Extract
Bay Corrugated Container, 450 (1993)
Bay Corrugated Container, Inc. and Amalgamated
Clothing and Textile Workers Union, Chicago and Central States Joint Board, AFL-CIO- CLC. Cases 7-CA-31177, 7-CA-31342, and 7- CA-31584February 16, 1993DECISION AND ORDERBY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS DEVANEY AND OVIATTOn August 31, 1992, Administrative Law Judge El-bert D. Gadsden issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a brief in support,1 and the General Counsel filed an answering brief.The National Labor Relations Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,2 and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order as modified.3For the reasons stated below, we agree with the judge that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act when it discharged employees Don Moyur, Rick Bartee, and Adam Gibson on October 24, 1990.4In early September, employee Rick Bartee met with a union representative to discuss the representation of the Respondent's employees. Between that time and October 24, Bartee held several employee meetings at his home and visited the homes of about 50 employees to solicit their support for the Union. Bartee also passed out union literature at the gate of the Respond-ent's facility, in full view of management, approximately five times prior to October 24.Employee Don Moyur was also active in the union organizing drive. He visited employees' homes to discuss the Union, passed out union cards, handbilled at the front gate, and placed union literature on tables in the cafeteria. After handbilling at the front gate on October 15, Moyur was met by Vice President of Data Processing John Reuther, Personnel Director Rich Williams and Executive Vice President Dick Tangeman as he entered the plant. Reuther asked Moyur ''how everything was going at the gate.''On October 10, Tangeman met with the press department employees to discuss the union organizing drive. During this meeting, Tangeman stated that he had heard rumors that there was a union meeting that day at 4:30 p.m. and that he knew where it was.5Tangeman stared at Bartee while making this statement. In fact, a union meeting was held that evening at Bartee's6 home.On October 19, Assistant Plant Manager Randy McKinney approached Moyur and Bartee at the ward press machine. Moyur asked McKinney what kind of guarantees Moyur would have to keep his job if he signed a union card. McKinney replied ''You guys do what you gotta do, we'll do what we gotta do. But we'll get you guys.''7About a week prior to October 24, employee Adam Gibson met with Plant Manager Chuck Reuther regarding a problem between Gibson and Bartee. During this meeting, Reuther told Gibson that Bartee was the one heading the union organizing drive, that Reuther could not understand why Bartee was doing this because the company had done so much for him, and that Reuther could not understand why Bartee was carrying this out. Reuther added that ''Rick was kind of walking a thin line with his job, starting all this Union stuff.''On October 23, Bartee, Moyur, and Gibson were assigned to run an order for Digitron Packaging on the ward press machine. The order consisted of printing the Ford logo and legal phrases on about 5500 pieces. Chuck Reuther ordered Gibson to rush the order and1 The General Counsel contends that the Respondent's exceptions and brief in support should be stricken because they do not comply with Sec. 102.46(b) and (c) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, which provide, in relevant part, that the exceptions and brief shall specifically refer to the questions of procedure, fact, law, or policy to which exception is taken. The General Counsel argues that the Respondent's exceptions and brief in support do not specify which factual findings allegedly render the judge's conclusions invalid. We find that the Respondent's exceptions and brief in support substantially conform with the pertinent sections of the Board's Rules and Regulations, and we therefore deny the General Counsel's motion to strike.2 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility findings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings.We correct the following errors in the judge's decision: in sec. III,F, par. 39, the judge states that Quality Control Manager Kris Eggleston testified that the press machine may be shut down by pressing a button, when it was Assistant Plant Manager Randy McKinney who so testif...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
