Willamette Industries

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 31, 1992

306 N.L.R.B. 1010 (N.L.R.B. 1992)

1010
306 NLRB No. 207
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an admin-
istrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear prepon-
derance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incor-
rect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188
F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and
find no basis for reversing the findings.
2 The Respondent excepts, inter alia, to the judge’s finding that the
record does not support the ‘‘Respondent’s contention that [em-
ployee] Bernard violated a valid rule against solicitation. . . .’’ The
Respondent maintains a rule that provides: ‘‘[n]o employee shall so-
licit or promote support for any cause or organization during his/her
working time or during the working time of the employee or em-
ployees at whom such activity is directed.’’ It is undisputed that the
rule is facially valid. Bernard admitted that he routinely promoted
support for the Union in discussions with fellow employees during
working time. Thus, we note the probable violation of the Respond-
ent’s valid no-solicitation rule. However, the judge went on to find
that the Respondent enforced its no-solicitation rule only against per-
sons who were engaged in prounion solicitation and that the Re-
spondent announced a prohibition against talking about the Union
during working time. Thus, the issue is not whether Bernard violated
a valid no-solicitation rule, but whether the Respondent disparately
enforced its no-solicitation rule against Bernard. In view of the
judge’s finding that the Respondent enforced its no-solicitation rule
by means of an invalid no-talking rule, as alleged in the complaint,
we agree that the Respondent’s conduct toward Bernard violated
Sec. 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
With respect to the 8(a)(1) threat, we note that Plant Manager
Galan told employee Garcia that the Union was like a locomotive
and that if fuel or coal is removed, the strength of the locomotive
will die down. In agreeing with the judge that this statement was
unlawful, we note that it occurred in the context of an unlawful in-
terrogation. In these circumstances, we believe that Garcia, the vic-
tim of the unlawful interrogation, could reasonably construe the re-
mark as meaning that the Respondent would act to deprive the
Union of its supporters.
Contrary to the judge and his colleagues, Member Oviatt finds that
Plant Manager Galan’s remarks to employee Garcia, comparing
‘‘this union thing’’ to a locomotive train which gets ‘‘stronger’’ un-
less deprived of ‘‘fuel,’’ are too ambiguous to constitute an unlawful
threat. Accordingly, Member Oviatt would dismiss the complaint’s
allegation in this regard.
3 We find merit in the Respondent’s exception to requiring the Re-
spondent to offer Raul Bernard reinstatement. The complaint did not
allege that Bernard had been discharged and, indeed, the record con-
tains no evidence that he was discharged. We shall modify the rem-
edy, Order, and the notice to employees accordingly.
Willamette Industries, Inc. and Graphic Commu-
nications Union, Local 388, District Council 2,
Communications International Union, AFL–
CIO. Case 32–CA–10563
March 31, 1992
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS DEVANEY, OVIATT, AND
RAUDABAUGH
On June 11, 1991, Administrative Law Judge Fred-
erick C. Herzog issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and brief and has de-
cided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and con-
clusions,2 to modify the recommended remedy,3 and to
adopt the recommended Order, as modified.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified below and orders that the Respondent, Wil-
lamette Industries, Inc., Sanger, California, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Order as modified below.
1. Redesignate paragraphs 1(2) through 1(4) as para-
graphs 1(b) through 1(d), respectively.
2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(1) and
redesignate the subsequent paragraphs as paragraphs
2(b) through 2(e):
‘‘(a) Make Raul Bernard whole for any loss of earn-
ings and other benefits suffered as a result of the dis-
crimination against him, in the manner set forth in the
remedy section of the decision, as modified.’’
3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the ad-
ministrative law judge.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protec-
tion
To choose not to engage in any of these pro-
tected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT counsel, warn, suspend, or otherwise
discipline employees because they have engaged in ac-
tivities protected by the Act, including discussing their
own or other employees’ wages, rates of pay, hours,
or other terms and conditions of employment with
other employees, or attempting to persuade other em-
ployees to join or support any labor organization.
1011WILLAMETTE INDUSTRIES
1 Unless otherwise noted, all dates shall refer to the calendar year
1989.
2 Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act provides that,
It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer—
(1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in section 7 . . . .
Sec. 7 of the Act provides that,
Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, 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, and shall also have the right to
refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that
such right may be affected by an agreement requiring member-
ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment as au-
thorized in section 8(a)(3).
Sec. 8(a)(3) of the Act provides that,
It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer—
. . . .
(3) by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employ-
ment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or
discourage membership in any labor organization . . . .
WE WILL NOT warn or otherwise let employees
know that they are not permitted to engage in the ac-
tivity mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
WE WILL NOT call employees into the plant’s office
and interrogate them about their own or other employ-
ees’ union activities, sympathies, or leanings, or threat-
en them should they engage in attempting to persuade
other employees to join or support the Union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL make Raul Bernard whole for any loss of
earnings and other benefits resulting from his suspen-
sion, with interest.
WE WILL notify Raul Bernard that we have removed
from our files any reference to his counseling, warn-
ing, and suspension and that none of these records will
ever be used against him in any way.
WILLAMETTE INDUSTRIES, INC.
Ariel L. Sotolongo, Esq., for the General Counsel.
John D. McLachlan, Esq. (Fisher & Phillips), of San Fran-
cisco, California, for the Respondent.
David A. Grabhorn, of La Habra, California, for the Charg-
ing Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
FREDERICK C. HERZOG, Administrative Law Judge. This
case was heard by me in Fresno, California, on January 24
and 25, 1990, and is based on a charge filed by Graphic
Communications Union, Local 388, District Council 2, Com-
munications International Union, AFL–CIO (the Union) on
September 11, 1989. The charge alleged that Willamette In-
dustries, Inc. (Respondent) committed violations of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29
U.S.C. § 151 et seq. (the Act). On October 31, 1989,1 the
Regional Director for Region 32 of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board (the Board) issued a complaint and notice of
hearing. The complaint alleged violations of Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act.2 Respondent filed a timely answer to the
allegations contained within the complaint, denying all
wrongdoing.
All parties appeared at the hearing and were given full op-
portunity to participate, to introduce evidence, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally, and to file
briefs. Based on the record, my consideration of the briefs
filed by counsel for the General Counsel and counsel for Re-
spondent, and my observation of the demeanor of the wit-
nesses, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that
Respondent is an Oregon corporation, with an office and
place of business in Sanger, California. There, at all times
material, it has been engaged in the manufacture and sale of
corrugated paper products. During the 12-month period end-
ing with the issuance of the complaint here, in the course
and conduct of its business operations, it sold and shipped
goods valued in excess of $50,000 from its Sanger, Cali-
fornia facility directly to customers located outside the State
of California.
Accordingly, I find and conclude that Respondent is now,
and at all times material has been, an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)
of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that
at all times material the Union is, and has been, a labor orga-
nization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
Counsel for the General Counsel contends that Respondent
has, since July 1989, selectively, disparately, and
discriminatorily enforced a valid rule prohibiting solicitation
in its plant against its employee, Raul Bernard, all on ac-
count of his engagement in union or other protected, con-
certed activities. Respondent asserts that its discipline of Ber-
nard was privileged by Bernard’s own disregard for its valid
rules.
Counsel for the General Counsel also contends that Re-
spondent unlawfully interrogated and threatened an em-
ployee, in preparation for the hearing of this case. Respond-
ent asserts that the circumstances of the questioning dem-
onstrate its lawfulness, and that no threat was made.
B. General Background
Respondent, since opening its plant in Sanger, California,
in June 1986, has been engaged there in the operation of a
plant to produce and ship corrugated paper boxes. At the
time of the trial it employed 71 hourly employees and 9 su-
pervisory personnel, working in 2 shifts. Generally the shifts
1012 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lasted from 7 a.m. until 3 or 3:30 p.m. and from 3 or 3:30
p.m. until 11 p.m. or midnight.
The plant’s manager, for its parent group, Western Kraft
Paper Group, is Machael Galan. His superior is the plant su-
perintendent, a man named Joel Burmeister. Tom Booth, Jeff
Hoff, Ron Smith, Robert Warner, and Leon Climber are all
finishing supervisors. Rick Flores is the shipping supervisor.
Joe Bowd used to be a salaried planner and scheduler,
though not considered a supervisor. Ruben Moreno used to
be a corrugator supervisor.
Respondent’s employees are not represented by any labor
organization for purposes of collective bargaining and have
never been. However, an NLRB-conducted election was held
on August 26, 1988, based on a petition filed by the Charg-
ing Party. The Union lost the election. The record contains
no reference to any past violations of the Act by Respondent.
In June or July 1989, Respondent decided to conduct a
meeting, split between two shifts, of employees. In Sep-
tember it conducted a second meeting, announcing a picnic,
but discussing also the same subject matter as the June or
July meeting. It did so in contemplation of the fact that a
year had nearly passed since the last election, and it antici-
pated the possibility of another organizational campaign. Re-
spondent decided, so Galan testified, to ‘‘sit everybody down
and just generally discuss what the proper rules are when it
comes to Union organizing.’’ The meeting was specifically
occasioned by the fact that employees had reported to super-
visors that they were being talked to about union cards.
Galan testified that he told employees that it was proper
to discuss anything at all, including union business, during
lunch or breaktime, but not during work hours. He stated that
he emphasized the employees’ freedom to do anything they
wanted, but to do it during breaktime or lunch, and not to
disrupt work or production, or cause people not to go to their
workplaces. He told employees to be very sure before sign-
ing a union card, because the Union would likely ask for rec-
ognition based on a mere showing of interest. Galan told em-
ployees that if the Union got in employees would not be dis-
criminated against just because they had not signed a union
card.
C. Respondent’s Rules
Since the plant’s opening, Respondent has maintained the
following rule pertaining to solicitation:
NON-SOLICITATION
In order to maintain and promote efficient operations
and maintain security we have established rules applica-
ble to all employees which govern solicitation, distribu-
tion of written material and entry into the building and
work areas. Failure to obey these rules may result in
disciplinary action up to and including dismissal.
1. No employee shall solicit or promote support for
any cause or organization during his/her working time
or during the working time of the employee or employ-
ees at whom such activity is directed. This policy does
not restrict employee activity during meal or break time
when conducted in nonwork areas (e.g., lunchroom).
Solicitation by employees during nonwork time, which
in any way interferes with work, is prohibited.
2. For safety and security reasons, an employee may
not enter or remain on Company premises for nonwork
purposes during times such employee is not scheduled
to work, unless specific permission has been given by
plant management.
3. Under no circumstances will nonemployees be
permitted to solicit or distribute written material for any
purpose whatsoever on Company property.
More generally, Respondent’s plant rules also state, inter
alia, that,
An employee who fails to maintain at all times prop-
er standards of conduct, or who violates any of the fol-
lowing Plant Rules, may be subject to disciplinary ac-
tion, up to and including discharge . . . .
3. Solicitation of any kind is not permissable [sic].
This rule is dealt with in more detail on page 10 of
your employee handbook; please familiarize yourself
with this rule.
Additionally, so Galan testified, in May 1989, after be-
coming concerned about employees being harassed by other
persons in support of a union, it promulgated a rule against
verbal harassment. Galan testified that this concern was
aroused by two phone calls he received at home one morning
from unknown employees about a year earlier. However, in
this testimony that prior to May 1989 there was no written
rule with respect to harassment of coemployees, Galan was
clearly mistaken, for Joint Exhibit 4 bears the date of June
6, 1986, and states, inter alia, as follows:
THE FOLLOWING ACTS OF MISCONDUCT
ARE PROHIBITED:
4. Physical assault on another, fighting or actions
provoking violence.
5. Verbal harassment and or physical intimidation of
coemployees will not be tolerated.
Respondent admits that employees are freely permitted to
speak to one another at work about a variety of subjects, just
so long as they do not disrupt work. Respondent admitted
that, while working, employees routinely speak about topics
such as sports, politics, religion, the weather, and so forth.
Respondent has not disciplined any employee for having
done so, and Galan testified that when he explained the no-
solicitation rule to employees he did not indicate that discus-
sion of the Union was prohibited.
Respondent, however, interprets its rule against solicitation
differently. According to Galan, it would constitute a viola-
tion of the rule to do such things as solicit for a football
pool, or for a child’s school candy sale during worktime, or
except at break or in the lunchroom. The only exception
Galan could cite to this application of the rule against solici-
tation was an instance where an employee had been seriously
injured, and other employees asked and received permission
to solicit a collection.
D. The Discipline of Raul Bernard
Raul Bernard is an employee of Respondent, and has been
since the plant’s opening in 1986. He works as a die cutter.
Respondent concedes, even contends, that Bernard was gen-
1013WILLAMETTE INDUSTRIES
erally known throughout the plant, and by management, to
be a supporter of the Union during the election campaign of
1988.
Respondent’s records demonstrate that Bernard was
‘‘counseled’’ on July 20, and Respondent does not deny that
this ‘‘counseling’’ occurred because Bernard solicited for the
Union. Indeed, the supervisor’s notes about the incident state
that he, ‘‘Talked to Raul about solicitation for union on com-
pany time.’’ Galan testified that this was not a disciplinary
action, but only to inform Bernard, but Galan admitted that
this counseling served as a predicate for a later warning.
Respondent’s records further demonstrate that Bernard was
orally warned on September 8. Once again, Respondent does
not deny that the warning was occasioned by Bernard’s hav-
ing solicited for the Union. The supervisor’s notes of the in-
cident state, ‘‘9–8–89 Verbal warning concerning soliciting
on Company time.’’
Respondent’s records demonstrate that Bernard was sus-
pended without pay for 5 days on October 5, for what was
characterized as ‘‘misconduct,’’ and warned that, unless cor-
rective action was undertaken by Bernard, he would be dis-
charged. As in the other instances, Respondent does not deny
that this discipline was administered because of Bernard’s
having solicited for the Union. The supervisor’s notes of the
incident state, ‘‘10–5–89 Suspended for 5 days, mis-
conduct.’’
Instead, Respondent, in each instance, asserts that its dis-
cipline of Bernard was privileged, and lawful, because of the
circumstances surrounding each incident. Respondent cites
the nonsolicitation rule set out above, where it states that,
‘‘No employee shall solicit or promote support for any cause
or organization during his/her working time or during the
working time of the employee or employees at whom such
activity is directed.’’ Respondent also cites plant rule 5, stat-
ing that, ‘‘Verbal harassment and of physical intimidation or
coemployees will not be tolerated.’’
E. The Incidents Giving Rise to the Discipline
In July 1989 Galan instructed Supervisor Booth to speak
to Bernard. He explained to Booth that there’d been rumors
coming in from the plant that Bernard was out soliciting dur-
ing working hours in the plant. He told Booth to go to Ber-
nard and, although not accusing him of anything, to go over
and make sure that Bernard understood what the rules were.
Galan testified that on September 8 he called Bernard into
his office in the presence of Booth and Burmeister, and
handed Bernard a document entitled, ‘‘Record of Conversa-
tion.’’ The body of the document refers to ‘‘misconduct,’’
and also speaks of Respondent’s nonsolicitation clause and
the rule against verbal harassment and/or physical intimida-
tion of coemployees as activity which would not be tolerated.
Galan admitted that Bernard was warned by Booth for hav-
ing violated both such rules.
On October 5, Booth gave Bernard the 5-day suspension
for misconduct, for Bernard’s alleged continuation of the ac-
tivity which had caused the earlier ‘‘counseling,’’ and warn-
ing. Galan admitted that these were all steps in Respondent’s
‘‘progressive discipline system,’’ which could lead to more
serious disciplinary action, including discharge.
Galan admitted his difficulty in explaining what would
constitute ‘‘harassment’’ in Respondent’s view. He stated:
I think harassment is kind of on the eye of the be-
holder. I think some people are harassed a lot dif-
ferently than other people. Some people have thick
skin. Some people do not have thick skin. And I think
the way that it’s put, or how many times. It could be
construed as harassment or it might not be. I think it
just depends on the person, to tell the truth.
Asked to explain further, and to state how he checked to
see that an employee who reported being harassed was not
being merely thinskinned, Galan cited the following instances
of employee reports to him.
1. Juan Holguin
Holguin, according to Galan’s testimony, stated that he’d
witnessed a confrontation, and had been approached several
times in the plant by Bernard. He told Galan, so Galan testi-
fied, that, from what he’d seen in the confrontation, he didn’t
want it to happen to him. Galan recalled that Holguin told
him of an incident in which Bernard approached another em-
ployee and they got into ‘‘pretty close to a shouting match,’’
which was heated, and complete with ‘‘finger pointing.’’
Galan admitted that he’d determined that it was Bernard who
was the culpable party in the ‘‘confrontation’’ because of the
report by Holguin that it was Bernard who’d approached the
other employee, rather than anything done by Bernard, and
not done by the other employee, during the confrontation.
Holguin testified that he is employed as a flexo assistant
at Respondent’s plant. He stated that he was contacted by
Bernard during working hours, apparently during shift
changes, about union matters about once or twice a week
during late August and early September, and that about two
times Bernard asked him to sign a card. He recalled that, as
he would go to the machine at shift change time, and while
Bernard was preparing to go off work, Bernard would start
asking him to think about what the Union could do for him,
attempting to persuade him that the Union would be a good
thing for him to be in favor of. He recalled that Bernard
would ask him about how he felt about the Union, and that
he didn’t know what to respond. He also recalled, ‘‘And he
[Bernard] would say well, think about it. And that was the
end of the discussion.’’ He testified that Bernard never gave
him a union card, or showed one to him. As to the length
of these conversations, he testified that, ‘‘A couple minutes.
It was fast . . . . It was real fast.’’
All the while such conversations were going on, Holguin
was laboring under the weight of rumors he’d heard that if
one didn’t do what Bernard wanted concerning the Union,
Bernard might do something to one; he wasn’t specific, but
he evidently feared retaliation from Bernard. So, he was at
pains not to actually refuse Bernard’s requests that he think
it over, though it is clear that Bernard never did any of the
things which he feared. On cross-examination, Holguin testi-
fied that his opinion of Bernard was formed by rumors he’d
heard about the possibility that Bernard might do something,
such as grab him, if he didn’t do what Bernard wanted about
the Union; yet he admitted that Bernard never did anything
bad to him, that all Bernard did was ask how he felt about
the Union and tell some of the good things a union could
do for him. Indeed, he even admitted that he came to think
of Bernard as an ‘‘all right guy . . . . He never, you know,
he never done anything to me.’’
1014 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3 As this was obvious hearsay, I have placed little or no credence
on this testimony.
Holguin also recited that he overheard or observed a con-
versation between Bernard and employee Candu; he stated
that it occurred in the plant, between the die cutter and the
flexo machines, at shift change time. Holguin stated that he
approached the area and observed that Bernard and Candu
were talking, and he heard someone yell. He testified, after
some hesitation, that it was Bernard. He heard an obscenity
yelled by Bernard, but didn’t understand or hear the com-
plete sentence. Holguin didn’t go closer, heard nothing more,
and continued with the task of collecting dunnage. He said
that Bernard appeared ‘‘upset,’’ but that Candu looked as
though he had a kind of ‘‘teasing’’ expression on his face,
sort of ‘‘smart alec.’’ He stated that he saw no physical con-
tact between the men, and that he saw no threatening ges-
tures by either man, though the men were gesturing with
their hands and arms. He observed that when Candu put his
earplugs in Bernard turned and left. Later, Holguin surmised
that the men had been talking about the Union. This, in turn,
led him to go and speak to his supervisor. Ultimately, this
course led him to have contact with Galan. However,
Holguin wasn’t sure whether or not he told Galan about the
incident. He was only sure that he told Galan that he felt
pressured by Bernard.
Holguin was asked to, and did, provide Respondent with
a written statement, which bears the date of September 7. In
this statement, Holguin stated,
I . . . fill [sic] I am being harassted [sic] & intimedated
[sic] about the union from Raul Bernard. My reson [sic]
for these feeling [sic] are due to the fact that when I
coome [sic] to work that if I don’t say yes to sign the
union card that the employees for the union will start
given [sic] me a cold shoulder.
The statement goes on to state a reference to having seen
Bernard talk to ‘‘Bert,’’ apparently employee Humberto
Candu, and become upset while doing so. The statement
closes with a recitation of how Holguin might respond with
violence if he were approached the same way.
2. Jimmy Moreno
According to Galan, another employee who came to him
and reported ‘‘misconduct’’ on Bernard’s part was Jimmy
Moreno. He recounted that Moreno told him that Bernard
had approached him during working hours about signing a
union card, that he’d told Bernard each time that he didn’t
have any interest in signing, but that it happened so continu-
ously that he felt he was being harassed. Specifically, he re-
called no report of any conduct by Bernard beyond simply
repeatedly asking Moreno to sign a card, with no inference
of tempers flaring, or that there’d been a confrontation.
Jimmy Moreno testified that he normally works as Ber-
nard’s relief. He stated that Bernard contacted him several
times about signing a card while at work, estimated at three
or four times a week during the spring and early summer.
He recalled that Bernard would ask him if he’d made up his
mind about the Union, told him it would be better for him
if he joined the Union; after several months of such con-
versations, Moreno told Bernard that he didn’t want to sign
a card, and Bernard told him he would be stupid if he didn’t.
Several times he recalled that Bernard broached the subject
of signing a card, and noted that the cards were there in a
cabinet at the machine where they worked; however, he ad-
mitted that Bernard never actually gave him a card and solic-
ited his signature at the time.
He stated that he once complained to management, in
early August, about an incident involving Bernard and
Candu. He amplified that, one day as he walked to his ma-
chine as the shifts were about to change, he saw Bernard and
Candu, a close friend, and they looked angry. He also ob-
served a third man, Eulogio Melchor, present who appeared
to think of the incident as a joke. He admitted that he heard
nothing of what was said between the two men. He ob-
served that Bernard ‘‘walked out pretty fast.’’ He claimed to
have observed Bernard and Candu in this argument or con-
frontation for about 6 or 7 minutes. (Later he was told by
Candu that Bernard had become angry because Candu had
refused to sign a card for him.3 During the time he observed
the men he saw no move by either as though to strike the
other, and neither required restraint. However, he noted that
Bernard pointed his finger at Candu (albeit after having first
testified that each pointed fingers at the other). He stated that
Bernard pointed his finger for 3 or 4 seconds at Candu, then
got his ice chest or lunch bucket and walked off. He admit-
ted that he never observed Candu attempt to break off the
conversation with Bernard.
Later that day, but before he’d spoken with Candu,
Moreno reported the incident to a supervisor named Jeff
Huff. At the time, he didn’t know the subject of the argu-
ment between Bernard and Candu, and made no report about
it. The next day, after speaking to Candu, Moreno asked to
speak to Galan about the incident, and did so, telling him
that the two men had been arguing about the Union when
Bernard had tried to get Candu to sign a card.
3. Isaac Garcia
Galan also testified that Garcia came to him, in the pres-
ence of his supervisor, Hoff, and reported that he was being
approached continuously, that all he wanted to do was come
to work, do his job, have an opportunity for promotion and
go home to his family. He recounted Garcia stating that he
didn’t want to be around the drinking fountain or the time-
clock, and that he’d actually stay away while Bernard was
there. Again, there was no report by Garcia that Bernard had
done anything other than ask him to sign a card repeatedly.
He admitted that he’d asked Garcia to provide a statement
to the effect that Bernard had harassed him, and that Garcia
had declined.
Garcia, himself, testified that he was approached once
about the Union while at work be Bernard, in early October.
Bernard asked him, as he went to break, whether he’d signed
his card, and on being told that he hadn’t, responded simply
that they were available if he’d like to talk after work, or
have any questions answered. Bernard made no effort to ac-
tually hand Garcia a card at the time. Garcia then went on
with his break. Garcia stated there was no anger at all be-
tween him and Bernard.
However, while returning to his machine after the break
by a circuitous route, he was stopped by his supervisor, Jeff
Hoff, and asked why he was going that way, and whether
Bernard had approached him. Later, he was called to Galan’s
1015WILLAMETTE INDUSTRIES
4 Although Candu claimed that only Bernard pointed a finger dur-
ing this exchange, it must be recalled that evidently others had re-
ported to Galan that Candu had also pointed a finger. For Galan tes-
tified that he ‘‘discussed’’ the ‘‘finger pointing’’ with the ‘‘other
guy,’’ apparently Candu, and, ‘‘we warned him and such. We said,
now, you cool it. Take it easy.’’ However, no record of this exists,
and no mention of it was made by Galan, until the seeming incon-
sistency of warning only one participant in a confrontation was
brought to his attention. I do not credit Galan’s testimony on this,
and infer, based on Galan’s poor credibility here and the lack of a
record, that only Bernard was warned about the confrontation.
office and asked about the matter, without being told why he
was being questioned, or assured that he was under no com-
pulsion to answer. He recalled that Galan told him that sev-
eral people had made complaints against Bernard, and that,
this union thing is like a—it can be looked on as a lo-
comotive train. The more fuel or coal that’s put in, you
know, the stronger it gets. If that fuel or that coal is
removed, you know, the strength of that locomotive
dies down . . . with the union, we will always have
this problem. New people come in, you know, so they
are also confronted with new union things, people are
trying to speak to them and saying pro union for them
too, so the problem will always be there . . . if you
take that fuel or that coal away from that locomotive,
it—the strength of it dies down.
Garcia was also asked whether he’d be willing to give a
statement in writing. Garcia declined. Specifically, he was
asked by Galan whether Bernard had confronted him about
signing a card, and he replied that it hadn’t happened, that
he was just in a bad mood that day and just didn’t want any
conversation. Galan told him that no needs to be harassed.
Garcia responded that he’d not been harassed.
4. Humberto Candu
Employee Humberto Candu, a flexo assistant at the plant,
testified that Bernard attempted to get him to sign a card,
about three times.
Once was in late May or early June, in the plant near the
corrugator office, while Candu was already on the clock, sev-
eral minutes after shift change. He recalled that Bernard just
asked him if he was ready to sign a card, and on receiving
a negative response from Candu, walked away. The second,
in June, is unclear on the record, but also appears to have
involved an effort by Bernard to interest Candu in signing
a union card, again without success or controversy.
The other occasion, according to Candu, occurred in Sep-
tember. Again, it was just at shift change time, and he was
at Bernard’s machine, waiting for Jimmy Moreno to get to
his station in order to secure a tool from him. As he waited,
he was talking to an employee named Martinez about a swap
of motor vehicles, which had been talked about between
them for some weeks. He recalled that Bernard, also there,
asked him if he was ready to sign a union card. Candu said
that he wasn’t. Bernard asked why. Candu said he wasn’t in-
terested. Bernard asked why, and remarked that it would
amount to letting everybody do his thinking for him. Then
Bernard started telling him the advantages of joining the
Union. Finally, Bernard said something about how if
Candu’s family ever needed anything, Candu wouldn’t be
able to get it for them, because it’d be a nonunion plant;
Bernard said that if there were a union he’d have everything
and more. Candu then asked Bernard why, if unions were so
great, the teacher unions were always on strike. He stated
that they then started arguing. He recalled that Bernard said
that was a different union. Candu admitted that he became
angry during this exchange, because he felt that it impugned
his ability to provide for his family and the way he took his
responsibility seriously. He also admitted that voices were
raised by both Bernard and himself, though he stated that the
only person who pointed a finger at the other was Bernard.4
On cross-examination, Candu admitted reluctantly that he
never attempted to end the conversation, and that he engaged
in the conversation with Bernard of his own volition. With
equal reluctance, Candu admitted that Bernard apologized to
him for saying he’d be dumb.
Candu testified that he told Moreno about the incident sev-
eral hours later, on Moreno’s request. He also had a brief
discussion with Holguin, who asked him what was wrong
with Bernard; Candu replied that nothing was wrong and left.
Several days later, Candu raised the incident with his su-
pervisor, Smith. That same day, he also spoke to Galan about
the matter.
F. Raul Bernard’s Version of These Incidents
An employee since shortly after the plant opened. He
openly supported the Union in the 1988 campaign, talking it
up among fellow employees. Though the Union lost the elec-
tion, he never really stopped telling others about the virtues
of unionism.
Instead, he stepped up his discussions in the summer of
1989, since he hoped to secure another election. He found,
during his discussions with fellow employees, that some em-
ployees had changed their minds from the previous year, so
he entered into the belief that others might do so as well. He
began asking people if they’d be willing to sign a union
card. Obviously, not all employees welcomed Bernard’s ap-
proaches, as he admitted that some employees have told him
not to talk to them anymore. He claimed that in all such in-
stances he’s taken their answer and ‘‘that’s it.’’ But, when
an employee’s in doubt, he approached them and talked to
them when convenient. He admittedly conducted these dis-
cussions both during breaktime and during worktime, some-
times right at his machine. He described such discussions as
typically lasting 2 to 5 minutes.
Beginning in June, he distributed union cards to fellow
employees. He denied, however, ever distributing such cards
during working time, and claimed that he limited such dis-
tribution to breaks and lunch, or in the parking lot. He ampli-
fied that he was approached several times at his work station
and asked for cards. He always responded that he kept the
cards in his locker, and he’d see them later. Or he had the
one who approached simply go to his locker and take a card.
Bernard, like other employees, witnessed ‘‘passionate’’
discussions of the Union by employees, and participated in
several himself. He recalled two in which he was involved.
The first was in the plant’s bathroom, with Richard Cox.
Bernard was off the clock, around 3:30 p.m., and getting
ready to leave. Bernard didn’t recall any specifics, or the ap-
proximate date. He only recalled Cox saying that unions
were no good and that his father had had a bad experience
1016 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with a union. The entire conversation lasted about 2 minutes.
This incident was mentioned at the trial only by Bernard.
The second involved Candu, at Bernard’s machine, and
occurred at the end of Bernard’s workday, in September, as
he was filling out his production report. Candu came over,
to see Ruben Martinez, his assistant on the machine. Candu
wasn’t yet on the clock, and both Bernard and Martinez were
in the process of going off the clock. Candu and Martinez
had a conversation about some motor vehicles they were at-
tempting to exchange with one another. After several minutes
of such conversation, Bernard asked Candu how he felt about
the Union. Candu said he didn’t know. Bernard offered to in-
form him. Candu repeated that he didn’t know. Bernard
asked what he didn’t know. Candu, according to Bernard,
wasn’t in a mood to talk, being more interested in the motor
vehicle. Finally, Candu snapped at Bernard that he wasn’t
going to sign a card, saying, ‘‘I don’t care for the Union.’’
Bernard replied that, ‘‘You’re dumber than I thought.’’ Then
Bernard walked away to finish his report, and Martinez and
Candu continued to talk.
Bernard denied that that he and Candu had yelled at one
another, but acknowledged that voices had been raised. Ber-
nard also went on to explain that he’d made a point of apolo-
gizing to Candu the next day.
Bernard stated that he had a conversation with Tom Booth
in July about the Union, when Booth came to him at his ma-
chine and said that, ‘‘They asked me to talk to you.’’ Ber-
nard asked what about, and Booth replied that it was about
the Union, explaining that they didn’t want him talking about
the Union out here on companytime. Bernard just shook his
head and Booth left, and Bernard continued work.
The second time management talked to him about the
Union was on September 8, while at his machine. Booth
came up and called him into the office. While on the way,
Bernard inquired what it was about, and Booth responded
that it was about what they’d talked about the other day.
When they got to the office, they found Galan and Joel
Burmeister there. Galan invited Bernard in and asked him to
sit. Galan then read the no-solicitation rule to him, and asked
him if he was aware of it. Bernard replied that it was in Re-
spondent’s handbook. He was asked if he’d been warned
about it, and Booth reminded him that he’d talked to him
about it. Bernard replied affirmatively. Then Galan handed
him the written warning, and asked him to sign it. Bernard
noticed that it referred to ‘‘verbal harassment and physical
intimidation,’’ and refused to sign it. The meeting concluded
shortly thereafter.
On October 5, Bernard had another meeting with Galan
and Burmeister, a few minutes before shift was over. He was
called to the meeting again by Booth, and he again inquired
what it was about, and again was told that it had to do with
the Union. Bernard noted that he was busy, and asked to re-
schedule the meeting, but was denied. Once in the office, he
was greeted by Galan, and again read the no-solicitation rule.
Bernard replied that was fine, that he was not guilty of it.
Galan replied that there were people coming to him and say-
ing he’d been talking to them about the Union. Bernard stat-
ed that they were lying. Galan asked why people would
come in of their own free will, and Bernard said he didn’t
know, but maybe they were trying to curry favor. Bernard
asked who the people were, and was told that he couldn’t be
told. At some point, Galan began speaking of intimidation.
Bernard stated that he’d not intimidated anyone, or harassed
them. Galan then informed him that they’d decided to sus-
pend him for 5 days, effective immediately. Then Galan
handed him a copy of the suspension, and the meeting ended.
Bernard admits that he talked to others about the Union
during working time following the first warning, i.e., be-
tween September 8 and October 5. But these conversations
differed in that they were conversations initiated by others.
Also, he spoke fewer times. And he didn’t pass any cards
during working time, or have any passionate conversations
with others after the first warning.
He admitted that shortly before he was suspended, he may
have had a conversation with Isaac Garcia. He couldn’t recall
any particulars, except of a conversation initiated by Garcia,
when Bernard went to the flexo machine where Garcia
worked to secure some material he needed in his work. Ber-
nard stated that as he secured the material, Garcia leaned
over and said that he had a card in his car. Bernard replied
that that was fine. Garcia said he’d get it for him, and Ber-
nard said there was no rush. Then Bernard returned to his
machine.
Although Bernard admits there were other occasions in
which he spoke to Garcia about the Union, the details of
which he can’t recall, he was certain that Garcia never be-
came upset and never told him that he was harassing him,
or that he wasn’t going to support the Union. Instead, Ber-
nard testified, Garcia told him that he was for the Union. He
denied that he ever had any passionate discussions or heated
discussions with Garcia about the Union.
Bernard stated that his production is generally the best of
all machine operators, as reflected in his pay, which provides
for a ‘‘Red Circle Rate.’’ Although he hasn’t been evaluated
in a long time, whenever he asks his supervisor how he’s
doing, he’s told that he’s doing real good, and that occurs
at least once a month. There’s never been any complaint
about his work except as relates to the no-solicitation rule.
The production figures show that his productivity is among
the highest at the plant, though.
Bernard denied that he’d ever had a heated discussion of
the Union with Moreno. He did discuss the Union with him,
generally as Moreno came on shift. Although he didn’t recall
Moreno telling him not to bother him anymore, he does re-
call Moreno didn’t seem interested, so he stopped trying.
Bernard admitted that he’d talked to Holguin about the
Union. He recalled only one such occasion. And, even then,
he was unsure of what was said, though he denied that it had
been heated or passionate in tone.
Bernard also admitted that he was an open union advocate,
and that Galan gave him a wage increase after his support
was known, before the election. No others got increases.
And, during the ‘‘second campaign,’’ he got praise from
Galan. Respondent conceded that Bernard is a ‘‘good em-
ployee.’’
Bernard admitted that he may have discussed the Union
with Holguin during worktime, once. However, he was un-
able to recall the details.
Bernard also admitted that he did speak to Moreno, and
perhaps Candu, during the first campaign. He had no such
recollection about Holguin.
1017WILLAMETTE INDUSTRIES
IV. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
In Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d
899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982), the
Board announced the following causation test in all cases al-
leging violations of Section 8(a)(3) or violations of Section
8(a)(1) turning on employer motivation.
First, the General Counsel must make a prima facie show-
ing sufficient to support the inference that protected conduct
was a ‘‘motivating factor’’ in the employer’s decision.
Second, on such a showing, the burden shifts to the em-
ployer to demonstrate that the same action would have taken
place even in the absence of the protected conduct.
The United States Supreme Court approved and adopted
the Board’s Wright Line test in NLRB vs. Transportation
Corp., 462 U.S. 393, 399–403 (1983).
In this case I conclude that the General Counsel has made
a strong case that Bernard was involved in protected activity
preceding his discipline by Respondent. Bernard’s credited
testimony shows that he repeatedly spoke of the benefits of
unionism with other employees. It cannot be argued that such
conduct ifs unprotected. The Board finds that the right of
employees to organize for collective bargaining is a strong
Section 7 right, ‘‘at the very core of the purpose for which
the NLRB was enacted.’’ New Process Co., 290 NLRB 704,
705 (1988). In any litany of the ways in which employees
organize themselves for collective bargaining, their day-to-
day discussions and interchange of ideas must surely rank
very high; for this reason it is regarded as protected activity.
Thus, Bernard’s efforts to speak with, and convince others of
the validity of his ideas and feelings about the cause of un-
ionism, must generally be regarded as protected as well.
Through the years the Board has balanced the rights of
employees to organize against the legitimate property right of
employers to have their workplaces be as productive as pos-
sible. As a consequence, the Board’s rule is that an employer
may forbid employees to to talk about a union during periods
when the employees are supposed to be actively working, if
that prohibition also extends to all other subjects not associ-
ated or connected with their work tasks.
However, an employer violates Section 8(a)(1) when em-
ployees are forbidden to discuss unionization, but are free to
discuss other subjects unrelated to work, particularly then the
prohibition is announced or enforced only in response to spe-
cific union activities in an organizational campaign. Orval
Kent Food Co., 278 NLRB 402, 407 (1986). Where the
record shows that an employer tolerates a wide variety of so-
licitation activities without imposing discipline on any em-
ployee involved, the employer may not legitimately prohibit
employees from soliciting signatures to union authorization
cards, much less prohibit them from merely talking about the
union. K & M Electronics, 283 NLRB 279 (1987);
F. Mullens Construction, 273 NLRB 1016 (1984).
And, finally, where an employer disparately enforces even
a valid rule against solicitation, it violates not only Section
8(a)(1) but Section 8(a)(3) as well. South Nassau Commu-
nities Hospital, 274 NLRB 1181, 1182 (1985).
I find that the record in this case supports the conclusion
which I draw, that Respondent enforced its rule against solic-
itation only against persons who were engaged in such con-
duct on behalf of the Union. Further, I find that the record
supports a finding, which I make, that the Respondent an-
nounced a prohibition against talking about the Union during
working time.
The atmosphere at the plant and the uneven enforcement
of the rule pertaining to solicitation can be best seen by ref-
erence to the absolutely credible testimony of employee Reu-
ben Barcamonte.
Barcamonte testified that he attended a meeting of em-
ployees in early September. The meeting began at 3 p.m.,
with both shifts of employees and supervisors present, the
second shift having been called in early for the purpose of
attending the meeting. Galan and Supervisor Jeff Murray
spoke. First the employees were told about the upcoming
picnic. Then Galan started talking about how there would be
campaigning about the Union going on, told employees not
to sign for the Union unless they were sure, and that employ-
ees were free to sign cards, but should do so only during
lunch or breaks, i.e., while off the clock, or in the parking
lot; Galan said that it was not permitted to sign cards, or talk
about the Union, on companytime or on the clock. Galan
then opened the meeting up for discussion.
Barcamonte stated that employees are generally free to
speak about anything at all during working time, including
such topics as football, baseball, relatives, and family mat-
ters. Employees commonly do so, as do supervisors. Employ-
ees also regularly place bets, including baseball or football
pools; he testified that he’d seen employees approached
about such matters, and that he’d placed such bets himself.
For example, he recalled that during a recent World Series,
he’d participated in a pool, and that it’d included his super-
visor, Rick Flores, who was present during worktime when
the pool was organized, drawn up, and bets were placed. In
fact, Barcamonte stated that he’d seen the names of super-
visors, even Galan’s, on pool sheets. He stated that such
pools and betting are done openly in the plant, and that it’s
a well-known occurrence.
Barcamonte further recounted other types of solicitations
which go on at the plant, in which supervisors routinely par-
ticipate, as including candy sales, and sales of other items,
walkathons, and a collection for an injured employee. He
also stated that he’d seen preaching or discussion of points
raised from readings from the Bible during worktime, and
that among those who’d participated was a supervisor. In
each instance, he stated that such solicitations go on openly,
and are general knowledge within the plant. Further, he’s
never heard of anyone being disciplined for participating in
such pools or solicitations.
Barcamonte acknowledged that Respondent’s no-solicita-
tion rule was known to him, and had been repeatedly called
to employees’ attention during the 1988 campaign as well as
during the September meeting. He recalled Galan telling
groups of employees that the Respondent would not allow
employees to talk about the Union during working time.
On cross-examination Barcamonte admitted that Respond-
ent has made no effort to interfere with or curtail the organi-
zational activities which openly occur during breaktime and
lunchtime.
Barcamonte testified that during the two union campaigns
he’s witnessed at Respondent’s plant, he’s routinely observed
that employees come to hold strong opinions both for and
against unionization, and that the two sides routinely and
commonly debate the merits of their respective positions,
sometimes quite passionately and at the tops of their lungs,
1018 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5 See generally Isis Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
6 See Sterling Sugars, 261 NLRB 472 (1982).
7 All outstanding motions inconsistent with this recommended
Order are denied. If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec.
in efforts to make the other side see the light. He stated that
often such debates include one or the other participant be-
coming angry, and gesturing vigorously. Indeed, Barcamonte
acknowledged having done so himself, in an effort to change
the mind of a fellow employee he already knew to be
antiunion.
I conclude that the credible evidence in this record as a
whole will not support Respondent’s contention that Bernard
violated a valid rule against solicitation, even if one could
find, as is patently impossible, that the rule had been
evenhandedly enforced. Bernard’s own testimony was to the
effect that he’d not done so during the time after July (which
is the time period which Respondent limited itself to during
the trial), and the testimonies of such employees as Holguin,
Moreno, and Candu will not support such a finding. Neither
Holguin nor Moreno had first-hand knowledge of what they
claimed to have witnessed; neither actually heard the words
of either Candu or Bernard. And Candu’s own account
lacked credibility, in addition to actually supporting the find-
ing that his own discussion and solicitation of the swapping
of an automobile, all on companytime, was readily coun-
tenanced. Indeed, Galan as much as admitted this, as he testi-
fied that Candu had no record placed in his file about the
alleged confrontation with Bernard. I find this fact dispropor-
tionately inconsistent with the rush to judgment of Bernard,
who, after all, wasn’t even given an opportunity to explain
his version of the incident, despite his denial that he’d har-
assed anyone.
As to the ‘‘harassment,’’ of fellow employees, I find that
the record will not support Respondent’s contention that Ber-
nard actually did so. First of all, the mere fact that employ-
ees may not have wanted to discuss the Union with Bernard,
or that they’d heard unsubstantiated rumors about Bernard’s
response should he meet with refusal on their part, is insuffi-
cient to elevate legitimate discussion of the Union by Ber-
nard to the status of ‘‘harassment’’ or intimidation. Second,
certainly, Holguin and Moreno were not harassed; their testi-
monies were to the effect that they’d merely witnessed a fel-
low employee being harassed. Candu’s testimony will not
support such a conclusion, for he admitted that he entered
into and continued his conversation with Bernard of his own
volition, and that his own voice was raised during the en-
counter. And, finally, Garcia was clear in his testimony that
he informed Respondent that he had not been harassed, and
merely wanted to avoid Bernard’s company due to the fact
that he’d had a bad day.
In my consideration of what may or may not have been
considered harassment at the workplace of Respondent, I
bear in mind the credited testimony of Barcamonte. From
that, I infer that employees routinely engaged in ‘‘argu-
ments’’ and ‘‘confrontations’’ without fear that their doing
so would result in their being disciplined for having ‘‘har-
assed’’ or ‘‘intimidated’’ others. The only difference I dis-
cern between such arguments or confrontations and that
which occurred between Candu and Bernard is the subject
matter.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent has failed in its effort
to justify its discipline of Bernard by showing that it would
have occurred in any event, and that, in disciplining Bernard
for his protected activities, Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, and shall recommend an appro-
priate remedy.
Finally, I find that the allegation that Galan unlawfully in-
terrogated and threatened an employee, when he spoke to
Garcia, is fully supported by the evidence. I credit the testi-
mony of Garcia fully. There was no warrant for Galan to
question Garcia without assuring him of the purpose of the
questioning and that there would be no reprisals against him
should he refrain, as he did, from answering. Having been
called to Galan’s office, the seat of authority in the plant,
and having been apprised of the feelings of Respondent
about those who supported the Union as being worthy of
being ‘‘deprived of fuel,’’ Garcia would reasonably be co-
erced by Galan’s questions and statements. New Process Co.,
290 NLRB 704 (1988). I so find and conclude.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by inter-
rogating employee, by advising that employees that employ-
ees who raised questions about a union should be ‘‘deprived
of fuel,’’ and by selectively and disparately enforcing a rule
against soliciting fellow employees while working.
3. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act
by ‘‘counseling,’’ warning, and suspending its employee,
Raul Bernard, because he had discussed the Union with other
employees, an activity entitled to protection under the Act.
4. The above unfair labor practices have an effect on com-
merce as defined in the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease
and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that employee Raul Bernard was unlawfully
suspended, Respondent is ordered to offer him immediate re-
instatement to his former position, displacing, if necessary,
any replacement, or, if not available, to a substantially equiv-
alent position without loss of seniority and other privileges.
It is further recommended that Raul Bernard be made whole
for lost earnings resulting from his suspension, by payment
to him of a sum of money equal to that he would have
earned from the date of his suspension to the date of his re-
turn to work, less net interim earnings during that period.
Backpay shall be computed in the manner prescribed by
F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida
Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977).5 Interest on any such
backpay shall be computed as in New Horizons for the Re-
tarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
It is further recommended that the Respondent expunge
from its records any references to the counseling, warning,
and suspension mentioned, and provide Raul Bernard written
notice of such expunction, and inform him that the
Respondents’s unlawful conduct will not be used as a basis
for further personnel actions against him.6
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on
the entire record, I issue the following recommended7
1019WILLAMETTE INDUSTRIES
102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclu-
sions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of
the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall
be deemed waived for all purposes.
8 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court
of appeals, the words in the notice reading ‘‘Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board’’ shall read ‘‘Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order
of the National Labor Relations Board.’’
ORDER
The Respondent, Willamette Industries, Inc., Sanger, Cali-
fornia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Instructing, advising, warning, or otherwise imparting
to employees that they should not or may not talk with other
employees about their own or other employees’ rates of pay,
wages, hours of work, or other terms and conditions of em-
ployment, or the relative benefits of selecting a union as their
collective-bargaining agent.
(2) Suspending, or otherwise disciplining, employees, or
otherwise restraining, coercing, or interfering with their exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, because
they have engaged in talks or discussed with other employees
their own or other employees’ rates of pay, wages, hours of
work, or other terms and conditions of employment, or other-
wise attempted to persuade other employees to select a union
as their collective-bargaining agent.
(3) Interrogating employees about their own or their fellow
employees union sympathies, activities, or leaning and/or
threatening that employees who attempted to persuade other
employees to join them in supporting the Union would be
discharged or otherwise disciplined.
(4) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(1) Offer, if not already accomplished, Raul Bernard im-
mediate and full reinstatement to his former job or, if that
job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to his seniority or any other rights or privi-
leges previously enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss
of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the dis-
crimination against him, in the manner set forth in the rem-
edy section of the decision.
(2) Remove from its files any reference to the unlawful
suspension or warnings or counselings, and notify Raul Ber-
nard in writing that this has been done and that none of these
records will ever be used against him in any way.
(3) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board
or its agents for examination and copying, all payroll records,
social security payment records, timecards, personnel records
and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(4) Post at its plant in Sanger, California, copies of the at-
tached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’8 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 32, after
being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative,
shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt
and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous
places including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(5) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply.