NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,499, OSTER SPECIALITY PRODUCTS, DIVISION OF SUNBEAM-OSTER CORPORATION and SHEET METAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 483, AFL-CIO., (Sep. 30, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Sep 30, 1994)

OSTER SPECIALITY PRODUCTS, DIVISION OF SUNBEAM-OSTER CORPORATION and SHEET METAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 483, AFL-CIO.

315 NLRB No. 12.Case No. 26-CA-15559. September 30, 1994 Robert W. Leiner, Administrative Law Judge. [1] .

Before Gould, Browning and Cohen.

Jane Vandeventer and Rosalind Eddins, for General Counsel. William K. Harvey and Ted M. Yeiser, Jr. (Jackson, Shields, Yeiser, Cantrell & Harvey), Cordova, Tennessee, for Respondent Employer. Jack Gregg, Morrison, Tennessee, for Charging Party Union.

Interference--Coercive Remarks--Employer’s Antiunion Acts.--Once an employer discovered that its employees were engaged in a union organizing campaign, it committed several unfair labor practices designed to undermine the employees’ support for the union. These coercive unlawful acts included threatening to move the plant to Mexico, disparaging an employee’s union support, threatening job loss, conditioning an employee benefit upon foregoing union support, interrogating employees regarding their union support and creating the impression that the employees’ union activities were under surveillance. Section 8(a)(1).

Back reference: ¶377.082.

From Text of Board’s Decision

We adopt the judge’s findings for the reasons stated by him that the Respondent during the Union’s organizational campaign violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening and interrogating employees and by surveilling the employees’ union activities. The General Counsel filed limited cross-exceptions contending that the judge failed to find two additional 8(a)(1) violations, as alleged, and failed to provide a remedy for two 8(a)(1) violations that he found. We find merit in these exceptions.

The credited evidence established that on May 7, 1993 [2] Supervisor Stephen Hale approached employee Katherine Templeton and said, “I’ve been hearing some things about you lately, some bad things about you ... I’ve heard you’re for the union.” We find that by this statement the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by disparaging an employee because of her support for the Union, as alleged in the complaint.

In late April, Supervisor Campbell Kelsey approached employee Alene Goolsby at her workstation and asked her if she had made up her mind yet about the Union. Goolsby replied no, and Kelsey stated, “well, you better think about your job.” On May 7, Goolsby wore a union T-shirt to work and Kelsey approached her and said, “I see you made up your mind.” Goolsby replied, “yes, I think its what the employees need,” and Kelsey responded, “well, you better think real hard about your job and real hard about Mexico.” We find that by these statements the Respondent made threats of job loss and plant closure in violation of Section 8(a)(1), as alleged in the complaint.

We have modified the judge’s recommended Order and notice to provide a remedy for these additional violations of the Act, as well as for the judge’s findings that the Respondent unlawfully threatened employees with a loss of wages if they chose the Union as their bargaining representative and promised an employee a benefit if she voted against union representation.