Chemtronics, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 18, 1978

236 N.L.R.B. 178 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Chemtronics, Inc. and Local 42, Industrial Production
Employees Union. Case 29 CA-5374
May 18, 1978
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS PENI.I.()., MURPIIY, AND TR FSDAI I
On October 31, 1977, Administrative Law Judge
Thomas D. Johnston issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and has
decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclu-
sions of the Administrative law Judge and to adopt
his recommended Order, as modified herein.
The Administrative Law Judge found that, on Oc-
tober 8, 1976, Union Vice President Lasky met with a
number of Respondent's employees on Respondent's
parking lot. During this meeting, Lasky and other
union officials solicited employees Sugden, Biondi,
and Rosemarie and Robert Sohl to sign union au-
thorization cards. While this solicitation was occur-
ring, Respondent's president, Louis Friedman, who
had been alerted to the solicitation, came out to the
parking lot accompanied by his dog and ordered La-
sky and the other union representatives off Respon-
dent's property. Based on credited testimony, the
Administrative Law Judge found that Friedman then
went to Robert Sohl and asked him what was going
on, what was said, and whether he had signed a
union card.
The Administrative Law Judge concluded, without
discussion, that Respondent, by the above conduct.
not only unlawfully interrogated Robert Sohl regard-
ing his union activities, but also engaged in unlawful
surveillance of the employees' union activities. We
adopt the Administrative Law Judge's finding that
Respondent, by the foregoing conduct of Louis
Friedman, unlawfully interrogated Sohl. We disagree
with the Administrative Law Judge's finding of un-
lawful surveillance.
The Board has held that "union representatives
and employees who choose to engage in their union
activities at the employer's premises should have no
cause to complain that management observes
them." 2 As the October 8 meeting between Respon-
dent's employees and the Union's representatives
was conducted in full public view on Respondent's
own parking lot, Respondent did not engage in un-
lawful surveillance of that meeting. Nor did it do so
by interrupting the meeting and directing the union
officials to leave the premises. Its latter actions were
the exercise of a legitimate proprietary prerogative
and were not rendered unlawful by virtue of the sub-
sequent unlawful interrogation of employee Robert
Sohl. Accordingly, we shall dismiss that portion of
the complaint alleging unlawful surveillance in this
incident.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified
below, and hereby orders that the Respondent,
Chemtronics, Inc., Hauppauge, New York, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order, as so
modified:
I. Delete paragraph l(a) and reletter the remain-
ing paragraphs accordingly.
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative l.aw Judge It is the Board's established policy not to over-
rule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credihilits
unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us
that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dr, H/all Produ is. In., 91
NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951) We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
The Administrative Law Judge found that employee l.ucian Jones volun-
tarily signed an authorization card on October 8 and that the card is there-
fore valid for purposes of determining the Union's majority. In so inding.
the Administratie Lasw Judge discredited Jones' testimony that he signed
the card only after being threatened with physical harm if he failed to do so,
while we agree with the Administrative Law Judge for the various other
reasons stated by him that Jones' card is valid, we do not adopt his state-
nment that Jones' participation in the strike on October I I s inconsistent
with any prior alleged threat of harm to him.
2 iih¥c, Inc, e' al. 159 NLRB 812. 814 (1966). See also larand Leivure-
ihe. Inc .213 NLRB 197. 205 1974): and Mitchell Plavits. Incorporated, 159
NIRB 1574, 1576 (1966)
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF TIHE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE ILLt NOT coercively interrogate our em-
ployees concerning their union membership and
activities and those of other employees.
WE WlLt NOT threaten our employees with
stricter working conditions for selecting the
236 NLRB No. 21
178
CHEMTRONICS. INC.
Union to represent them.
WF wii.1 NOT threaten our employees with
possible physical harm because of their union
activities.
WI: wI. l NOi discharge. refuse to reinstate, or
otherwise discriminate against our employees
because of their membership in. sympathies for.
or activities on behalf of Local 42. Industrial
Production Employees Union. or an, other la-
bor organization, or because thev engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of mutual aid or
protection.
Wi wit Nor harass our employees by impos-
ing upon them more onerous working conditions
because of their union activities.
Wr wi.t. Not discontinue providing our em-
ployees with coffee and rolls and with their
smoking privileges in the warehouse area be-
cause of their union activities.
WtI wii.i NOt refuse to bargain collectively
and in good faith concerning rates of pay. wag-
es, hours of employment, and other terms and
conditions of employment with Local 42. Indus-
trial Production Employees Union, as the exclu-
sive representative of the employees in the bar-
gaining unit described below.
Wi. Wil.i NOT make unilateral changes in the
terms and conditions of our employees in the
bargaining unit described below.
WE WIL.t. NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the
exercise of their rights to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist any labor organization. to
bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, to engage in concerted ac-
tivities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain
from any or all such activities, except to the ex-
tent that such rights may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor or-
ganization as a condition of employment as au-
thorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended.
Wt wl. t offer immediate and full reinstate-
ment to Edward Biondi, Robert Sohl, and Rose-
marie Sohl to their former jobs or, if those jobs
no longer exist, then to substantially equivalent
jobs. without prejudice to their seniority and
other rights and privileges, and we- wiIli make
each of them whole along with Thomas Sugden
for any loss of pay they may have suffered by
reason of our discrimination against them, with
interest.
Wi- wil.i restore providing our employees with
coffee and rolls and with their smoking privi-
leges in the warehouse area as they existed prior
to their discontinuance on October 14, 1976.
WF Wit w recognize and, upon request, bargain
collectively and in good faith with Local 42, In-
dustrial Production Employees Union, as the ex-
clusive representative of all the employees in the
bargaining unit described below with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and
other terms and conditions of employment, and,
if an understanding is reached, embody such un-
derstanding in a written signed agreement. The
bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance, shipping
and receiving employees of Respondent. em-
ployed at the Hauppauge plant. exclusive of
office clerical employees, guards. professional
employees and all supervisors as defined in
Section 2(11) of the Act.
CIFN MTRONI(S. INC
DECISION
SlAIEN[iiNT O)F THE CASE
THOMAs D JOHINSTON. Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard at Hauppauge, New York, on June 6-10,
1977, pursuant to a charge filed by Local 42, Industrial
Production Employees Union (herein referred to as the
Union). on December 15, 1976,1 and a complaint issued on
January 18, 1977.
The complaint, which was amended at the hearing, alleg-
es that Chemtronics, Inc. (herein referred to as the Respon-
dent), violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein referred to as the
Act), by interrogating its employees concerning their union
membership. activities, and sympathies; by keeping under
surveillance the meeting places, meetings, and activities of
the Union and the concerted activities of its employees
conducted for the purpose of collective bargaining and
other mutual aid and protection; threatening its employees
with the loss of privileges, more arduous and less agreeable
job tasks, closer surveillance of their work, and other repri-
sals if they became or remained members of the Union and
gave assistance and support to it; harassed its employees
by subjecting them to closer supervision of their work, by
withdrawing privileges they previously enjoyed and impos-
ing on them onerous working conditions because they had
joined and assisted the Union, engaged in a strike and
picketing and other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining and mutual aid and protection;
ceased providing free coffee and rolls daily to employees
who supported the Union during the strike while continu-
ing to furnish them to employees who did not support the
strike; discharged employees Edward Biondi on October 8.
Robert Sohl on October I, and Thomas Sugden on Octo-
A11l dates referred lo are in 1976 unless other ise stated
179
DECISIONS OF NATIONAlL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ber I 1, and thereafter reinstated them on or about October
14 to their former or substantially equivalent positions of
employment and thereafter discharged Robert Sohl on Oc-
tober 14 and Rosemarie Sohl on October 30, and harassed
Edward Biondi by withdrawing privileges he previously en-
joyed, subjected him to closer supervision of his work, and
imposed on him onerous working conditions forcing him to
quit his employment on or about October 22, thereby dis-
charging him and thereafter refusing to reinstate Robert
Sohl. Rosemarie Sohl, and Edward Biondi because they
joined and assisted the Union, engaged in a strike and
picketing and other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining and mutual aid and protection: and
by negotiating with the Union in bad faith and with no
intention to enter into any final or binding collective-bar-
gaining agreement with it; and thereafter refused to negoti-
ate with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of its employees in the unit. The amended complaint
further alleges the Respondent engaged in the conduct to
undermine the Union and destroy its majority status and
that said conduct was of such a serious and substantial
nature as to prevent the holding of a fair election among
the employees.
The Respondent, in its answer filed on January 31. 1977.
which was amended at the hearing, denies having violated
the Act.
The issues involved are whether the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1). (3), and (5) of the Act, by engaging in un-
lawful interrogations, surveillance, threats, and harassment
of its employees with respect to their union and concerted
activities: ceased providing free coffee and rolls to employ-
ees and withdrew other privileges because they supported
the Union during the strike: by discriminatorily discharg-
ing and/or refusing to reinstate Edward Biondi, Robert
Sohl. Thomas Sugden. and Rosemarie Sohl. and construc-
tively discharging Edward Biondi, because of their union
or protected concerted activities; and whether the Respon-
dent engaged in bad-faith bargaining with the Union and
thereafter refused to negotiate with the Union as the exclu-
sive bargaining representative of its employees in the unit.
Upon the entire record 2 in this case, and from my obser-
vations of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the
oral arguments presented by' the General Counsel and the
Respondent at the hearing, I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCI.SIONS
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a New York corporation, with its prin-
cipal office and place of business located at Hauppauge,
New York, is engaged in the business of the packaging and
wholesale distribution of electronic chemicals and related
products. During the 12-month period preceding January
18, 1977, a representative period, Respondent, in the
course of its operations, sold and shipped products valued
- Unless otherwise indicated the findings are based on pleadings .dmls
silns. slpulaliolns, and undisputed evidence contained in the record a cllh I
credit.
' None of the palrtics filed briefs in this matter.
in excess of $50,000 from its place of business directly to
States located outside the State of New York.
The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
1I 1Ilt. LABOR OR(GA;,IZTION INVOLVEI
Local 42, Industrial Production Employees Union. is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III ItE t NFAIR IABOR PRA(I 1I('S
A. BaRcground
The Respondent operates a plant located in Hauppauge,
New York, where it is engaged in the packaging and whole-
sale distribution of electronic chemicals and related prod-
ucts. Al Friedman is president and his son, Louis Fried-
man, is general manager.4
About October 8 the Union began an organizing cam-
paign among Respondent's employees who were not repre-
sented by any labor organization.
Following unsuccessful demands for recognition by the
Union on October 8 and II the Union engaged in a strike
which lasted from October 11 to October 13, at which time
the Respondent agreed to recognize and bargain with the
Union as the bargaining agent of its unit employees. There-
after negotiations were conducted for a collective-bargain-
ing agreement without success.
These proceedings arose out of conduct occurring during
the organizing campaign up through the negotiations.
B. Unla)vful Interrogations. Surveillance, Threats, and
Harassment
On October 8, the Union's vice president, Lasky, met
with employees Thomas Sugden and Edward Biondi at the
Respondent's parking lot, at which time they both signed
union authorization cards. Robert Sohl and his wife. Rose-
marie, were also asked to sign cards. While they were there
President Friedman came out with his dog and ordered
Lasky and the other union representatives off the property.
Edward Biondi testified that Friedman ordered both him
and Sugden back inside to work, while Robert Sohl stated
that Friedman came over and asked him what was going
on, what was said, and whether he had signed a card.
These witnesses all placed the incident as occurring dur-
ing the lunch period.
President Friedman acknowledged that before going out
to the parking lot he had been informed by an employee
the union was soliciting his employees. While he first stated
he learned of this about 4 p.m., he subsequently testified it
was about 2:30 or 3:30 p.m. Friedman, who contended he
could not remember who the employees were he saw on
that occasion, denied asking Robert Sohl if he had signed a
union card. Friedman further stated that after the union
representatives left the parking lot they continued to hand
4 Bolh President :riedall n ind (eneral IlManager I riedman ire ilgents, of
the R c,.., ndcnl
180
CHEMITRONICS. INC.
out cards to employees adjacent to the Company's prop-
erty.
Based on the testimony of Thomas Sugden. Edward
Biondi, Robert Sohl, Rosemarie Sohl, and Vice President
Lasky, whom I credit, rather than President Friedman.
whom I discredit, I find that during the lunch period on
October 8 President Friedman engaged in surveillance of
the employees' union activities and interrogated Robert
Sohl about his conversation with the union representative
and about whether he signed a union card. Besides my
observation of the witnesses, in discrediting President
Friedman I find he testified in an evasive manner and con-
tradicted his own testimony.
That same day after lunch, Thomas Sugden and Edward
Biondi were assigned to perform cleanup work in the com-
pressor room, which work consisted of crushing and stack-
ing boxes.5 Neither of them had performed such work be-
fore. Both Robert Sohl and Anthony Naglieri testified that
President Friedman had told them to assign Sugden and
Biondi to work there. Sohl also testified that, at the time
President Friedman told him to make the assignments.
Friedman first asked him if he knew who, or if anyone. had
signed cards, whereupon he told Friedman both Sugden
and Biondi had.
President Friedman, who did not testify concerning the
assignments or the conversations, only denied ever asking
Robert Sohl if he had signed a union card. I credit the
testimony of Sohl rather than Friedman for reasons previ-
ously given and find that President Friedman on October 8
interrogated Robert Sohl about who had signed union
cards.
The Union's vice president, Garber, testified that, on the
morning of October 11 upon asking President Friedman
for recognition and showing him the signed authorization
cards of seven employees including Zellena Marshall.'
Friedman looked at the cards, picked out one of them. and
asked an office girl to get Marshall. When Marshall ap-
peared Friedman asked her whether she signed the card for
the union.
President Friedman denied ever being shown any union
authorization cards. While Marshall denied the incident
she stated that earlier that morning President Friedman
had informed her, pursuant to her inquiry, that he had not
said it was all right to sign cards.
I credit the testimony of Garber rather than President
Friedman. whom I have previously discredited, and Mar-
shall, and I find that President Friedman on October I I
interrogated Zellena Marshall about whether she had
signed a union card. Marshall, whom I discredit, contrad-
icted her own testimony and professed an inability to recall
matters reasonably within her own knowledge. Moreover,
Friedman's denial that he was ever shown any union au-
thorization cards is inconsistent with his acknowledgement
that he told his attorney. Burton Horowitz, on October 13
that the cards of Edward Biondi and Lucian Jones were
not bona fide.7 This statement is also consistent with the
These work assignments, which were for a duration of several hours.
were not alleged as violations
6The other six emploNees were Edward Biondl. Dennis Steenheke,
Thomas Sugden. Lucian Jones. and Robert and Rosemarie Sthli
testimony of Vice President Garber, which I credit, that on
October 8. when he initially demanded recognition. he
showed President Friedman the union authorization cards
of Edward Biondi, Dennis Steenbeke. Thomas Sugden.
and Lucian Jones, whereupon Friedman's response was
that Biondi no longer worked there and Jones was part
time and did not count.
On the morning of October 14, which was the day the
employees returned to work after the strike ended, General
Manager Friedman held a meeting of the employees in the
lunchroom. The testimony of four employees presented as
witnesses by the General Counsel, Thomas Sugden. Robert
Sohl, Edward Biondi. and Rosemarie Sohl. who attended
this meeting, establish that General Manager Friedman
asked employees such questions as why they did this while
he was awavy. if they had signed cards or joined the Union,
and whether they knew who started it. Friedman said he
had lost all respect for them for getting his father upset,
and they had some nerve going behind his back, and, if the
employees wanted a union shop. it was going to be run like
a union shop and it was going to be stricter. Friedman
informed them there would be no more coffee and rolls for
the employees, the coffee machine would be taken out and
there would be no more smoking in any area of the plant.
except for the lunchroom and bathrooms, and if anyone
was caught smoking outside thev would be fired. He also
said the union people better watch out because they might
get hit bs boxes and to stay away from high skids. Some of
Friedman's remarks were directed against specific employ-
ees. Friedman told Sugden he had some nerve doing this
after working there only a week. He informed Robert Sohl
he would no longer be allowed in the label room and his
duties from then on were to run the labeling machine. Dur-
ing this meeting, when Sohl complained that the guards on
the Newway machine were inadequate and did not meet
OSHA specifications, Friedman told Sohl that Sohi was
not going to call OSHA and bring them in there, and asked
Sohl who gave him the right to bring OSHA there.9 Fried-
man also mentioned that Anthony Naglieri and Gloria
Foltzmann were being put on salary.
According to these four employees, prior to the meeting
the Respondent had furnished the employees with coffee
and rolls in the morning and although no smoking signs
were posted in the warehouse area the employees were per-
mitted to smoke there and there were ashtrays for their
use.'O Following this meeting, coffee and rolls were no lon-
ger provided nor were the employees permitted to smoke in
the warehouse area. According to Sugden, Rosemarie Sohl,
and Biondi. after the meeting the only persons they saw
having coffee in the office where the coffee machine was
President I riedman's proffered explanation that he assumed the, had
siglned because then picketed is not perua.si'e
9(ienerarl Mlaniger I riedm;in was out of tw ,n during the period betwe::n
October , iand 13
' Anthln% Nligherl a.l1, recalled Robert Sohl at the meeting making refer-
ence to the fact thit the machine was unsafe and that OSt. \ had ruled It
unsafe \fler he aInd i:riedlman told Sohl It was safe Sohl said if It did not
h.sae the propel protecton he xotuildl 5errule :eriedman and contact OSHA
himself
14 \hhile Anlhon Nlighcri stated thait sniking a, l not pernitted in the
wareh-ouse Lit ans titlie hbeai. of fnl.lllttahleC. he did not further elaborate
or cst.ihlhsh hether Il.ih pioihbitlion wai enf,.rced prior to Octher 14
181
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
moved were Anthony Naglieri, Robert Mayer, and Gloria
Foltzmann, none of whom were members of the Union or
participated in the strike.
Although General Manager Friedman testified, he did
not testify concerning what transpired at this meeting. The
only witness presented by the Respondent who testified
concerning this meeting was Zelltna Marshall. While on
direct examination she denied General Manager Friedman
held a meeting that dav, on cross-examination she ac-
knowledged hearing Robert Sohl on that occasion tell
Friedman the machine was unsafe and he was going to call
OSHA, but she claimed she was not listening to what else
was discussed.
While General Manager Friedman denied having any
conversation with Robert Sohl about OSHA on October
14. his denial, which I discredit, was contradicted by a
statement Respondent gave the Union on October 15, dis-
cussed infra, indicating their conversation about OSHA
was a reason for discharging Robert Sohl on October 14.
Based on the testimony of Thomas Sugden, Robert Sohl,
Edward Biondi, and Rosemarie Sohl, which I credit, I find
that General Manager Friedman on October 14 interrogat-
ed employees concerning their union membership and ac-
tivities; threatened employees with stricter working condi-
tions because they selected the union to represent them:
threatened employees with possible physical harm because
of their union activities; announced and thereafter discon-
tinued providing employees with coffee and rolls because
of their union activities, and announced and thereafter dis-
continued the employees' smoking privileges in the ware-
house area because of their union activities.
Several employees testified that following the October 14
meeting General Manager Friedman had conversations
with them concerning their work. Thomas Sugden testified
that, beginning the next day, Friedman would come over
to his machine 8 or 10 times a day and tell him to work
faster.
Edward Biondi, who had previously loaded skids, stated
that, a couple of times that week, after he had almost com-
pleted loading skids, Friedman would tell him to tear them
down and redo them. Biondi denied there was anything
wrong with the way they were being packed.
Rosemarie Sohl testified that Friedman asked her to pick
up some 30-pound boxes of cans from the Newway label-
ing machine and pile them on a skid. When she refused
and asked Friedman about their prior agreement," Fried-
man informed her things were different now and told her
she was fired because she would not pick up the boxes
from the machine. 2
Rosemarie Sohl, after contacting the Union, returned to
work the following Monday.
General Manager Friedman acknowledged that Rose-
marie Sohl was discharged on October 22 and gave as the
reason because she had refused to work on the labeling
l According to Rosemarie Sohl's undisputed testimon., she had suffered
a miscarriage several months c.rlier. followed bh complications. and she
was under a doctor's care. Upon her return io work Friedman had agreed
that as long is she had some plihsical illness. which still existed. she would
he excused from doing that type of :ork.
12 The discharge of Rosemarie Sohl oin this occasion was not alleged .as a
violation.
machine which included piling boxes on the skids. How-
ever, he did not testify concerning the incidents involving
Sugden and Biondi.
Based on the testimony of Thomas Sugden, Edward
Biondi, and Rosemarie Sohl 13 concerning these incidents
which followed General Manager Friedman's October 14
threats to impose stricter working conditions on employees
because they selected the Union to represent them, I find
that General Manager Friedman, about the middle and
latter part of October, harassed employees Thomas Sug-
den, Edward Biondi, and Rosemarie Sohl by imposing on
them more onerous working conditions because of their
union activities.
Thomas Sugden testified that about late October Gener-
al Manager Friedman assigned him to work by Josephine
Manzl,'4 who had returned to work after the strike ended.
While working beside Manzl, she accused him and the
Union of causing her to lose her pension at the Company.'5
Manzl also put a calendar up in front of him circling the
day she lost her pension and told him she would circle
every day on the calendar so he would have to look at it
and it would be on his conscience and his fault she lost her
pension. Manzl also called him the lowest scum on earth
and said God was going to punish him for things he had
done and she did not know how he could work there when
everybody in the place hated him.
Upon informing General Manager Friedman about
these conversations and asking for a day off because it was
upsetting him, Friedman informed Sugden that he could
not help it and it was not his fault if he could not make
friends with people. Friedman denied him the day off be-
cause work needed to be done.
General Manager Friedman did not testify concerning
the incident.
During the early part of November, Scott Friedman,' 6
who is a son of President Friedman and a student, worked
at the Respondent for 2 days. While working in the cassette
area where Thomas Sugden was working, Scott Friedman
made remarks to Sugden criticizing him for bringing the
Union in and costing his father $10,000 in legal fees. Later
that day, on returning to his desk where he was working
with tapes and solder, Sugden stated he observed two wires
running beneath a cardboard box next to the top of the
table by his chair. The two wires led down to the ground
underneath the table and to an alcove near where the rest-
rooms were located, where they were attached to an en-
graving machine lying on the floor which was plugged into
the wall through an extension cord. Sugden observed Scott
standing behind the wall looking at him. Sugden informed
another employee, Mark Hendrickson, who cleared the
wires away from his work area. Later that day during the
break period Sugden went to the Union and discussed the
matter with Vice President Lasky. Upon returning to the
plant and talking to President Friedman, Friedman told
him his son was using the engraving machine to engrave
I he Respondent had knowledge that each of these employees had
signed union authorization cards and participated In the strike
4 Josephine Manzl did not testify.
' I he evidence does not establish whether the Respondent had a pension
5sstem
"' Scott Friedman did not testify.
182
CHEMTRONICS. INC.
something on his watch and there were plenty of wires
lying around the warehouse and Sugden was imagining
there were wires leading to his desk. Friedman told him he
was causing trouble and he could not afford to pay him if
he kept running out of the building and calling the union;
and that if he kept causing trouble he was going to bring
him up to arbitration. Sugden returned to work.
President Friedman did not testify concerning this inci-
dent.
While the Respondent subsequently had knowledge of
these two incidents involving conduct engaged in bv other
employees against Sugden, absent as here any showing Re-
spondent encouraged or condoned such conduct i or that
it continued after it was brought to Respondent's attention.
I do not find the evidence sufficient to establish that the
Respondent was responsible for or violated the Act be-
cause of such conduct.
While the General Counsel also proffered evidence relat-
ing to alleged conduct engaged in by employees Anthony
Naglieri. Mark Hendrickson. Michelle Ebert, and Thomas
Sugden, regarding acts of interrogation, surveillance, and
harassment of other employees on the grounds they were
acting as Respondent's agents, absent as here any evidence
to show they were acting as agents of the Respondent or
that the Respondent had knowledge or and could other-
wise be held accountable for their conduct, a discussion of
such evidence is hereby omitted.
On October 21. Robert Sohl was administered a lie de-
tector test by Thomas Raymond, which was arranged and
paid for by the Respondent through the services of Masgon
Security Services.'8 The test had been arranged to ascertain
whether Sohl had engaged in certain misconduct which the
Respondent contends was the reason he had previously
been discharged.
Robert Sohl testified that during the test Raymond
asked him such questions as whether he was promised
money or a shop steward's position for signing or cam-
paigning for the Union, if he was the one who originally
called up and organized the union campaign, and whether
Thomas Sugden was paid by the Union as an organizer to
bring people in the Union.
Raymond acknowledged asking Sohl whether he was
given any indication or promise of a shop steward's job
and whether he knew directly or indirectly on Friday that
there would be a strike on Monday and that Sohl told him
he was told both indirectly and later directly he could have
a shop steward's position at the Respondent. However.
Raymond denied asking the other questions attributed to
him by Sohl. According to Raymond, prior to the test Pres-
ident Friedman asked him to find out such information.
Upon being confronted with notes Raymond made dur-
ing the test, Raymond contended Sohl also volunteered in-
formation that he had received cards from the union peo-
ple on Friday and had gone to the union hall that weekend.
since both he and his wife were eligible to vote and their
It appears from the statements President Friedman made to SuLden
that he had looked into the matter involving his son.
t Thomas Raymond is a polhygraph examiner and securit, cionsultant
employed hby New, York I.le D)etection Labhoratories. Victor (' Kaufman.
Inc.lrporll led
votes would give the Union needed votes to open activities
in the plant.
Based on Raymond's own admissions that he had ques-
tioned Sohl about his union activities and the strike at the
request of President Friedman, which questions were not
shown to be essential to the alleged purpose of the test, and
such information was then furnished by him to President
Friedman, I find that Respondent through its agents Mas-
gon Security Services and Thomas Raymond on October
21 interrogated Robert Sohl about his union activities.
C. The Discharge at Edward Biondi
Edward Biondi was employed by the Respondent as a
shipping clerk from September until he was discharged on
October 8. His union activities consisted of signing a union
authorization card at the lunch period on October 8 and he
subsequently engaged in picketing which occurred on Oc-
tober 11, 12, and 13.
On the afternoon of October 8. while working in the
compressor room. where Biondi had been assigned to work
at the direction of President Friedman after Friedman had
learned through interrogating Robert Sohl that Biondi had
signed a union authorization card, discussed supra, Biondi
was called to President Friedman's office, at which time
Friedman informed him he was discharged. The reasons
Friedman gave him were that he was a risk to the Compa-
ny and this was reflected in bills from the insurance com-
pany whose rates had gone up.
While employed by the Respondent Biondi had acci-
dently cut his fingers twice while using a razor he was
working with in the shipping and receiving department.
requiring hospitalization which was paid for by the Re-
spondent. The first incident occurred about a week and a
half before his discharge and the second occasion on the
day of his discharge.
Robert Sohl credibly testified without denial that, on the
afternoon of October 8 after Biondi's discharge. President
Friedman told him to keep his eye on the doors and make
sure they stayed locked so the union organizers and their
people could not get in the plant, and that he had gotten
rid of Biondi and that was one down and one to go.
President Friedman did not testify concerning Biondi's
initial discharge on October 8. However, he did inform the
Union's vice president, Garber, on October 13 that Biondi
did not have any right to come back to work because he
was fired prior to his having any knowledge of the Union
and because Biondi was reckless and could not handle a
safety blade.
The reinstatement of Biondi was one of the conditions
imposed by the Union for ending the strike.
On October 14 Biondi was propertly reinstated by the
Respondent.
At the October 14 meeting held in the lunchroom by
General Manager Friedman, discussed supra, Edward
Biondi and Robert and Rosemarie Sohl credibly testified
without denial that Friedman questioned Biondi about
what he was doing there since he had been fired. Accord-
ing to Robert and Rosemarie Sohl. Friedman also told
Biondi he had lost all respect for him.
Following his return to work that day Biondi was as-
183
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
signed to work on the labeling machine where his job was
to take full boxes off the rack and load them onto skids,
which he continued doing until his termination. In addition
he worked in the soldering area and put straw in aerosol
cans.
The findings. supra, establish that, after the October 14
meeting, General Manager Friedman harassed Biondi by
imposing on him more onerous working conditions be-
cause of his union activities.
About October 22 Biondi had a conversation with Presi-
dent Friedman which resulted in his leaving the Respon-
dent's employment at that time. Biondi's version was that
he was called to President Friedman's office and was asked
by Friedman whether he wanted the same offer that Den-
nis Steenbeke, a former employee, had been given. Upon
asking what the offer was, Friedman told him he would
give him 2 weeks' pay and a chance to draw unemplonyment
insurance. Friedman also told him he was sorry it hap-
pened that way and that they should have gone through
him before they made any move. Biondi, later that day.
accepted the offer.
President Friedman's version, which Biondi denied, was
that Biondi came to him and told him he wanted to quit
because he could not get along with people in the back who
were unfriendly towards him, and asked him for the same
deal Steenbeke had received, which was 3 days' pay for
being on strike. Friedman denied offering Biondi pay for
him to quit or telling Biondi he should have come to him
first before signing with the Union.
According to Biondi, after his termination he had anoth-
er conversation with President Friedman at the plant at
which time Friedman showed him an unemployment book
which Friedman told him he would sign if Biondi signed a
statement given to him.
The signed sworn statement executed by Biondi dated
November 8 provides in pertinent part as follows:
2. It is my desire to leave the employ of Chemtron-
ics Inc. for personal reasons and I have not been pres-
sured or asked to leave the employ of Chemtronics
Inc. by any of its officers, directors or stockholders.
3. 1 have no claims for damages against Chemtron-
ics Inc.. or any of its officers and directors nor will I
make any claims in the future.
Biondi also received a check for $77.88, dated October
22, which he cashed.
Biondi asserted that among his reasons for accepting the
Respondent's offer were the pressure and the way General
Manager Friedman had been working them.
Contrary to President Friedman's assertions, which I
discredit, I find that President Friedman, about October
22, successfully solicited Biondi to quit his employment.
Further, such offer was similar to offers subsequently made
to both Robert and Rosemarie Sohl, discussed infra.
D. The October II Discharges of Robert Sohl and 77Tona.s
Sugden
Thomas Sugden was hired by the Respondent on Octo-
ber 2 and performed general warehouse work. His union
activities consisted of contacting the Union about organiz-
ing Respondent's employees, signing a union authorization
card on October 8, and participating in the picketing which
occurred on October I 1, 12. and 13.
Robert Sohl was hired in March 1975 as a general facto-
ry employee. During the 6-month period preceding Octo-
ber II he worked as a leadman. Ilis duties included servic-
ing, operating, and maintaining the Newway labeling
machine and adjacent line, filing and purchasing labels.
and inventor' work.
His union activities consisted of signing a union authori-
zation card on the morning of October II and participating
in the picketing which occurred on October I 11., 12. and 13.
On the morning of October II11. when Vice President
Garber went into the plant to request recognition, he was
accompanied by various employees. who had signed union
authorization cards. including Thomas Sugden, Robert
Sohl. and Rosemarie Sohl. President Friedman acknowl-
edged that, on arriving at work that morning he observed
employees, including Robert Sohl and I homas Sugden.
talking to the Union's vice presidents, Giarber and Ibanez.
Thomas Sugden testified that as they entered the foyer
President Friedman told him he had only worked there 2
weeks and he no longer had any work for him and he was
fired, whereupon he then left.
Robert Sohl, whose testimony was corroborated by his
wife Rosemarie, stated that, as they entered the foxer
ahead of the other employees and the Union's representa-
tive. President Friedman came out, pointed at him, and
asked him whether he had signed a card. Upon reply ing he
had. Friedman told him to get out, whereupon he left.
President Friedman stated that when Vice President
Garber came in and told him he represented a majority of
the employees and asked for recognition, he refused and
told them to leave the premises. However., he did not spe-
cifically deny discharging either Sugden or Robert Sohl.
On October 14 both Robert Sohl and Thomas Sugden
were properly reinstated by the Respondent.
I credit the testimony of Thomas Sugden. Robert Sohl,
and Rosemarie Sohl instead of President Friedman for rea-
sons previously stated and find that Friedman discharged
both Thomas Sugden and Robert Sohl on October 11 and
refused to reinstate them until October 14 and. in addition.
interrogated Robert Sohl about whether he signed a union
card.
E. The Discharge of Rosemarie Sohl, Robert Sohl's Final
Discharge
Rosemarie Sohl was hired in April 1975. Her union ac-
tivities consisted of signing a union authorization card on
October II and participating in the picketing on October
11 and 13.
The findings, supra. establish that on October 22 General
Manager Friedman harassed Rosemarie Sohl byh imposing
on her more onerous working conditions because of her
union activities and discharged her when she refused to do
such work, notwithstanding a prior agreement she would
not be required to perform the work assigned for reasons
related to her physical condition.
According to Sohl,. on a Fridaiy. after she had returned to
work following her discharge. she was given a letter 1 by
19 Sohl siated she lost the letter
184
CHEMTRONICS. INC.
the office secretary which stated if she did not pick up
boxes from the machines on to the skids she would be
fired.
Respondent's records show that Rosemarie Sohl was giv-
en the following warning,20 dated October 28. by General
Manager Friedman:
Since your discharge on October 22. 1976, you have
not shown a willingness to improve your attitude or
your performance. You are expected to perform the
work assigned to you at the time of hire: which includ-
ed the labeling machine. Unless you show immediate
improvement in this area, you will leave me no re-
course but to discharge you.
The following Monday, after receiving the warning, Sohl
stated that, on asking General Manager Friedman about
the letter and their previous agreement, he made no re-
sponse. She then asked him why he was doing it to both her
and her husband and she denied that her husband had
broken the machine, whereupon Friedman's response was
that was not the reason he had fired her husband. When
asked what he meant Friedman told her the reason he had
fired her husband was because of the Union. She then told
Friedman that, since she was not picking up the boxes, she
guessed she would not return to work tomorrow, at which
time he told her she was fired.
General Manager Friedman testified on October 29 21
that Rosemarie Sohl told him she no longer had transpor-
tation to get back and forth to work and she was going to
quit. 22 Thereafter she did not return to work.
I credit Rosemarie Sohl's versions of her conversations
with General Manager Friedman, whom I discredit. Apart
from my observations of the witnesses, Sohl's October 22
discharge and the October 28 warning support the fact that
she was discharged as opposed to quitting as Friedman
contends.
The Respondent presented a witness, Gloria Foltzmann.
who testified that, the third week in October, Rosemarie
Sohl told her she would have to quit because she was has-
ing transportation problems since her husband was no lon-
ger employed by the Company. On cross-examination.
however, when questioned about the conversation which
occurred, Foltzmann made no mention about Sohl telling
her she would have to quit. Rosemarie Sohl denied ever
telling Foltzmann she was going to quit or having an's con-
versation with her about quitting, which I credit.
Robert Sohl returned to work the morning of October
14. While President Friedman acknowledged he permitted
Sohl to return to work at the Union's insistence, he stated
that on October 13 he informed the Union's vice president.
Garber, he objected to Sohl returning on the grounds Sohl
on October 8 had tampered with the labeling machine and
the machine which supplies extension tubes to the sides of
2I According to General Manager Friedman. his secretar! gave the .;lrn-
ing to Rosemarie Sohl on Octobher 28
-Although Rosemarei Sohl placed her first ditscharge as occurring on
October 15 rather than October 22 and her subsequent disch;lrge on ()Ol.-
her 25 rather than October 29. Inasmuch tas her timecards reflect she ,sorked
during those periods, I find that she was mistaken .,s to the dates
Rosenmarie Sohl denied hasing such a