Lion Uniform, Janesville Apparel Div.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 21, 1982

259 N.L.R.B. 1141 (N.L.R.B. 1982)

LION UNIFORM, JANESVILLE APPAREL DIV. 1141
Lion Uniform, Janesville Apparel Division and Oil, SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
Chemical and Atomic Workers International
Union, AFL-CIO. Cases 10-CA-12938, 10- STATEMENT OF THE CASE
CA-13089, and 10-CA-13284-2 J. PARGEN ROBERTSON, Administrative Law Judge:
January 21, 1982 This case was heard on September 8, 9, 10, and 11, and
October 14 and 15, 1980, in Clinton, Tennessee. The
DECISION AND ORDER charge in Case 10-CA-12938 was filed on July 19, 1977,
and was amended on August 3 and 17, 1977. The charge
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND in Case 10-CA-13089 was filed on September 19, 1977.
ZIMMERMAN The charge in Case 10-CA-13284-2 was filed on No-
vember 30, 1977, and amended on January 30, 1978. An
On February 5, 1981, Administrative Law Judge order consolidating cases, complaint, and notice of hear-
J. Pargen Robertson issued the attached Supple- ing issued in Cases 0-CA-12938 and 10-CA-13089 on
mental Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the November 17, 1977. Subsequently, on February 9, 1978,
General Counsel and the Charging Party filed ex- a complaint issued in Case 10-CA-13284-2 along with
ceptions and supporting briefs, and Respondent an order consolidating cases and notice of hearing as to
filed cross-exceptions and a brief in support thereof all three of the above-mentioned cases.' Pursuant to
and in opposition to the General Counsel's and the those complaints, a hearing was held before Administra-
Charging Party's exceptions. tive Law Judge Michael O. Miller on May 15 and 16,
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the 1978, in Clinton, Tennessee. On June 8, 1978, Adminis-
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- trative Law Judge Miller issued a Decision and Order
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- approving a settlement agreement. The General Counsel
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. took exception to Administrative Law Judge Miller's
The Board has considered the record and the at- Decision. On February 11, 1980, the National Labor Re-
lations Board issued an order reversing the Administra-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and tive Law Judge and remanding this matter to the Re-
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find- gional Director. On May 8, 1980, the Regional Director
ings,' and conclusions2 of the Administrative Law issued a notice of hearing pursuant to which this matter
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. was heard.
ORDER Upon the entire record,2 my observation of the wit-
nesses, and after due consideration of the briefs filed by
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor the General Counsel, the Charging Party, and Respond-
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- ent, I hereby make the following findings:
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge andA. Background
hereby orders that the Respondent, Lion Uniform, During the spring and summer of 1977 Respondent's
Janesville Apparel Division, Lake City, Tennessee, employees 4 engaged in a union organizational campaign.
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the said recommended Although the three captioned cases were consolidated on February 9,
1978, the Regional Director elected not to consolidate the complaints.
Order. That procedure necessitates action which unnecessarily complicates isola-
tion of litigable issues. It is necessary to review each separate complaint
'The General Counsel in effect has excepted to certain credibility find- and answer in order to completely isolate and consider the issues. Such a
ings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established process appears to violate the spirit and, perhaps, the letter of Rule 8(e)
policy not to overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with re- and (f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
spect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant In accord with discussions during the hearing herein, I have based
evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry my findings of fact on both the record developed in the hearing before
Wall Product. Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. me and the exhibits received by both Administrative Law Judge Miller
1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for re- and me.
versing his findings. We do note, however, that Respondent sold its Lake ' Respondent admitted the commerce allegations in the complaint. On
City, Tennessee, facility in September 1979 not in September 1978 as the basis of that admission, I find that Respondent is and has been at all
noted by the Administrative Law Judge times material herein an employer engaged in commerce within the
' In affirming the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that the meaning of Sec. 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Respondent also admitted, and I
strike in this proceeding has not been shown to have been an unfair labor find, that the Charging Party (Union) is and has been at all times material
practice strike, we do not rely on his comments that certain prior unlaw- herein a labor organization within the meaning of Sec. 2(5) of the Act.
ful conduct of Respondent had been cured at the time the strike began by In the absence of opposition to Respondent's motion to correct the
a then-outstanding settlement agreement. Rather, we agree that any transcript, that motion is hereby granted.
unfair labor practices that were found were not sufficiently shown to ' During the hearing, the parties stipulated, and I find, that the below-
have motivated the strike described unit constitutes an appropriate bargaining unit and is the unit
We further find it unnecessary to pass on Respondent's contention that for which the Union was ultimately certified as bargaining representative:
the Administrative Law Judge was barred from considering the legality All full-time and regular part-time production and maintenance em-
of its January 5, 1978, decision not to return its fire coat work to its Lake ployees employed by the Employer at its Lake City, Tennessee
City, Tennessee, plant since we agree in any event with the Administra- plant, including the leadman and plant clerical employees, but ex-
tive Law Judge's conclusion that this action did not violate Sec. 8(a)(5) cluding office clerical employees and professional employees, guards
of the Act. and supervisors as defined in the Act
259 NLRB No. 142

. , i i t ti :
r , i c a
s e w a s e a r o n t , , , II
On February 5, 1981 .Administrative Law Judge , , , .
ry , , tive li ti , l i t, ti
10-
. , , ,

. 0.

t ra t i v e L a w M il le r is s ue d a i i r r
to o k ti t i i tr ti J e iller's
i D e o n .
n F eb r u ar y 1 19 80 t h e l
i
t i i i li ti i
i i t f i t li i i t . , , t i l i t
,' l i i ri
r. .
t ti , ti t it-
e n t
.

S S l' ouBh
r l
a nd o f
I'"
ll ts. ., a nd
t i
r
.
2
nn
" h e
.
ff tl I r .
fo r w h ic h
.
e
.
th
w as
1142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On July 14, 1977, the Regional Office conducted an elec- 1977, through May 16, 1978, the opportunity to move to
tion to determine if Respondent's unit employees desired Beattyville with moving expenses, to make fire coats.
to be represented by the Union. The Union prevailed in
that election and was certified by the Regional Director B. Findings
as bargaining unit representative on August 26, 1977. On
October 6, 1977, that certification was sustained by I. The preelection 8(a)(1) violations
action of the Board. The complaint in Cases 10-CA-12938 and 10-CA-
The complaint alleges and Respondent admits that it 13089 alleged, and Respondent admitted, the matters set
engaged in numerous actions in violation of Section forth below.6 On the basis of the allegations and admis-
8(a)(l) of the Act during its employees' union organizing sions, I find that the following activity occurred as al-
campaign. However, Respondent denies allegations that leged and that all the following constitute separate
it engaged in other 8(a)(1) violations as well as 8(a)(3) 8(a)(1) violations:'
and (5) allegations which allegedly occurred at various (a) Respondent, by its following-named supervisors
times after the election. and agents, on or about the dates following their names,
On October 12, 1977, the unit employees struck Re- in and about the vicinity of its plant, interrogated its em-
spondent's Lake City, Tennessee, facility. The General ployees concerning their union membership, activities,
Counsel alleges that that strike was caused and pro- and desires: Plant Manager Ray Roaden, May 23, June
longed by Respondent's unfair labor practices and is 10, 17, and July 7, 12, and 13, 1977; and Supervisor Faye
therefore an unfair labor practice strike. McGee, May 27 and June 23, 1977.
At the time of its employees' strike, Respondent's pro- (b) Respondent, by its following-named supervisors
duction at its Lake City facility was limited to the pro- and agents, on or about the dates following their names,
duction of firemen's clothing. 5 On October 24, 1977, Re- in and about the vicinity of its plant, threatened employ-
spondent removed its firemen's clothing production from ees that selection of the Union as their collective-bar-
its Lake City facility to a facility it owned in Beattyville, gaining representative would be futile by telling the em-
Kentucky. The General Counsel alleges that by moving ployees that Respondent would not negotiate with the
its facility from Lake City without first negotiating with Union, that Respondent would never have a union at its
the Union, Respondent violated both Section 8(a)(3) and plant, and that the Union could not solve the employees'
(5) of the Act. problems: Owner Clarence Lapedes, May 5 and June 1,
By telegram dated October 23, 1977, Respondent ad- 1977; Vice President Sydney Burns, July 7, 1977; and
vised the Union that its removal of fire coat production Plant Manager Ray Roaden, May 18, 23, 25, June 6, and
from Lake City was temporary. However, the Union re- July 12, 1977.
ceived another telegram from an agent of Respondent in- (c) Respondent, by its following-named supervisors
dicating that the removal of the firemen's clothing pro- and agents, on or about the dates following their names,
duction line was necessitated by the need to expand Re- in and about the vicinity of its plant, threatened its em-
spondent's facilities. ployees with discharge if they joined, or engaged in ac-
During October 1977 the parties began collective-bar- tivities on behalf of, the Union: Plant Manager Ray
gaining negotiations. Negotiation sessions were held on Roaden, July 13, 1977; Supervisor Faye McGee, July 13,
October 25, November 1, 2, and 28, December 15 and 1977; and Employee Lena Miles, May 27, 1977.
16, 1977, and on January 4, 5, 6, 23, and 24, March 21, (d) Respondent, by its following-named officers, super-
May 24, and September 14, 1978. visors, and agents, on or about the dates following their
By letter dated January 5, 1978, Respondent advised respective names, in and about the vicinity of its plant,
the Union that it had tentatively decided to leave the threatened its employees that Respondent would close its
firemen's clothing production line at Beattyville. Howev- plant if the employees selected the Union as their collec-
er, Respondent advised the Union that jobs would be tive-bargaining representative: Owner Clarence Lapedes,
available at Lake City for employees who desired to end May 5 and June 1, 1977; Plant Manager Ray Roaden,
the strike. May 18, 25, 27, June 1, and July II, 12, and 13, 1977;
On May 16, 1978, the Union advised Respondent that Employee Lena Miles, May 27, 1977; and Supervisor
it was ending the strike and offering, on behalf of unit Faye McGee, July 7, 1977.
employees, to return to work unconditionally.employees, to return to ork unconditionally. (e) Respondent, by its following-named supervisors
Between May 31 and June 20, 1978, all striking em- and agents, on or about the dates following their names,
ployees were offered reinstatement by Respondent at its in and about the vicinity of its plant, promised its em-
Lake City facility. ployees employment for themselves and the relatives of
On September 28, 1978, Respondent sold its Lake City its employees if its employees rejected the Union as their
facility to FMK. The General Counsel did not contend
that Respondent engaged in illegal activity by selling thethat espondent engaged in illegal activity by selling the ' Respondent argued that the Regional Director erred by setting aside
Lake City facility. a prior settlement agreement on November 14, 1977. The settlement
By letter dated August 29, 1980, Respondent offered agreement was approved on August 28, 1977. In view of my findings
all employees engaged in the strike during October 12, herein that Respondent engaged in violative conduct on August 31 and
October 12, 1977, I find no basis to rescind the Regional Director's No-
vember 14 action.
Firemen's clothing includes several items which make up firemen's ' In that regard, Respondent admitted that as to these proceedings all
coats and trousers. On occasion "firemen's clothing" is referred to as the persons named in this section were either supervisors and agents or
"fire coats." agents at material times.
1. (l
ti .~The i -
'
'
l) l I
)
,

it
l '
) , ,
; vi
i t t, l ing-n r i
l ire ' , i ,
it t i i l t t it -
i . if j i i
r- lf f,
i ti t . ti ti i l , l r , l
l
r , t, l ing-n i
, , i
r t cti i t,
t ti l i t
fire ' l i ti tty il l i l
t nt ti : ,
i l i ,
n tri . g j j , othe strike. ~~~~~~~~~May 18, 25, 27, June 1, and July 11, 12, and 13, 1977;
t l r
i lf i l , .
s, n itional y.i\- , .rn * -employees, to return to work unconditionally. (e) Respondent, by its follo ing-na ed supervisors
ll t i i
l i t i
Lake ' City faciity. lo-TB o A , 1,1 ployees employment for themselves and the relatives of
t t s
, . , . „ -that Respondent engaged in illegal activity by selling tRespondent argued that the Regional irector erred by setting aside
t , . ttl t
Off
ll i Stri

' r l re e ' .
'
l
r
o unc *(e)
ilt K- IB IO ,ployees
LION UNIFORM, JANESVILLE APPAREL DIV. 1143
collective-bargaining representative: Plant Manager Ray 3. The alleged unilateral changes of August 31, 1977
Roaden, June 17, 1977; Supervisor Fay McGee, May 30, The General Counsel alleged that Respondent's Plant
1977; and employee Lena Miles, May 27, 1977.stuted numerous unilateral changes(f) Res'ondent, by its supervisor and agent, Plant Manager Roaden instituted numerous unilateral changes
(f) Respondent, by its supervisor and agent, Plant during an August 31 speech to the employees.
Manager Ray Roaden, on or about July 11, 1977, in and Former employee Doris Swatzell testified that Roaden
about the vicinity of its plant, solicited its employees to called a meeting on August 31, 1977, and "he told us you
influence other employees to vote against the Union. will, he said we werent to be talking anymore, we were
(g) Respondent, by its following-named officers' super- going to cut out going to the restroom, there would be
visors, and agents, on and about the dates following their no more being absent one or two days a week, no more
respective names, in and about the vicinity of its plant, being late and that he intended to give warning slips for
threatened its employees that Respondent had canceled this." Swatzell went on to testify that prior to the
its plans for plant expansion and installation of air-condi- August 31 meeting none of the rules mentioned by
tioning in its plant because of their membership in, and Roaden had been in effect nor had they been enforced.
activities on behalf of, the Union: Owner Clarence La- On cross-examination Swatzell admitted that she used
pedes, May 5, 1977, and Supervisor Faye McGee, July the bathroom at times when she was not permitted to,
14, 1977. but that she did not receive a warning.
(h) Respondent, by its supervisor and agent, Supervi- Former employee Cleta Long testified about Roaden's
sor Faye McGee, on or about July 7, 1977, in and about speech: "Mr. Roaden said that we had a work stoppage
the vicinity of its plant, threatened its employees that Re- and he said that there was too much talking and too
spondent would withhold wage increases from its em- much going to the bathroom, too much walking around
ployees because of their activities on behalf of the Union. pretending to be working when we wasn't and he said
(i) Respondent, by its supervisor and agent, Plant Man- that we were going to make fire coats if he had to work
ager Ray Roaden, on or about July 11, 1977, in and us 10 and 12 hours a day, seven days a week, and if he
about the vicinity of its plant, promised its employees had to he would put on a night shift and we would train
that Respondent would establish a grievance committee them." According to Long, Roaden also told them:
if its employees rejected the Union as their collective- "And he said that he had quit making coffee because he
bargaining representative. wasn't collecting enough money to pay for it and until
he decided, we got together and decided, that he would
2. The contested 8(a)(l) allegation make more coffee and that he was going to be watching
The complaint in Case 10-CA-13284-2 alleged that us and if he gave out warning slips, if we got three
Respondent's Lake City plant manager, Ray Roaden, warnings we would be fired. And he said he wasn't
* * , °,', '. , going to put up with being late, being absent and thatthreatened employees with discharge if they supported i i ir . e e . . a. o o t U .when we missed a day, we had to come into his office
or engaged in activities on behalf of the Union.r e a e in ti iti s lf f t i . and if our excuse was o.k. with him we could go back to
Lynda Strong testified that she was employed by Re- aw ork and if i was n', w oud be fired." Long testified
spondent at Lake City on October 12, 1977, when she
and other employees went out on strike. As the employ- s h brought to the attention of the employ-
ees walked out, Strong had a conversation with Plant speech had been brought to the attention of the employ-ees walked out, Strong had a conversation with Plantat day. Long admitted on cross-examina-
Manager Roaden. Strong testified that she was asked by Roaden
Roaden to return to work under the same working con- during the August 31 speech may have been posted in
ditions. However, Strong testified that none of the em- the plant prior to the time of the employees' union activ-
ployees wanted to go back in and that after the employ- ity.
ees refused to go back in, Roaden "told us we were Former employee Lynda Strong also testified concern-
fired. The final thing he said, we were fired." ing Roaden's speech. Strong testified: "Mr. Roaden
I find no reason to discredit the testimony of Strong. called us all together and he told us that we would not
She impressed me as a candid, straightforward witness. be allowed to go to the bathroom except, you know,
Respondent offered evidence that it was unaware of the except once in between breaks. He told us we were en-
whereabouts of former Plant Manager Ray Roaden. gaged in a work stoppage, that we would not be able to
Roaden did not testify. Therefore, I credit the testimony take vacation when we were supposed to." Strong also
of Strong, and find that Roaden told her that the em- testified: "If we were absent, now I remember him
ployees were fired upon their refusal to return at the be- saying something about our department being tardy, if
ginning of the strike. I find Roaden's statement was pre- we were tardy or absent we had to go into the office and
cipitated by Respondent's employees' strike activity and see him before we went out on the floor. ... He said he
constitutes a threat in violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the was going to start issuing warnings. . . . We were not to
Act. place our lunch orders anymore." Strong testified that
employees would place lunch orders by calling restau-
rants outside the plant. On cross-examination Strong ad-
mitted that Respondent had posted work rules on the'The General Counsel did not allege that Respondent actually dis- mitted that Respondent had posted work rules on the
charged any striking employees. employee bulletin boards prior to the time the employees
I Eastern Smelting and Refining Corp., 237 NLRB 1312 (1978). commenced their union activity.
i i nt ti : l ,
, , ; r i ,
; l il , , 7. Manager Roaden instituted
t, r i
, t l , , i l i t ll t tifi t t
t t i i it f it l t, li it it l y s t called a eeting on ugust 31, 1977, and "he told us you
i fl l i t t i ' l
, it i ' i t t t i t t t , t l
,
, i t t i t t i r i sli s f r
t t t ti t t i t t
,
'
i)
,
.
l i t i ll t t us an d i f h
e g av e o ut w ar n in s l p s i f w e g o t t h r
t' it l t , w ar n in s w e r i
. * , , -.. r ,. , ', . ,~goin i i t
f g ith in lae being astnth
or engage in activities on behalf f the ni. when i , t i t i ffi
ng g d tivitiesdthat she w ep dbR a if r excuse as o.k. ith hi e could go back to
Lynda trong testified that she was e ployed by Re- ork and if it wasn't, we would be fired." Long testified
t t i t , , ^ tha non of th mentioned by Roaden in that
t i l ^ t t tt ti f t l -
l t, t had a ti it l t speec had be broughty. itt r f i -
ti that she sked by , t rules similar to those mentioned by
turi i
i i . r, ti i t ' ti
l
, fir . i 's s eec . tr testified: " r. oaden
. ll t l t t l t
,.
If

. _ _--, „ , ,, „ . n . „ .mitted ' t t ll i - itt t
l
l .,

e
e n ro h totheg
e ^, epitoh a Lo n
,^
g
r
ion tha rlgssi i toc
^
1144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent witness Thelma Wilson, a former employ- 4. The October 24 transfer of the firemen's clothing
ee, testified that Roaden's August 31 speech was precipi- line to Beattyville, Kentucky
tated by a slowdown by Respondent's employees. Wilson
The complaint alleged that Respondent violated Sec-testified that the employees stayed in the bathroom and
tion 8(a)(3) and (5) by unilaterally moving its firemen'sthat "there was one girl in particular, she always took a on8(a3) and ) laterally moving its firemen
floor." Wilson tes d tt R , d g clothing product line from Lake City to Beattyville onnap on the floor." Wilson testified that Roaden, duringhisnap on the floor."c, tlon testedlye that then, slow- October 24 and thereby abolishing the jobs of various
his August 31 speech, told the employees that the slow-
down "had to be stopped because they couldn't put out empoyees
any work because they were spending to much time in T h e e v d e n c e n regard t o Respondents move is not in
the bathroom and killing too much time." Wilson testi- o n l c t Respondent offered evidence that it purchased a
fled that Roaden did mention rules during that speech, facility in Beattyville, Kentucky, shortly before the July
but the rules he referred to were the same rules which 14, 1977, election. However, that purchase flowed from
had been posted in the plant prior to the commencement management action which started several years before
of union activities. the actual purchase. The evidence, which was not rebut-
Respondent also called former Supervisor Faye ted, was convincing that Respondent was engaged in
McGee. McGee also testified that there was a slowdown plans to purchase a facility whch would ultimately
house the firemen's clothing production, before its Lakeamong the employees during August 1977. She testified s e n s roduction, before its Lake
that "the girls were staying in the bathroom too much City employees started their union campaign.
and they were just wasting too much time and not put- Although Respondent was also considering the option
ting out enough work." McGee testified that there was a of expanding its Lake City facility, the unrebutted evi-
bad "decrease in production." McGee testified that Roa- dence demonstrated that that option would have in-
den's address to the employees was because of the slow- volved substantial costs. That cost would have been re-den's address to the employees was because of the slow-
down. McGee identified Respondent's rules which were, fl
ected both in the cost of constructing an additional fa-
according to her, posted prior to the employees' union cility at Lake City and the cost of financing that con-
struction.t2 The evidence demonstrated that there wereactivity. She testified that those rules were in force and struction.The evidence demonstrated that there were
were enforced before August 31, 1977. no existing facilities at Lake City which were availablewere enforced before August 31, 1977.
No evidence was offered to rebut the testimony of for Respondent's expansion
Wilson and McGee that some of the employees engaged When the Lake City employees struck on October 12
in a slowdown in production during August 1977. How- Respondent had not commenced any operations in Beat-
ever, there was also no evidence which rebutted testimo- tyville. The evidence reflected that because of the strike,
ny of Swatzell, Long, and Strong evidencing that Roa- Respondent was unable to continue production in Lake
den's remarks demonstrated an intent to engage in City. Therefore, on October 24 Respondent started to
stricter enforcement of work rules. Additionally, there move its machinery and work in process to Beattyville.
was no rebuttal of testimony that certain aspects of Roa- At the time of its move, and for the prior 2 years, Re-
den's remarks transcended the established rules. In that spondent's only production in Lake City involved fire-
regard, it is unrebutted that Roaden announced that Re- men's clothing. Following its October 24 move, Re-
spondent would no longer make coffee for the employ- spondent resumed firemen's clothing production in Beat-
ees and that employees would not be permitted to con- tyville.
tinue placing lunch orders from outside restaurants. Respondent did not afford the Union an opportunity
Those items are the type which the Board has tradi- to negotiate before the October 24 move. Respondent
tionally found to impact employee working conditions sent the following telegram on October 23, which was
and, therefore, constitute mandatory subjects of collec- received by the Union on October 24:
tive bargaining.' 0 The alleged slowdown had apparently
gone on for a couple of weeks at the time of Roaden'sNOTICE IS HERE WITH EXTENDED TO YOU THAT BE-
speech. There was no showing that emergency action CAUSE OF THE WORK STOPPAGE AND OUR CRITICAL
was required or that any other circumstances existed NEED TO MANUFACTURE FIRECOATS, LION UNIFORM,
which prevented Respondent from taking the time to JANESVILLE APPAREL DIVISION WILL BEGIN MANU-
notify the Union of its problem and contemplated action. FACTURING FIRECOATS ELSEWHERE ON A TEMPO-
Therefore, I find that Respondent informed its employ- RARY BASIS. WE ARE HOPEFUL THIS SENSELESS
ees on August 31 that work rules would be more strictly WORK STOPPAGE WILL END SO THAT LION UNIFORM
enforced and that the employee privileges of having CAN RESUME OPERATIONS IN LAKE CITY. FURTHER,
coffee and placing lunch orders through outside restau- CONTINUED UNLAWFUL CONDUCT IN THE FACE OF A
rants were being removed. Respondent took those ac- COURT RESTRAINING ORDER WILL FORCE US TO EX-
tions without notifying and bargaining with the Union as
A M IN E T H E
POSSIBILITY OF A SUIT FOR DAMAGES
the employee's exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
the employee' exlve cllectve 'r The evidence reflected that an additional 20,000-square-foot facility
at Lake City would cost $334,500. However, the contractor retained to
consider Lake City expansion recommended removal of the old facility
0 Ford Motor Company (Chicago Stamping Plant), 230 NLRB 716 and construction of a new 40,000-square-foot facility which would cost
(1977); Womac Industries, Inc., 238 NLRB 43 (1978). S600,000. The Beattyville facility which Respondent purchased contained
" Pak-Mor Manufacturing Company, 241 NLRB 801 (1979); Fry Foods. 53,000 square feet and cost Respondent $400,000. The $400,000 was fi-
Inc., 241 NLRB 76 (1979). nanced at a lower interest rate than any available at Lake City.
t t l t' l . il T c a t R va Sec-
l t
t io n 8 ( a x 3 ) a n d (5
) b y unilaterally oving its fire e 's
OK. a 17cl t tt ill
t fl r. il t tifi t t , i O 2 a t a t jb of various,.' . ,, , . ,, ., , .. , ., epoes

i i i
v i c i r r to t' v is t in
i il t ti- c fli
c t . t ff r evidence that it purchased a
, f a t y n tyvil , rtl l
14 197 7, el ec t io n . f
t t ti i t rt r l r f r
ti . l ,
t l r i r
t ed , w as t i
ti l l t r
a f ac ilit w h ic h w o u ld ulti ately
ti i
h o u e t h fi r e me 's c o t h in g Pr ti , f r its ake
t i i
t y em p l o y e es st a rted t h eir u nio n ca ai .
ti lt t i ri
i t tifi t t t
o f i it it f ilit , t tt i
re ti
' r t t l l
v o lv ed t nti l .
ti
n c t ed b o t h n t h e c o st o f tr ti i l
r i ' i ilit
at L ak e i t y a nd t h e c o st o f fianci that con-
.1
ti it . t tifi t t t s r l s r i f rc nreiting tie at Lake City what wer a e
were enfoced befoe , 7.o i ti il t i il lfoRepnntsxasi.
i ff r t r t t t ti f W n he L x spo .
ilson and c ee that so e f the e ployees engaged W h en th e L a k enoo e ployees struck ctober 12.
in a slo do n in production during August 1977. o - tRespondent had not co enced any operations in Beat-
r, t r l i i rebutted testi o- Rt ev pl le d T h e evidence reflected that because of the strike,
t l i a-Responde l ti ti
i . , t r t t rt t
t ll
m o v e i r i r t tty ill .
l ti i
A t t m e it , f t i r , -
t li l ti i i i l i
' l
l t ire ' ti
t . t f rt i
t
se n t t h e
i
i i . 1 l r tl
den's
N O T I C E IS E R E W I T H -
. i ti
C A U SE O F T H E W O R K I I
t
N E E D T O I , I I ,
t VI I I I I I -
ti ti -
f , t l
R A R Y BA SI S W E A R E
tri tl I I I
le i
C A N R ES U M E
i
i t I
ti i i SIBI I
t l y 's xcl siv ll ti - r ini g repre--------
sentative.
u e v l c e
renected that an additional 202000-square-fool facility
, . , t tr t r retai e to
l t l f ilit
10
d icago t), . t f ilit i l t
); , . 8).$S600.000. tt ill f ilit i t r s t i
); . , r f t t t , . e $400,000 as fi-
I ., t l i t r t r t t a aila le at a e it .
yv is
to
fl

LION UNIFORM, JANESVILLE APPAREL DIV. 1145
AGAINST OCAW. SYDNEY BURNS, VICE PRESIDENT OF ville. According to Meadows' testimony, the move was
MANUFACTURIING.... disorganized, unplanned, and chaotic. Meadows testified
that he was prevented from moving everything by Re-
However, confusion resulted from a second telegram spondent's vice president, Sydney Burns, who told him
sent to the Union on October 24. Richard DuRose ad- that they would be moving back to Lake City.
mitted that his telegram, which was sent at a time when The record provided no basis on which I could find
he was unaware of Sydney Burns' telegram, resulted in Respondent violated Section 8(a)3) or (5) by its October
possibly misleading the Union. His wire read: 24 move. The evidence clearly reflected that Respondent
was prevented from continuing production by its em-THIS IS TO INFORM YOU THAT LION UNIFORM IS
ployees' strike. The evidence also demonstrated that as
WIT R IN THE FTRE TO ONTINE E O ENT complaints about its delay in supplying those garments.
CITYFOR ANY WHO SO DESIFUTURE. RICHARD A. DUROSE, AT- Those facts clearly support Respondent's contention that
TORNEY FOR LON UNDSRM. H A DUROSE AT it faced serious customer losses if it permitted the striketo stophe firem s production. Therefore, I find that Respondent
Nevertheless, unrebutted evidence indicates on several proved that the move was temporary and was necessitat-
occasions between October 24, 1977, and January 5, ed by business reasons brought on by its employees'
1978, Respondent advised the Union that its October 24 strike.
move was temporary. John Williams, the Union's district There was no evidence offered demonstrating that Re-
director, admitted that Respondent "had told us consist- spondent's move to Beattyville transcended the "reason-
ently that they were going to return the firecoats back to able measures necessary in order to maintain operations
Lake City." Respondent's attorney, DuRose, testified in such circumstances." Empire Terminal Warehouse
Company, 151 NLRB 1359 (1965). Despite Respondent's
Mr. Williams made a comment to me that he apparent union animus as evidenced by its illegal anti-
didn't want to spend a lot of time negotiating this union campaign, the record shows that Respondent en-
contract because the company ddnt hae andy jobs gaged in good-faith negotiations with the Union begin-
for the people and sid no, I didn't know how he ning in October 1977. Moreover, when the strike ended,
got that idea but said that what happened was that Respondent reinstated the striking employees and an-
the company-he was referring to the fact that the nounced to its employees that it denounced actions
machinery had moved out of the Lake City plant- which did not fully respect the employees' rights to asso-
I told him that that was only becaus he company ciate with the Union. Furthermore, following its move,
had some customers that wee in urgent need of Respondent continuously took the position in its discus-
these fire coats they made at the plant and I ex- sions with the Union that it would provide work for the
plained to him that the company originally, when employees at Lake City.
the strike first started, the company originally I find that this case falls within the scope of the rule
thought that they could use supervisors, and as I announced in Empire Terminal Warehouse Company,
recall there were a number of employees that didn't supra, which held that similar conduct by an employer
join the picket line, that came in to work, and the does not constitute violative action14
company originally felt that the supervisory staff In reaching this conclusion I am bothered by evidence
and the employees that came in to work, they could which tends to show that Respondent was motivated by
fill that order, but, uh, and I told Mr. Williams that its employees' union activities. In May 1977, Respond-
it quickly became apparent th e lnt do ns threatened employees that it would close the
and the reason for that t the employees were plant and cancel expansion plans because of the union ac-
prevented from coming in to work by te pi t e he the ckrtiviti s e tats would have been persuasive if Re-
Mr. Williams indicated that he knew that was so, spondent had either closed the pla or ae ann-
he either said something-I know at least that he sion activity whih thtte intervention of other motivating
jin the c ittee ile t that c i a d they events. However, the evidence failed to show that Re-
were proud of the fact that they had been able to spondent either closnlon a othered actual ex-
keep the employees out. pansion activity. Although expansion was considered,
I said t a s a th str dd that Respondent never undertook such activity and its studies
we would bring the equipment back and we would showed Lake City expansion would have been unduly
open up the plant againl expensive. Moreover, Respondent's alleged illegal activi-
Unrebutted evidence also demonstrated that the Octo- " See Wright Line, a Division of Wright Line Inc.. 251 NLRB 1083
ber 24 move was precipitated by the strike. That evi- (1980)
dence proved that the move was not planned until The Empire Terminal Warehouse Company case involved emporarily
around October 21. Respondents former warehouse subcontracting work rather than temporarily raelocating work However
i l tr t t t the t - vSee right Line, a Diwsion o f righ t Line Inc.. 251 NLRB 1083
in other respects the issues are similar. See also W. R. Grace & Co.. Con-
manager at another of its plants, Don Meadows, testified sruction Products Division, 230 NLRB 617 (1977); General Elecric Corn-
that he assisted in the move from Lake City to Beatty- pony. 240 NLRB 703 (1979)
....
'

m ' )( )
t t
THIS IS TO INFORM YOU THAT LION UNIFORM IS r t fr ti i r ti it - I I I ^ ,^ ^ ^ lodmntae htaTRANSERRIG IT JANSVILE MF FRO ITSLAKE ' .
CITYTENNSSEEPLAN TO THERPLANS BEAUSE to the firemen's clothing production, time was of the es-OF^ THEICESE NLA BUINEOTHSS ILN THALINES O sence. According to unrebutted testimony, and documen-
GOODSAND TE LAC OF ROM TOEXPAN. WE tary evidence, Respondent had fallen behind on its fire
WILLBE TANSFRRIN OTHR WOK TOLAKE coat production schedule and was receiving customer
CITY IN TRANSFUTURERRN THRWR TO CONTI PLOMEN complaints about its delay in supplying those garments.CITY IN THE FUTURE . RICHARD A. DUROSE, AT Those facts clearly support espondent's contention t t
SO ^R
11
'"'
110 A
.
D U R O S E A T
L I
i t f a c e d s e r i o u s c u s t o e r l o s s e s if i t r itt e d t h e s t r i k e
to stop production. Therefore, I find that Respondent
rt l , r tt i i i t r l
t h at t he m o v e w a s t sit t-
i r , '
, t i t i t t it t r 24 strik . "
t r r . illia , t i ' i t i t
T h e r e w as i ff r tr ti t t
t i t tty il
tl ir
ab l e r i i ti
it ." s t's tt r , , t tifi : i
su c h ir t ." ire i l e ouse
,
. it
i 't t t
i 't ave any t
I aid
t t t i t i
ti
i t t-
e t
r t
t l t t
t
t t i i t t t , t r l
t t t t I
ll t '
j i t i t li , t t i . 14
i i ll
t
ill
it i l at w cou dn't that e t's owner threate l
t t t is tha
r t i i t the i ets. iviti s. T o e hr ats i
nt c nceled expa
i i it ou h
t ommitt smil d about . I think t
r r t f t t t t l losed the plant or canc led
t l t.
tha s oon s e ike was en ed, Respondent
,.expensive.
t t "1 See right , a vi f t e c. 1 RB
.
r t t t t l U til "
T h e ire i l e ouse t ri
around ctober 21. espondent's f r er are se subcontracting r rat er t a te raril relocati r . r,
<
structio p t i i i , ( ); l l t i m
a ).
CITY, TENNESSEE PLA T O ER NT CAU '
OFY THEICRAEINBSNESS IN THAT LINE FNT BEAUS se ce. r i
t t
i ,,

1146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ty came at a time when any other action or inaction ent felt it could not return the fire coats to Lake City,'6
could have endangered its continued viability. but that John Williams said he "didn't want to listen to
[Respondent's] reasons and that he wanted the fire coats
5. The January 5, 1978, letter back at Lake City as a matter of principle." Spornhauer
The General Counsel also alleged that Respondent went on to testify that "Sydney Burns said that Lion was
violated Section 8(a)(5) by moving the firemen's clothing 120 days behind schedule, and that the return of fire
product line from Lake City to Beattyville, Kentucky, coats production back toLake City would cause an eco-
on January 5, 1978.15 In support of its position, the Gen- nomic hardship to Lion Uniform."
eral Counsel cited Townhouse T. V & Appliances, 213 During the hearing Respondent offered substantial evi-
NLRB 716 (1974). I find the facts here are not similar to dence in support of its tentative decision to keep the fire-
those in Townhouse. men's clothing production in Beattyville. That evidence
n J y 5, 8, R on divre t folow- demonstrated that a consulting firm advised RespondentOn January 5, 1978, Respondent delivered the follow-O ' .'ing letter to the Union: dlvrdteolw in 1973 that the Lake City facility was too small to con-
tinue as a facility for the manufacture of fire coats. When
In order to save its fire coat and other Lake city Respondent purchased the Beattyville facility in July
business during your strike, the Company moved 1977, it anticipated that eventually all its fire coat pro-
the production elsewhere. The move presented duction would be at Beattyville. The Beattyville facility
many difficulties and cause a considerable interrup- is substantially larger than the facility at Lake City-
tion in the supply of garments to its customers. 53,000 square feet versus 16,000 square feet.
Production of fire coats, etc., is now proceeding, Although, according to Respondent, the October 1977
although demand is making it difficult to meet strike required a premature transfer of fire coats to Beat-
schedules. tyville, that transfer was temporary. However, as time
The Company has tentatively concluded that it passed the operation at Beattyville became more andThe Company has tentatively concluded that itt rn te b s rs o a t r more efficient until it reached the point in January 1978
cannot run the business risks of attempting to relo-ca t rn te b s rs o a g to ro where it became apparent from an economic standpoint,cate the fire coat and other Lake City production wher it bec e are f ntage to moe back to
that it would be more disadvantageous to move back toback in Lake City again. This tentative conclusion
is based purely on very serious business problems- Lake Cty than to stay in Beattyville.
the interruption which would occur if machinery In that regard, Respondent offered unrebutted testimo-
and materials had to be relocated, the risk of loss in ny proving that the move back to Beattyville would in-
tr t te rk of h r p n c s in volve substantial costs. In order to maintain fire coattransit, the risk of higher production costs in reas-
sembling and possibly retraining a work force in production at the level maintained at Beattyville duringsembling and possibly retraining a work force in January, Respondent would have to expand its LakeLake City, and the further delays in shipment to Janay, eoet ou n expanio plus the cost
customes w h w d o r if a g City facility. The cost of such an expansion, plus the costcustomers which would occur if anything wentswrong in starting up again at Lake Cityli associated with another move and delay associated with
rong in startin up aain a ae ityretraining personnel because of innovations in the manu-
We are prepared to discuss any aspect of this facturing process since the strike started, would be con-
matter, including the tentative conclusion itself, in siderable.
good faith.good faith. Copn de pa t reuepFurthermore, according to Respondent, a return to
The Company does plan to resume production, Lake City would again aggravate the delay of supplying
but of other products, at Lake City, when the strike fire coats to customers with a probable result that other
~I~~~s~~ over~~. ~customers would be lost.
The General Counsel contends that the above letter The evidence demonstrating that the manufacture of
evidences an 8(a)(5) violation. I find that the evidence fire coats required a great deal of floor space and that
does not support that allegation. Lake City was too small to continue to serve as the ex-does not support that allegation.
The Union's director, John Williams, testified that clusive facility for fire coat production was persuasive.The Union's director, John Williams, testified that Furthermore, no effort was made to rebut that evidencethere was no bargaining on Respondent's tentative deci-o show that ae t had s d as te
sion to keep the firemen's clothing at Beattyville. How-
evesi other evidence which was unrebuatted demonstrtesw clusive fire coat facility before the strike. I find that factever, other evidence which was unrebutted demonstrates insufficient to overcome the other evidence.. . ,, . „ . ., .m.» * . insufficient to overcome the other evidence.that the Union was offered the opportunity to negotiate Bfe the trie eo t h no c e
on Respondent' tentativ decsiBefore the strike Respondent has no facilities largeron Respondent's tentative decision.
than Lake City available for fire coat production. Re-
The January 5 letter (above) states that Respondent than Lake Cty available for fire coat production. Re-
was prepared to discuss its tentative decision to keep the " The General Counsel argues that Respondent's January 5 letter pre-
firemen's clothing line in Beattyville. Respondent's vice sented the Union with a fait accompli. However, it is important to note
president, Jan Spornhauer, testified that Respondent's at- that the employees at Lake City were on strike from October 12, 1977, to
torney, Dean Denlinger, tried to explain to the Union May 16, 1978. On January 5, 1978, Respondent had no reason to believe
the January 5negotiating session why Respond- that the employees would have returned to work regardless of whether
during fthe January negotiating session why Respond- ire coat work was available. Therefore, I find no support for the General
Counsel's contention that Respondent's January 5 notice did not afford
" Respondent's only move from Lake City to Beattyville actually oc- the Union an opportunity to negotiate before the move to Beattyville
curred around October 24, 1977, as shown above. In the instant allega- became permanent. If the Union had elected to negotiate and those nego-
tion the General Counsel is addressing Respondent's decision to keep the tiations had been sucessful, there remained more than ample time to
fire coats at Beattyville. return fire coat production to Lake City.
"'
bility,.but
. ,
r l l l t
w en t o n i
ti ire '
120 i l t t t t f fi
tty il c o a t s
p r o d u c t io n b ac k to L ak e C it y
w o u ld c a us e an ec o -
r , t it iti , t - ic r s i to i nifor ."
l l V. iance , ri t t nti l i
. i
d en c e n o f t s ti i i t t fir -
m en ' ti tty il
On January 5, 1978o esp dent elivered he ll ry - .,, ,-.,-*
ing l
t tty il ili l
197 7, t a l ll
ti tyvill . tty il ili
i i i l
s s ub st a n t ia l l y l t t f ilit t ity-
l
ti i lt r i t,
l i l i i f

. l ny * -. ., .' .. ,,-
cannot run th business isks f tte g o e , . .„ ' . '.
cat the -ire coat and other Lake City production r it r t fr i t i t, cti .,.. ~ . ... .
.,.,,„.. . „,,. , . .. , .that
t w b m Beantage.
le s- , t i a
i i i l if i r I n
t h at t ti
t tty ill l i -
transit,, the risk of igher r duction ostsi reas-
sit, i , .,, .,.,,, ..
sembling . * , .,,
Lak City, and the further delays in shipment to. J r , s t l t its a e, t t l i s i t t „. r ru .r i 1customers which wo l ccu , nythin went - i ijji *» .i
wrong i . e .
wrog narteng preparedto agaiscus Lany aspecttyretraining r l f i ti i t -
t turi
i t t ti l i itself, in fsideracle,
. sdrbe
The Company does plan to resume production, Furthermore, according to espondent, a ret r t
The o pany does l t r r ti , l i l l i
t f t r r t , t t i ^^ l l
customers
r l l tr ti

re c o a ts e d a
do , <. r r,*
' illi , e . r ,e ,. i.i j., , * * o j ., \ . .* j *~~Furthermore,
F n e w m t rb t ein
i ire ' tty il oh rt coathat Lake tha served as the ex-
ever, other evidence hich as unrebutted de onstrates clusive fire coat facility before the strike. I find that fact
. . ,, .te „vdec .hc .,s ... »ute *eos e . insufficient to overco e the other evidence.
i to o t o evidnce
on Respondent's ti e ision. Before s i i .. , . „. * ... B
-, * -, , . . . „ , ~~~~than
t t av l i p o
tO O ." l l t' r
s . s f l i. it i i t t t t
2,
l i 16 1978. n r
5, 1978
duringt uary 5n go ti ssion p t t t l l t t r r l tduring the January 5 negotiating session hy espond- ,ire coat ork as a aila le. r f r , fi d
r
l t yvil t l i t yvill

r l l i i i sf l
l l yvil . ti
, ,-

, .
,,
,„-. * .
i
t

elusi
e, he vdec hc a eute trt
., ~ than
v b I n t l
.... i ~that
»
d e a l o f o o r a n d t h a t
ec t s
LION UNIFORM, JANESVILLE APPAREL DIV. 1147
spondent had just purchased the Beattyville facility and, evidence does show that Respondent did in fact offer to
according to its version of corporate planning, the fire negotiate about that decision and, moreover, Respondent
coat production was to be transferred to Beattyville in amply demonstrated that its tentative decision of January
due course. 5 was based upon business reasons rather than reasons
Therefore, as to the process under which I must con- which may be violative of the Act. 9
sider Respondent's defense, it is apparent that during
January conditions had changed substantially from those 6. The unfair labor practice strike
which existed before the strike. There was the interven- The law shows that strikes which are caused or pro-
tion of the purchase of the Beattyville facility. In consid- longed by the employer's unfair labor practices are
ering that fact, I am aware that the General Counsel did unfair labor practice strikes. There appears to be no sig-
not allege anything improper in the Beattyville purchase. nificant issue here regarding the character of the October
Moreover, no evidence was offered which reflected 12, 1977, strike since, as I find below, all unit employees
upon Respondent's proof that the Beattyville purchase were properly reinstated. Nevertheless, the issue was
had its genesis long before the commencement of union joined. On the basis of the record I am unable to con-
activity. elude that the strike was caused or prolonged by Re-
Therefore, I must consider that on January 5 Respond- spondent's unfair labor practices.
ent found itself faced with the possibility of removing I am aware of Respondent's conduct leading up to the
the fire coats from a facility of sufficient size back into July 14 election. However, in consideration of the em-
the Lake City plant which was too small. ployees' motivation in striking, at the time of the strike
According to Respondent's evidence, January 1978 that particular conduct had been cured by a settlement
presented a dilemma. A move back to Lake City would agreement. The agreement was approved by the Region-
necessitate either the enlargement of the Lake City facili- al Director on August 29, 1977, and the notice to em-
ty or splitting the fire coat production between two ployees had been posted since September 6. Ultimately,
plants-Lake City and Beattyville. the settlement agreement was set aside by the Regional
Respondent offered substantial evidence proving that Director but not until November 14, 1977.
both the above alternatives would result in severe eco- At the time of the walkout, Respondent had commit-
nomic hardship to such an extent that the election of ted an additional 8(a)(l) and (5) violation by unilaterally
either alternative over retaining the fire coats in Beatty- announcing stricter enforcement of rules as shown
ville would endanger the economic viability of Respond- above. As the employees were walking out on October
ent. In that regard, Respondent proved that it considered 12, the plant manager threatened employee Lynda
expanding the Lake City facility during early 1977. " Un- Strong that the employees would be discharged. Howev-
rebutted testimony demonstrated that Respondent contin- er, there was no evidence demonstrating that Respondent
ued to explore expansion possibilities until May 1977, was negligent, dilatory, or otherwise remiss in its obliga-
when it discovered that it would be unable to finance ex- tions to meet and negotiate. In fact the only evidence of-
pansion costs at an acceptable interest rate. fered demonstrated that it was the Union, not Respond-
Therefore, in January 1978 Respondent was faced with ent, that was unavailable to meet and negotiate during
the prospect of effectuating a business decision which it several days before October 25, 1977.
had rejected less than a year earlier as being unsound. Moreover, there was no evidence offered regarding
Moreover, added costs would have been incurred in Jan- the motivation behind the Octobr 12 strike. The record
uary, in order to dispose of the Beattyville facility and contains no reference to employee meetings, conversa-
retrain Lake City employees. Additionally, the move tions, or anything else which would show why they de-
back would result in additional delays in production with cided to strike. I am fully aware of the situations where
the possible loss of more customers. motivation may be imputed by the Administrative Law
As to the second alternative, producing fire coats at Judge (for example, see Matlock Truck Body d Trailer
both Lake City and Beattyville, Respondent demonstrat- Corp., and its Agent Roy L Matlock, 217 NLRB 346
(1975)). However, there was insufficient evidence hereed that option would result in duplication of costs to 975)). However, there was insufficient evidence here
such an extent that it would constitute an inefficient op- Compare onl Chemicl Workers Union Local Na 112.
eration. AFL-CIO. CLC (American Cyanamid Company). 235 NLRB 1316, 1322-
None of Respondent's evidence regarding the business 23 (1978). Unlike the situation in American Cyanamid, it appears that Re-
bases for its January 5 decision was rebutted. spondent substantially complied with criteria established in Westinghouse
Electric Corporation (Mansfield Plant), 150 NLRB 1574, 1577 (1965). The
Therefore, I find that the General Counsel failed to evidence is convincing that Respondent's action of January 5 was moti-
offer substantial evidence in support of its allegation that vated solely by economic considerations, and Respondent had in the past
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) by failing to negoti- transferred fire coat production from one plant to another. As I find
ate regarding return of the firecoats to Lake City. 18 The below, the permanent transfer to Beattyville had no demonstrable ad-verse impact on employees in the unit. Moreover. Respondent, by its Jan-
uary 5 letter and subsequently during negotiations, demonstrated a will-
7
See fn. 12 supra. ingness to negotiate over the permanent transfer The Union did not put
" In its decision reversing Administrative Law Judge Miller, the Board it to the test. There were no substantive negotiations on the issue because
found that Respondent must show that a status quo ante remedy would of union resistance. When Respondent attempted to explain to the Union
endanger its continued viability (247 NLRB 992). However, that is not why it wanted to leave the "fire coats" in Beattyville. the Union ex-
the test which is applicable to the instant issue. The question here is pressed disinterest indicating only thai it demanded return of the fire
whether Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(5) by its January 5 action. coats.
1
T h e u n f a i r la b r
ilit . I i - l t e e l er's unfair labor practices are
t i

, , ll

t
)
"
f e r e d
e n t , w a s ti t i
se v e r a l b e f o r e , .
rl i r i
t h e i i
tty il ili i t l ti , r -
i . ll
o n s , o r l l t -
l i i l ti
d ed t o s t k e . am f u l l r f t it ti r
i l
l ti , i
f o r , se e M a tloc k T
r uc k B od y & T r a iler
tty il t p., it t R oy L tl ck, 217 B 346
ed that option would result in duplication of costs to 09 . t f r
suha etn hat itio would consltiuea in dpiato ffcients top „_ , . ,.,,,, , ,« ,
such a e te t t at it l stit t i ffi i t - 1* r Internatio al ical s ion, o l o .
i id . . -
, t
l
l t i ti fi l , ).
i i i i t t t' ti f r 5 ti-
S t S
r
pc nf iwoatsi n I p v
8
be
l o w
.
t h e
er a e t transfer to eattyville had no de onstrable ad-
ate regarding return of the firecoats to Lake City. " The t

, .
*
,
Fi l
,
d a s
i
l t),
l
ll
w
1148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
demonstrating that I would be warranted in concluding CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
that unfair labor practices must have played a part in theRespondent, Lion Uniform Janesville Apparel Divi-1. Respondent, Lion Uniform, Janesville Apparel Divi-employees' decision to strike absence some evidence to sion, is an employer engaged in commerce within the
that point. meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
I find that the General Counsel failed to sustain its 2. Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International
burden of proof by showing either direct evidence that Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the
the employees were motivated by Respondent's unfair meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
labor practices or that it was inescapable that those vio- 3. On July 14, 1977, the Union was and has been at all
lations contributed to the initiation or prolongation of times since the exclusive bargaining representative of Re-
the strike. "Board law holds that an unfair labor practice spondent's employees in the bargaining unit described
strike does not result merely because unfair labor prac- below within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
tices precede the strike. Rather, there must be a causal The appropriate bargaining unit is:
connection between the two events which demonstrates
that the strike is the direct outcome of the unfair labor All full-time and regular part-time production and
practices. Typoservice Corporation, 203 NLRB 1180 maintenance employees employed by the Employer
(1973)." John Cuneo, Inc., 253 NLRB 1025, 1026 (1981). at its Lake City, Tennessee plant, including the
leadman and plant clerical employees, but excluding
7. Reinstatement of strikers office clerical employees and professional employ-
Although the complaint does not allege any impropri- ees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
ety associated with Respondent's reinstatement of strik- Respondent, by interrogating its employees concern-4. Respondent, by interrogating its employees concern-
ing employees, evidence was presented in that regard ing its employees' union activities; by threatening its em-
primarily on the issue of whether the removal of the fire ployees that selection of the Union as a collective-bar-
coat line constituted a unilateral change in working con- gaining representative would be futile by telling the em-
ditions. I have therefore considered the issue. The parties ployees that Respondent would not negotiate with the
stipulated that all striking employees were offered rein- Union, that Respondent would never have a union in its
statement between May 31 and June 20, 1978. All the plant, and that the Union could not solve the employees'
relevant evidence demonstrated that those striking em- problems; by threatening its employees with discharge if
ployees who accepted reinstatement returned to work they joined or engaged in activities on behalf of the
under substantially equivalent conditions to those which Union; by threatening its employees that Respondent
existed when they struck in October 1977. The only would close its plant if the employees selected the Union
matter which arose as an issue in that regard was the as their collective-bargaining representative; by promis-
question of whether work other than production of fire- ing its employees employment for its employees and
man's clothing could constitute substantially equivalent their relatives if the employees rejected the Union as
employment. In that regard, unrebutted evidence proved their collective-bargaining representative; by soliciting its
that the work actually performed by those striking em- employees to influence other employees to vote against
ployees upon their return: (I) was subjected to fewer lay- the Union; by threatening its employees that Respondent
offs and irregularity than work performed during the had canceled its plans for plant expansion and installation
same period by employees at the Beattyville facility who of air conditioning in its plant because of their member-
were engaged in the production of firemen's clothing; (2) ship in and activities on behalf of the Union; by threaten-
involved substantially the same job skills as the produc- ing its employees that Respondent would withhold wage
tion of firemen's clothing. Although the supervisory and increases from its employees because of their activities
managerial coordination required in meshing the various on behalf of the Union; by promising its employees that
pieces of fire coats into the final product differed from Respondent would establish a grievance committee if its
the meshing of other products, that did not materially employees rejected the Union; and by threatening its em-
affect the employees' work. Also, (3) the history of prod- ployees with discharge because they engage in strike ac-
ucts produced by Respondent demonstrated that other tivity, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
products were manufactured at Lake City before 1976. ctces wth the of ecton of theAct.
In 1976 and 1977 fire coats were the exclusive product
produced at Lake City. However, as found above, unre-nt, by unlaterally informing its employees
obutted evidence demonstrated that Respondent was in that work rules would be more strictly enforced and that
butted evidence demonstrated that Respondent was inbutted .evienc. d m ntae tha employees' privileges of having coffee and placing lunchthe process of securing other facilities to manufacture orders throuh restaurants were being removed,
fire coats. The evidence proved that Respondent would a time when the Union was collective-bargaining rep-at a time when the Union was collective-bargaining rep-
have moved its firemen's clothing line away from Lake resentative of the employees, has engaged in and is en-
City in the absence of union activity. gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Therefore, I find nothing in the record which demon- Section 8(a)(l) and (5) of the Act.
strated that Lake City employees were not offered 6. The strike among Respondent's bargaining unit em-
proper reinstatement following their unconditional offer ployees, which commenced on or about October 12,
to return to work. 1977, was not caused or prolonged by Respondent's
unfair labor practices.

t t f i l ti t l t i t t, i i , svill l i i
l ' i i t t i i t , i i i
)
l l t i i l i I ti l
r f r f i it r i t i , i i ti
i ti
l r r ti r t t it i l t t t i . , ,
l ti i t t i i i i l ti l i i i nt ti
oard i i i i ri
i l l i i ti
r l i i i i i
)." ,
.
lt l i l
ees , r i r as fi i t t.
t i t it t' i t t t 4 ,
ri ril t i t t l t
iti . I

1
"
b e h a l f o f t h e i ; i i it l t t
l t li ri itt if its
j t t i ; t reate i its e -
l it i r s t e a e in strike ac-
t ti it ,
h a s i a n d is engaging in unfair labor
. p c t ic e s w i
t h in t h e meanin o f S
e c t io n 8 1 of the
l i Act.
f , r -
5 . Respondent, by unlaterally infor ing its employees
butted .wasj'in
, .. ri * r i
, r * .1. r *1-t- r ~~~~~employ es'
e e p l of having e ing lunch
firecoas. Te eidene povedtha Resondnt wuld orders through outside restaurants were being removed,
fire coats. The evidence proved that Respondent would t ti t i r ini g
it fire ' l t i li t ti
ti i i i
i i - ecti (a)(l) and (5) of the ct.
t t ,
'

LION UNIFORM, JANESVILLE APPAREL DIV. 1149
7. Respondent did not otherwise engage in unfair labor Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, its employees'
practices in violation of Section 8(a)(), (3), and (5) of exclusive collective-bargaining representative.
the Act as alleged in the complaint. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist a labor
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. organization, or to refrain from any and all such activi-
ties.
THE REMEDY 2. Take the following affirmative action designed and
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair found necessary in order to effectuate the policies of the
labor practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered to Act
cease and desist therefrom, and to take certain affirma- (a) Rescind its action of instituting more strict enforce-
tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. ment of work rules and removal of the employee prvi-
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of legesof having cofee and placing lunch orders through
law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) outside restaurants
(b) Post at its facility in Beattyville, Kentucky, andof the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: Beyl e , etc and
mail to all bargaining unit employees" copies of the at-
ORDER 20 tached notice marked "Appendix." 22 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
The Respondent, Lion Uniform, Janesville Apparel Region 10, after being duly signed by Respondent's au-
Division, Lake City, Tennessee, its officers, agents, suc- thorized representative, shall be posted by it immediately
cessors, and assigns, shall: upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con-
1. Cease and desist from: secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
(a) Interfering with, restraining, and coercing the em- all places where notices to employees are customarily
ployees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed to them posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
in Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section 8(a)(l) of insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
the Act by interrogating its employees concerning its ered by any other material.
employees' union activities; by threatening its employees (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in
that selection of the Union as a collective-bargaining rep- writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
resentative would be futile by telling the employees that steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
Respondent would not negotiate with the Union, that
Respondent would never have a union in its plant, and 21 In view of evidence indicating that Respondent no longer maintains
that the Union could not solve the employees' problems; a facility in Lake City, Tennessee, but that some former employees of the
by threatening its employees with discharge if they Lake City facility are now employed at Respondent's Beattyville facility,
I recommend the above Order in lieu of the normal recommendation
joined or engaged in activities on behalf of the Union; by which would have required Respondent to post the attached notice at its
threatening its employees that Respondent would close Lake City facility
its plant if the employees selected the Union as their col- " In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
lective-bargaining representative; by promising its em- States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ployees employment for its employees and their relatives ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
if the employees rejected the Union as their collective- Order of the National Labor Relations Board.
bargaining representative; by soliciting its employees to
influence other employees to vote against the Union; by APPENDIX
threatening its employees that Respondent had canceled
its plans for plant expansion and installation of air condi- NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
tioning in its plant because of their membership in and POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
activities on behalf on the Union; by threatening its em- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees that Respondent would withhold wage increases An Agency of the United States Government
from its employees because of their activities on behalf
of the Union; by promising its employees that Respond-
ent would establish a grievance committee if its employ- cerning their union membership, act es and
ees rejected the Union; and by threatening its employeescer ther un activities, and de-
with discharge because they engaged in strike activity.sires.
(b) Unilaterally informing its employees that its work WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that selec-
rules would be more strictly enforced and that the em- tion of Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Interna-
ployees' privileges of having coffee and placing lunch tional Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organi-
orders through outside restaurants were being removed, zation, as their collective-bargaining representative
without first negotiating with Oil, Chemical and Atomic would be futile by telling the employees that Re-
spondent would not negotiate with the Union, that
: In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of Respondent would never have a union in its plant,
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the and that the Union could not solve the employees'
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as providedl
in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board andprobems.
become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto
shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
.
l
.
.
i f t t t i f ir
f o u nd i t ff t t li i
t :
i f i f
( a) R esc nd t s a c t i of i t i f -
ti i li i f t t.
m e nt o f w o r k r le s and r em oval f the e ployee privi-
i l i f
le g es o f ha v i c o ff ee an d placing l u nc h o r d e
r s through
t ti i t t .
: ( ) t t it s f c it in eattyville, Kentucky and
il ll i i i
20 . 22 i f sai
'
f, Co

, t t

by threatening its e l ees it i r if t it ilit
1
j i i ti iti t i l r ir t t t t tt ti t its
cit
f S l
l i i i nt ti ;
t a es Cou of the wo rds he no c e r ead i ted
it l i o , Judgme f t it t t t f l f r i
t "
i ; I

t t i it - I I S
l t l i l i r f t it t t r t
f t i ; r i i its l t t WE W
ent l establish a ri v c c itt if its l y-c e t i r n o n ershi , tivitie a -
t i l s c e r n ^ t h eir u n i0 " '"^"*"*p, ti ,
t .
W E W I L L NOT l t t l -
o n
t l
M
Uni
'
, hlemc
problems.
ll
n f n st m e c t
f
a
en f o r ce -
r s d re
1150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with dis- WE WILL NOT promise our employees that we
charge if they join or engage in activities on behalf will establish a grievance committee if the employ-
of the Union. ees reject the Union as their collective-bargaining
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that we representative.
will close our plant if the employees select the WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with dis-
Union as their collective-bargaining reprsentative. charge if they engage in strike activity.
WE WILL NOT promise our employees employ- WE WILL NOT unilaterally inform our employees
that work rules will be more strictly enforced andment for themselves and their relatives if they rejectthat les ll stri and
.. ~ .. , , .-that the employees' privileges of having coffee andthe Union as their collective-bargaining representa- plag lh orders through outside restaurants are
placing lunch orders through outside restaurants are
tive. being removed.
WE WILL NOT solicit our employees to influence WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner in-
other employees to vote against the Union. terfere with our employees' rights protected by Sec-
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that Re- tion 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
spondent has canceled its plans for plant expansion WE WILL rescind our action in informing our em-
and installation of air conditioning at its plant be- ployees that work rules will be more strictly en-
cause of their membership in and activities on forced, and WE WILL reinstitute the employee privi-
behalf of the Union. leges of having coffee and placing lunch orders
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that we through outside restaurants.
will withhold wage increases because of our em-
ployees' activities on behalf of the Union. LION UNIFORM, JANESVILLE APPAREL DI-
VISION
W E W I L L i
if t h e in s t r
i k e acti it .
l
W E W NO T n f r m l
l i l ti if t r j t
t t r r l s l l b e o re sc
en f o r c ed an d
,,,. .. ,, . , .. ~~~~~that ' l f i i r ini g througe utsing coffee nd
tive. ~~~~~~~~~~~~placing
i
I li i l t i flu i li l t i
i t l ' i t t
t