A & M Karagheusian, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 13, 1960

126 N.L.R.B. 104 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ministrative, and professional personnel, office clerical employees,
watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act
If a majority of the employees in the voting group vote for the
Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to con-
stitute a separate appropriate unit, and the Regional Director con-
ducting the election directed herein is instructed to issue a certification
of representatives to the Petitioner for the unit described above, which
the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining In the event, however, a majority
of the employees vote for the Intervenor, they will be taken to have
indicated their desire to remain a part of the existing unit now repre-
sented by the Intervenor and the Regional Director will issue a cer-
tification of results of election to such effect.'
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication ]
7 Since at least 1951, the Intervenor has been the exclusive bargaining representative
of the Employer 's production and maintenance employees , including the moldmakers who
are the subject of this proceeding Pursuant to an agreement for Consent Election in
Case No 24-RC-64, filed on August 11, 1959, the Intervenor was certified on August 20,
1959, as representative of the production and maintenance unit of Employer's employees
excluding "all mold makers who work in the mold shop of the company pending the
Board's decision in 24-RC-11602" The tally of the ballots showed that even if the
moldmakers had voted, their votes would not have affected the results of that election
A. & M. Raragheusian, Inc. and Textile Workers Union of
America, AFL-CIO. Case No 10-CA-3748 January 13, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 14, 1959, Trial Examiner Arnold Ordman issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto The Trial Examiner also found that
the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor prac-
tices as alleged Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and supporting brief
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-
member panel [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, and Fanning]
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed The
rulings are hereby affirmed The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the ent ire record in this
126 NLRB No 14
A. & M. KARAGHEUSIAN, INC. 105
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions , and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, A. & M. Karag-
heusian, Inc., Albany, Georgia, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Interrogating employees concerning union matters in a manner
constituting interference, restraint, or coercion in violation of Section
8(a) (1) of the Act.
(b) Fostering the impression among employees that their union
activities are under surveillance.
(c) Threatening, or promising benefits to, employees to discourage
union membership or activities.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organiza-
tion, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Textile Workers
Union of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing and
to engage in any other concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or
all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at its plant in Albany, Georgia, copies of the notice
attached hereto marked "Appendix." 1 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after
being duly signed by the Company's representative, be posted by the
Company immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to its employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Company to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, in writing,
within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken
to comply herewith.
IT Is FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations of the complaint with
respect to violation of Section 8(a) (3) be, and they hereby are,
dismissed.
' In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals , there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning union mat-
ters in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion
in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT foster the impression among our employees that
their union activities are under surveillance.
WE WILL NOT threaten, or promise benefits to, our employees to
discourage union membership or activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist
Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, and to engage in any other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities.
A. & M. KARAGHEUSIAN, INC.,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, with all parties represented, was heard before the duly designated
Trial Examiner in Albany, Georgia, on May 5 and 6, 1959, on complaint of the
General Counsel and answer of A. & M. Karagheusian, Inc., herein called Respond-
ent. The evidence presented related to allegations, set forth in the complaint and
denied in the answer, that Respondent had interfered with its employees' organiza-
tional rights in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended (61 Stat. 136, 29 U.S.C. 151, et seq.), and had discriminatorily dis-
charged one of its employees , William L. Causey, in violation of Section 8(a) (3)
and (1 ) of the Act . Briefs were filed by each of the parties following the close
of the hearing.
Upon the entire record,' and from my observation of the witnesses, I hereby make
the following: -
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent, a Delaware corporation, operates plants in New Jersey, North
Carolina, and Georgia. At its Albany, Georgia, plant, the only one here involved,
'On June 15 , 1959, the Trial Examiner entered an order correcting certain obvious
errors In the transcript of testimony.
A. & M. KARAGHEUSIAN, INC. 107
Respondent manufactures carpets and during the calendar year prior to the issuance
of the complaint, a representative period, shipped more than $1,000,000 worth
of finished goods from the Albany plant to customers outside the State of Georgia.
Upon these undisputed facts, I find that the Respondent is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Textile Workers Union of America , AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Respondent has contractual relations with the Union at its two New Jersey plants.
In the summer of 1958, the Union started an organizational campaign among the
employees in Respondent's Albany, Georgia, plant. The campaign culminated in
a Board-conducted election on November 12, 1958, which the Union lost. Re-
spondent's conduct during the organizational campaign forms the subject matter
of the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
With respect to the issue of interference, restraint, and coercion, the complaint
alleges, and the answer denies, that on various occasions during the organizational
campaign Respondent's plant manager, Arthur Lauman, its assistant manager,
James Barbre, and its superintendent of manufacture, Willis B. Nesmith, inter-
rogated employees concerning union matters and informed the employees that
their union activities were under surveillance. The complaint also alleges, and the
answer denies, that Lauman and Barbre solicited employees to withdraw from
the Union and that Lauman made certain threats designed to defeat the unioniza-
tion of its employees. The evidence as to these matters is summarized hereunder.
1. Respondent's Judy and August Interviews
During a period beginning late in July 1958, and extending into August 1958,
while the Union's organizational campaign was in progress, Plant Manager Lauman
admittedly interviewed, on an individual basis, about half of the approximately
120 employees in the Albany plant. It is undisputed that much of the discussion
at these interviews centered about the Union.
According to Lauman, these interviews resulted from reports he had received
that the employees were upset because of the organizational activities in the plant
and that they were seeking guidance from Respondent's supervisors. Lauman
testified that because of these reports, he instructed his supervisory staff to advise
the employees that he, Lauman, would be available in his office to answer what-
ever questions they might have. On the other hand, a number of witnesses called
by General Counsel, testified that they were directed, not invited, to report for these
interviews. Thus, employees Lush, Hullett, Miller, and Causey testified that they
were directed by Superintendent Nesmith to see Lauman. Employees Butler and
Williford testified that Lauman himself summoned them for a conference?
While I have no doubt that a number of employees may well have solicited an
opportunity to see Lawman because of their concern about the organizational activi-
ties, I find it difficult to believe that employees like Hullett, Causey, and others,
whose adherence and support of the Union were unconcealed, would have volun-
tarily sought out management to seek advice about their conduct with respect to
the Union. The tenor of management's discussion with these individuals, set forth
in detail hereunder, likewise tends to refute Respondent's claim that they initiated
the requests for interviews. Finally, in view of management's admitted concern
over the Union's organizational campaign and its impact on the employees, it was
wholly natural for management to have sought out those employees whom it knew
or suspected to be in the forefront of the union campaign. Accordingly, for the
foregoing reasons, I credit the testimony of the employees who specifically stated
that they were summoned by management to conferences with Lauman.
The evidence is likewise in conflict as to the precise nature of the interviews.
Employee Hullett, an avowed union adherent, testified that he had been summoned
2 Employee Griner did not specify who summoned him for a conference, stating merely,
"Well, they called me in."
108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to Lauman's office by Superintendent NeSmith, and that Lauman, NeSmith, and
Assistant Plant Manager Barbre were present during the course of the interview.
According to Hullett, Lauman asked whether Hullett really believed in the Union
and urged that he reconsider in the event he had signed a union card. Lauman
stated that the Union would not be any good in the plant. NeSmith, in similar
vein, stated that he himself had once belonged to a union and did not see that it was
any good. Lauman, in his testimony, acknowledged that he had had an interview
with Hullett, and Barbre likewise acknowledged his presence at that interview.
Lauman, however, denied questioning Hullett as to his signing of a union card,
stated that he assumed at this conference that Hullett had signed a union card,
and specifically denied asking Hullett to reconsider.3
Employee Williford, who later served as union observer in the November 12
election, testified that early in August while he was being treated by the nurse at the
plant for a foot injury, Lauman called him to the office. Only Lauman and Willi-
ford were present. According to Williford, Lauman started to discuss the Union,
and stated that he did not "see how they could operate here in Albany. . .
Lauman then asked Williford whether he had attended a union meeting or signed
a union card. When Williford gave negative replies to these inquiries, Lauman
asked Williford, who was working as a general helper in the warehouse, how he
would like a job as a truckdriver.
Lauman confirmed that he had seen the nurse treating Williford, that he had told
Williford to see him at his office, that they had discussed the Union, and that he
had mentioned a truckdriving job for Williford. Lauman, however, denied asking
Williford whether he had been to a union meeting or signed a union card, and
said that he had mentioned the truckdriving job only as a temporary measure
until Williford's foot healed.
Employee William L. Causey, whose discharge is discussed later in this report,
testified that he was summoned to Lauman's office by Superintendent NeSmith, and
that Lauman, Barbre, and NeSmith were present during the interview. Each of the
company officials in turn emphasized that the Union was no good. Lauman, accord-
ing to Causey, capped the discussion by asking Causey to reconsider his allegiance
to the Union, and stated that "some of the boys were sorry they had signed union
cards and would try to get them back." Causey also testified that in a second
interview held on the following day, Launian told him his background had been
good and his work had been good and mentioned the possibility of a better job.
When Causey did not commit himself to getting his union card back, Lauman sug-
gested that Causey return for a further interview if he made up his mind.
Lauman, for his part, testified that he had met with Causey but denied that he
had asked Causey whether he belonged to a union , and denied that he had offered
Causey a better job. Barbre and NeSmith confirmed that they had been present at
Lauman's first interview with Causey.4
Employee Lush testified that he was directed by Superintendent NeSmith to go see
Lauman at his office and upon compliance with this directive was interviewed by
Lauman and Barbre. According to Lush, Lauman asked if Lush knew about the
unionization campaign and went on to state that unions brought mistreatment of
employees, strikes, and hardships. Lauman then observed that efforts to start a
union in the Albany plant would not work because "the Causey's and the Hullett's
would be standing around on the outside, marching around with strike signs and
we'd be inside the plant working [whether] the Union won or lost." Neither Lauman
nor Barbre testified concerning this interview.
Employee Butler had two interviews with Lauman, one in the early part of August
when the other interviews were being held and the other in the latter part of August.
Butler was somewhat confused as to exactly what had transpired at each of the
conferences. However, he recalled generally that the first interview was held at
Lauman's direction and that Lauman had asked him about union meetings, whether
he knew the identity of the union adherents, and whether he had signed a union card.
a NeSmith did not testify concerning the Flullett interview.
4 There was also conflicting testimony as to whether one of the three officials made a
comment to Causey that if the Union came in, the employees would probably get a "big
fat negro" for a supervisor and whether Lauman said Air Wolfe, a union organizer was
a "son-of-a-bitch" as was anyone who worked with him. I do not credit the testimony
that Respondent 's officials made these statements . The appearance , manner, and de-
meanor of the officials concerned, all of whom testified at the hearing, leads me to doubt
that they would have made the comments in question, and apart from Causey's testi-
mony, there is little, if any, evidence in the record to support a finding that Respondent's
officials indulged in this kind of epithet or name calling.
A. & M. KARAGHEUSIAN, INC. 109
Butler admitted, however, that the second interview with Lauman was at his own
request and that his purpose in seeking the second interview was to dispel false
rumors that he was supporting the Union. Lauman, on the other hand, while
admitting that he had two interviews with Butler, stated that Butler had initiated
both interviews, denied that he had interrogated Butler concerning union matters,
and said that he had questioned Butler only as to the identity of those spreading the
rumors about Butler so that disciplinary action could be taken.
Employees Miller and Griner also testified as to their respective interviews with
Lauman. According to Miller, Lauman, Barbre, and NeSmith were present at his
interview, and, in the course of the discussion, Lauman asked Miller whether he
had heard about the Union and whether he had attended a union meeting. Griner
testified that he was interviewed by Lauman and Barbre and, in reply to a question
as to what he thought about the Union, declined to answer on the ground that he had
friends on both sides of the fence. Lauman, in his testimony, denied that anyone
had asked Miller whether he had attended a union meeting, and by implication denied
that he had discussed the Union with Griner although admitting that he did not
recall too much of that conversation.
The conflicting versions of the interviews given by the employees on the one hand
and by Respondent's officials on the other cannot be completely reconciled. The
margin of difference, however is not substantial. In no instance did Respondent
controvert the fact that the interviews testified to by the employees had taken place.
On the contrary, in virtually every instance Respondent's officials specifically con-
firmed the holding of the particular interviews and corroborated, to a considerable
extent, the details of the interviews as narrated by the employees concerned. How-
ever, Respondent's officials denied generally, and in some instances denied spe-
cifically, that they had interrogated any of the employees concerning union matters,
or that they had solicited any of the employees to withdraw from the Union by
promises of a better job or otherwise, or that they had threatened the employees with
reprisals in the event of unionization. On the other hand, Plant Manager Lauman
freely acknowledged that union matters had been discussed at these interviews.
Moreover, I am impressed by the fact that the interviews, as testified to by the
several employees, fell into the same general pattern, even though the testimony
came in some instances from witnesses like Hullett and Causey who were ardent
union adherents, or in the case of Butler, from an employee who was not a union
adherent and was acutely concerned that he not be falsely identified as such. This
circumstance tends to dispel the self-interest which might otherwise tend, consciously
or unconsciously, to color the narrative of events related by a partisan source. I am
inclined to believe, therefore, that Respondent's officials understated the nature and
extent of the union discussion which admittedly occurred at these interviews. Ac-
cordingly, in view of all these considerations and on the basis of my appraisal of
the various witnesses, I credit the testimony of the employees as to the nature and
content of the July and August interviews and correspondingly discredit the testi-
mony of Respondent 's officials insofar as it is inconsistent therewith.
2. Statements by Respondent's officials conveying the impression that the union
activities of the employees were under surveillance
The employees at Respondent's plant enjoy a break period at 10 a.m. and 2 p.m.
During one of these break periods in the latter part of August, a number of the
employees were gathered in the breakroom discussing a penciled notice of unknown
authorship which had been taped on the outside of the plant bulletin board and
which purported to list the employees who had attended a union meeting the night
before. Employee Lush testified that Superintendent NeSmith joined the employees
in the breakroom, disclaimed any connection with the penciled notice, but noted that
15 minutes after the employees went to the meeting he knew who they were.
NeSmith amplified that statement, according to Lush, by noting that the first fellow
who came to the meeting owned a black and white Ford. In a further obvious ref-
erence to attendance at the union meeting, NeSmith observed, according to Lush,
that some of the boys in the room had "long faces" and that some of them were
going to have "a lot longer faces." 5
This was not the only reference by Respondent's officials to a car of an employee
being seen at the site of a union meeting. As already noted, employee Miller was
interviewed by Lauman, Barbre, and NeSmith. According to Miller, Lauman had
c NeSmith denied stating that he knew 15 minutes after a union meeting who was
there or that the first man in attendance had a black and white Ford. He testified,
11however, that "This was general knowledge. Everybody knew about this. . . .
110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
asked him at that interview whether he had attended a union meeting, Miller denied
it, and Barbre challenged Miller's denial. When Miller persisted in his denial.
Barbre asked whether he had loaned his car to somebody else on the occasion.6
A third incident conveying the impression that Respondent was keeping the union
activities of the employees under scrutiny likewise occurred late in August. Employee
Lush had an appointment to see two union officials at the New Albany Hotel. On the
way home from the doctor whom he had gone to see because he was sick, Lush
stopped in at the New Albany Hotel. A day or two later, Lush was interviewed by
Barbre and NeSmith. According to Lush, Barbre told Lush he had been seen going
into the hotel at a time when he should have been on his way home. Lush
explained that he had an appointment to see two union officials. Lush then asked
if he was being followed and protested that what he did on his own time was his
own business.?
To the extent that there is a variance between the testimony of employees Lush
and Miller and the testimony of Respondent's officials respecting the foregoing
incidents, I believe, on the basis of my appraisal of that testimony and for the addi-
tional reasons set forth in the preceding subsection, that the testimony of the
employees more accurately reflects what actually transpired. I, therefore, credit
their testimony as to these matters and I find that Superintendent NeSmith and
Assistant Manager Barbre made the statements attributed to them by Lush and Miller-
3. Concluding findings
Respondent, in its brief to the Trial Examiner, does not argue the legality of the,
conduct alleged to be violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, nor the substantiality of
the evidence in support of those allegations. Nevertheless, I have carefully con-
sidered the evidence and the law relevant to that issue. I have found that during
the course of the organizational campaign, Respondent's top officials called in a
number of employees, including avowed union adherents, and questioned them as
to union matters. Among the questions directed to the various employees were
general inquiries about the Union and their sympathies in that regard, inquiries as to-
whether they had signed union cards, or attended union meetings, and inquiries as
to the identity of union adherents Coupled with these questions on occasion were
statements plainly demonstrating Respondent's opposition to a union at its Albany
plant and Respondent's desire that the employees refrain from supporting the Union
or withdraw such support if already given . Interrogation of employees concerning
union matters, while not in itself coercive, clearly amounts to interference, restraint,
and coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act when it occurs in a context
such as that which the record here reveals. Blue Flash Express, Inc., 109 NLRB
591, 593. Graber Manufacturing Company, Inc., 111 NLRB 167, 169; Southeastern
Mills, Inc., 123 NLRB 1783. I so find.
Superintendent NeSmith's statement to the employees in the breakroom, in con-
nection with the discussion of attendance at a union meeting, that some of the boys
who had "long faces" would shortly have even "longer faces," and Plant Manager
Lauman's remark to employee Lush that a union would not work in the plant
because the "Causeys" and the "Hulletts," known as union adherents, would be out
picketing whether the Union won or lost, were plainly calculated to instill in the
employees an awareness of the penalties of supporting the Union. Conversely,
Respondent's suggestions to employees Williford and Causey of better jobs, patently
conditioned on their abandonment of the Union, were also intrusions on the em-
ployees' statutory freedom of choice in the regard. Threats of reprisal or promises
of benefit to induce abandonment of a union are on settled principles violative of
Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act. I find that Respondent engaged in such violations
here.
e Lauman denied asking Miller whether he had attended a union meeting Barbre did
not recall whether such a question had been asked, but acknowledged that there was
some discussion about Miller's automobile. According to Barbre, Miller "volunteered the
information that he wasn't at the meeting and his automobile was not at the meeting"
7 Barbre confirmed that he and Nesmith had discussed the New Albany Hotel incident
with Lush Barbre said, however, that the interview was prompted by the fact that
Plant Manager Lauman who was attending a Lions Club luncheon at the hotel, had
noticed Lush there, and had later inquired of Barbre as to why Lush was not at work
According to Barbre, however, he merely inquired of Lush why Lush was at the hotel
when he had been ordered by his doctor to go home to bed and when Lush replied that
he had an appointment at the hotel that ended the discussion.
A. & M. KARAGHEUSIAN, INC. 111
More subtle , but perhaps just as effective in frustrating the organizational drive,
was the technique utilized by Respondent of persuading the employees that their
union activities were under surveillance. NeSmith's statement that he knew 15
minutes after a union meeting who was there; Barbre's assertion to Miller that the
latter had attended a union meeting and his question concerning Miller's car; and
Barbre's statement to Lush that he had been seen going into the New Albany Hotel
where Lush had an appointment to see two union organizers could not but create the
impression among the employees that their union activities were under Respond-
ent's careful scrutiny and would necessarily tend to circumscribe the employees'
freedom of action in the organizational arena. I find that Respondent deliberately
fostered that impression among the employees and that Respondent thereby violated
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. Idaho Egg Producers, 111 NLRB 93, 103, and cases
there cited.8
C. The alleged discriminatory discharge
General Counsel alleged in his complaint that Respondent discriminatorily dis-
charged and thereafter refused to reinstate its employee, William L. Causey, in
violation of Section 8(a) (3) and ( 1) of the Act . Respondent in its answer admitted
that it had discharged Causey but asserted that the termination was for cause.
1. The evidence
Causey was hired in March of 1955 . After several months he was made an
operator on a tufting machine in the tufting department which Superintendent
NeSmith supervised. Causey held that job until his discharge on November 6, 1958.
Superintendent NeSmith testified that prior to August 1958 Causey had done credita-
ble work and, although he had on occasion given Causey an oral reprimand, the
quality of Causey's work had not been such as to warrant the more stringent
discipline of a written reprimand. In August 1958, however, Causey's production
dropped substantially.9 NeSmith spoke to Causey concerning this drop and Causey's
production during September went back up to an average of 129.8 yards of carpet
per day. The following month his production dropped to 60.06 yards per day, less
than half of what it had been.lo
During the period between August 1958 and November 6, 1958, the date of his
discharge , Causey was active in the Union . He signed a union card , solicited mem-
bers, and attended all but one of the union meetings . Respondent adduced testi-
mony that on frequent occasions during this period and during working time Causey
stopped his machine , engaged in conversations with other employees , solicited in
behalf of the Union, and spent undue amounts of time in performing his work.
In further support of this testimony Respondent introduced into evidence three
forms entitled "Performance Evaluation," dated respectively August 28, September
11, and October 22, 1958, and signed by NeSmith, each of which recited derelictions
in Causey's work performance. These forms constituted written reprimands under
company practice. It was also company practice to show a reprimand to the em-
ployee named therein and ask him to affix his signature . Causey did sign the
reprimand dated August 28, 1958, which set forth on its face two incidents during
the previous 2 days in which Causey's machine was idle while he engaged in con-
versations with other employees. Causey denied that a third dereliction, written
on the back of this reprimand and having to do with excessive time spent in chang-
ing a roll of jute, was written thereon at the time he affixed his signature . Causey
likewise denied , contrary to Respondent 's testimony , ever seeing the reprimands dated
September 11 and October 22, 1958, and his signature does not appear on these
reprimands . The reprimand dated September 11, 1958 , recites that Causey together
with his assistant and two men helping part time took approximately 4 hours to
s The complaint does not specifically allege, and the preponderance of the evidence in
my view would not sustain a finding, that Respondent actually engaged in the surveillance
which its statements suggest Albany is a small community and much , if not all, of the
knowledge which Respondent 's officials professed could have been obtained in the normal
course of their daily activities without engaging in actual surveillance.
I It will be recalled that Plant Manager Lauman during the course of his second inter-
view with Causey late in July or early in August made favorable mention of Causey's
work record as a prelude to suggesting a better job for him. Causey 's production figures
for August were not, of course, available at that time.
10 September and October are peak production months In Respondent 's operation So
far as appears , there was no machine breakdown or other external cause to explain the
substantial drop in Causey's production.
112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
change three-quarters of a creel on his machine while two other men did the same
amount of work on another machine in 1 hour less . The reprimand dated October
22, 1958, recited that Causey because of inattention to his work had spoiled 79
yards of carpet because of "misdraws," thereby causing damage to the amount of
about $2,000.11
A fourth reprimand, also signed by NeSmith, was dated November 6, 1958, the
day of Causey's discharge. This reprimand set forth that Causey had again been
using "on the job" time to solicit for the Union, that he had been called in by
NeSmith and told that time for which he was drawing pay was to be used for work
and not for union solicitation, that this was Causey's fourth reprimand, and that
under the circumstances he was no longer needed as an employee of the Company.
The reprimand concluded with the notation by NeSmith "I fired him." A separation
notice made out by Respondent, a copy of which goes to the Employment Security
Agency of the Georgia Department of Labor, and a copy of which was received by
Causey, states that Causey was discharged because
he was interfering with the work of the other men (as well as his own) by
talking union at the plant during working hours.
In this connection Respondent adduced evidence to establish that every 3 or 4
months starting a few years prior to the events here involved, it has posted notices
on the plant bulletin boards stating that
In keeping with our Plant Policies, please be informed that all employees must
refrain from discussing such controversial subjects as religion, politics, and dis-
cussions pertaining to organized labor during working hours.
Your cooperation is requested.12
Evidence was also adduced that it was company practice to discharge an employee
after three written reprimands.
Causey, as already noted, denied seeing any but the first reprimand and as to
that reprimand, the only one on which his signature appears, denied that the jute
incident written on the back of the reprimand was there when he affixed his signature.
On the other hand, while denying that he had ever seen the second reprimand
concerning his slowness in changing a creel, Causey admitted that NeSmith had
orally warned him concerning this incident. Similarly, Causey denied seeing the
third reprimand but admits that NeSmith told him on that occasion that he had
ruined almost $2,000 worth of carpet on special order and that if he had been
watching his work he would have caught the defect. Causey also admitted that he
had been talking to a fellow employee, Sperry, about the Union 2 days before his
discharge but testified that this conversation occurred just before his quitting time
when he had stopped his machine to clean up and that Sperry had initiated the con-
versation. Generally speaking, Causey denied any derelictions on his part and with
respect to the 79 yards of spoiled carpet insisted that the damage, to the extent there
was damage, was not due to his negligence but to mixed lots of yarn. Causey, how-
ever, offered no satisfactory explanation to account for the drop in his production in
August and the more substantial drop in his production in October just before his
discharge. Respondent's records indicating Causey's production drop went
unchallenged.
The evidence as to the discharge itself is also somewhat conflicting. According
to the testimony of Respondent's witnesses, Superintendent NeSmith and Plant
Manager Lauman concluded that despite the gravity of Causey's offense in spoiling
79 yards of carpeting, and despite the fact that this had given rise to a third
reprimand which normally called for discharge, Causey would be given another
chance. Their motivation for this departure from policy was their desire not to
exacerbate the union controversy which was already prevalent in the plant. NeSmith
told Causey at the time of the carpet spoilage that if not for the existance of union
activities at the plant, he would have been dismissed, and if it happened again he
would be dismissed . About a month later, NeSmith was told by Toy Walker, head
fixer on Causey's shift, that Causey had again neglected his work and the November 6
reprimand issued. In the meantime, NeSmith had also become familiar with the
"The carpet in question was being prepared pursuant to a special contract order and
because of the misdraws had to be sold, according to Respondent, as "as is" carpeting at
a very substantial loss.
12 According to Respondent , the rule had its origin when some "aspiring young
preachers" started preaching to the employees with the result that the employees were
reading their Bibles and having group discussions during the time they were supposed
to be working.
A. & M. KARAGHEUSIAN, INC. 113
substantial drop in Causey's October production. NeSmith called Causey n, told
him that he was more interested in utilizing his time soliciting union votes than he
was in taking care of his job, that he had been negligent in his work, and that under
the circumstances NeSmith had no alternative but to let Causey go.
Causey's testimony as to the discharge differed in some particulars from that of
Respondent's witnesses . Thus, Causey denied being told at the time of the spoiled
rug episode that he would be discharged if he were derelect again. Causey stated
that at the discharge conference he was accused by NeSmith of talking about the
Union to a fellow employee, that he admitted such a conversation, and admitted
that he had solicited the employees to vote for the Union. According to Causey,
NeSmith said he would not have any talking about the Union in the plant and
stated, "As of now, you are fired." Causey said that NeSmith added, "Your buddy,
Mr. Wolfe is out at the back gate if you want to talk to him."
2. Concluding findings
While there are a number of discrepancies in the evidence relating to Causey's
discharge, the basic pattern of events seems fairly clear and is corroborated in large
part by the testimony of Causey himself. Prior to the organizational campaign,
Causey's work performance was admittedly quite creditable. In August after the
onset of the organizational campaign and after Causey became active in the Union,
his production went down, went up again in September after management spoke
to him about it, and dropped again, drastically, in October. During that period
from August up to and including the early part of November, Causey admittedly
engaged in union solicitation at the plant. According to Respondent, this union
solicitation occurred during working hours, interfered with his production and that
of his fellow employees, and resulted in the issuance of four reprimands, the last
one culminating in Causey's discharge. Causey admitted receiving only one written
reprimand but admitted that he was orally warned on at least two other occasions
prior to his discharge. On the basis of all the evidence, including particularly the
showing as to the substantial drop in Causey's production, I find that Causey had
engaged in union solicitation during working hours and that this activity hampered
his production.
I find further that Respondent at all times relevant here had a well established
and publicized rule-a rule antedating the organizational campaign-forbidding
employees to discuss controversial matters, including, inter alia, matters pertaining
to organized labor, during working hours.13
The evidence is in sharp dispute as to the extent of the damage to the 79 yards
of carpet which Causey produced on October 22, 1958. I find it unnecessary to
determine the precise nature and extent of the damage for it is clear that the carpet
was defective to some extent, and that Causey was admittedly criticized by man-
agement in that regard. Moreover, the spoiled carpet gave rise to Causey's third
reprimand which pursuant to company practice, would normally warrant his dis-
missal . I credit the testimony of Respondent's officials , however, that they refrained
from dismissing Causey at this time because of the friction in the plant already
generated by the organizational campaign. I further find that, contrary to Causey's
testimony, he was told at the time that if it happened again, that he would be dis-
missed in the event of a further offense.
I find that the offense which precipitated Causey's dismissal was that set forth in
the reprimand dated November 6, 1958, when Causey was again reported to have
engaged in union solicitation during working time. Causey admitted seeking to
solicit employee Sperry at about 2 45 p.m.-his shift ended at 3 p m.-but said that
he had not shut down his machine for the purpose of solicitation, but for "clean up"
purposes preparatory to quitting for the day. Whatever his purpose, it is clear
that Causey admittedly engaged in solicitation during working time and Respondent
could have believed and, I find, did believe that Causey had agam violated a com-
pany rule to the detriment of his production and that of his fellow employees The
undisputed fact that, as Respondent knew, Causey's production had suffered a sub-
stantial drop the preceding month contributed to this belief I find it unnecessary
to determine whether NeSmith told Causey at the time of the discharge, as Causey
testified, that "Your buddy, Mr. Wolfe, is out at the back gate if you want tc talk
to him." Assuming NeSmith made that remark, it would have been consistent with
"Employees Williford and Causey denied ever seeing the foregoing rule posted in the
plant. Nevertheless, the great preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that
such a rule was in effect, that it was posted regularly, and that the employees knew of
the existence of the rule
554461-G0-vol 126-9
114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
his view that Causey was using working time to engage in organizing activity and
that after his discharge Causey could either join Mr. Wolfe, the union organizer, in
that activity, or complain to Mr. Wolfe about his discharge.
I conclude, therefore, that Respondent discharged Causey for the reason stated
in his separation notice, namely, that "he was interfering with the work of the
other men (as well as his own) by talking union at the plant during working hours."
Implicit in this reason and contributing to the determination to discharge Causey
was Respondent's knowledge, based on evidence which I credit, that Causey's pro-
duction had suffered a substantial drop and that there was a previous record of
similar derelictions on Causey's part, attributable in Respondent's view to Causey's
preoccupation with union activities in the plant during his working time.
General Counsel and counsel for the Charging Party argue for a contrary con-
clusion. They urge that Respondent was hostile to the Union that Respondent knew
of Causey's attachment to the Union, had sought in the interviews with Causey late
in July or early in July to dissuade him from that attachment, and, failing in that
purpose, began to find fault with his work merely to furnish a pretext for the dis-
charge of an active union adherent before the forthcoming election. In support of
this argument, they point out that Respondent's own statement in its separation
notice predicated Causey's discharge on the ground that he was "talking union."
The argument does have a surface appeal. I have found that Causey's union
sympathies were known to Respondent, that Respondent was hostile to the Union,
and that Respondent sought, albeit unsuccessfully, to dissuade Causey from support-
ing the Union. These considerations certainly warrant close scrutiny of the reason
or reasons assigned by Respondent to justify the discharge. Close scrutiny, however,
does not advance General Counsel's case. General Counsel and counsel for the
Charging Party overlook the fact that the separation notice was framed not merely
in terms of "talking union," but rather in terms of "talking union at the plant during
working hours." Moreover, Causey's extenuations aside, Causey admitted that his
discussion with Sperry, which precipitated his discharge and the separation notice,
occurred 15 minutes before quitting time and that he had been soliciting Sperry to
vote for the Union in the forthcoming election. Employees, of course, have an
undisputed right under the Act to engage in organizational activities. On the
other hand, an employer has an equally undisputed right to promulgate and enforce
a rule prohibiting employees from engaging in union solicitation or discussion during
their working time. Republic Aviation Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 324 U.S. 793,
797-798, 802-803; Peyton Packing Company, Inc., 49 NLRB 828, 843-844. Re-
spondent exercised that right here. Moreover, Respondent discharged Causey in
the light of its conviction that Causey had a prior history of like offenses, a convic-
tion certainly buttressed by the otherwise unexplained drop in Causey's production
during this period.14
Finally, it is urged that the employees with whom, according to Respondent
Company, Causey had engaged in union discussions during working hours were not
discharged or, so far as appears, even reprimanded. Suggested here is the notion
that Causey's discharge was the result of a discriminatory application of Respondent's
rule against union discussion during working hours. To the extent that such a
contention is made, I find that General Counsel has not sustained his burden of
proof. As already found, Causey was guilty of a succession of offenses coupled
with a low production record. There is no showing that this was true in the case
of the other employees.
Upon the entire record, therefore, I find that General Counsel has not established
that Causey's discharge was violative of Section (a) (3) of the Act, or that the dis-
charge infringed upon any of the guarantees of Section 7 in violation of Section
8(a)(1).
'4 In this connection it is urged that if Causey's work shortcomings were the real
reason for his discharge, the discharge would have taken place when Causey was said
to have ruined 79 yards of carpet and Respondent entered its third reprimand. It is
argued that by not discharging him on this occasion and discharging him for what seems
a lesser offense 1 month later and 6 days before a scheduled Board election to determine
whether the employees wanted the Union as their bargaining representative, Respondent
revealed its true motivation for the discharge The evidence in the record persuades
me, however, and I find, that Respondent withheld its discharge action at the time of
the rug spoilage because of its desire not to aggravate the friction already generated in
the plant by the union campaign. I find further that the next complaint early in
November viewed in the light of Causey's prior conduct and, especially, his low produc-
tion the preceding month convinced Respondent that it should no longer withhold dis-
charge action.
JACKSON MAINTENANCE CORPORATION 115
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE UPON COMMERCE
The unfair labor practices of the Respondent set forth in section III, above,
occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent described in section I,
above, have a close , intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes affecting commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Pursuant to the mandate of Section 10 of the Act, I shall recommend that Re-
spondent cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found. Notwithstanding
that I have exonerated Respondent from the charge that he discriminatorily dis-
charged employee Causey, the unfair labor practices which I have found indicate
that in order to effectuate the policies of the Act, Respondent should be additionally
directed to cease and desist at the very least, from like or related unlawful inter-
ference with the Section 7 rights of its employees and I shall so recommend.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact , and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, as found above, Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (a)( 1 ) of the Act.
4. Respondent has not violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as alleged in the
complaint.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Jackson Maintenance Corporation and Automobile Mechanics
and Helpers, Gasoline Station and Parking Attendants, Local
917, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America . Case No. 2-CA-6389.
January 13, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 10, 1959, Trial Examiner W. Gerard Ryan issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged
in the complaint and recommending that said complaint be dismissed.
Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting
brief. The Respondent subsequently filed a brief in reply to that
of the General Counsel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
the case, and finds merit in the exceptions of the General Counsel.
Accordingly, we adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendations
of the Trial Examiner only insofar as they are consistent with our
decision herein.
126 NLRB No. 21.