Trial Examiner noted that the
Board has, in the past , been rather liberal in
accomodating proof to allegation when the only variance
is one of time , and the supervisor involved is called to
testify as to other events ." Kazarian did not testify
respecting this incident . I credit Lobaldo , and find the
interrogation to be coercive within the meaning of Section
8(a)(l) of the Act.'
E. Alleged Violative Conduct Respecting Robert
Arnold
On January 26, employee Barbara Barksdale had a
conversation in the plant with her foreman, Robert
Arnold , in the presence of employees Joyce Shorter, Jesse
Jackson , and Pat Saunders . A company employee named
Brown was operating a hi-lo machine in the area and had
some green cards in his pocket ." Barksdale questioned
Arnold about the green cards in Brown's pocket to which
the latter replied , "That' s Brown ' s campaign ... if he gets
in here the wages are going to be cut from $1.95 to
$1.60." At the time of the conversation , Barksdale was
receiving $1.70 per hour. The testimony of Joyce Shorter
and Jesse Jackson , called as witnesses by the General
Counsel , corroborated in essential respects the testimony
of Barksdale."
Arnold, called as a witness by the Respondent, testified
that he was a foreman in the paint department at the time
and knew the employees Barksdale , Shorter , and Jackson,
as well as Brown . However , he generally denies being
approached by any of these employees and asked to
identify cards in the pocket of another employee . Indeed,
he denied 'recollection of any incident in which he
discussed union activities with either of the three named
employees . I do not credit his denial , and accordingly
find, as alleged in the complaint , that on this occasion his
statement threatening a cut in pay if the employees
selected the Union to represent them constituted restraint
and coercion of employee rights in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act."
unavailable to testify
"See e .g., Southwestern of Dallas Optical Company and Tru-Optics,
Inc., 153 NLRB 33, 38.
"N.L.R.B. v. Camco. Inc. 340 F.2d 803 (C.A. 5, 1965).
"The union authorization cards utilized in the campaign were colored
green.
"Neither Saunders nor Brown were called as witnesses by either party to
the proceeding, although their absences were not explained on the record.
"Respondent , in its brief, argued that the statement of Arnold even as
made does not constitute coercion since it was provoked by Barksdale's
F. Alleged Violative Conduct Attributed to Jim
Creagh
Employee Lynn Harris testified that during the
afternoon of March 2 while he was at work in the
air-conditioner assembly department , he had a
conversation with Jim Creagh, the Respondent's
production control manager, an admitted supervisor and
agent . No one else was present. Creagh asked Harris why
he wanted a union, the latter replied that he did not
especially want one for himself although he would enjoy
the fringe benefits such as vacation and paid holidays, but
he thought that the female employees actually needed the
Union. Creagh appeared rather surprised and asked
Harris "with the kind of money you're making, you want
a union?" Harris replied in the affirmative, and apparently
the discussion became rather hostile since it was at that
point that Foreman Kazarian approached the two and
advised Creagh to leave. Harris acknowledged that much
of the discussion related to the financial conditions of the
Company, how much profit was made and the disposition
of such profit as respects executive pay, amount reinvested
in new machinery, etc.
Creagh, testifying on behalf of the Respondent, stated
that he was walking through the department on this
occasion when he saw Harris sitting on a bench with his
feet hanging over, drinking a cup of coffee. He noted to
Harris that "if the Union was in there, he wouldn't be
sitting on his butt all morning long." Harris retorted that
"he didn't see why he couldn't set around because the
company made five and a half million dollars the previous
year. ." The discussion then went along the line
previously noted, i.e., discussion as to the extent of the
Company's profits and the disposition of it. Creagh denied
questioning Harris as to why he wanted a union or
otherwise as to his union activities.
I credit Creagh's version of the conversation and
accordingly find that the allegations of the complaint as
respects Creagh have not been sustained and will
recommend that the complaint be dismissed to that extent. 20
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the
Respondent described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
question. In support of this contention , Respondent cites Colecraft
Manufacturing Co Y. N.L.R.B.. 385 F. 2d 998 , 1003 (C.A. 2, 1967), where
the court stated:
When employees intend to provoke expressions of anti-union views
from their supervisors , we cannot believe that any anti-union views they
express have the same deterent or coercive effect as they do when
unprovoked.
It suffices to say that there is nothing in the record that persuades me
that Barksdale intended by her inquiry to provoke any such antiunion
expression from Arnold . He could certainly have responded to her inquiry
without threatening a cut in wages should the union campaign be
successful . See also Jerome T. Kane d/b/a Kane Bag Supply Co., 173
NLRB No. 180 at fn. 5.
141 am not entirely convinced that even if Harris' version is credited, the
interrogation was coercive within the meaning of Sec. 8(axl). However, I
do not base my finding on that basis , but rather, as above noted, on
credibility grounds.
VALLEY DIE CAST CORP. 503
the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
It having been found that Respondent interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
their rights under the Act, it will be recommended that it
cease and desist therefrom and post an appropriate notice.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
upon the entire record in the case , I make the following:
including all places where notices to employees 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 7, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.22
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be
dismissed in all other respects.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Valley Die Cast Corporation is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act.
2. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW),
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging
in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case,
it is recommended that Respondent, Valley Die Cast
Corporation, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their
union membership, activities, or desires.
(b) Threatening employees with loss of wages, loss of
overtime, closure of departments, or other adverse
working conditions should they join or engage in activities
on behalf of a labor organization.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
right to join, form, or assist International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW), or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain
from any and all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its plant in Detroit, Michigan, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 7, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
"in the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice . In the further
event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order."
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 7 , in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that:
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees
concerning their union membership, activities, or
desires.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with loss of
wages , loss of overtime, closure of departments, or
other adverse working conditions should they join or
engage in activities on behalf of International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW).
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with , restrain , or coerce the employees in the exercise
of their rights to join, form, or assist International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW), or any other
labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any and all such activities.
All our employees are free to join, form, or assist any
labor organization, or refrain from doing so.
Dated
VALLEY DIE CAST
CORPORATION
(Employer)
By
(Representative) (Title)
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.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 500 Book
Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan
48226, Telephone 313-226-3200.