Collins & Aikman Corp., 620 (1970)

Collins & Aikman Corporation and International Union of District 50, Allied and Technical Workers of the United States and Canada.' Case 11-CA-4085

December 31, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER

BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS

FANNING AND BROWN

On August 5, 1970, Trial Examiner Samuel Ross issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.

Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision.

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

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 Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,2 conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.3 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 Trial Examiner and hereby orders that Collins & Aikman Corporation, Farmville, North Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.

I The Charging Party's name has been amended herein to conform with amendments in its constitution 2 These findings are based, in part, upon credibility determinations of the Trial Examiner to which the Respondent has excepted After careful review of the record, we conclude that these credibility findings are not contrary to the clear preponderance of all relevant evidence Accordingly, we find no basis for disturbing these findings Standard Dry Wall Products,

Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3) 3 Though we adopt the Trial Examiner's findings that the interrogation of employees by Respondent's Supervisors Grey, Pittman, and Hardison violated Section 8(a)( I) of the Act, we do not consider it necessary to these findings to apply the standards set forth in Stmksnes Construction Co, Inc, 165 NLRB 1062 As the Trial Examiner himself points out, these standards are to be applied where an employer is faced with a union claim of majority status and a demand for recognition, neither of which existed in the instant case In addition to the other cases cited by the Trial Examiner, we rely on the rationale of Union News Company, 112 NLRB 420

Although Chairman Miller agrees with the Trial Examiner that the speech made to employees on November 3, 1969, by Plant Manager Oxford violated Section 8(a)(I) of the Act, he would not adopt the Trial Examiner's finding that the speech exceeded permissible limits set forth in The Little Rock Downtowner, Inc, 143 NLRB 887, enfd in part 341 F 2d 1020 (C A 8), and Orkin Exterminating Company of Florida, inc, 152

NLRB 83, enfd 379 F 2d 972 (C A 5) TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE

SAMUEL Ross, Trial Examiner. Upon a charge filed November 24, 1969, and amended on March 5, 1970, by International Union of District 50, United Mine Workers of America (herein called the Union), the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint on March 19, 1970, which alleges that Collins & Aikman Corporation (herein called the Respondent or the Company) had engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(1) and (3) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The Respondent filed an answer to the complaint which denies the substantive allegations of the complaint.

Pursuant to due notice, a hearing in this case was conducted before me at Greenville, North Carolina, on April 28 and 29, 1970. Upon the entire record, and my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. COMMERCE The Respondent is a corporation which at all times material herein owned and operated a plant at Farmville,

   North Carolina, where textiles and related products are manufactured. During the past 12 months, a representative period, the Respondent admittedly manufactured, sold, and shipped goods valued in excess of $100,000 from its plant in Farmville to points and places outside the said State I find on the above admitted facts that the Respondent is engaged in commerce and in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.

   2. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is, and at all times material herein has been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

   3. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Issues Presented for Determination The issues presented by the pleadings and evidence in this case are whether or not the Respondent , during an organizational campaign by the Union, engaged in the following conduct in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act:

1. Coercive interrogation of employees regarding their union membership, sympathies, and desires.

   187 NLRB No. 84

   COLLINS & AIKMAN CORP. 621

2. Threats of reduced wages, layoffs, or other reprisals to discourage support of the Union.

3. The discharge of one employee (Fred Dixie Wilson) for engaging in protected union or concerted activities.

   B. Interference With and Restraint and Coercion of Employees 1. The speech of Plant Manager Oxford In October 1969,1 the Union began a campaign to organize the Respondent's employees at its Farmville,

   North Carolina, plant. On November 3, shortly after this campaign commenced, Plant Manager Lamar Oxford separately convened all the employees on each of the Respondent's three shifts and delivered speeches which admittedly urged the employees to reject representation by the Union.

   According to a composite of the credited testimony of Oxford and employee witnesses, Oxford told the assembled employees that they undoubtedly were aware that the Union was trying to organize the plant, that they likely would be visited at their homes by union organizers in an attempt to get them to sign union cards like the one he had in his hand and exhibited to the employees; that the employees could refuse to let the union organizers into their homes or to talk with them if they so desired; that the Respondent was opposed to the representation of its employees by the Union and would do everything within its legal power to keep the Union out; that the textile industry (of which the Company was a part) could not afford to pay wages like General Motors and Ford; that the employees could not afford to take a strike, but that the Company could; that unions promise big wages, but produce nothing but strikes, bloodshed, turmoil, and corruption; that at the Respondent's Albemarle, North Carolina, plant the certification of a union was followed by an unsuccessful strike of 4 weeks accompanied by bloodshed, as a result of which each of the striking employees lost wages of about $400, and the union was no longer there; 2 that, if the Union came in to the Farmville plant, it would not work out to the best interests of the employees ; that union organizers 'always' assure employees that the union cards they sign are confidential and would not be seen by anybody but the Union and the Labor Board; that such assurances are often false because unions attempt to obtain representative status on the basis of signed cards without an election; that when that occurs the cards are laid on the table at an open hearing, and 'we [management] can see who signed the cards'; that those who signed cards would never get any advantage or preferred treatment over those who did not sign; that Respondent would discharge anyone who I All dates hereinafter refer to 1969 unless otherwise noted 2 See Collins & Arkman Corporation, 165 NLRB 678, enforcement denied in part , 395 F 2d 277 (C A 4) 3 The quotes immediately above are from the credited testimony of employee Wilson winders, another employee, testified in this regard that Oxford said that, 'people who didn't sign a union card would not be fired ' Oxford testified that he spoke from notes, but the notes were not produced or offered by Respondent, Oxford admitted that, like some of the employees who testified regarding the speech, he 'could not recall exactly what was stated ' Accordingly, my findings above are based partly on his testimony and partly on the testimony of employees Wilson, Moore,

   Edwards Jr, and Winders, to the extent to which I deem the testimony in solicited signatures to union cards in the plant during working time ; and that no one 'ever got discharged because he did not sign a union card.' 3

   An employer unquestionably has a lawful right both to oppose the representation of his employees by a union and to express that opposition to them. He may not, however, in the guise of his right to free speech protected by Section 8(c) of the Act, impinge on the statutory rights of his employees guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act by threatening reprisals for joining or assisting a labor organization. The complaint in this case alleges that Oxford 's speech in part exceeded the proscriptions of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act , and, for the reasons hereinafter stated, I find merit in that allegation.

   The Respondent admittedly was and is opposed to the representation of its employees by the Union. It not only made the opposition known to its employees, but it also suggested to employees that they not sign union cards.4

   Oxford clearly conveyed to the employees that notwithstanding union assurances that the identity of card signers would be kept confidential the Respondent had at its disposal the means for determining who were its loyal employees who did not sign cards, and who were...