Steiner-Liff Textile Products Co., 1069 (1980)

STEINER-LIFF TEXTILE PRODUCTS CO. 1069

Steiner-Liff Textile Products Company and Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union,

AFL-CIO. Case 26-CA-7730

June 5, 1980 DECISION AND ORDER

BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS

JENKINS AND TRUESDALE

On February 13, 1980, Administrative Law Judge Hutton S. Brandon 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 the Respondent, Steiner-Liff Textile Products Company, Nashville, Tennessee, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order.

I Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dra Wall Products.

Inc.. 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951) e have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings DECISION

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

HuTTrroN S. BRANDON, Administrative Law Judge:

This case was heard at Nashville, Tennessee, on November 5 and 6, 1979.' The charge was filed by the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, on April 2 and amended on May 7. The complaint in this matter was issued on May 17. As amended at the hearing the complaint alleged that Steiner-Liff Textile Products Company, herein called the Respondent or the Company, violated Section 8(a)(3) and (I) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act, in discriminatorily discharging Charles Edward Moore, Charles Boice Moore, and I All dates are in 1979 unless otherwise specified.

249 NLRB No. 152

Jimmy Lee Moore on March 21. The complaint also alleged that the Respondent independently violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act through its supervisors and agents by interrogating its employees concerning their union activities, by soliciting grievances in order to undermine employee support for the Union, by threatening its employees with layoffs or discharges because of their union support, and by advising employees that it would pay substantial sums to keep the Union out. The issues are essentially factual as to whether the Respondent engaged in the conduct attributed to it.

Upon the entire record, 2 including my observations of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent, I make the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT

  1. JURISDICTION The Respondent is a corporation with an office and place of business located in Nashville, Tennessee, where it is engaged in the business of sorting, recycling, and selling textile waste products. During the past year the Respondent in the conduct of its business purchased and received at its Nashville, Tennessee, location products valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points located outside the State of Tennessee, and during the same period sold and shipped its products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside Tennessee. The Respondent admits, and I find, that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The Respondent further admits, and I find, that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

  2. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR ABOR PRACTICES Charles Edward Moore, hereinafter referred to as Moore, was hired by the Respondent in September 1977, and at the time of his discharge was working for the Respondent as a relief man on the second shift at the Respondent's Nova Bond division plant.

3

Moore's father,

Charles Boice Moore, was also employed by the Respondent in 1977 and also worked on the second shift at the Nova Bond plant and, like Moore, was under the supervision of the second-shift superintendent, Thomas Hadley, admitted by the Respondent to be a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. Jimmy Lee Moore,

Moore's brother, was employed by the Respondent in May 1978, and worked in the Nova Bond plant, but was on the day shift. Both the day and night shift were under the general supervision of Nova Bond Plant Superintendent Dan Steuernacel.

At all times relevant to this case the Respondent's employees were not represented by a union. However, there did exist an informal employee representation system under which employee complaints and grievances were handled. In connection with this system Moore, in 2 The General Counsel's unopposed motion to correct the transcript dated December 10 is granted and receied in evidence as (; C Exh II11 ' The Nova Bond plant was located a few blocks from the Respond ent's Nova fill division plant where the Respondent maintained its princi pal offices January 1978, was elected by the employees on the second shift to be an 'employee representative,' and in this position he met with management of the Respondent from time to time regarding employee grievances and problems which arose between management and the employees. Each plant and shift elected its own 'representative' and each elected 'representative' served for an indefinite period until he either resigned or the employees decided they wanted to change representatives.

There is no evidence that the employee representatives received any special benefits or remuneration by virtue of their status as representatives. According to the testimony of Moore, when he first became an employee representative he met with the other representatives and management about every 2 weeks but later the meetings became less frequent and the last such meeting he attended, prior to March 14, was some time in January.

Moore was discharged on March 21 along with his father and brother. The Respondent's basis for the discharge of Moore as related in the testimony of Louis Gangi, the Respondent's vice president of personnel, was his failure to represent properly his employee group in bringing to the Respondent's attention the amount of unrest among the employees he 'represented.' Charles B. Moore and Jimmy Moore were discharged, according to Gangi, because 'we decided it would be best that all the Moores who were related be discharged.' It is the General Counsel's position, based on testimony outlined below, that the Moores were discharged because of their involvement in activity on behalf of the Union, and that the Respondent in addition to the discharges engaged in other conduct designed to thwart the union activity. The Respondent, through its witnesses, on the other hand denied any knowledge of any union activity among its employees prior to the discharges of the Moores and denied as well the other unlawful conduct attributed to it in connection with the union activity.

Moore testified that, on February 28, he initially contacted the Union regarding organizing the Respondent's employees. While uncertain as to exact dates, Moore related that, around March 13 or 14, he and Sonny Williams, the Nova Bond employee representative on the day shift, obtained union authorization cards from the Union. Thereafter, Moore within the next 2 days signed up all the night-shift employees at the Nova Bond plant (about 16 or 17 people) and returned the signed cards to James Neely, a union representative. Then, a day or two later, Gangi came to Moore and stated that there was word of a union trying to get back into the plant4 and that Mr. Abe Freeman, an owner, was 'upset.' Gangi added that Moore had helped the Respondent in previous union campaigns and asked him to help again. Moore testified he told Gangi that most of the people were upset about a lot of things, that most were for the Union and he was also. Gangi said there would be a meeting the following day and asked Moore to get someone to assist him and come to the meeting and they would 'iron out' some of the employee problems.

4 It was Gangi's undisputed testimony that there had been an unsuccessful organizing drive among the Respondent's employees by the Teamsters Union in 1977 and in 1978.

It is undisputed that there was a meeting in the afternoon on March 14 at the Nova Fill plant conference room between Gangi, Freeman, B. B. Steiner, an owner, and Steuernacel, representing the Respondent, and employees Moore, James Esley, Sonny Williams, Bobby Cheatham, and James Dewire, an employee representative of the maintenance personnel. At that meeting employee complaints were elicited and various complaints discussed including complaints regarding Steuernacel's abusive language directed at employees. Moore testified he told Freeman that if 'some of these things are not resolved the Union would come in just as fast as it went out the last time.' Freeman inquired of Moore why he had not previously brought these matters to his attention and Moore referred to threats made by Steuernacel to him several months previously when Moore had raised some problems with him regarding heat conditions in the plant. Gangi told the employees at the meeting to go back and try to calm the people; he indicated the matter would be checked into.

James Dewire, the only other employee in attendance at the March 14 meeting to testify, related that Gangi opened the meeting saying 'something' about a...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT