Magna Visual, 162 (1974)

Magna Visual and Irene VanDeVen. Case 14CA-7634

September 3, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER

BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY. AND PENELLO choice of a supervisor.

The case was tried in St. Louis, Missouri, on January 17-18, 1974. General Counsel and the Respondent have filed briefs.

Upon the entire record of the case, including my observation of the witnesses and consideration of the briefs, I make the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT

On May 20, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Herzel H. E. Plaine issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.

The, Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.' ORDER

Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that Magna Visual, St. Louis, Missouri, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order.

1 We hereby deny Respondent's request for oral argument , as the record, including the briefs, adequately presents the issues and the positions of the parties.

DECISION

HERZEL H. E. PLAINE, Administrative Law Judge: The question presented is whether Respondent, a manufacturer of magnetic plastic and magnetic plastic products, violated Section 8(a)(l) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act), (1) by discharging seven employees who engaged in a work stoppage on October 22, 1973, to protest, and obtain a meeting with top management for improvement of, working conditions; and (2) by an alleged threat to close the plant if employees formed a union and creation of impression Respondent was spying on employee union activities.

The complaint was filed November 29, 1973, on a charge by one of the discharged employees filed October 24, 1973, amended November 29, 1973.

Respondent's answer was a general denial. At trial, while conceding the discharge of the seven employees, Respondent contended that their work stoppage was not protected activity, claiming that it related to employee interest in the 1. JURISDICTION Respondent is a corporation authorized to do business under the laws of Missouri, with its principal office and plant in St. Louis, where it is engaged in manufacture and nonretail sale and distribution of magnetic plastic and magnetic plastic products.

In the calendar year 1972, a representative period, Respondent purchased and received at the St. Louis plant goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000, delivered directly from points outside Missouri.

Respondent is, as the parties admit, engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),(6), and (7) of the Act.

11. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Respondent's Business Operations According to its vice president for sales, Eugene Reddington, Respondent manufactures, molds, and extrudes magnetic plastic in several lines of products, such as material for vehicle signs, novelty items like magnetic noteholders, and control boards for a chart system.

The production involves several processes, including machining, molding, assembly, alphabetizing (the so-called fonts department, where letters and numbers are grouped on cards, covered with plastic, and placed on magnetic boards), painting, inspection, and packing, performed by about 50 employees operating in a large single-room production area (testimony of employees VanDeVen, Feddersen, and others).

Respondent operates two shifts, the day shift starting (for most of the shift) at 7 a.m., the night shift starting at 3:30 p.m. In the case of the molding department employees and several others, the employees start an hour earlier at 6 a.m.

for the day shift and at 2:30 p.m. for the night shift, according to Plant Manager Davis.

Respondent's officers were Robert L. Singer, president;

Phil Cady, executive vice president and secretary-treasurer;

and Eugene C. Reddington, vice president for sales.

The plant manager, in charge of plant and personnel, according to Vice President Cady, was Robert Davis. Cady said that Vice President Reddington had no operating authority in the plant, but the testimony of Plant Manager Davis and of Reddington himself indicated that Reddington's duties required that he spend time in the shop and that he exercised certain plant operation responsibility, dealing particularly with lead people in the various departments and giving directions on such matters as priorities of orders, paint colors, and quality control suggestions. Significantly, Reddington (along with Cady and Davis) took part in the management decision to discharge the employees who engaged in the work stoppage of October 22, 1973.

Under Plant Manager Davis was General Foreman Ronald (Bill) Chronister, until he quit his job on October 19, 1973. Chronister was supervisor of the day shift operation and was also the superior of the night shift foreman J.

Kenneth (Kenny) Sims, at such times as Chronister was present on the night shift or when Sims hours overlapped into the day shift.

The various departments were in the immediate charge of 'lead persons.' Whether or not they enjoyed or exercised supervisory authority outside their departments was not explored on this record (nor was it necessary to the decision), but the apparent claim of such authority over shop employees outside her department by one of the lead persons,

Wanda Roderick, of the inspection and quality control department, without management publication or other notice to employees, became a matter of chagrin to Foreman Chronister. Chronister testified that in the control of quality in the paint shop, which he supervised, Mrs. Roderick was supposed to work with him but instead took over and did things her way. According to Chronister (and several of the employee witnesses), Ms. Roderick was Plant Manager Davis' girl friend, and when a conflict in authority arose, Davis instructed Foreman Chronister to back her up. In his testimony, Plant Manager Davis conceded that when Foreman Chronister and lead person Roderick had come to him over a division of management of the paint shop, he had concluded there was no need for Roderick to go through Foreman Chronister.) B. Attempted Union Organization Respondent's employees are not and have not been represented by a union. However, there were two attempts to organize the plant employees, both of which proved unsuccessful.

Foreman Chronister testified that in November 1972, union representatives began a handbilling campaign. About the same time, said Chronister, Respondent had a slowdown in work and laid off 11 employees, and nothing further materialized with the union campaign. Chronister testified that he participated in effecting the layoff.

In March 1973, according to employee VanDeVen, she sought to interest the union (Allied Painters) in organizing again and brought in union authorization cards for the employees to sign. Employee VanDeVen recruited an in-plant committee, comprising herself and employees Patricia (Pat) Feddersen, Linda Petit, and Rose Cottoner, to obtain employee card signatures for the union. Sometime later, after harrassment of the employee organizers began, said employees VanDeVen and Feddersen, the union notified Respondent by letter that the four employees constituted an in-plant committee for union organization. According to 1 Foreman Chronister testified that being overruled by lead person Roderick was one of the causes for his resigning . Among employees caught up in this clash of supervisory authority was employee Irene VanDeVen of the paint shop who testified that in connection with a spat over rejection of some of her work in February 1973, she incurred a disciplinary layoff for a week, later changed to a week 's vacation with pay.

employees VanDeVen, Feddersen, and Susan Nessel the employee organizers and sympathizers were the object of verbal abuse and harrassment regarding their union objective, particularly by lead person Wanda Roderick.

Foreman Chronister testified that Respondent was opposed to a union in the shop, that he agreed with that position, and that he, Plant Manager Davis, and Ms. Roderick talked about and worked closely on the matter of keeping the union out. Chronister corroborated testimony of the female employee witnesses that Ms. Roderick clashed with the women employees over the union.

Foreman Chronister testified, as did employee Feddersen, that Plant Manager Davis hired in as employees (or part-time employees, according to Feddersen) friends who would not sign union authorization cards and deprived the union of any prospect of a favorable vote in an election? In any event, after petitioning for an election on May 25, 1973 (Case 14-RC-7370), the union voluntarily withdrew the petition on June 18, 1973.

3. Plant Working Conditions and Employee Complaints Seven of Respondent's employees, including two who were still working at the time of trial and were called by Respondent to testify on other matters, provided evidence of employee dissatisfaction with adverse working conditions and of complaints thereon, in some instances longstanding and repeated, that had gone without redress.

   Employees Susan Nessel, Irene VanDeVen, Patricia Feddersen, Tom Stahl, and Nancy Henderson testified to the paint spray or overspray and fumes that emanated from the paint department and affected employees not only of that department but of other departments in the production area. Employees Nessel and Stahl, who worked directly at paint spraying, testified that the spray booth had a waterfall with a fan on top which was...