Crawford Sprinkler Co. of Hickory, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 27, 1972

199 N.L.R.B. 300 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

300 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Crawford Sprinkler Company of Hickory , Inc. and
Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No. 669 , United
Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United
States and Canada, AFL-CIO. Case 11-CA-4747
September 27, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO
On June 13,1972, Trial Examiner Lloyd Buchanan
issued the attached Decision in this proceeding.
Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a sup-
porting brief.
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 Trial
Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and
brief and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's
rulings, findings, and conclusions' and to adopt his
recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that
Respondent, Crawford Sprinkler Company of Hicko-
ry, Inc., Hickory, North Carolina, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order.
' Although the Trial Examiner erroneously concluded that employee Han-
shew was no longer in Respondent 's employ, we find no evidence to indicate
that the Trial Examiner attached any particular significance to this conclu-
sion.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
BUCHANAN, Trial Examiner: The complaint herein (is-
sued January 31, 1972; charges filed December 6, 1971, and
January 26, 1972) alleges that the Company has violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, 73 Stat. 519, by interrogating employees concern-
ing their own and other employees' union membership,
sympathies, and activities; directing employees to write let-
ters to the Union requesting the return of their union cards;
and interrogating employees as to whether they had gotten
their cards back from the Union. The answer denies the
allegations of violation.
The case was tried before me at Hickory, North Caroli-
na, on March 28, 1972.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my obser-
vation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT (WITH REASONS THEREFOR)
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I THE COMPANY'S BUSINESS AND THE LABOR
ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The facts concerning the Company's status as a North
Carolina corporation, the nature and extent of its business
in the fabrication and installation of fire protective systems,
and its engagement in commerce within the meaning of the
Act are admitted; I find and conclude accordingly. I also
find and conclude that, as admitted, the Union is a labor
organization within the meaning of the Act.
II THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
This case will not cater to the Walter Mitty in any of :us,
whether parties, counsel, or Trial Examiner. Interference is
charged to Drum, the Company's construction superintend-
ent, and Umbarger, foreman on one of the jobs. Black, who
was employed by the Company for 1 day, on September 21,
1971, testified that on September 14 he went to Drum's
office for a job; that Drum asked whether he was a member
of the Union and that he replied that he was and had been
seeking a job for several months, and that he was in a critical
financial situation and needed work; that apparently at this
point Drum declared that the Company is a nonunion con-
tractor. (From Black's testimony it is not quite clear why
this was interjected at that point in the conversation, Black
later telling us that it was on September 17, over the tele-
phone, that Drum told him that this was a union job and
that the Company was a nonunion contractor.) Black con-
tinued that on September 14 Drum asked what his reaction
would be if he were hired and put on a 100-percent union
job and were approached by a union representative, and
that he replied that he would leave the job immediately if
he saw the representative approaching, since his own pres-
ence on such a job would be in violation of union rules
against working with nonunion men on a union job; and
that to Drum's question what he would do if he could not
get away from a union representative under such circum-
stances, he replied that he would tell him that what he was
being paid was none of his business, and that if necessary
he would turn in his union book. Black further testified that
on September 17 he telephoned Drum, that they discussed
his pay and subsistence allowance, and that he was hired.
Drum's version is that Black came to his office for a
job, that he said that the Company had work in Chattanoo-
ga, that Black asked whether it was a union job, and that
he replied in the affirmative but that the Company was
working open shop. Denying that he asked about the Union,
Drum continued that Black volunteered that he was a mem-
ber, needed a job badly, and had had problems with another
company and the Union had not come to his rescue. Drum
added that Black offered to show his union card but that he
did not look at it; that he asked Black to fill out an applica-
tion but that the latter said he was in a hurry and took the
application, and that Drum said he would call him after he
received it. According to Drum it was he who called Black
199 NLRB No. 46
CRAWFORD SPRINKLER COMPANY 301
thereafter, as he had said he would on receipt of the applica-
tion , and it was arranged over the telephone that Black
would go to work, pay having been discussed when Black
was in Drum 's office. Having told us before that Black had
volunteered that he was a member of the Union, Drum
specifically denied that he asked Black whether he was.
It is clear that the Company is opposed to organization
of its employees. The question here is whether it committed
unlawful acts while it opposed unionization.
In this Yes-No situation, I am satisfied that Black, des-
perately needing a job and having indicated that he had
worked on union jobs, volunteered that he was a member of
the Union but that, if necessary, he would, once hired, turn in
his union book to retain employment. I find and conclude that
the General Counsel has not sustained his burden of proving
violation as alleged in this connection.
Employee Hanshew, employed by the Company for
more than 2 years and until 3 weeks before the trial, testified
that on September 22, the day after Black was hired and
terminated, his foreman, Umbarger, asked whether Black
had come to his trailer the night before and whether he and
another employee, Cragger, who was present, had signed
any petition cards; that he replied that they had not seen
Black and did not sign any cards; that on December 1 at
Loudon, Tennessee, Umbarger told him that he wanted him
to write to Warren, the president of the Local, and advise
him that he changed his mind about the Union and wanted
his union card returned; and that about a week later Um-
barger called him at home and asked whether he had gotten
his card back from the Union in Washington. While Han-
shew testified that it was not until after he wrote to the
Union that he told Umbarger that he had in fact signed a
card, he explained that Umbarger had said that he knew
that he had signed a card.
Umbarger denied that he asked Hanshew in September
whether he had signed a union card. He further denied that
he told Hanshew on December 1 to write to the Union to
have the card returned, and that he thereafter asked Han-
shew if he had gotten the card back from the Union. Um-
barger testified that he had himself signed a card which he
had received from Black in September. He told us that
about December 1, after he and the others had been watch-
ing TV and playing cards in another man's room, Hanshew
came to his room, wrote a letter in which he asked the Union
to return his card, asked him for the Union's address, and
further asked that he mail the letter for him. He testified also
that about a week later he told Hanshew that in the latter
part of September he had himself written to the Union for
return of his own card. This testimony made it appear that
when Hanshew, whether asked to do it or not, wrote for
return of his own union card, Umbarger did not at that time
tell him that he had himself done that several months be-
fore: a curious and hardly understandable situation! It
thereafter developed that Umbarger had on September 24
sent a membership application and $35 to the Union, and
that it was on December 3 that he asked for their return. If
this explained what had previously appeared strange, it indi-
cated that Umbarger was at least a careless witness. We
need not rely on his demeanor although he was noticeably
uncomfortable and flushed.
Hanshew adequately explained whey he wrote the let-
Umbarger did not. According to the latter, Hanshew "just
come up" and said that he did not think that the Union
would do any good, wrote the letter, and asked Umbarger
to mail it. According to Hanshew, whom I credit, they were
staying at different motels. I find that he was trying to please
Umbarger and that the latter had in effect suggested that the
letter be sent.
Hanshew and Umbarger are cousins, and it is clear that
they maintain a close and friendly relationship. But Umbar-
ger had hired Hanshew, and on the job their relationship
was that of supervisor and employee. Their personal rela-
tionship does not exculpate the Company from its
supervisor's violative acts.
I find and conclude that Umbarger's interrogation of
Hanshew on September 22, his subsequent direction or re-
quest that Hanshew request return of his union card from
the Union, and his unlawful interrogation as to whether
Hanshew had received his card constituted unlawful inter-
ference in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant
to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following
recommended:'
ORDER
Respondent Crawford Sprinkler Company of Hickory,
Inc., Hickory, North Carolina, its officers, agents, succes-
sors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating employees concerning their own and
other employees' union activities, directing employees to
write letters to the Union requesting the return of their
union cards, and interrogating employees as to whether they
had gotten their cards back from the Union.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its place of business in Hickory, North Car-
olina, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix "2
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 11, shall be posted by the Company,
after being duly signed by its representatives, immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consec-
utive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to its employees are customarily post-
ed. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Company to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
1 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec . 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall , as provided in Sec 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become its
findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
2 In the event that the Board's 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."
302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 11, in writ-
ing, within 20 days of the date of the receipt of this Decision,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply here-
With 3
3 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after
exceptions have been filed , this provision shall be modified to read "Notify
the Regional Director for Region 11, in writing, within 20 days of the date
of this Order , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees as to their own
or other employees' union activities.
WE WILL NOT direct employees to write letters to the
Union requesting the return of their union cards.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees as to whether
they have gotten their union cards back from the Un-
ion.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise
of their rights to self-organization, to form labor organ-
izations, to join or assist Road Sprinkler Fitters Local
Union No. 669, United Association of Journeymen
and Apprentices of Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry
of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization, and to engage in other con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from
any or all such activities.
Dated By
CRAWFORD SPRINKLER COMPANY OF
HICKORY, INC.
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 1624
Wachovia Building, 301 North Main Street, Winston-Sa-
lem, North Carolina 27101, Telephone 919-723-2300.