Santa Rosa Blueprint Service, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 29, 1988

288 N.L.R.B. 762 (N.L.R.B. 1988)

762 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Santa Rosa Blueprint Service, Inc. and Printing Spe-
cialties & Paper Products Union, District Coun-
cil No. 1, the International Printing and Graph-
ic Communications Union, AFL-CIO. Cases
20-CA-15825 and 20-CA-16030
April 29, 1988
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN AND BABSON
On October 29, 1982, Administrative Law Judge
Russell L. Stevens issued the attached decision.
The General Counsel and the Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and supporting briefs, and the Charging
Party joined in the exceptions filed by the General
Counse1.1
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The 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 as modified 3 and to adopt the recom-
mended Order as modified.
The General Counsel also renewed a motion, made to the judge, to
introduce additional testimony by one of the Respondent's customers re-
garding the Respondent's motive in discharging employee Thacker. After
examining the evidence contained in the offer of proof, we find that the
testimony sought to be introduced is hearsay and, further, that the state-
ments are not attributable to the Respondent or its agents Accordmgly,
we deny the General Counsel's motion to reopen the record
2 The General Counsel has excepted to some of the judge's credibility
findings The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administra-
tive 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 re-
versing the findings
In sec III,N of his decision, the judge stated that employee Armstrong
rode to a union council meeting on November 13, 1980, with fellow em-
ployees Risley and Thacker and Union Steward Scheidler, whereas the
record indicates that Armstrong left the Respondent's premises and rode
only with Scheidler Also, in sec III,Q,7 of his decision, the judge stated
that when the parties met for a bargaining session on November 17, 1980,
Chris Amato, one of the Respondent's owners, objected to Armstrong's
presence and refused to negotiate for that reason The record indicates,
however, that Amato was not present at that session and that it was
Fazio, the Respondent's representative from the California Association of
Employers, who stated the Respondent's objection to Armstrong's pres-
ence on the Union's negotiating team These inadvertent errors do not
affect our decision
3 We agree with the judge's finding that the Respondent did not vio-
late Sec 8(a)(5), (3), and (1) by instituting a more restrictive policy re-
garding use of the employee breakroom In doing so, we note that al-
though the record shows that on November 14, 1980, the Respondent in-
formed employees that the breakroom was limited to use by employees
and their immediate families, the record further indicates that when an
employee asked if her boyfriend could use the breakroom she was told
that he could. There is no evidence, moreover, that the use of the break-
room was altered or affected in any way Thus, notwithstanding the Re-
spondent's announcement, we find insufficient evidence to establish that a
change in breakroom use did, in fact, occur and that the Respondent vio-
lated the Act as alleged
Further, in adopting the judge's dismissal of the 8(a)(3) allegation re-
garding the Respondent's alleged harassment of employee Armstrong by
1. The judge found that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by interrogating employ-
ees at a meeting in July 1980. We fmd merit to the
Respondent's exception to this finding.
The record shows that at a meeting in July 1980,
following the Respondent's receipt of the Union's
written request for recognition, Chris Amato, the
Respondent's president and co-owner, asked the as-
sembled employees—Thacker, Armstrong, Bene-
dict, Risley, and Downing—what they hoped to
gain from the Union. Thacker, Armstrong, Risley,
and Benedict had been named in the Union's letter
as members of the "employees committee." We
find, based on the above, that the Respondent's in-
quiry was general; that it was not accompanied by
threats or promises; and that it was made to a
group of mostly union supporters. In these circum-
stances, we find that the Respondent's inquiry did
not violate the Act. See Rossmore House, 269
NLRB 1176 (1984), enfd, sub. nom. Hotel & Res-
taurant Employees Local 11 v. NLRB, 760 F.2d
1006 (9th Cir. 1985).
2. The judge found that the Respondent, in its
campaign literature, violated Section 8(a)(1) by
threatening employees, with job loss if they selected
the Union. In so finding, the judge relied on the
"plain" wording of the two memoranda in ques-
tion, as well as on the fact that they were enclosed
with paychecks that were distributed to employees
3 days before their regular payday. Although we
agree with the judge that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1), we do so for the following reasons.
On Friday, August 22, 1980, 4 days before the
representation election, the Respondent's employ-
ees received a two-page attachment along with
their paychecks. This attachment consisted of two
memoranda signed by Chris Amato. The first
memorandum stated, in pertinent part:
Contract negotiations which deadlock general-
ly result in a strike. In the event of a strike,
you will be called upon to picket; you lose
your paychecks; you risk loss of your jobs;
you will not be eligible to collect unemploy-
ment insurance, and you risk loss of benefits.
The second memorandum read as follows:
failing to accept a doctor's excuse, we rely solely on the judge's crediting
of Jones' version of the incident
In adopting the judge's conclusions that the Respondent did not unlaw-
fully interrogate employee Levine about July 3 or August 7, 1980, we
rely on the credited denials by the Respondent's owners, Renette and
Chris Amato, of employee Levine's testimony
Finally, in adopting the judge's conclusion that the Respondent violat-
ed Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing to notify the Union regarding changes
instituted by the Respondent's insurance carrier in its medical and dental
plans, we additionally rely on Pak-Mor Mfg, Co., 241 NLRB 801, 803
(1979).
288 NLRB No. 88
SANTA ROSA BLUEPRINT SERVICE 763
TO OUR EMPLOYEES:
WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF THIS WAS
YOUR LAST PAYCHECK?
We ask you to think about this, because if
the majority of employees vote for the union
on August 26th, and we do not reach an
agreement with the union, you may have to
face up to that prospect.
If we cannot or will not pay what the union
wants, the union may then request that you go
out on strike without any wages or benefits.
No union, or any law for that matter, can
make an employer agree to pay wages or pro-
vide benefits that he does not want to, or
cannot pay.
Don't risk your future in the hands of a
third party.
VOTE NO ON AUGUST 26th!
J. C. Amato
It is well settled that employees who engage in
an economic strike may be permanently replaced.4
At the same time, however, it is clear that econom-
ic strikers do retain certain rights to reinstatement,
as set forth in Laidlaw Corp., 171 NLRB 1366,
1369-1370, enfd. 414 F.2d 99 (7th Cir. 1969), cert.
denied 397 U.S. 920 (1970). The Board has held
that an employer who truthfully informs employees
of the possibility of being permanently replaced
during a strike, but fails to explain all of the possi-
ble consequences of such replacement, e.g., Laid-
law poststrike rights, does not violate Section
8(a)(1). See, e.g., Care Inn, Collierville, 202 NLRB
1065 (1973). Furthermore, as the Board stated in
Eagle Comtronics, Inc., 263 NLRB 515 (1982):
Unless the [employer's] statement may be
fairly understood as a threat of reprisal against
employees or is explicitly coupled with such
threats, it is protected by Section 8(c) of the
Act. Therefore, we conclude that an employer
may address the subject of striker replacement
without fully detailing the protections enumer-
ated in Laidlaw, so long as it does not threaten
that, as a result of the strike, employees will be
deprived of their rights in a manner inconsist-
ent with those detailed in Laidlaw. . . . As
long as an employer's statements on job status
after a strike are consistent with the law, they
cannot be characterized as restraining or co-
ercing employees in the exercise of their rights
under the Act.
4 NLRB v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co., 304 U.S. 333, 345-346
(1938).
Id. at 515-516. 5 Thus, our inquiry here must focus
on whether the alleged unlawful statement consti-
tutes an impermissible threat of permanent job loss
or a lawful exercise of free speech.
Returning to the language of the memoranda, we
find that they go beyond protected speech and
constitute an impermissible threat. At first blush,
the memoranda appear to contain nothing more
than statements regarding the risk employees may
face if they engage in an economic strike and of
the rights an employer may exercise in the event of
such a strike or in the course of collective bargain-
ing. A closer examination, however, reveals that,
although the memoranda are couched in condition-
al terms such as "may" or "if," they associate a
vote for the Union with three points—a loss of
jobs, the employees' last paycheck, and a strike. In
making these points in this manner, the memoranda
have the effect of compressing events, i.e., the Re-
spondent has equated a vote for the Union with the
employees' last paycheck and job loss, a connec-
tion reinforced by the fact that these memoranda
were accompanied by the employees' paychecks on
a day other than their regular payday. Viewed in
this light, the memoranda do not merely enumerate
the Respondent's rights; rather, they convey to em-
ployees that the consequence of voting for the
Union is a loss of their jobs. We thus find that, in
context, the memoranda may be fairly understood
as a threat of reprisal and constitute a violation of
Section 8(a)(1).6
3. The judge found that the Respondent did not
violate Section 8(a)(5), (3), and (1) by unilaterally
implementing a more restrictive telephone policy.
Although we agree with the judge's dismissal of
the 8(a)(3) allegation for the reasons set forth in his
decision, we find merit to the General Counsel's ar-
gument that the Respondent changed its telephone
policy in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1).
The facts as found by the judge show that prior
to September 2, 1980, 7 the Respondent had no
written policy regarding the use of its telephone by
employees for personal calls. In practice, employ-
ees were permitted to use any of the Respondent's
5 Member Johansen, who did not participate in Care Inn or Eagle
Comtronics, takes no position on the question whether an employer vio-
lates Sec 8(a)(1) through a totally unqualified statement that it can per-
manently replace economic strikers
6 See Gino Morena Enterprises, 287 NLRB No 145 (Feb. 29, 1988).
Member Babson finds it unnecessary in the context of the present case to
pass on the distinction drawn by the Board in fn. 8 of Eagle Comtronics.
Having found that the memoranda violated Sec 8(a)(1), we find it un-
necessary to determine whether Dennis Amato, the Respondent's person-
nel manager, unlawfully threatened employees with termination by read-
ing the memoranda to employees; the finding of such a violation would
be merely cumulative and would not materially affect the Order
7 The results of the representation election, held August 26, showed
four ballots for and three against the Union with no challenged ballots.
The Union was certified on September 4.
764 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
â– ..
eight telephones provided that the calls did not
interfere with business use and that employees re-
imbursed the Respondent for any long-distance or
other charges incurred. Further, there is no show-
ing that any employee was admonished because of
telephone usage or for abusing this privilege. On
September 2, citing increased phone bills and cus-
tomer complaints that the phones were always
busy, the Respondent posted a notice indicating
that, effective immediately, employee phone calls
could be made only on one line, were limited to
one call per person per day, and could be made
only during the employee's break or lunch hour. In
addition, by the terms of the notice, employees
would be required to obtain management's permis-
sion before placing any long-distance calls and
were to charge all such calls to their home phones.
Finally, regarding incoming calls the notice indicat-
ed that a message would be taken and the employ-
ee would be permitted to return the call during his
break or lunch hour. In the case of a family emer-
gency, management was to be notified of the call
and the employee could take the call immediately.
In addition to noting that the change in tele-
phone policy was dictated by business necessity,
the judge found that the change was insignificant
and that no employee was inconvenienced by it.
The judge therefore concluded that the Respond-
ent's implementation of the policy did not consti-
tute a breach of its bargaining obligation.
Contrary to the judge, however, and regardless
of the Respondent's reasons for the change, we
find that the change in telephone policy "affected
all employees and constituted a substantial modifi-
cation of a privilege which had been an existing
condition of employment." Brown & Connolly, Inc.,
237 NLRB 271, 281 (1978). Further, although the
Respondent is not required to permit continued un-
restricted use of its telephones by employees, it
may not institute changes once the Union is on the
scene without consultation with the Union. Id. Ac-
cordingly, we find that by unilaterally altering its
telephone policy without first notifying and bar-
gaining with the Union, the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1). See also Advertiser's Mfg.
Co., 280 NLRB 1185, 1190-1191 (1986).
4. The judge found that the Respondent changed
employee Thacker's hours and removed her from
part-time counterwork in order to harass her be-
cause of her union activities. Although we agree
with the judge's conclusion that such conduct by
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1), we
do not agree with his conclusion that the Respond-
ent's failure to bargain about such changes in ad-
vance with the Union violated Section 8(a)(5). The
Board has held that a change in terms or condi-
tions of employment affecting only one employee
does not constitute a violation of Section 8(a)(5)
when it is not contended that a respondent
changed its policy with respect to employees gen-
erally or refused to bargain on request over a man-
datory subject of bargaining. See, e.g., Mark .I.
Leach Electrical Contractors, 251 NLRB 1100, 1109
(1980); Mike O'Conner Chevrolet-Buick-GMC Co.,
209 NLRB 701, 704 (1974). Compare San Antonio
Portland Cement Co., 277 NLRB 338 (1985). Ac-
cordingly, we conclude that the changes in
Thacker's working hours and duties were not vio-
lative of Section 8(0(5).8
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge as modified below and orders that the Re-
spondent, Santa Rosa Blueprint Service, Inc., Santa
Rosa, California, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order
as modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraphs 1(a)
and (c).
"(a) Violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
promising employees wage increases if they engage
in surveillance of the union activities of other em-
ployees, by interrogating employees concerning
how they happened to get mixed up in union orga-
nizing, and by threatening employees with job loss
if they vote for the Union.
"(c) Violating Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act
by failing and refusing to notify and bargain with
the Union as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of the Respondent's employees concerning
changes in the Respondent's medical and dental
plans and in its telephone policy, and by failing and
refusing to bargain with the Union as long as a dis-
charged employee was one of the Union's bargain-
ing representatives."
2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(b).
"(b) Notify and bargain collectively with the
Union on request concerning changes in the Re-
spondent's medical and dental plans and in its tele-
phone policy."
3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
administrative law judge.
8 Member Johansen does not agree that a unilateral change does not
viblate Sec. 8(a)(5) simply because it immediately affects only one em-
ployee He does agree that not all such changes necessanly amount to
unlawful refusals to bargain He does not find it necessary to dissent here,
however, as the effects of this particular change will be remedied as a
violation of Sec. 8(a)(3) and the Respondent is being ordered to bargain
generally with the Union.
SANTA ROSA BLUEPRINT SERVICE 765
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT promise employees wage in-
creases if they engage in surveillance of the union
activities of other employees, interrogate employ-
ees concerning how they happened to get mixed up
in union organizing, and threaten employees with
job loss if they vote for Printing Specialties &
Paper Products Union, District Council No. 1, the
International Printing and Graphic Communica-
tions Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organi-
zation.
WE WILL NOT harass employees through coun-
seling sessions or impose more onerous working
conditions on employees because of their union ac-
tivities.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse, at reasonable times,
on request of the Union, to meet and bargain with
regard to wages, hours, and other terms and condi-
tions of employment of our employees in the fol-
lowing unit:
All full-time and regular part-time production
and maintenance employees including delivery
people employed by Santa Rosa Blueprint
Service, Inc., at its Santa Rosa, California, fa-
cility; excluding professional, confidential,
office clerical, sales and temporary employees,
and guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to notify and bar-
gain collectively with the Union on request con-
cerning changes in our medical and dental plans
and our telephone policy.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of
the Act.
WE WILL, on request, bargain collectively with
Printing Specialities & Paper Products Union, Dis-
trict Council No. 1, the International Printing and
Graphic Communications Union, AFL-CIO, as the
exclusive bargaining representative of our employ-
ees in the unit found appropriate above, with re-
spect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
and other terms and conditions of employment and,
if an understanding is reached with the Union,
embody the understanding in a written agreement
with the Union.
WE WILL rescind the telephone policy posted
September 9, 1980.
WE WILL notify and bargain with the Union on
request concerning changes in our medical and
dental plans and our telephone policy.
SANTA ROSA BLUEPRINT SERVICE,
INC.
Donald R. Rendall Esq., for the General Counsel
J. Mark Montobbio, Esq. (Severson, Werson, Berke & Mel-
chior), of San Francisco, California, for the Respond-
ent.
David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. (Van Bourg, Allen, Weinberg &
Roger), of San Francisco, California, for the Charging
Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RUSSELL L. STEVENS, Administrative Law Judge. This
case was tried in Santa Rosa, California, on June 8, 9, 10,
and 11 and August 2, 3, and 4, 1982. 1 The complaint in
Case 20-CA-15825 is based on a charge filed November
18, 1980, by Printing Specialties & Paper Products
Union, District Council No. 1, the International Printing
and Graphic Communications Union, AFL-CIO (the
Union). The complaint in Case 20-CA-16030 is based on
a charge filed by the Union on February 17, 1981. By
order dated March 27, 1981, the Acting Regional Direc-
tor for Region 20 of the National Labor Relations Board
(the Board) consolidated the two cases for trial. On May
27, 1982, the Regional Director for Region 20 issued a
written amendment to Case 20-CA-15825. At trial,
counsel for the General Counsel, witt approval of the
administrative law judge, made several amendments to
Case 20-CA-15825. 2 The two cases, as amended, allege
that Santa Rosa Blueprint (Respondent) violated Section
8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act
(the Act).
All parties were given full opportunity to participate,
to introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-ex-
amine witnesses, to argue orally, and to file briefs. Briefs,
which have been carefully considered, were filed on
behalf of the General Counsel and Respondent.
On the entire record, and from my observation of the
witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT .
I. JURISDICTION
At all times material, Respondent, a California corpo-
ration with an office and place of business in Santa Rosa,
California, has been engaged in providing blueprint and
allied services, offset printings, and photographic map re-
ductions and reproductions, and has been engaged in the
retail and nonretail sale of drafting equipment, supplies,
All dates are within 1980, unless otherwise stated.
2 General Counsel's motion in his brief to conform the pleadings to the
proof is granted.
766 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and artists' supplies. During the fiscal year ending 1980,
Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business op-
erations, derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000,
and purchased and received at its Santa Rosa, California
facility products, goods, and materials valued in excess of
$50,000 from other enterprises located within the State
of California, each of which other suppliers had received
products, goods, and materials directly from points out-
side the State of California.
I find that Respondent is, and at all times material has
been, an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Printing Specialties & Paper Products Union, District
Council No. 1, the International Printing and Graphic
Communications Union, AFL-CIO is, and at all times
material has been, a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Background3
Respondent is a small business organization, owned by
Justin Christopher Amato and his wife, Renette. 4 Re-
spondent was organized several years ago, and has
grown steadily over the years. By 1980 the employee
complement had reached approximately 17, including
Chris and Renette and other supervisors. Chris is the
manager of the business and is the final authority as far
as all basic business decisions are concerned. Renette,
who is Respondent's president and secretary, is supervi-
sor of all accounting and bookkeeping functions, and is
in charge of computer operations and various business
machines used for accounting purposes, including cash
registers. Dennis was brought into the business on July
25, 1980, as Respondent's vice president and personnel
manager, in anticipation of Chris' gradual withdrawal
from day-to-day operations. Carol McNulty-Jones 3 has
been employed by Respondent approximately 7-1/2
years, of which approximately 3 or 4 years has been as
assistant general manager. Jones supervises the white
printing department, 6 does most of the purchasing, and is
in charge of store operations.?
Respondent's business is housed in a single building, a
sketch of which is in evidence. 8 The main street entrance
opens into a retail store with counters and a cash regis-
ter. Customers enter the store to order and pick up prints
and other items produced in the plant at the back of the
store, and to purchase supplies and equipment displayed
3 This background summary is based on stipulations of counsel, and on
credited testimony and evidence not in dispute
4 Generally, individuals are referred to by their last names. Exceptions
are the owners of Respondent, who are referred to as Chris and Renette,
and Chris' nephew, Dennis Amato, who is referred to as Denms. One
other exception (Jones) is noted below.
5 This individual is referred to as Jones. Duane Jones, her husband, is
referred to as D. Jones
6 This is the department that produces blueprints, which constitute Re-
spondent's pnncipal product
7 The supervisory status of Chris, Renette, Dennis, and Jones was stip-
ulated by counsel, and is not in dispute
R. Exh. 3.
and sold in the store. A small room located to the rear of
the retail store is used as a breakroom for employees, and
for other purposes described below. Chris, Renette,
Dennis, and Jones have individual offices in the plant
area. The principal production area is the blueprinting
room, which contains three blueprinting machines. The
building is approximately 120 feet long by 80 feet wide.
The Union commenced organizational activities at Re-
spondent's plant about June 1980. On July 3 James Ziol-
kowski wrote two letters to Respondent. The first letter
stated, inter alia, that a majority of Respondent's employ-
ees had designated the Union as their collective-bargain-
ing representative, and requested that Respondent agree
to meet for negotiations. The second letter advised, inter
alia, that certain employees constituted a part of the
Union's "employees committee." The named employees
were Laura Benedict, Mary Armstrong, Elizabeth
Thacker, Allen Levine, John L. Simpson Jr., Robert
Phelps, and Elaine Risley. On the same day, July 3, the
Union filed with the Board a petition for an election.
The Union's two letters were received and read by Chris
and Renette, as well as by Jones and Dennis, and the
possibility of unionization of the plant frequently was dis-
cussed bY those four supervisors, with each other. Re-
spondent was opposed to unionization, and attempted
through meetings with, and letters to, employees to dis-
suade them from supporting the Union. One of Respond-
ent's actions was to join the California Association of
Employers (Association), which assigned Lynn Fazio to
work with Respondent during the union campaign and
subsequent negotiations. Fazio had worked with the As-
sociation approximately 3 years, and was trained and ex-
perienced in labor relations. Fazio frequently met with
Respondent's supervisors, principally Chris, and instruct-
ed them in the "dos and don'ts" of a union organization-
al campaign. She advised Respondent that since the
Union's letter that listed seven "Committee" names made
it appear likely that the Union was going to win the elec-
tion, a low-key approach to the employees was advisa-
ble. She gave Chris a packet of several letters and pieces
of campaign literature used by companies in past cam-
paigns, and suggested that he could lift appropriate lan-
guage from them to use in his own campaign, if he so
desired. The union election was held on August 26, with
seven of nine eligible voters casting ballots. Four ballots
were cast for the Union, and three were cast against the
Union; there were no challenged ballots. On September 4
the Union was certified by the Board as the bargaining
representative of Respondent's employees in the appro-
priate unit. Two negotiation sessions thereafter were
held, on October 2 and November 4. A third negotiation
session was scheduled for November 17, but was not
held. Those three sessions are discussed infra.
This controversy involves two employees who were
named among the Union's "Committee" members listed
above. Armstrong was discharged November 17, 1980,
after she used foul language on Respondent's premises.
The General Counsel contends that the language was
provoked by Respondent's mistreatment of Armstrong,
and that use of the langnage was pretextual in order that
Respondent could rid itself of a union supporter.
SANTA ROSA BLUEPRINT SERVICE

767
Thacker, who is Jones' younger sister, resigned from her
job after giving a 2-week notice on January 14, 1981.
The General Counsel contends that 'Thacker's resigna-
tion was a constructive discharge occasioned by Re-
spondent's harassment of her, and that the harassment
was because of Respondent's antiunion animus. Other
issues involve the General Counsel's allegations that Re-
spondent committed several violations of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act, and that Respondent refused to negotiate
with the Union, in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the
Act. The various allegations are discussed below, seria-
turn.
A. Alleged Interrogation by Chris
Paragraph 6(a) of the complaint9 alleges that, in July
1980, Chris interrogated employees regarding contract
proposals the Union would offer if it was certified as the
bargaining representative of Respondent's employees.
Armstrong testified that, a week or two after the
Union sent its letters of July 3 to Respondent, Chris con-
ducted a meeting of employees. In attendance, she said,
were Thacker, Benedict, Risley, Tanya Downing, and
herself. Armstrong testified: "He asked us what we
hoped to gain from bringing in the Union," to which em-
ployees replied they wanted better wages and benefits.
On cross-examination, Armstrong stated:
Q. Didn't he ask you what you'd be expecting or
what you'd be requesting in negotiations? Isn't that
what he talked about?
A. To me that's the same thing as what we
hoped to gain.
Q. Well, do you remember him saying that?
A. Yes, yes.
Armstrong stated that Chris never made any promise to
the employees.
Benedict testified much the same as Armstrong, but
stated that Chris "asked us what we believed that we
could receive from the Union that we weren't . . . al-
ready receiving."
Thacker's version of the meeting was different from
Armstrong's, both in tone and substance. Thacker testi-
fied that Chris seemed hurt by the fact that employees
had sought union assistance.
. . . And he wanted to know why we hadn't come
to him as we had in the past with our problems.
And he said that he felt that the shop was such a
small one, there was really no need for a union, that
we'd always handled everything in a family manner
before, and why couldn't we have done that now,
why had we gone to a third outside party when he
felt that his door was always open and we could
always speak freely to him.
Q. And what else was said, Mrs. Thacker?
A. He just said, why did we feel it was necessary
to have a union, that things could be handled there.
9 In discussing "the complaint," all references are to the complaint in
Case 20-CA-15825, except, as later noted, in discussing Thacker's dis-
charge, which is the only violation alleged in Case 20-CA-16030
And he wanted to know what sort of things we
thought we could gain that we couldn't gain by
going to him
Thacker said she and Risley replied that they wanted, re-
spectively, more insurance and higher wages. Thacker
testified that after the meeting she and Risley talked with
Chris because they did not want him to feel hurt by the
employees going to the Union. They explained their po-
sition, and Chris "just said that he was trying to do his
best and he didn't see why we had gone to the Union
. . . he said, this is a small operation; the union is not a
good idea for this company."
Risley was a witness for the General Counsel, but was
not asked about this meeting.
Downing did not testify.
Chris agreed that he met with the employees, but said
he did not recall any conversation other than his asking
if the employees wanted to discuss anything before the
election took place, to which the employees did not
reply. He denied asking the employees why they did not
come to him before going to the Union. He said Thacker
and Armstrong came to see him after the meeting, and
told him their reasons for going to the Union. He said he
refused to discuss the Union with them.
Discussion
Clearly Chris did not, as alleged, attempt to obtain
from the employees their knowledge of contract propos-
als to be offered by the Union if it was certified. The
closest any employee came to the allegations was Arm-
strong's testimony on cross-examination, but her answer
to the leading question of Respondent's counsel is given
no credence. She seemed to be uncertain, and the verbal
exchange was ambiguous. It appeared that Armstrong re-
plied to the specific question without giving it thought
or concern.
The relationship between Chris and Respondent's em-
ployees, at least until the union controversy arose, was a
close one. Thacker and Armstrong testified at length
concerning their frequent conversations and contact with
Chris and Renette, both at work and socially. It is appar-
ent that all employees had easy access to Chris, and that
they freely discussed with him any subject they desired.
As a witness, Chris generally was credible. He is well
along in years, and conveys a somewhat fatherly image.
He is soft spoken, and obviously not a tyrannical or
overpowering boss. To the contrary, he appeared to be a
gentle and sensitive supervisor who worked with the ma-
chines the same as other employees, and who understood
the problems of rank-and-file employees. He had built up
a small business, and now gradually is withdrawing from
its active supervision. His memory of this conversation
was not clear, but it is apparent from Thacker's testimo-
ny, which seemed objective and believable on this point,
that it was not highly coercive. Chris was hurt by what
had happened, and was bewildered. The union matter
had come on him suddenly, and he was at a loss to ex-
plain it to himself. He asked some of his employees what
had brought the controversy about, and what they ex-
pected that he had not given. The employees recognized
768 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the hurt and confusion in his mind, and Thacker and
Risley later pursued the conversation by trying to ex-
plain to Chris that it was not his fault that the employees
had gone to the Union. Thacker testified that Chris was
not antagonistic; that "He was more hurt that he hadn't
gone to him"
Motive, however, is not an element when considering
an alleged 8(a)(1) interrogation, and reliance is placed on
Benedict's testimony that Chris asked the employees
what they thought they could receive through a union
that they already were not receiving. That questioning
constituted an 8(a)(1) interrogation, regardless of wheth-
er the questioning was intended as a union deterrent. 1°
The General Counsel moved in his brief to amend the
complaint to allege a violation of the Act in that Chris,
during this conversation, solicited employee grievances.
The motion is granted, but such a violation is not found.
This conversation did not include such a solicitation,
with an express or implied promise to remedy the griev-
ances, both of which are elements necessary to support a
violation.
B. Alleged Threat by Dennis
Paragraph 6(b) of the complaint alleges that, about
August 22, Dennis threatened Respondent's employees
with termination if they selected the Union as their bar-
gaining representative.
On August 21 a memorandum signed by Chris was
written to all employees. The memorandum read in part:
d. Contract negotiations which deadlock general-
ly result in a strike. In the event of a strike, you
will be called upon to picket; you lose your pay-
checks; you risk loss of your jobs; you will not be
eligible to collect unemployment insurance, and you
risk loss of benefits.
The memorandum was attached to a memorandum dated
August 22, reading as follows:
TO OUR EMPLOYEES:
WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF THIS WAS
YOUR LAST PAYCHECK?
We ask you to think about this, because if the
majority of employees vote for the union on August
26th, and we do not reach an agreement with the
union, you may have to face up to-that prospect.
If we cannot or will not pay what the union
wants, the union may then request that you go out
on strike without any wages or benefits.
No union, or any law for that matter, can make
an employer agree to pay wages or provide benefits
that he does not want to, or cannot pay.
Don't risk your future in the hands of a third
party.
VOTE NO ON AUGUST 26TH!
J. C. Amato
10 Autoglass & Upholstery Co., 264 NLRB 149 (1982).
Both memoranda were given to employees with their
paychecks on Friday, August 22." On August 22
Dennis met with employees, including Armstrong,
Thacker, Benedict, Risley, Downing, Levine, and Simp-
son. Several matters were discussed, and Dennis read to
the employees, the two memoranda quoted above.
Armstrong testified that at the meeting Thacker said
she did not believe Chris wrote the memoranda, and
Dennis said Chris did. Dennis asked if the employees
wanted to say what they expected from the Union.
Dennis said the Union would cost the employees money,
and Armstrong replied, in effect, that if so, that was not
Dennis' business. Dennis was red-faced, trembling, and
enraged, and the pupils of his eyes were enlarged.
Thacker corroborated Armstrong.
Benedict, Risley, and Levine were witnesses for the
General Counsel, but they were not questioned concern-
ing this subject.
Simpson was not a witness.
Dennis testified relative to the meeting, stated that it
lasted no more than 5 minutes, denied that he was angry
or upset, denied that anything was said about the two
memoranda referred to above, and denied that he asked
the employees what they hoped to gain by bringing in
the Union. Dennis said he asked the employees if they
- wanted to discuss anything, and there was no response.
He testified that Armstrong asked if the employees could
receive pay raises and increased benefits, and he replied
that such matters could not be discussed during the
union campaign. He said he asked the employees if they
understood the Union could not promise the employees
benefits or pay increases.
Discussion
Quite a lot of testimony was elicited from the General
Counsel's witnesses concerning whether Chris actually
wrote the two memoranda he signed, 12 but that matter is
irrelevant to the issues. Fazio gave Chris material from
past campaigns at other employers' places of business,
which she said he could use as a guide for his own cam-
paign, and Chris used that material in preparing the two
memoranda. Chris was not knowledgeable concerning
union campaigns; as far as the record shows, this was his
first experience with a union. It appears unlikely that
Chris intended to violate the Act by threatening employ-
ees, and it appears that he believed he was engaging in
proper manner when he drafted the memoranda, but
those facts also are irrelevant to the issues. The memo-
randa are coercive, in that they clearly imply job risks in
the event the employees voted for the Union. The word-
ing of the memoranda is plain on the face thereof, and
that working was emphasized by enclosing the memoran-
da with paychecks handed to employees on an acceler-
ated date (Friday rather than the following Monday).
The fact that the two memoranda were received by em-
ployees is not in dispute. It is found that the memoranda
" Paychecks usually are given to employees on a Monday.
12 Thacker testified that, initially, she did not believe Chris wrote the
memoranda. It appeared from her testimony that the memoranda were in-
consistent with her knowledge of Chris' character Chris testified that the
memoranda, but not the words, were his.
SANTA ROSA BLUEPRINT SERVICE 769
constituted a threat of job loss in the event of unioniza-
tion, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
As far as the meeting is concerned, Armstrong gener-
ally was not a credible witness, and her description of
Dennis' physical appearance seemed exaggerated and un-
likely. As a witness, Dennis was soft spoken and low
keyed. His testimony is not entirely credited, but on this
issue he appeared calm, objective, and convincing, and
he is credited. Levine was not questioned concerning this
issue, but he testified that during the month he worked
with Dennis the latter was not excitable; he was "even
keeled give or take." 13 Thacker generally corroborated
Armstrong, but that fact is not conclusive. Both employ-
ees are alleged discriminatees, and no other witness
present at the meeting corroborated either Armstrong or
Thacker. In view of all the circumstances, including
Dennis' testimony and denials of statements attributed to
him, it is found that this allegation of the complaint, as it
is worded, was not proved.
C. Alleged Threat by Jones
Paragraph 6(c) of the complaint alleges that, about
August 22, Jones threatened Respondent's employees
with the loss of a wage increase because of their protect-
ed activity.
Armstrong testified that shortly after the August 22
meeting of Dennis with employees, discussed in section
III,B, above, she talked with Jones "and she said that she
had been trying to get a schedule of raises and at this
point things were just out of her hands."
Jones testified that she talked with Armstrong, but that
the conversation was limited to the two memoranda
signed by Chris, discussed above. Jones denied Arm-
strong's testimony concerning pay raises.
Jones is credited, and no violation of the Act is found
as far as this issue is concerned.
D. Alleged Promise by Dennis
Paragraph 6(d) of the complaint alleges that, about
November 5, Dennis promised Respondent's employees
that they would receive a wage increase if they engaged
in surveillance of the union activities of other employees.
Respondent customarily gave employees merit pay
raises on an unscheduled basis. Generally, Chris decided
when to give the raises, but he usually conferred with
the supervisor of the employee involved. Sometime prior
to November 4 Chris determined that Risley should be
given a merit increase, and that subject was brought up
at the second negotiation session with the Union, held on
November 4. The Union refused to concur with Risley's
raise, and Ztolkowski stated that if any employee was to
be given a raise all employees must receive raises. On
November 5 Dennis talked with Risley, and told her
about the discussion concerning her pay increase the day
before at the negotiation session with the Union. Risley
testified concerning her conversation with Dennis, and
stated that he said "the only way I would be able to get
a raise is if I would tell them what union activities were
It is apparent, as discussed infra, that Dennis is capable of anger, he
is not always "even keeled" when provoked
going on in the white printing department." In expand-
ing her testimony after reading her pretrial affidavits,
Risley stated that Dennis wanted to know what Arm-
strong and Thacker were doing with the Union "wanted
to know if they were making mistakes and what type,"
and "after they were fired, I would be able to have my
raise." Risley said she replied that she would not do
what Dennis asked, and that she related to Thacker and
Armstrong her conversation with Dennis.
Jones testified that Risley told her on one occasion
that she was late returning from lunch because she had
been talking with Dennis about her raise, and she
thought Dennis tried to bribe her. Jones said she later
asked Dennis about it, and Dennis replied that he "abso-
lutely" did not try to bribe Risley.
Thacker and Armstrong testified that Risley told them
about Dennis' conversation. Generally, their testimony
was much the same as what Risley related, but there
were some differences.
Dennis denied Risley's testimony concerning the al-
leged offer to give Risley a raise if she spied on Thacker
and Armstrong, and he also denied Risley's testimony
concerning the proposed firing of Thacker and Arm-
strong.
Discussion
It is apparent that, if Dennis stated to Risley what
Risley related, Respondent would have violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act as alleged. The Board commonly holds
that the Act is violated when an employer attempts to
persuade an employee to spy on protected activities of
other employees.14
The only question is whether Dennis made the offer
attributed to him. Dennis generally was a credible wit-
ness, but not always so. At times he seemed to be eva-
sive and less than candid. He appeared to be a low-keyed
individual, and his answers generally were promptly
given to questions. However, Risley was more credible
on this issue than Dennis, and Dennis' denial of the state-
ments of Risley did not have the ring of truth about
them. Risley is credited, and it is found that Respondent
violated the Act as alleged.
E. Alleged Threat by Dennis and Jones
Paragraph 6(e) of the complaint alleges that, about Oc-
tober 10, Dennis and Jones threatened employees that
Respondent was keeping records on their work perform-
ances in order to retaliate against the employees because
of their protected activity.
On October 10 Dennis called Thacker into his office
for a counseling session. At some time prior to that ses-
sion, Dennis had written down several incidents and mat-
ters that he wanted to discuss with Thacker. The session
was a lengthy one, which is described in detail, infra."
14 See, e g, Crown Cork & Seal Co., 255 NLRB 14 (1981)
15 Dennis testified that he used his notes while talking with Thacker in
an earlier counseling session on October 3 Thacker testified that she
never had a counseling session with anyone, including Dennis, poor to
October 10. This matter is discussed below In any event, the facts that
Dennis had made some kind of notes and used them m discussion with
Thacker are not m dispute.
770 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Thacker testified that shortly after her session with
Dennis she talked with Jones. Armstrong was present.
Thacker testified that she said to Jones "Do you realize
that Dennis is keeping a list on us, a black list, a list of
our mistakes and errors. And she said, yes, she did."
Thacker stated that she talked with Jones a few days
later and expressed her concern about the list, and she
explained to me further that Santa Rosa Blue was trying
to keep better records, formalizing their operation, and
that she had been asked to keep a record of our mistakes,
our errors at work, and Dennis was also keeping a
record. Thacker said she asked Dennis on two occasions
for a list of the complaints against her, but that she never
received a list.
Dennis denied that Thacker ever asked him for the list
of matters he talked with her about. He said he talked
with Thacker on October 10 concerning matters that had
arisen that involved her after their first session on Octo-
ber 3, but he did not testify to any use of a list on Octo-
ber 10.
Jones testified that she did not attend any counseling
session with Thacker in October, but that Thacker asked
her, in the presence of Armstrong, "Are you aware that
Dennis is keeping records?" to which she replied, "Yes,
of course I am aware he is keeping records. He is the
personnel manager." Jones denied she told Thacker that
Dennis and she were keeping a formal record of employ-
ee mistakes, and she said she was not aware that Thacker
ever asked for a list of complaints against her.
Armstrong testified that on October 10 Thacker came
into the shop on her day off "and asked Carol [Jones] if
she was aware that Dennis Amato was keeping records
on the employees. And she said yes."
Fazio testified that it was her understanding that in the
past Jones, Chris, and Renette had kept informal notes
relating to problems with employees, and:
Well, when I first met with them, I advised them
that they should have a formal system of record
keeping involving personnel files for everybody and
in just keeping any kind of pertinent documentation
for a number of reasons.
Q. And one of the reasons at least would have
been in case there was any NLRB litigation, is that
correct?
A. Mr. Rendall, in my position, I was always
playing devil's advocate, and any kind of worse
contingency was always in the back of my mind,
but I didn't necessarily convey that to the employ-
er.
Q. Well, did you give them reasons why they
should be keeping these notes?
A. Yes. I told them that they would never really
know when they would have to recall any kinds of
sets of facts for any reason. It was really clear to
them, especially in unemployment insurance cases
where they didn't have records that they were
sorry that they didn't have, for example.
Discussion
Prior to the union campaign, Respondent's shop was
run very informally, in a rather paternalistic manner.
Chris was the boss, but he worked with his hands as
much as rank-and-file employees. He talked with, occa-
sionally socialized with, and often sat in the breakroorn
with his employees. He had not been involved with any
union in the past, and the union movement of the em-
ployees came as a shock to him. Being without expertise
in the field of labor relations, he became a member of the
Association. Fazio was assigned to assist Respondent,
and one of the things she advised was that Respondent's
employee recordkeeping and its business practices be
tightened up. Respondent did not want its business orga-
nized, but it was apparent from the number of signatures
on the Union's July 3 letter sent to Respondent that it
probably was going to be organized. Fazio's advice thus
was logical; the facts of corporate life clearly indicated
that the formerly lax way in which Respondent was ad-
ministered should be changed. There is no basis for infer-
ring anything sinister in Fazio's advice. Fazio was an ex-
tremely impressive witness. She was prompt and certain
in her answers, and seemed completely at ease during all
her testimony. She no longer works for the Association.
Her entire presentation seemed truthful and convincing,
and she is credited. It is found that Fazio's advice to Re-
spondent on this issue was not objectionable under the
Act. It is further found that Respondent's actions in car-
rying out Fazio's advice were not taken in an effort to
undermine the Union; rather, they were taken only for
sound business reasons, as suggested by Fazio.
The question remains whether Dennis and Jones, re-
gardless of the legality of Fazio's advice to Respondent,
threatened Thacker as alleged. It is found that they did
not. The various items of Respondent's complaints
against Thacker are at the heart of this controversy. Re-
spondent contends that the items were Thacker's short-
comings as an employee. The General Counsel contends
that all the items are pretextual, and were used to harass
Thacker in order to force her to quit her job. Those
items are discussed below and as noted, some are not,
and some may be, pretextual. In any event, this allega-
tion of the complaint involves a threat. It does not in-
volve the items themselves. Thacker's testimony on this
issue was broader than that of Jones and Armstrong, and
it seemed overdrawn. It seems to fit too perfectly the
mold required for a violation. Thacker referred to a
"black list," "mistakes," and "errors," none of which was
testified to by Jones or Thacker's fellow employee, Arm-
strong. The latter two witnesses only said that Jones told
Thacker that records were being kept on employees,
which was factual and which was being done pursuant to
Fazio's advice.
So far as Dennis' use of written matter when he talked
with Thacker is concerned, he credibly testified that he
was talking from notes he previously had made. No
"list" was established at trial, but assuming some kind of
list did exist, it is apparent that every item on it was
firmly fixed in Thacker's memory. She testified at length,
and in detail, relative to every grievance Dennis voiced
at his session with Thacker. Receipt of a list of those
matters would add nothing to the controversy. Jones
was a credible witness, and her testimony, as supported
by that of Armstrong, is accepted as accurate.
SANTA ROSA BLUEPRINT SERVICE

771
This allegation is found not to be supported by the
record.
F. Alleged Threat by Renette
Paragraph 6(f) of the complaint alleges that, about
July 3, Renette threatened that employees would be dis-
charged for engaging in union activities.
Armstrong testified that, on July 3, she was in the em-
ployees' lounge (breakroom) and she overheard Renette
talking with Chris in the latter's office approximately 10
to 15 feet away. Armstrong testified, "I heard Renette
talking to Chris and she said to him let's get rid of them
all, let's just get rid of them all, we don't have to put up
with this."
Chris testified that the Union's letter of July 3 was
brought to him someplace in the store by Renette, who
showed him the letter. He said she wanted to discuss the
letter, but he "shut her off' because it did not seem ap-
propriate to drop everything and discuss the letter at that
moment. He stated that Renette said nothing about get-
ting rid of all the employees, or anything to that effect.
R.enette testified that she usually picks up the mail in
the front office just after lunch, and takes it to her room
to open it. She said that on July 7 she received the
Union's two letters of July 3. She said she took the let-
ters to Chris for him to see, but he replied that the letters
required more attention than he could give them at that
time, and that they would discuss them after work. She
denied stating that Respondent should get rid of the em-
ployees, or that they did not have to "put up with this."
Discussion
Based on the nature of events and the use of the break-
room, discussed infra, it seems as though some other wit-
ness would have overheard the alleged remarks, if they
were made. Only Armstrong testified, and she was not a
convincing witness. Chris and Renette are not credited
entirely, but they are credited on this issue.
The letters are dated July 3, and at the top of one
letter is typed "Certified Mail Return Receipt Request-
ed." The letters are in evidence (G.C. Exhs. 10 and 11),
but the return receipt is not in evidence. It seems unlike-
ly that Armstrong could have overheard any conversa-
tion about the letters on July 3, the date they bear. Ren-
ette credibly testified that she received the letters on July
7, and Armstrong was absent from work that day.
Notice is taken of the fact that certified letters require
more time for delivery than ordinary mail—usually, ap-
proximately 1 day longer.
No violation of the Act is found, so far as this issue is
concerned.
G. Alleged Interrogation by Renette
Paragraph 6(g) of the complaint alleges that, about
July 3, Renette interrogated employees concerning their
union activities.
Alan Levine was employed by Respondent from Janu-
ary 1980 until August 25, 1980. He did various jobs, in-
cluding pickup and delivery of merchandise, and janitori-
al work and stockroom chores, hut his principal job was
pickup and delivery. Levine testified that, approximately
July 3, Renette "wanted to know who had started this
union, and I said I wasn't sure that she should ask Eliza-
beth Thacker."
Renette testified that she does not recall ever talking
with Levine about who started the Union, and she
denied ever asking any employee who started it. She said
she never had any such conversation with any employee.
Discussion
Levine's testimony was ambiguous, in that the conver-
sation itself was not related. The testimony as to what
Renette "wanted" is a conclusion. Levine was not with-
out credibility, but Renette was a credible witness. Possi-
bly Renette said something in violation of the Act, but
there is an inadequate record to support the finding of a
violation. No violation is found.
However, although not alleged in the complaint, Chris
interrogated Levine in July or August. Chris testified
that he asked Levine "how he got mixed up in that
mess." The context of the discussion, and the record,
makes it clear that the "mess" Chris referred to was the
union organizational effort.
An interrogation in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act is found.
H. Alleged Interrogation by Dennis
Paragraph 6(h) of the complaint alleges that, about
August 22, Dennis interrogated employees concerning
whether they were going to vote in a Board election.
Levine, who left Respondent's employ August 25,16
testified that he talked with Dennis approximately 1
week prior to the union election, which was held August
26:
He had a list. He was going down his list. He
started off with—he wanted to know if I was still
going to vote in the election.
Dennis denied ever talking with Levine concerning
the Union or the union election.
Discussion
Levine testified on cross-examination that, as of the
time he talked with Dennis, he already had given notice
to Respondent that he was going to quit his employment.
He quit the day prior to the election.
Levine signed the union letter of July 3, which was
sent to Respondent and which Dennis had seen. That
letter stated, inter alia, that Levine was "part of the em-
ployees committee for the Union."
It is clear that Dennis knew Levine would not be
voting in the union election, and that, in any event,
Levine would be supporting the Union even if he did
vote because he was part of the employees' committee
for the Union. Under such circumstances, it seems un-
likely that Dennis would interrogate Levine. There was
16 Chris credibly testified that Levine advised him of the latter's resig-
nation Chris said Levine told him he was seeing a psychiatrist, and "he
wanted to get out of that turmoil and he was leaving"
772 - DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
no reason for such an interrogation. Dennis' denial of the
interrogation is credited.
This allegation is not supported by the record.
The General Counsel also argues that this conversa-
tion created the impression of surveillance of employees'
union activity. No violation is found, in view of Dennis'
credited denial.
I. Alleged Creation of Impression of Surveillance by
Dennis
Paragraph 6(i) of the complaint alleges that, about
August 22, Dennis created the impression that there was
surveillance by Respondent of the union activities of Re-
spondent's employees.
Levine testified that during his conversation with
Dennis approximately 1 week prior to the union election,
discussed in section III,H, above, Dennis stated that "he
knew which way I was going to vote in the election."
Levine also testified that Dennis questioned him about
giving Armstrong a ride in one of Respondent's delivery
vehicles, and "wanted to know where we were going or
what we were doing." Levine testified that he had given
employees rides in Respondent's vehicles in the past. On
cross-examination, Levine testified that he gave Arm-
strong a ride while he was making deliveries for Re-
spondent, and when Armstrong was on a work break.
Dennis denied telling Levine that he knew which way
Levine was going to vote.
Discussion
For reasons discussed in section III,H, above, it ap-
pears unlikely that Dennis would talk about how Levine
was going to vote, because Levine already had told Re-
spondent he was going to quit his job on August 25,
prior to the election. Dennis' denial of this part of the
conversation is credited.
As far as Armstrong's ride is concerned, there is no
evidence that Dennis' questioning of the circumstances
was improper. Levine was on company business, and
Armstrong's work duties ordinarily did not involve trips
into town. This matter was not pursued at trial by either
side, and it appears that, assuming a conversation took
place as Levine said, Dennis' inquiry was related to Re-
spondent's business, rather than any personal business of
Armstrong.
This allegation is not supported by the record.
J. Alleged Interrogation by Chris
Paragraph 6(j) of the complaint alleges that, in late
August, Chris interrogated employees concerning their
union activities.
Levine testified that he talked with Chris about
August 7 or 8:
He wanted to know why I had just come in late.
He wanted to know if I had special privileges, and
he said that he knew that Mary Armstrong had
started the whole union thing.
I said, no, that Elizabeth Thacker had.
Chris denied ever talking with Levine about Arm-
strong or other union supporters.
Discussion
The testimony on this issue is too disjointed, cryptic,
and vague to find a violation of the Act. Chris' denial of
Levine's testimony is credited. No violation of the Act is
found, as far as this issue is concerned.
K. Alleged Institution of a New Medical and Dental
Plan
Paragraphs 6(k) and (1) of the complaint allege that
about June 15, 1981, Dennis instituted a new medical
plan and a new dental plan for Respondent's employees.
The fact that Respondent did not discuss, notify, nor
bargain with the Union relative to changes in its provi-
sion of medical and dental coverage of employees is not
in dispute.
- By letter dated April 30, 1981, Respondent's medical
and dental insurance carrier notified its association mem-
bers that some changes in its plan had been instituted.
The letter stated, inter alia:
FROM: The Trustees, Association Group Insurance
Trust
TO: All firms Participating in The Trust's Compre-
hensive Medical and Dental Plans
On April 15, 1981, representatives of your asso-
ciation and the other associations which sponsor the
Association Group Insurance Trust met in Chicago
to review plan experience for the past year and
make plans for the coming year. The letter outlines
the effect of our actions at this meeting on your
firm and its employees, and explains the reasons for
these actions.
By memorandum dated June 15, 1981, Dennis notified
Respondent's employees of the changes, nearly all of
which were financial in nature and several of which
were improvements over the former plan. Dennis'
memorandum stated, inter alia:
TO: All employees
FROM: D. A. Amato
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Medical & Dental Plan
Plan Changes Effective June 1, 1981
Realizing the importance of our group insurance
plan to your peace of mind and well-being, the best
possible protection has been and will continue to be
provided. It is through Santa Rosa Blueprint's par-
ticipation in the Association Group Insurance Trust,
which covers thousands of employees, that this ex-
cellent benefit plan is made available.
The annual renewal rates (premium) and a
number of benefit improvements went into effect
June 1st. The benefit improvements are listed below
and will be included in a newly revised certificate-
booklet which will be completed in the near future.
In the meantime, the revised plan is described on
the enclosed "Outline of Benefits."
Dennis, who formerly was employed in the administra-
tion of insurance policies, credibly testified that the plan
SANTA ROSA BLUEPRINT SERVICE 773
changes were instituted solely by the carrier, and that ac-
ceptance thereof was mandatory for all members who
desired to retain the coverage.
. Discussion
As of the date of Dennis' memorandum to Respond-
ent's employees, the Union was the Board-certified bar-
gaining representative of those employees, but a contract
had not been negotiated. Also, as of that date, Respond-
ent was refusing to negotiate with the Union, as dis-
cussed infra.
Insurance coverage of employees is a negotiable item,
and the Union was entitled to receive notice of any
changes in the current medical and dental coverage of
Respondent's employees. Whether Respondent instituted
the changes, and whether the changes were mandatory,
are matters that are irrelevant to this issue. Any change
could have an effect on the Union's bargaining position,
and on the Union's relationship with Respondent's em-
ployees.
It is found that, by failing to notify the Union of
changes in its medical and dental plans, Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) or the Act. This matter is
discussed further infra.
L. Interrogation by Chris
Although it is not alleged in the complaint, Chris testi-
fied that on the day Levine was leaving Respondent's
employ, i.e., August 25, he asked- Levine how he hap-
pened to get mixed up in the union organizing. That in-
terrogation was in violation of the Act. Levine still was
an employee, with access to other employees, when the
question was asked. Clearly it is a coercive question, re-
gardless of the fact that it occurred on Levine's last day
of work.
A violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act is found, as
noted in section 111,0, above.
M. Disciplinary Probation of Thacker
:Paragraph 7(a) of the complaint alleges that about Oc-
tober 15, 1980, Respondent placed Thacker on probation
because of her protected activities.
As noted above, Thacker first was employed by Re-
spondent in April 1977, partially through the recommen-
dation of Jones, her sister. Since her employment
Thacker had worked at many jobs, but for the most part
she operated blueprint machines. For some months, until
approximately October 10, 1980, she worked several
hours each day at the counter in the salesroom, where
she took orders from customers, made sales, operated the
cash register, and did other tasks. In the past, Thacker
received periodic wage increases. Initially the raises
were each 6 months or so, but the time interval increased
as the term of her employment lengthened.
'Thacker was instrumental in talking with employees
about working conditions at Respondent's shop, com-
mencing in May 1980, and in organizing the employees.
She met with employees concerning the Union, met with
the union representatives, and solicited signatures on
union authorization cards. She also attended employee
meetings held by Dennis and Chris, who presented Re-
spondent's views relative to employee organization.
A subject that is at the core of this controversy is
Thacker's conduct at work and, particularly, her work
relationship with Jones. Thacker's version is that there
was no real problem between her and Jones; that they
had frequent discussions at work concerning specific
jobs, but that they did not argue. Thacker testified, how-
ever, that her relationship with Jones began to deterio-
rate in August 1980. Jones, Chris, Dennis, Renette,
Risley, Levine, and employee Shelly Sheets contradicted
Thacker, and testified that Thacker frequently at work,
and sometimes in a very loud voice, yelled at and argued
with Jones. Chris testified that, in April 1980, he talked
with Thacker and reviewed "some of the problems that
we had" with her in the past. He further testified, "I
think I told her that the time had come for her to decide
that she would work for Carol [Jones] or she would not
and if she would not, she'd have to leave." Chris said
Thacker's conduct did not improve, and approximately 1
month later he discharged her, on a Friday. On Monday,
Chris said Thacker returned and tearfully requested an-
other chance, to which he agreed. Chris said Thacker
protested that the confrontations were not her fault; she
said they were Jones' fault. Jones testified that she had
problems with Thacker prior to the organizing cam-
paign, on an almost daily basis. She said Thacker had dif-
ficulty taking instructions, and repeatedly argued with
Jones in front of other employees about how to do jobs.
She said Chris told her in early May that he wanted to
fire Thacker because her argumentative conduct was be-
coming intolerable; that Jones did not disagree, and
Chris fired Thacker on a Friday; that on Monday Chris
told her he had reinstated Thacker on the latter's plea,
provided her behavior improved. Levine testified that
Thacker talked with other employees "75 percent of the
time," and that she seemed to feel that she was above the
work as she had been there a long time. Sheets worked
for Respondent from December 1979 through May 9,
1980, as a white printer and, sometimes, as a counter
clerk. Sheets testified that, for several months during
Sheets' employment, Thacker "would yell a lot" at
Jones, on a daily basis, when Thacker disagreed on how
things were being done in the shop. Sheets said she
never observed Jones yelling back at Thacker. Sheets
testified that, approximately 1 month before she left Re-
spondent's employ, she overheard Chris talking with
Thacker:
I overheard Chris saying to Elizabeth that she
had been causing problems, especially between her
and Carole, causing all of the employees to be get-
ting upset and just making everybody miserable.
And he warned her that if she did not calm down,
that she would be let go.
After that, Sheets said, Thacker told her about the con-
versation with Chris, and said "Chris had warned her
that if she did not calm down, he would be letting her
go." Sheets said Thacker thereafter calmed down "just
for a few days." Sheets testified that she once thought
about quitting her job because of Thacker's conduct, and
774 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that Thacker's arguing caused much anguish on the part
of all the employees. Fazio testified that during
Thacker's probationary meeting of October 15 Chris
stated to Thacker "you recall that in May, of this year I
was about to fire you. And I relented at that time, do
you recall?" to which Thacker replied, "Yes." In addi-
tion to denying any problems between herself and Jones,
Thacker denied that Chris fired her (over the weekend)
in May, or that there was any similar incident involving
her tenure with Respondent. Thacker testified on rebut-
tal that Chris reprimanded her in April or May .aobut her
voice being too loud and said he would not put up with
it anymore, but that nothing else was said on that sub-
ject." She denied Chris' testimony that she was fired,
and that she tearfully requested her job back, and she
denied Sheets' testimony relative to this matter.
'Thacker's denials simply are not believable. The testimo-
ny of Chris, Fazio, and Sheets, and of the various wit-
nesses named above" relative to Thacker's conduct on
the job is overwhelming, particularly in view of the
strong credibility of Fazio and Sheets. It is found, based
on the foregoing and much supporting testimony in the
record, that for many months prior to October 1980 and
possibly for a longer period of time Thacker was a con-
tentious, argumentative employee who was loud and
boisterous on the printing room floor, who frequently
challenged her supervisor, Jones, who was warned and
later fired over a weekend because of her poor conduct,
and who was returned to her job on a conditional basis
(reversion of her conduct). There is no evidence that
Thacker was involved in any union activity when she
was warned in April, or when she was temporarily fired
in May. If she was engaged in such activity, there is no
evidence that Chris knew of it. Thacker testified that she
first started discussing the possibility of organizing em-
ployees in May, and that the first meeting for that pur-
pose was held in June. Clearly, the April warning and
the May discharge were not related to any protected ac-
tivity of Thacker.
A second problem involving Thacker was her relation-
ship with Dennis, who came to work June 25 in an au-
thoritative position and who had been selected to take
over from Chris as active manager of Respondent. The
record is replete with testimony concerning clashes be-
tween Thacker and Dennis. Thacker contends that
Dennis almost always was wrong in his actions against
her, and that he intentionally harassed her. The principal
incidents between the two are discussed below. It is clear
that Thacker and Armstrong resented Dennis because he
had come to work inexperienced in the business but
nonetheless in an elevated management position. Thacker
was the senior printer and Dennis was superior to
Thacker's immediate supervisor, Jones. Jones credibly
testified that Thacker talked with her several times about
Dennis, and complained that she did not like to deal with
him; that she did not like Dennis. Risley credibly testi-
fied that there was a "personality clash" between
Thacker and Risley, and that she knew Thacker "didn't
17 Thacker testified during her examination m chief that she never had
been counseled by any supervisor prior to October 10, 1980.
18 witnesses Risley and Levine were called by the General Counsel.
care for" Dennis. Thacker acknowledged on cross-exam-
ination that she stated in writing to state unemployment
officials that there was a "definite personality conflict"
between her and Dennis, but she testified that the con-
flict did not interfere with her work performance. She
further testified that "just about everyone" in the shop
did not get along with Dennis."
Commencing approximately midyear 1980, Thacker
and Jones began to have lunch together on a frequent
and fairly regular basis. Those lunches continued until
approximately October. For the first few months only
Thacker and Jones attended, but Jones' husband, Duane
Jones, ate with them almost daily beginning the latter
part of August, when Duane started a project for Re-
spondent, doing some carpentry and rehabilitation work.
The testimony of the three attendees is consistent in that
they agreed that the luncheon conversations consisted
mostly of family and minor matters, but it is inconsistent
relative to union matters. Thacker testified that she and
Jones frequently discussed the Union and its attempt to
organize Respondent; Respondent's dislike of such orga-
nization; possible results of organization (more formal
working conditions); and related subjects. Jones dis-
agreed, and testified that, although Thacker frequently
broached the subject of the Union and organization of
Respondent's employees, Jones refused to discuss such
matters because Chris had advised her in July that she
was not to discuss them with employees. Jones denied
the statements concerning the Union and related subjects
attributed to her by Thacker. Duane Jones corroborated
his wife, as far as the lunches he attended were con-
cerned. Beyond the differences in testimony on this sub-
ject, a more basis apparent inconsistency is the matter of
the luncheon meetings themselves, regardless of what
took place during the meetings. It is clear that Thacker
repeatedly and often challenged Jones and argued with
her on the job, yet she had lunch with Jones almost daily
for several months. The only explanation of this apparent
inconsistency is that it did not reflect a general dislike of
the two individuals for each other, but rather, indicated
they could not work in harmony. The record indicates
that the inability to work together originated with
Thacker, and not Jones. Further, Thacker testified that
her personal relationship with Jones began to deteriorate
in August. The cause of that deterioration is not appar-
ent, but its existence is apparent. As far as the conversa-
tions at the meetings are concerned, Jones' testimony
was more convincing than that of Thacker. Jones ap-
peared to be a forthright, soft-spoken, and truthful wit-
ness, and no witness of the many who testified indicated
that Jones was tyrannical or difficult to deal with. It
seems unlikely, in view of her instructions from Chris
and Fazio, and in view of her knowledge that Thacker
was on the "union committee," that Jones would engage
in conversations on the broad scale of union inquiries
and statements attributed to her by Thacker.
The first negotiation session held by Respondent and
the Union occurred on October 2. Present were Fazio,
19 As far as the record shows, the only employees who did not get
along with Dennis were Thacker and Armstrong.
'
SANTA ROSA BLUEPRINT SERVICE 775
Dennis, Ziolkowski, Thacker, and Armstrong. Fazio
called Ziolkowski on the telephone and expressed con-
cern that so many of Respondent's printers would be
there (two or three, plus two helpers), but Ziolkowsksi
was noncommittal. At the session, Fazio gave the Union
information it previously requested, and several matters
were discussed, including work rules and a timeclock.
The Union's proposals for a contract were reviewed in
some detail, and before closing the session, a date was es-
tablished for the next meeting. The meeting was longer
than Dennis expected, and during the meeting he was
upset and angry. It was agreed that further meetings
would be limited to half days, in order to minimize busi-
ness disruption. During the session Thacker interjected
herself into negotiations several times, and Dennis told
her Ziolkowslci was the union representative, and he
would deal only with Ziolkowski.2°
Dennis' first counseling session with Thacker occurred
on October 3, approximately 5 weeks after the union
election and approximately 4 weeks after the Union was
certified by NLRB as the bargaining representative of
Respondent's employees. 21 Thacker contends there was
no reason for the session, other than to harass her be-
cause of her union activity. She testified that the reasons
given by Dennis for the meeting were pretextual, that
Dennis yelled at her during the session and frightened
her, and that Dennis refused to let her defend herself.
Dennis testified that he met with Thacker because of dis-
cussions he had with Jones about Thacker's work per-
formance and conduct, and because of his own observ-
ance of Thacker on the job. He said "that I felt we
needed to discuss and I asked her to have a talk." The
various matters involved, or alleged to have been in-
volved, in this meeting are enumerated below.
I. Thacker testified that Dennis told her "I was hard
to get along with, that I was just . . . nobody liked me,
that I was difficult to work with.. , . I was . . . always
stirring up trouble' Dennis testified that he told Thacker
she was quarrelsome, loud, and more of a problem than a
help to her supervisor (Jones). Dennis testified that
Thacker protested, and said he was reprimanding her
only because of her union activity, which he denied.
Dennis credibly testified, and Thacker denied, that he re-
minded Thacker that she had lbeen earlier warned by
Chris. On rebuttal, Thacker acknowledged that she "oc-
casionally" questioned Jones' work instructions, and
"suggested" alternative ways to do work she had been
instructed to do. Thacker also acknowledged that on
several occasions her voice was unduly loud and that she
20 The facts stated m this paragraph are taken from the testimony Of
Fazio, whose credibility appeared to be compelling Her version of the
session is accepted over that of any other witness, to the extent that there
is any testimonial discrepancy E.g , Thacker and Armstrong testified that
Dennis made a threatening gesture toward Armstrong with his note
tablet. Fazio and Dennis credibly testified that they saw Armstrong ap-
parently trying to read Dennis' notes, and he slid them across the table
toward Armstrong, stating that she could take a good look. Further, the
testimony of Thacker and Armstrong that they were not allowed to
speak at the meeting is given no credence
21 Thacker testified during her appearance in chief that this meeting
was on October 10, but she later testified on rebuttal and did not deny
that the meeting occurred on October 3, as Dennis testified. The October
3 date is accepted as accurate
tried to lower it, but she also testified that it was neces-
sary in the shop to talk above a normal voice because of
the noise made by the printing machines. Thacker testi-
fied on cross-examination that Dennis told her about cus-
tomer complaints concerning her loud talking, and that
she did not feel Dennis was wrong in reprimanding her
about it.
This cause of complaint by Respondent was not pre-
textual. As found above, Thacker already had been
warned by Chris in April and May about her unaccept-
able work conduct. The testimony of Dennis, Chris,
Jones, and Risley that Thacker continued to be loud and
argumentative about work assignments after May is cred-
ited.
2. Thacker testified that Dennis reprimanded her be-
cause she had misquoted the cost of a job to a customer,
$49 instead of $3.25. The fact that there was an incident
at the sales counter when a customer was angry and
complained about the cost difference is not in dispute.
However, Thacker contends that she did not misquote
the job; she testified that she quoted the job at $3.25 for
the negative, and approximately $50 for the print.
Thacker testified that Jones told her such incidents had
occurred before. Thacker testified that Dennis never
gave her an opportunity to explain the incident. Dennis
testified that when the customer complained Thacker
told the customer she was sorry, and then walked away.
Dennis said Jones then took over the problem. Jones was
present during the incident, and she denied telling
Thacker that such incidents had occurred before.
If there actually had been a misquote by Thacker be-
cause of negligence or inattention, possibly it would have
been cause for reprimand. However, the customer did
not testify, and the incident was not fully litigated, nor
did Respondent ever investigate the matter, as far as the
record shows. Dennis did not discuss the matters with
Thacker at any time other than October 3. It appears,
therefore, that this is a complaint without much sub-
stance. Unless Respondent knew or had reasonable basis
to infer that Thacker had erred, any mention of the inci-
dent other than as prelude to an inquiry, would not be
proper. It appears, therefore, that this incident was no
more than padding Respondent, and was not justified as
a reprimand in and of itself. That fact does not however,
necessarily taint the entire counseling session. Further,
because an incident had in fact occurred, it was not im-
proper for Dennis to mention the matter to Thacker. As
far as the record shows, the incident resulted in no loss
to Respondent, and no reprimand of or disciplinary
action against Thacker.
3. Thacker testified that Dennis accused her of calling
a fellow employee, Kevin Woller, 22 a snitch. She said
Dennis stated at the session that Woller had come to him
and complained that Woller was not permitted by
Thacker to be in the breakroom In explaining the inci-
dent at trial, Thacker said there was a discussion in the
breakroom about drugs, and she stated, "I didn't think it
was an appropriate conversation for work." Thacker
continued, "John Simpson must have thought I meant
22 Sometimes spelled in the transcript as Wohlert and Waller.
776 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Kevin and said Keven's cool; I've talked to him about
drugs before. And that's how Kevin was drawn into it."
Thacker said at trial that Kevin could have taken her
remark to mean that Kevin was being "ostracized."
Thacker said she tried to explain the incident to Dennis,
but that he did not permit her explanation.
Dennis testified that he related to Thacker two com-
plaints he received from Woller. One was the incident
concerning the breakroom, and the other was that
Thacker was rude to customers. Woller did not testify.
The incident and the possible effect it could have had
on Woller are acknowledged by Thacker. Clearly such
an incident was a proper subject for a counseling session.
Dennis denied that Thacker was not permitted to explain
the incident, but there is no explanation shown in the
record as far as the counseling session is concerned. The
incident is not pretextual, but the manner in which it was
handled indicates the possibility of animosity or, at least,
high-handedness toward Thacker.
4. Thacker testified that Dennis complained to her
concerning the extension of credit to a customer who
had not been approved for credit.
Renette testified that in the fall of 1980 Respondent
had 1200 to 1500 customers, some of whom had been au-
thorized credit on customer application, after a credit
check had been made. She said Respondent has a strict
credit policy, and that credit reference cards are kept on
all customers near the cash register. If no card is in the
file, no credit can be extended.
On one occasion Thacker extended credit to a custom-
er who had not been authorized credit. She talked with
Jones about the matter, and later a credit application for
the customer was filed and approved. Respondent in-
curred no monetary loss as a result of the transaction.
Thacker testified that Jones told her not to worry about
it, that it had been taken care of. Jones denied so stating
to Thacker. Jones stated that Thacker was not warned
about the incident.
There is no dispute concerning the fact that the inci-
dent occurred. Thacker does not deny that she made the
error, but she contends that it was of little, if any, signifi-
cance and that its mention by Dennis was for the sole
purpose of harassing her. This was not an incident that
was improper for the counseling session, and whether
Thacker was given an opportunity to explain is immateri-
al—there was nothing to explain. Jones' denial of condo-
nation of the error is credited.
5.Thacker testified that Dennis accused her of making
mistakes on invoices that were causing extra work for
Renette.
Renette testified that a new electronic cash register
was installed in February 1980, and that it was more so-
phisticated than the old one. She said it was more com-
plicated to operate than the old one, and that some train-
ing and practice were necessary in order to operate it
correctly. She said everyone who used it occasionally
made errors and had to be trained, but that, although she
made every effort to train Thacker, she could not get
Thacker on the right track. She said Thacker repeatedly
used the register in such manner that invoices had to be
voided, and that the errors made each day's cash recon-
ciliation difficult and time consuming. She said she asked
Jones, who was in charge of the counter, to work with
Thacker on the problem, and she reported the matter to
Chris on a couple of occasions, but little improvement
was forthcoming. Jones generally corroborated Renette
on this subject.
Thacker acknowledged that she made errors on the
cash register, but minimized the number of errors and
the results thereof. She said she frequently had occasion
to flip through the invoices, and that she made no more
errors than others who used the register. Thacker testi-
fied in effect that this matter was of little, if any, concern
to Respondent and was just a pretextual complaint.
Much testimony was devoted to this subject, including
detailed descriptions of the register and its use. However,
the principal complaint, that Thacker's errors caused ad-
ditional and excessive work for Renette, credibly was ex-
plained by Renette. Thacker's minimization of the prob-
lem did not have the ring of reliability about it. Her con-
tention that it was a "so what" type of error is not con-
sistent with business practice and procedures. Clearly,
this was a proper subject for the counseling session, and
equally clearly, Thacker was well aware of Respondent's
concern with her errors on the register—she said she
flipped through the invoices on several occasions, and
made mental note of the fact that her errors were not in
greater number than those of other employees. That tes-
timony concerning the number of her errors credibly
was contradicted by Renette and Jones.
6. Thacker did not testify relative to any other matters
discussed at the session, but Dennis credibly testified that
he talked with Thacker about her not having called in on
a day she was absent, and told her she always should
notify someone in management if she was going to be
late or absent. He also talked with her about an incident
that occurred approximately a week earlier when
Thacker, in front of a customer, hollered loudly to Jones
who was 25 feet away, and asked if Dennis, who was
standing next to Thacker, could cut a vinyl board for
her. Dennis credibly testified that he considered that to
be improper office behavior, and that he so informed
Thacker. 2 3
Clearly, these two matters were proper subjects for
the counseling session.
7. Thacker testified that Dennis told her "because of
your attitude and because of your mistakes, you are now
banned from the counter; you can no longer work the
front counter; you are 100 percent of the time back into
the whiteprinting department. . . . It was the end from
that day forth, white printing only." Dennis denied this
testimony by Thacker
The matter of Thacker's being removed from counter
work is discussed below. Dennis' denial of discussion of
the matter on October 3 is credited.
1. October 3 counseling session
The fact that in the past Respondent customarily had
not held counseling sessions with employees is irrelevant,
23 Thacker acknowledged this incident, said she later apologized for it
when Dennis reprimanded her about it, and said Dennis appeared not to
accept the apology.
SANTA ROSA OLUEPRINT SRVICE 777
if there was good reason to hold this one with Thacker.
It appears there was good reason. It is quite clear that
Thacker was a problem employee. As noted above,
almost every employee who testified on this subject,
other than Thacker and Armstrong, agreed that Thacker
habitually argued with her supervisor, Jones, and carried
out her work duties in a very loud manner. Further, the
session of October 3 cannot be considered in a vac-
uum—it is related to an earlier session between Chris
and Thacker, when the latter was reprimanded, warned,
and temporarily fired because of her frequent and repeat-
ed confrontations with Jones, and other matters. It is
noted that no witness testified that Jones initiated any ar-
guments with Thacker, talked in any tone other than a
normal one, or was rude or abrasive. Further, there is no
evidence that Jones threatened any employee because of
union or any other activity. Jones' appearance on the
stand supported the impression gained from the testimo-
ny° of witnesses that she is a pleasant, soft-spoken, and
thoughtful supervisor. Dennis credibly testified that he
called the counseling session after conferring with Jones
concerning the problem, and after personally seeing
some of the things he talked with Thacker about. It is
found that the session was a result of Thacker's continu-
ing problems at work, unrelated to Thacker's union ac-
tivity. Thacker and Armstrong were two of the prime
movers in the union movement at the shop, and Re-
spondent was aware of their position at the forefront of
union activii y. As, however, of October 3, the Union al-
ready had won the election, and one amicable negotia-
tion session had been held on October 2. That negotia-
tion session had gone well, and a second meeting had
been arranged. Certainly Thacker's counseling session
could have no effect on the union election and the
Union's later certification. Further, seven employees
voted in the election, and there is no evidence of general
harassment of employees—only Thacker and Armstrong
contend they were harassed.
In support of her allegation of harassment, Thacker
testified that Dennis was very angry during the counsel-
ing session, that he pounded the desk and yelled at her,
and that he refused to let her speak. Dennis denied all
those allegations, and testified that Thacker was loud and
angry. It appears likely that there is some truth in the
testimony of both witnesses, as far as anger is concerned.
The record generally points to a quiet, "even-keeled"
Dennis and to a loud and assertive Thacker, but it also
points to a "personality clash" between the two, which
would not be conducive to a placid discussion on an ob-
jective plane It reasonably can be inferred, which it is,
that the meeting was an acrimonious one between a rela-
tively new and inexperienced supervisor and an employ-
ee who resented and disliked him 24 Thacker's testimony
that Dennis did not let her talk during the session is
given no credence. Clearly, more was involved than
Dennis' merely calling the session, reading a list of com-
plaints, and dismissing Thacker.
24 Thacker testified that, as of Octobei 10, Jones had not harassed her,
but she said Jones did harass her on a couple of minor occasions thereaf-
ter.
As far as the complaints themselves are concerned,
there is no evidence to warrant a conclusion that they
were pretextual or so trivial as not to warrant their being
brought to Thacker's attention. Even though some of
them previously had not been the subject of confronta-
tion between Respondent and Thacker, their inclusion
within a general aggregation related to work perform-
ance was not precluded. Dennis was in the process of as-
suming management of Respondent; Fazio recognized,
and recommended, that the operation needed to be tight-
ened up; Thacker was a problem employee. The union
election was history, and a counseling session reasonably
was required.25
Dennis credibly testified that, during the week after
October 3, Thacker continued in his presence to have
loud arguments with Jones and, on one occasion, was
calmed down by Jones in the breakroom following an
outburst at the customer counter when instructions were
given by Jones to Thacker. Dennis further testified that
he observed Thacker on a couple of occasions wasting
time by carrying on personal conversations with custom-
ers, and that Jones reported to him two or three occa-
sions when she had problems with Thacker. Dennis said
he talked with Thacker on October 3, told her that he
and Jones had discussed the matter with Chris, and ad-,
yised her "that there were too many problems on a daily
basis that occurred between her and her sister and that
being on probation for a period would allow her to focus
on the problems and hopefully correct them." Thacker
replied that "this was being done because of her union
activities," which Dennis denied.
Fazio credibly testified that Chris related to her his
concern about Thacker, and said he was prepared to fire
her, but that Fazio recommended a meeting with the
Union, and a probationary period. Chris agreed, and
Fazio arranged a meeting with the Union. The meeting
was held on October 15. Present were Dennis, Thacker,
Ziolkowski, Chris, and Fazio. Some witnesses disagreed
with some parts of her testimony, but to the extent there
are disagreements, Fazio is credited." Fazio testified:
We started off by Chris speaking first and he said
Elizabeth, you recall that in May of this year I was
about to fire you. And I relented at that time, do
you recall? And she answered yes, I do. And he
went on to say that based on the fact that that was
the end of the rope for her then that he was just
exasperated with her behavior and felt that it was
getting to be intolerable, that he felt that termina-
tion was warranted but that I had suggested this
meeting and that probation was the way to go now
25 Thacker testified that a couple of days after the counseling session,
she talked about it with Jones, who told her that Jones did not agree
with the way Dennis was handling the union members, and "give him
enough rope and he'll hang himself" After considerable leading by coun-
sel for the General Counsel, Thacker testified further on this subject
Carol said that Dennis and Chris were so against the union that
we weren't getting anywhere, things were just going to get tougher
and tougher for Mary and myself. And we just made what was a
comfortable situation before, the way it was not, bad.
Jones denied this testimony by Thacker Jones' denial is credited.
26 it is noted that Ziolkowski was present throughout the tnal, but he
did not take the stand as a witness.
778 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and they wanted to just discuss all of her behavior,
get it all out in the oppn and make sure that her be-
havior would change so that everybody could work
happily together.
. . . .
Dennis and Chris reviewed a series of problems
that they had been experiencing with Elizabeth. I
acted more or less as a moderator and Dennis pri-
marily did the talking describing what he felt were
problems in her behavior. There were some in-
stances that he listed specifically.
The meeting lasted several hours, and all the problems
enumerated above, relative to the counseling session of
October 3, were discussed in detail. There was one addi-
tion to the enumerated problems, 27 which was an al-
leged mistake made by Thacker in taking inventory.
Thacker acknowledged making the mistake, but she said
it was a minor one, frequently made by several employ-
ees who take inventory, and that the entire matter was
by Jones as being of no moment. In any event, Thacker
testified that every item Dennis discussed with her on
October 3 was discussed in detail at the October 15
meeting, and that no additional items were discussed Oc-
tober 15. Further, Thacker acknowledged that she was
given an opportunity October 15 to present her position
on all items, which she did. She said Ziolkovvski also
spoke freely, and did his best to defend Thacker.
Thacker testified, however, that Ziolkowski was of little
help because he did not know about the various prob-
lems that were involved and, further, that Ziolkowski
told her some concessions would have to be made to Re-
spondent in order to secure a contract. She said every-
one was calm except Dennis, who was angry and raised
his voice, and Ziolkowski, who also raised his voice.
Fazio and Ziolkowski worked up a draft of a probation-
ary agreement reading as follows:
A probationary period shall commence on Oct. 3
and shall continue until Jan 1 at which time the ee's
performance shall be reviewed. If the performance
had been satisf. then the probationary period shall
be reduced to a verbal warning. If the ee's perform-
ance has not been satisfactory, then the probation
shall continue for another 2 months, (or until March
1). During the probationary period the ee shall be
subject to termination for a repetion [sic] of past in-
fractions or for cause.
This agreement shall in no way be precedent setting.28
The length of the probationary period was negotiated by
Fazio and Ziolkowski, with each side modifying its origi-
nal suggestion. Fazio read the draft aloud and gave the
draft to Thacker and Ziolkowski, both of whom read it.
Fazio asked if the draft was satisfactory, and:
27 On her examination in chief, Thacker named a few other complaints
that Respondent voiced at the meeting concerning het work, and she de-
scnbed them. They were minor in nature, and detailed discussion of them
would add nothing to this decision
28 This draft is in Fazio's handwriting The difference in pen color cre-
dibly was explained by Fazio, and is irrelevant to the issue
Jim said well, I think that perhaps we're not x eally
specific here about repetitions of past infractions. I
said well we've been here a long time elaborating
each one of these things. I don't want to go into a
whole lot of detail on this. How about if I just cap-
sulize what these things are that we had been talk-
ing about and list those as part of this. And he said
fme and we agreed that I would type it and bring it
to the next meeting which was a negotiation meet-
ing that was scheduled and at that point we would
put formal signature to it.
Thacker asked what kind of misconduct could cause her
discharge, and Fazio replied:
Elizabeth, if you do any of the things that we had
already talked about here again, if you repeat those,
that's cause for termination, or if you do something
else that is what we consider for cause—for in-
stance, and I mentioned walking out with the cash
register or having some kind of a problem with a
severe lateness or not calling in, something that's
severe, that's cause for termination in itself. We
didn't elaborate on too many examples but I do re-
member specifically the one about the cash register.
The second negotiation session was held on November
4. In attendance were Fazio, Ziolkowski, Thacker, Arm-
strong, and Dennis. Fazio handed Thacker's proposed
probation agreement, which Fazio had typed, to Ziol-
kowski. The agreement read:
It is agreed by the parties that as a result of cer-
tain unsatisfactory behavior on the part of Ms.
Thacker (outlined below), Ms. Thacker shall be put
on probation. The probationary period shall com-
mence on October 3, 1980 and shall continue until
January 1, 1981, at which time Ms. Thacker's per-
formance shall be reviewed by the parties.
If the performance has been satisfactory, then the
probationary period shall be reduced to a verbal
warning.
If the performance has not been satisfactory, then
the probation shall continue for another two (2)
months, or until March 1, 1981. However, during
the probationary period, Ms. Thacker shall be sub-
ject to termination for cause or for a repetition of
any of the following past infractions:
Violation of company charge account rules
Rude or abrasive treatment of co-workers, su-
periors of customers
Loud or excessive talking
Incorrect processing of work orders or in-
voices
Failure to perform work as directed
Inability or refusal to accept comment or di-
rection from superiors
It is further agreed that Ms. Thacker's duties at
the retail counter are discontinued or curtailed, at
the direction of the Employer.
SANTA ROSA BLUEPRINT SERVICE 779
It is further agreed that this agreement shall in no
way establish a precedent for the method or content
of any future disciplinary matters.
Ziolkowski read the document, said it "looks fine," and
handed it to Thacker, 1,yho said that was not the agree-
ment they had reached. Fazio handed to Thacker the
rough draft she prepared at the meeting of October 15
for comparison. Thacker and Ziolkowski refused to sign
the typed version." The parties then discussed the fact
that Chris was withdrawing from active management of
the business, and Respondent's desire to move Doug
Simons into management. The parties then discussed
contract proposals. Thereafter, Respondent announced
that Thacker's hours were being changed from 7:30 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. The reason given was
the desire to have supervision over Thacker because she
was being put on probation and, also, Thacker did not
have a key to the shop and sometimes had to wait in
order to get in. 30 Although the record is not entirely
clear, it appears that as of the end of this session Re-
spondent considered Thacker to be on probation in ac-
cordance with Fazio's typed version of the agreement of
the parties, and that Thacker held a similar belief.
2. Thacker's probation
The General Counsel argues that Thacker was placed
on probation because of her union activity. Respondent
argues that it was because of Thacker's work conduct
and perfomance.
There appears to be a basic dichotomy in the testimo-
ny of Thacker and, to a lesser extent, Armstrong.
Thacker contends that Respondent, whose ruling hand at
times relevant was Chris, was strongly opposed to her,
and harassed her on an almost daily basis, to the point of
frequent tears, probation, and ultimately resignation. She
contends that Chris changed from a friendly, tolerant co-
worker prior to the union movement, to a cool and dis-
tant supervisor after the union movement began. Yet, her
testimony is laced with kind words for Chris, both
before and after the union movement. A few days after
he learned of the union letter to Respondent, Chris met
with Thacker and some other employees, and although
Chris testified in an ambiguous manner concerning the
dale when be learned Thacker was a leader of the orga-
nizational effort, it seems likely that he knew of it about
the time of the meeting. He said on direct examination
that his knowledge was obtained sometime between July
1980 and January 1981. Relative to Chris' meeting with
employees, Thacker testified that Chris was not angry,
and that "he was attempting to be reasonable and settle it
without a union in there." She said Chris never threat-
ened employees.
Some facts are quite clear, as noted supra. First,
Thacker was not a completely satisfactory employee in
29 Thacker explained at tnal her reasons for not signing the final typed
agreement. She satd the two documents were not the same There is
some difference (e g, the counter work), but that fact is irrelevant to any
issue The basic question is the reason for Respondent putting Thacker on
probation.
9 ° This change of hours is alleged to be a violation of the Act, and is
discussed mil a
that she was loud, frequently engaged in confrontations
and arguments with Jones, and frequently resisted in-
structions given by her supervisors. It appears that she
was competent as a printer, and that she worked the
counter part time in a generally satisfactory manner,"
but those facts are not determinative of any issue.
Second, there is much credible testimony that Thacker
did not get along well with some employees of Respond-
ent, but there is no testimony that Jones did not get
along with all the employees, other than her problems
with Thacker and, to a lesser extent, Armstrong. It is ap-
parent, partially from Thacker's testimony, that the prob-
lems between Thacker and Jones stemmed from
Thacker, who frequently resisted following instructions.
Third, Thacker personally disliked Dennis, and frequent-
ly engaged in confrontations with him Fourth, Thacker
was warned in April, and temporarily fired in May
solely because of her work problems and primarily be-
cause of her loud voice and her arguing with Jones.
Fifth, Thacker's counseling session of October 3 was
based on her work conduct. That session was well after
the union election, and was the day after a successful ne-
gotiation meeting between Respondent and the Union.
The principal question is whether Thacker was put on
probation because of her union activities. Although
Wright Line32 principles are applied to a discharge case,
probation is an analogous situation, and the same reason-
ing is appropriate. The question then would be presented
whether, even though Respondent may have resented
Thacker's union activities, she would have been placed
on probation regardless of those activities. That question
must be answered in the affirmative. Chris already had
told Thacker in May that he had reached "the end of the
rope" with her, and he rescinded his weekend discharge
only after her tearful appeal for reconsideration.
Thacker's union activity became apparent soon thereaf-
ter, and when Fazio entered the picture in July, she in-
formed Respondent of the do's and don'ts of union activ-
ity. With that Union in the strong position it obviously
was, by reason of employees' signatures on the letter sent
to Respondent, it was logical for Respondent to proceed
against Thacker's further unsatisfactory conduct in a
formal manner. Fazio suggested probation, and that was
a logical procedure to follow. Although, as discussed
above, the reasons for probation are not pure since they
contain one or two instances of gilding the lily, the basic
reasons were well grounded. Thacker briefly had re-
sponded to her counseling in April and May, but she
soon reverted to the same conduct that gave rise to that
counseling. The fact that Dennis, and not Chris, first
counseled Thacker and later was instrumental in her pro-
bation interviews is immaterial. Dennis was a corporate
21 Thacker was described by the General Counsel's character witness
Keith Dennis, Grover Lewers, and Fredenck Bhss, three of Respondent's
regular customers, as courteous, helpful, and efficient Respondent's wit-
nesses cited some examples of what they believed to be rude behavior
toward customers by Thacker. Thacker said she never was rude to a cus-
tomer. It is found that, generally, Thacker was a satisfactory counter em-
ployee as far as her relations with customers were concerned. The inci-
dents of her allegedly rude conduct have been assigned the weight due
them in making findings.
22 Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980).
780 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
officer, and was assuming command of Respondent.
Clearly, Thacker resented Dennis, both personally and
because of her having been both counseled and put on
probation by him.
This allegation is not supported by the record.
N. Armstrong's Discharge
Paragraph 7(b) of the complaint alleges that, about
November 17, 1980, Respondent discharged Armstrong
because of her union activities.
Armstrong first began working for Respondent as a
printer on February 4, 1980, under Jones' supervision.
She became active in the union movement in May. That
activity included talking with other employees, attending
meetings with other employees, and soliciting signatures
for union authorization cards. It is not clear when Re-
spondent learned of Armstrong's union activity and her
position at the forefront of the union movement in Re-
spondent's shop, but it is clear that Respondent knew of
that activity sometime in midyear.
Armstrong was discharged on Monday, November 17.
She contends that she was fired because Respondent was
opposed to her union activity and wanted to retaliate
against her. Respondent contends that she was fired
solely because of her use of foul language on Friday,
November 14.
The basic facts relating to the incident that gave rise
to Armstrong's discharge are not in dispute, although a
few pertinent facts are disputed. The incident com-
menced November 12 or 13, when Armstrong asked
Jones if she could leave work early the afternoon of
Thursday, November 13, in order to attend a 'union
council meeting. Jones gave her permission to do so.
Armstrong's hours were 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., and she asked
to leave at 4 p.m. rather than 5 p.m. The person with
whom Armstrong planned to ride to the meeting came to
the shop prior to 4 p.m., and Armstrong left prior to 4
p.m. 33 Armstrong rode to the meeting with Risley,
Thacker, and Russell Schiedler, a union shop steward
who worked at another shop. At some time prior to 4
p.m., Dennis wanted to talk with Armstrong but was
unable to fmd her. He talked with Jones, who tried un-
successfully to find Armstrong.
The following day, Friday, November 14, Dennis and
Jones met with Armstrong in Dennis' office to discuss
events of the preceding day. Dennis accused Armstrong
of abusing her early leave permission, and Armstrong
denied any such abuse. They discussed the matter in
detail, and argued some. Armstrong testified that the
meeting was acrimonious and accusatory, but Dennis and
Jones denied that testimony; they stated that Dennis was
not angry or abusive. Armstrong left the meeting and,
because it was quitting time, went out the back door,
which was adjacent to, and near, Dennis' office and its
33 Armstrong testified that, as she left, she so signaled to Jones, who
talking on the telephone, and that Jones acknowledged her signal Jones
denied that testimony by Armstrong Jones is credited
Dennis, Jones, and Armstrong all testified differently, relative to the
time that Armstrong left the plant The differences ranged from 3:30 p.m.
(Dennis) to 3 50 p.m (Armstrong) The differences are not material, even
by Armstrong's testimony she left prior to 4 p m., which is what Dennis
objected to
rear entrance door. She slammed the door loudly, and
just as she got outside the door she stated in a loud voice
that could be clearly heard inside Dennis' office, "that
no good mother-fucking cock-sucking asshole."34 Dennis
reported to Chris what Armstrong said, but Chris was
unable to get in touch with Armstrong because she al-
ready had left and she had no telephone at home. On
Monday, November 17, Chris talked with Dennis and
Jones just before 8 a.m. When Armstrong arrived at ap-
proximately 8 a.m., Chris talked with her in the presence
of Dennis and Jones. Chris told Armstrong he would not
permit that kind of behavior, particularly toward a su-
pervisor, and he discharged her. Armstrong gathered her
personal things together and started to leave. As she
walked by Dennis, she looked squarely at him and ut-
tered the same words she had used outside the door on
Friday. Armstrong left, called a union representative on
the telephone, and returned at approximately 9 or 9:30
a.m. to get her paycheck. Armstrong told Chris she had
been fired because of her union activities, and she also
stated that Dennis was a liar and had tried to bribe an
employee. Chris asked for details, and Armstrong gave
him none. Chris gave Armstrong her check, which in-
cluded pay for a half day for reporting in on Monday,
and denied to her that she had been fired because of her
union activities.
As noted above, the fact of Armstrong's profanity is
not in dispute. Armstrong initially testified that she was
outside in the parking lot when she spoke, and the initial
impression from her testimony was that she was well
away from Respondent's building, but it is clear that she
was just outside the door when she spoke, and it is also
clear from the words she used, the manner of her speech,
and all the circumstances, that she was very angry at
Dennis and that she intended for him to hear her, or at
least, she did not care if he heard her. Finally, it is clear
that Chris did not use profane language or condone its
use on Respondent's premises. 35 It was apparent from
his demeanor on the witness stand, and from the testimo-
ny of all witnesses, that Chris is a gentle, soft-spoken
person who ran the shop in as quiet a manner as possible.
It seems clear that the language used by Armstrong
would shock his sensibilities, as he said it did.
Armstrong and counsel for the General Counsel, con-
tend that Respondent was out to get Armstrong; that Re-
spondent provoked Armstrong's conduct; and that Re-
spondent used Armstrong's outburst as a pretext to fire
her.
Armstrong gave many reasons for her language, 36 all
of which, she said, combined to result in her outburst of
34 Other witnesses varied the words somewhat, but this quotation is
from Armstrong's testimony, which is accepted on this point
35 Armstrong's testimony that profanity customanly is used by em-
ployees in the shop is without support, and is given no credence Re-
spondent's busmess generally is patronized by persons of professional (ar-
chitectural and engineering) or related standing. It is a service and sales
business, and the premises consists largely of office and administrative
areas It is not a factory or smokestack operation, and the foul language
used by Armstrong was, as Thacker acknowledged, inappropriate.
36 Armstrong's personnel file indicates that, on September 26, 1980,
Dennis talked with her about, inter alia "cursing because work order
amended by customer."
SANTA ROSA BLUEPRINT SERVICE 781
November 14. Included, she said, was the fact that, be-
cause of being held in Dennis' office after hours on No-
vember 14, she missed her bus. 37 The various reasons
Armstrong gave are discussed below.
Armstrong met with Dennis and Jones in Dennis'
office on October 21 for what was Armstrong's first
counseling session. Jones, who did most of the talking at
the session, testified that the session was held because of
several matters that had come up in the then recent past.
Principally included were the following:
a. Jones told Armstrong that she appeared to be
having too many absences on a Friday or a Monday.
Armstrong replied that she was not aware of a problem,
but that she would be more careful. On cross-examina-
tion Armstrong stated that, in the 9 or 10 months she
worked for Respondent, she was absent approximately
15 or 16 times, and that 5 or 6 of those absences were on
Monday or Friday. 38 She said three of the absences oc-
curred when she was out of town on a trip. Jones testi-
fied that she kept the timecards, and that Armstrong was
absent more than any other employee. No weight is
given to this subject. The fact that Armstrong frequently
was absent, often on Monday or Friday, is not a dispute.
b. Chris did most of the work on the printing ma-
chines. Jones testified that on one occasion Chris
changed the speed indicator on Armstrong's machine.
The operation of the machine was not changed. The in-
dicator change was explained by Jones to Armstrong. A
few minutes later Armstrong stopped Chris, who was
walking by, and complained that the machine was run-
ning faster than he had instructed that it should be run.
Jones testified that she thought Armstrong's conduct was
improper. Armstrong testified: the question she asked
Chris was not the one Jones thought, and she corrected
Jones at the counseling session. Jones replied that, from
then on, Armstrong could talk to Chris only after first
checking with Jones or Dennis.
This matter is of little, if any, weight. The basic dis-
agreement appears to have been a misunderstanding,
which, as far as the record shows, was not of major
import or the basis of subsequent action. If Armstrong
was limited in her access to Chris, as she testified, that
limitation was within the managerial hierarchy estab-
lished when Dennis came to work for Respondent.
c, Jones stated that Armstrong was too loud in the
shop, and Armstrong said she would lower her voice.
Armstrong (as well as Thacker) testified that the ma-
chines were noisy and had to be talked over, but she ac-
knowledged that she talked louder than necessary. On
cross-examination, Armstrong testified that she did not
feel she was being "picked on" during the session, about
her loud voice. This matter is given no weight.
37 This reason clearly was an afterthought following a recess in the
tnal, and is given no credence.
38 Armstrong's attendance records show that she was absent 6 full
days and 3 partial days, of which 5 full days and 1 partial day were on
Friday or Monday Benedict, who worked slightly more than half as long
as Armstrong, had eight absences, of which five were on Friday or
Monday Employee Sharp was absent five times in the 3 months of her
employment, of which one was on a Monday. Employee Montgomery
was absent 6-1/2 days in the I-month period of her employment of which
two were on Monday or Fnday. No absences, other than Armstrong's,
were discussed at trial
d. On the day preceding the counseling session, a com-
plimentary letter was received from a customer and
Armstrong had asked why it was not posted on the bul-
letin board. Jones testified that she replied, "Mary, we
should not be too proud of ourselves because after all,
we were only doing our job," to which Armstrong re-
plied, while putting her face close to Jones', "You name
just one mistake I have made. Just you name any mistake
I have made here." Armstrong testified that Jones said
Respondent received more complaints than compliments
from customers and that she replied "I wasn't aware that
I had made any mistakes and I'd certainly like to be
made aware and then she told me that she took this as a
direct challenge."
Jones is credited in this instance, but in any event, this
matter is given little weight. Based on the circumstances,
the record, and demeanor of the witnesses, it appears
likely that Armstrong did challenge Jones, her supervi-
sor, and annoy her on the day preceding the counseling
session. Certainly this was a proper subject for counsel-
ing.
e. Dennis and Armstrong engaged in one relatively
minor argument concerning whether Respondent should
report to the Union the fact that Respondent had hired a
new employee. This matter is given no weight in making
findings.
1. Counseling session of October 21
1. As pointed out elsewhere, Armstrong was a strong,
active union supporter and Respondent was aware of
that fact at all times since at least July. Further, as noted
elsewhere, Respondent was aware since approximately
July that the Union was attempting to organize its em-
ployees, and was opposed to that organization.
As far as the merits of the session are concerned, there
is no evidence that Respondent was abusive, discourte-
ous, or threatened, or coerced Armstrong during the ses-
sion. Her work generally was satisfactory, but it is clear
that her attitude toward Respondent in general, and
Dennis in particular, left something to be desired.
The question is whether the existence of the session,
per se, constituted harassment of Armstrong. By October
21 Dennis and Chris had met with employees, had dis-
tributed antiunion campaign literature, and otherwise had
made it clear that Respondent opposed the union attempt
to organize the employees. Other instances of alleged
harassment of Armstrong are discussed below, and the
General Counsel argues that all of Respondent's actions,
including this counsel session, show a pattern of harass-
ment. However, the question still remains whether,
absent a union movement, the counseling session would
have been held.
The General Counsel argues that prior to Respond-
ent's knowledge of the union movement counseling of
employees and recording of Respondent's complaints
against them was rare or nonexistent. Respondent ac-
knowledged that Fazio instructed it to start keeping writ-
ten records, and that it did so. 38 Chris acknowledged
39 Armstrong's personnel file, C.F. Exh. 1, commences July 8, 1980.
782 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that, prior to the union campaign Respondent kept no
record of employee mistakes. Dennis testified, however,
that he knew from seeing files on employees that em-
ployees had been counseled from a time prior to his em-
ployment. He said the files he had seen were those of
employees John Simpson and Timothy Thompson.
Dennis further testified that Thacker and Armstrong
were not the only employees he counseled. He said that
he counseled Thompson on two occasions in September,
and put notes in Thompson's file concerning the two ses-
sions with him Thompson still is employed by Respond-
ent. Dennis also testified that there are counseling notes
in Thacker's file dated April or May 1980, and others
dated September and October 1980. Armstrong's file
(C.F. Exh. 1) shows several notes of criticism of her
work on separate dates in 1980, but those matters were
not discussed with Armstrong at the time the notes were
made. Armstrong testified that there had been instances
where she had been talked with when she had made "a
mistake or two," but that she never had been reprimand-
ed because of mistakes. Jones testified that prior to the
union campaign Chris sometimes called employees aside
and discussed their problems, work attitude, and per-
formance, but that after the campaign such counseling
became more formal. Jones also testified that either Chris
or Dennis instructed her to keep a written record of em-
ployee mistakes.
It is quite clear that Respondent did not keep a run-
ning record of employee mistakes prior to the union
campaign, but that it did keep such records after the
campaign was underway. However, that fact alone is not
conclusive of this issue. Fazio had recommended that
records be kept, and common sense would dictate the
advisability of such a course of action, provided the
action was not for the purpose of building a case against
an employee because of the Union's activity or in order
to support discipline of an employee because of such ac-
tivity. As far as the record shows, the new recordkeep-
ing by Respondent was directed to all employees, not
just Armstrong and Thacker, and not just unit employ-
ees Dennis' testimony concerning Thompson is credited.
As far as oral counseling is concerned, Jones is credited
in her testimony that Chris customarily talked with em-
ployees about their work problems and mistakes. The
fact that Armstrong's counseling was more formal than
Chris' past practice is not conclusive, although it does in-
dicate particular concern with Armstrong. It is clear that
Respondent was not pleased with Armstrong's union ac-
tivity, but it is equally clear that Armstrong was a loud,
abrasive employee who often was at loggerheads with
Dennis and Jones. In any event, this counseling session
was innocuous. The question whether the fact of the
counseling constituted harassment, however, must be an-
swered in the affirmative. Even Armstrong's testimony
shows that the session involved only trivia, and for the
most part was a spitting match. There is no evidence that
Armstrong was intimidated or coerced by it. Arm-
strong's employment by Respondent was brief, and she
obviously disliked Dennis. Possibly under all these cir-
cumstances Armstrong would have been counseled re-
gardless of her union activity. However, her union activ-
ity clearly was an additional irritant to Respondent, even
though by the time of the counseling session the union
election was history. It appears likely that Respondent
disliked Armstrong for several reasons, not the least of
which was the fact that she had been instrumental in or-
ganizing the employees and, further, that she was coun-
seled in large part because of her union activity.
It is found that, on October 21, Respondent harassed
Armstrong because of the latter's union activities.40
2. Respondent's printing machines use ammonia gas,
generated from a canister that contains ammonia. Liquid
ammonia is not used on the prints, but gas is, and use of
the gas deposits leaves an odor of ammonia on the paper
as it runs through the printing process. That odor lingers
for a brief time after the prints are made, but soon dissi-
pates after the prints are exposed to the air.
Armstrong had an infection on one finger, and told
Jones that possibly it could be irritated if exposed to am-
monia. Jones said she did not understand how that could
be possible. Armstrong testified that Jones asked her for
a doctor's "excuse", if she was "not going to be able to
use the ammonia," and Jones testified that Armstrong
volunteered that she would obtain a doctor's "excuse."
Jones is credited on this point but, in any event, a doc-
tor's '`excuse" was obtained by Armstrong and presented
to Jones on October 23.41
Jones and Armstrong do not agree on what happened
thereafter. Armstrong testified: Jones refused to accept
the slip from the doctor and said she wanted to talk with
him. Armstrong said the doctor's telephone number was
on the slip, and then Jones "told me to go out and start
work." Armstrong said, "I eventually had to work with
the ammonia gas," and she stated that she worked the
entire day, plus overtime. She testified that the infection
continued 2 or 3 weeks, that she had to have her hand
lanced, and that she soaked her hand daily during lunch
periods and on breaks with "golden seal and cayenne
pepper." She said other employees and Jones knew about
her soaking her hand. She said she also was taking an an-
tibiotic, erythromycin. Armstrong testified that there was
work other than printing that she could have done, but
that she was not assigned to any work other than print-
ing.
Jones testified:
I said, "Mary, because of this doctor's excuse, I
don't think that you should handle developed print.
However, there are other things that you can be
doing so that you may remain at work. We have
bindery work to do. You could run prints and not
handle the developed prints. Have your assistant
handle those."
Q. Did she have an assistant?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, if you are operating a white printing
machine, do you actually physically handle ammo-
nia?
40 It is noted that Armstrong received one wage increase during her
employment by Respondent, in May
41 This document is included in C P. Exh 1
SANTA ROSA BLUEPRINT SERVICE 783
A. There is an odor of ammonia remaining on the
print after they are developed in the developing
chamber of the machine.
Q. If you have an assistant, who would handle
the prints when they come out of the developer?
A. The assistant.
Q. So, if the operator was working, feeding the
machine, would they come in contact with any kind
of ammonia residue at all?
A. No.
Jones said Armstrong had an assistant at the time of this
incident, and that Armstrong never complained about
her finger after Jones talked with her.
This incident appeared to be blown out of proportion
by Armstrong, and it appears likely that it was, at least
partially, an afterthought on Armstrong's part. Jones'
version seems more logical, and Jones was a more con-
vincing witness than Armstrong. Several points are clear.
First, although Armstrong said several employees and
Jones saw her soaking her hand, no witness corroborated
that testimony. Second, ammonia liquid was not in-
volved—only residue gas was on the prints. Third, the
doctor's "excuse" refers to working "in ammonia."
Fourth, Armstrong did not have to handle prints—she
had an assistant who could do that. Fifth, there was
work other than printing that Armstrong could do.
Sixth, Armstrong lost no worktime or pay because of the
incident. Seventh, as far as the record shows, Armstrong
never complained to Chris, Dennis, or the Union about
being forced to do work she could not, or should not,
do. Eight, there is no evidence relative to the infection
itself, or its treatment, other than Armstrong's character-
ization of it as an infection, and her testimony about
soaking her finger. As far as the record shows, she could
have protected the finger with a rubber sheath, or a
rubber glove, because she was only handling prints with
residual gas on them; her hands never came into contact
with liquid ammonia.
It is found that no harassment was involved in this
matter. This matter also is alleged as an 8(a)(5) violation,
discussed infra.
3. Armstrong testified that she was harassed by Jones,
in that Jones distributed Respondent's campaign litera-
ture to employees and that Jones insisted that Armstrong
take the literature given to her. Armstrong gave her rea-
sons for feeling harassed:
Why in your mind, did this constitute harass-
ment?
THE WITNESS: I felt that we had brought a union
in and we did this knowing what we were doing
and I felt that they were trying to sway our minds.
Jones testified that she distributed Respondent's cam-
paign letters to all employees, including Armstrong, and
she denied Armstrong's testimony that Armstrong re-
fused to take one of the letters from Jones. She also
denied Armstrong's testimony to the effect that Jones
told her "not to be a troublemaker but take the letter
anyway."
To the extent there are any discrepancies between the
testimony of Jones and Armstrong, Jones is credited.
This appears to be another instance where Armstrong
reached out for incidents to support her claim of harass-
ment, which incidents were of little, if any, concern at
the time they happened.
Armstrong testified that she felt harassed because Re-
spondent was trying, through distribution of literature, to
"sway" the minds of employees. No other employee so
testified, including Thacker. Respondent was entitled
under the Act to distribute antiunion propoganda, just as
the employees were entitled to distribute either pro- or
antiunion literature, provided the literature was not ob-
jectionable on its face. No such objection was shown in
this instance. Armstrong's embellishment of the incident
by stating that Jones told her to take the letter and not
be a troublemaker is given no credence. It appeared to
be an attempt to create an atmosphere of harassment,
when the incident itself does not seem unusual. Jones'
testimony that the literature was distributed as a matter
of course to all employees, seemed logical, and was not
contradicted by any employee other than Armstrong.
It is found that no harassment of Armstrong was in-
volved in this incident.
4. Armstrong testified that, after Respondent posted a
notice to employees relative to use of company tele-
phones approximately September 2 (this notice is dis-
cussed infra), her uncle, Peter Armstrong, attempted to
call her on the telephone concerning her grandmother,
who was ill. Her later discovery of the illness, and of the
fact that the call was made but that she was not in-
formed of it, caused her much distress, she said. Arm-
strong further testified that her uncle "told me that he
had called and that someone named Dennis Amato had
taken the message. He had identified himself when he an-
swered the phone and that he. . . I never received that
message."
Peter Armstrong corroborated Armstrong's testimony
concerning the facts of the telephone call and Arm-
strong's later distress on learning that she was not in-
formed of the call, but he contradicted Armstrong's testi-
mony concerning his identification of the one who re-
ceived the call. He testified:
JUDGE STEVENS: Did the person on the other end
identify himself at all?
THE WITNEss: May have but I don't remember
that. I have to be—I couldn't testify that—I think
something like "somebody" speaking, but I don't re-
member exactly, no. I wouldn't even say a name be-
cause it wouldn't be honest to say it. It was just a
man about middle aged man—you know, not a teen-
ager but a man maybe in his late 20's, 30's.
Dennis denied ever having taken a message for Arm-
strong, or any other employee, and refusing to deliver it,
and he denied ever having received a telephone call
from (Monsignor) Peter Armstrong.
Armstrong's testimony concerning her distress on
learning that a telephone message was not delivered to
her, was logical and understandable, since the illness of a
close family member was involved.
However, her attempt to pin the cause of the distress
on Dennis was not convincing. The fact of the call is ac-
784 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cepted as related by the two Armstrongs, but Peter cre-
dibly testified that he could not identify the person who
received the call, and Dennis denied having received it.
There were eight telephones on the premises at the time
of the incident, and there is no way of identifying who
received the call. Peter's description of the sound of the
voice he talked with could apply to any one of several
persons, and to attribute the conversation to Dennis
would require an unacceptable degree of speculation.
Whatever else may be said of this incident, it is clear
that a finding of harassment by Respondent cannot be
made. Perhaps Armstrong believed Dennis received the
call, but her belief patently does not control the issue.
Her attribution to Peter of the basis for her belief was
erroneous and self-serving.
5. Armstrong testified that after employee Robert
Phelps, the photographer, left Respondent's employ, she
was given the task of cleaning the photo processor on
overtime each Monday for approximately a month. She
contends that, after a month, she was taken off the clean-
ing task and lost that overtime work, which constituted
harassment of her.
Chris testified that after Phelps left Respondent, an
employee named Kenneth replaced Phelps for approxi-
mately a month. Chris said the processor was cleaned in
the morning, by him and Phelps, and that Armstrong
cleaned it "once or twice."
Jones testified that the processor normally was cleaned
on Monday morning, by Chris or Phelps. She said she
asked Phelps to show Armstrong how to clean it, when
Phelps said he was going to quit his job. She said Arm-
strong thereafter cleaned the processor on two occasions.
She denied ever talking with Armstrong about the latter
being given overtime work for the cleaning task.
Renette testified that Phelps worked full time until
May 16, 1980, and thereafter worked part time until July
20, when he quit his job. She said part of Phelps' job was
cleaning the processing machine.
Armstrong's timecards were reviewed at trial. They
show an irregular pattern of overtime, both for the
period after May 16 and after July 20. Often the over-
time was during the lunch hour. She continued through-
out her employment to work overtime on occasion, and
the frequency of overtime shows no patter or substantial
change. Her last overtime was during the week October
20-24.
As noted above, much of Armstrong's lengthy and de-
tailed testimony is devoted to describing incidents, some-
times of a trivial nature, that she contends show harass-
ment of her, but that appear to be afterthoughts that em-
bellish the facts in her favor. This is one of those inci-
dents. Her timecards, which are not in dispute, make it
clear that Armstrong was not denied overtime work, and
make it equally clear that Respondent's records do not
support her contention that she was denied all overtime
as a means of harassment. It is apparent from the cred-
ited testimony of Renette, Chris, Jones, and Armstrong
herself that the latter's cleaning of the machine was relat-
ed to Phelps' quitting his job. Phelps quit July 20. By
then, Respondent already knew that Armstrong was a
strong union advocate. Yet, Armstrong testified, she was
given at least some overtime thereafter.
There is no reasonable basis on which it can be con-
cluded that this matter constituted harassment of Arm-
strong.
6. Armstrong testified that she was harassed by Jones
when the latter talked with her on July 10:
I was told that Chris had asked her to tell me
that until the union thing was cleared up that I was
no longer allowed to work the front—work the
retail aspect of the job.
Q. And in effect, what did she tell you your job
was going to be at that time?
A. That I would just be a white printer and as-
sistant.
Q. Okay. What were yotr duties before July 3—
say, before July 10, 1980, what were your duties?
A. Well, I started out as a white printing assistant
and then I was taught to be a white printer. And
then in June, I was taught to work the Ektoprint
machine. I was taught to do drilling, to do binding
or Ektoprint jobs, and I was brought out to work
the front, to run the cash register, to take in jobs
from customers, to ring jobs up, to answer the tele-
phone, to do inventory and basically that was it, the
retail aspect of the job.
Armstrong testified that this was harassment because
printing is a "factory type" job, and more laborious than
working the counter.
Jones denied telling Armstrong that she could not
work the counter until the union matter was cleared up,
but testified relative to an incident in May:
After I had given her a project in the front office
to call customers who had not picked up jobs for a
while—they were still sitting on the shelf—after I
had given her that project, she seemed to want to
come out front and fmd out more projects to do. I
had to tell her that her place was in-the white print-
ing department, that there was work to do in there.
Q. Other than that occasion, did you ever have
occasion to tell Mary Armstrong that she could not
work in the front counter?
A. No.
Chris testified that all printers, including Armstrong,
sometimes came to the counter to talk with customers
concerning particular jobs, but usually Jones carried out
that function. When Jones was absent, the printers would
come to the counter when necessary. He said he never
instructed Jones that Armstrong was not to talk with
customers.
The fact that Armstrong was a printer, and held no
other work classification at all relevant times, is not in
dispute.
Risley and Benedict were white printers, and both of
them were employed at the same time as Armstrong (for
different periods of time). Risley and Benedict testified as
General Counsel's witnesses, but neither of them testified
concerning, or were asked about, counter work. Sheets,
who worked as a printer from December 1979 to May,
1980, was as previously noted, a very credible witness.
SANTA ROSA BLUEPRINT SERVICE 785
Sheets testified that she sometimes worked at the counter
to help out when the salesroom was particularly busy.
Sheets testified that she never knew that Armstrong
worked at the counter. Thacker was trained for counter
work and, except as described elsewhere, was engaged in
counter work part time during some of her employment
by Respondent. Jones' description of the occasional pres-
ence of printers, including Armstrong, at the counter
was logical, and is credited. There was no showing that
Armstrong was particularly suited to counter work, or
had an unusual aptitude therefor. Certainly she was not a
salesperson in the manner that Thacker was.
Armstrong testified on several occasions relative to the
pressure of work for printers, and she sometimes worked
overtime on printing jobs during all of her employment
by Respondent. She was employed by Respondent for
less than a year, and no reason was shown for selecting
her as a counter trainee. Further, there is no evidence
that she did counter work, other than to discuss particu-
lar jobs with customers, as did all the printers. Finally,
Jones was in charge of the counter and was present most
of the time to do the work required there. Her office
abutted, and opened to, the counter. The printers' room
was set off from the counter, and opened on a hallway
to the rear of the counter.
Under such circumstances it seems clear that Arm-
strong did not do counter work from which to be pre-
cluded, and Jones' testimony that she did not tell Arm-
strong that she was being taken off the counter is cred-
ited. It would be illogical to find that Armstrong was
harassed by removing her from work she did not do.
7.Two matters relative to attitudes were placed on the
record, and should be noted. (a) Armstrong testified (as
did Thacker) that, prior to July, Chris was very friendly
with her, but that, after July, he was cool and distant.
That observation is accepted as correct. Chris knew of
the union activity and Armstrong's participation, and he
resented those facts. Further, Fazio had cautioned Chris
about his treatment of employees. (b) Risley, one of the
General Counsel's witnesses, testified:
Q. Did Mary Armstrong ever make a comment
to you that because of her union activity, she could
get away with whatever she wanted? Or words to
that effect?
A. Well, yes.
Q. What did she say?
A. I don't know how it came about or what had
happened. But I guess we had been told to keep it
down. Sometimes it would be a little noisy. And she
said that nothing could happen now that the union
was in then. And I think that was the day that Eliz-
abeth and I went to Chris and talked to him and
apologized for starting the whole mess.
As earlier noted, Risley was a credible witness. Arm-
strong denied this testimony by Risley.
8.Armstrong testified relative to harassment of all em-
ployees involved in alleged policy changes by Respond-
ent. Those matters, which are of only incidental rel-
evance to the discussion of Armstrong's discharge, are
discussed infra as possible violations of Section 8(a)(5) of
the Act.
2. Armstrong's discharge
Several facts either are not in dispute, or conclusively
are shown by the record. (a) Armstrong resented and
personally was opposed to Dennis. (b) Armstrong gener-
ally got along well with Jones, Dennis, and Chris prior
to commencement of her union activity, but after the
three managers learned of that activity, their relationship
with Armstrong became strained,'" particularly as far as
Dennis was concerned. (c) Armstrong's work generally
was satisfactory, but she was an aggressive, loud, some-
times abrasive employee, and on several occasions en-
gaged in confrontations with her supervisors. (d) Re-
spondent wanted to see Armstrong out of its employ,
and engaged in some harassment of her, as described
above. (e) Armstrong's foul language was inconsistent
with the general nature and use of language on Respond-
ent's premises.
Because Respondent would be glad to see Armstrong
off its payroll, partially if not principally because of its
resentment of her part in the union activity of employ-
ees, the most important question is whether Respondent
would have fired Armstrong because of her outburst,
whether she had been engaged in union activity.'"
Armstrong's language was not the usual type of pro-
fanity used by employees in businesses such as that con-
ducted by Respondent. 44 It was gutter language. Mildly
profane expletives are a fact of life, and are used
throughout society. They are expected in nearly all busi-
ness settings to express surprise, disgust, anger, or even
pleasure. Sometimes they are used in Respondent's place
of business, as would be expected. However, the prem-
ises involved clearly were not the place for Armstrong's
use of words. Chris and Renette were religious people,
and all witnesses agreed that Chris is a mild, easygoing
person who conducts his business in as quiet and deco-
rous a manner as possible. He resents loud voices, and
does not use profanity. Certainly he was not shown to
tolerate or condone a profane shop. Clearly, the use of
Armstrong's base profanity would be shocking to Chris.
The question then arises whether Armstrong addressed
her language to one or more supervisors, or whether she
was just blowing off steam. It is apparent that her words
were addressed to, and intended for, Dennis. She as-
signed many reasons for the words, including the fact
that she had just missed her bus, but those excuses are
not persuasive. She began her string of obscenities, ac-
cording to her own testimony, with the word "that."
She had just emerged from a confrontation with Dennis
and Jones. Obviously, "that" was Dennis, who had made
her mad because he challenged her early absence of the
42 Risley credibly testified, and Dennis denied, that during their con-
versation when Dennis offered her a bribe (see sec III,D, above), Dennis
stated that Armstrong and Thacker started the Union and it was causing
Respondent problems, "and it would be more peaceful when they were
gone." Risley also testified that Respondent did experience problems with
Thacker and Armstrong, and that Thacker and Jones "always argues."
43 Wright Line, supra
44 Thacker testified that Armstiong's language was not acceptable for
use at Respondent's premises
786 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
preceding day. Further, her obscenities were not uttered
in a soft voice, audible only to herself, nor even at a
normal conversational pitch. They were very loud, clear-
ly audible inside the building she just had left. The con-
clusion is inescapable that she intended the words for
Dennis, and that she wanted him to hear them. And, to
make it doubly clear to him that she intended just that,
she looked at him as she left the premises after being
fired (on Monday) and called him the same names she
used on Friday. She singled Dennis out for her assurance
that he got the message; she did not give Jones or Chris
that message, although they were standing close by.
A final question is whether Respondent's harassment
of Armstrong justified her profanity. In the first place,
that harassment was not nearly so severe as Armstrong
contends, as noted supra. Her dredging up of a series of
minor incidents, and embellishing them to fit her conten-
tions, was not convincing. Respondent was giving her a
hard time, but she was doing a good job of defending
herself, and responding in kind as occasions permitted. In
the second place, even assuming severe harassment as
Armstrong contends, such action by Respondent would
not warrant her calling one of her supervisors the foulest
of names, in the presence of a second supervisor, Jones.
As far as the record shows, Armstrong still would be
employed by Respondent had she not acted as she did on
November 14. As Chris testified, he did not have to put
up with the kind of conduct Armstrong engaged in, re-
gardless of her involvement with the Union.45
Armstrong's discharge did not constitute a violation of
the Act.
0. Alleged Imposition of More Onerous Working
Conditions
Paragraph 7(c) of the complaint alleges that Respond-
ent imposed several more onerous working conditions on
employees because of their union activity. The various
allegations are discussed below, seriatum.
1. Refusing to permit Armstrong to work at the
counter
This allegation was found supra not to be supported
by the record.
2. Instituting a more restrictive telephone policy
Prior to September 2 Respondent had a general, un-
written policy concerning use of company telephones by
employees for personal reasons. As noted above, Re-
spondent had eight telephones located in various places
on the premises, with those telephones connected to four
outside lines. Employees were permitted to use the tele-
phones within reason, provided they did not interfere
with business use of the telephones and provided em-
ployees reimburse Respondent for any long-distance or
other charges incurred. Employees frequently made use
of that policy, and at no time was any employee admon-
ished because of telephone usage or because of abuse of
the privilege. All employees, managerial as well as rank-
45 Wright Line, supra See also Atlantic Steel Co., 245 NLRB 814
(1979); Golden Nugget, Inc , 215 NLRB 50 (1974)
and-file, were aware of the policy. Sometime prior to
September 2 the matter of telephone usage was discussed
among Chris, Renette, and Dennis, and by the managers
with Fazio. On September 2 a notice to employees was
prepared by Renette and signed by Chris, and was
posted for employees' guidance. The notice reads as fol-
lows:
To: All Employees
Subject: Telephone Calls
Due to the fact that our phone bills have been in-
creasing over the past several months, and there
have been some customer complaints that our lines
are always busy, the following guidelines will go
into effect immediately:
1. Personal phone calls are to be made only
during breaks or lunch hour and only on line
0407—limited to one call per person per day.
2. Special permission must be obtained to make
any calls outside the local Santa Rosa area from
your direct supervisor or other management person-
nel.* If permission is granted, these calls must be
charged to your home phone.
3. On incoming personal calls, a message will be
taken and relayed to the employee, who may return
the call during the periods specified in (1) above.
4. In case of a family emergency, the person an-
swering the phone should notify Carol or other
management personnel* immediately, and the em-
ployee involved will be permitted to take the call
immediately.
*Other management personnel defined
J. C. Amato
Renette Amato
Dennis Amato
Renette, Jones, and Dennis testified relative to the
background of the notice, and said it was necessitated be-
cause of increased use of the telephone by employees for
personal business, increased telephone bills, and customer
complaints about being unable to call into Respondent
for business purposes. Fazio testified that Renette called
her in early September, said she was having a serious
problem with increased telephone bills, and stated "I'm
afraid to do or say anything without checking with you
first . . . ." Fazio testified:
I asked her if they allowed people to just make un-
limited calls or long distance calls and she said no,
we've asked people just to be reasonable in their
phone usage. And I suggested to her that I didn't
see anything wrong or inappropriate with just reit-
erating their phone policy in writing and I specifi-
cally asked Renette at the time and then later
checked with Chris—I said now, you realize that
the phone situation applies to everybody here and
he said oh yes, we're not talking about one particu-
lar group of employees or one or two employees.
It's for everybody—people in the office, people in
the printing department, everywhere. I said well, I
don't see anything wrong with putting out some
SANTA ROSA BLUEPRINT SERVICE
787
kind of a bulletin just reiterating this, and I would
talk to their union representative about it.
Much trial time was spent on this issue, which seems
to be a trivial matter. There is no evidence that employ-
ees were inconvenienced by the memorandum, and even
Thacker and Armstrong apparently had no specific com-
plaint, other than the fact that the notice was posted. No
employee testified that employee use of the telephone
was any different after the memorandum was posted,
than it was before the posting. The memorandum does
tighten up the past loose policy, but employees still were
permitted to use Respondent's telephones for personal
business, albeit on a limited basis. Certainly the notice on
its face is in accordance with customary and accepted
sound business practice. The testimony of Renette, Jones,
and Dennis that the use of telephones had got out of
hand is credited. Possibly the union activity increased
the use of telephones, but that is speculative and irrele-
vant. The basic question is whether the notice to em-
ployees unreasonably imposed "more onerous" working
conditions on employees than earlier prevailed because
of the employees' union activity. It is found that it did
not. As earlier noted, Fazio was a very credible and con-
vincing witness, and her testimony on this subject is ac-
cepted as accurate. Her advice to Respondent, credibly
corroborated in relevant part by Chris, makes it clear
that the policy was intended for all employees (as stated
in the notice), whether they were unit employees. There
is no evidence, however remote, that the notice was
issued because of union activity, 46 or in order to retaliate
against any employee or group of employees because of
their union activity. It was issued solely for business rea-
sons, unrelated to union activity. This allegation is found
to be without merit.
The question of a duty to bargain with the Union con-
cerning the notice is a different subject, discussed infra.
3. Makeup time for employee absences
Armstrong testified that prior to July 3 if employees
took time off they could make up the time within the
pay period. After July 3 that was changed, she saki, to
the requirement that the time be made up the same day it
was missed. On cross-examination, Armstrong testified
that the policy was changed after September 4, and that
she "thought" the change was announced by Jones
coming into the printing department and announcing it
to "everybody."
Sheets testified that when she was absent because of
illness she was on paid leave and did not make up the
time. She said that as far as she knew no one made up
time for absences.
Benedict testified that prior to September 4 employees
were able to take time off for medical appointments and
other reasons, and that the policy remained the same
after September 4. However, she said, after September 4
the time taken had to be made up the same day rather
than as before, any time during the pay period. Howev-
er, on cross-examination Benedict testified that she never
4 6 The union election already had been won by the Union on August
26.
took any time off after September 4; that she never was
informed by a supervisor or manager that there had been
any change in the time makeup policy; and that she ob-
tained her information on this subject from Armstrong.
Levine testified that prior to September 4 he had taken
personal time off but did not have to make it up on the
same day.
Jones testified that the only two employees involved in
makeup time were Risley and Benedict. She never dis-
cussed the subject with Armstrong or Thacker. Risley
once was given permission to make up time during a
lunch hour in order to use worktime to take her son to a
dentist, and on another occasion a similar arrangement
was made. On one of those occasions Risley filled out a
timecard for 8-1/2 hours, which included one-half hour
of makeup time, and Jones explained that she could not
do it that way because that created overtime out of regu-
lar time; hence, the makeup time had to be worked the
same day it was taken. Jones testified that Benedict once
wanted to make up time taken off, on some other day in
the manner Risley had tried, and that she explained to
Benedict that it could not be allowed because it turned
regular time into overtime.
Chris and Dennis testified that Respondent never
changed its policy relative to taking, or making up,
worktime.
This issue has the appearance of some others raised by
Armstrong, as discussed supra, i.e., the appearance of a
nonissue. Jones' explanation of the makeup matter is
credited. Benedict's testimony is not probative, and in-
volves only hearsay from Armstrong. Levine's testimony
has been considered, and is given no weight. No viola-
tion of the Act is found relative to this subject.
4. Breakroom policy
Respondent's breakroom is small, approximately 10 by
12 feet, and is located to the rear of the sales and counter
room. It contains a table and three or four chairs, and
some supplies that are stored there. Prior to September 4
the room was loosely supervised, and principally was
used by employees, although customers and visitors
sometimes used the room for brief periods of time. It is
curtained off from other areas, and is easily accessible.
Dennis testified that after September 4 use of the
breakroom by persons other than employees, their rela-
tives, and spouses was limited because the room was be-
coming crowded and inconvenient, and used by too
many people who were not employees.
Benedict testified that, prior to the union election, the
breakroom could be used by anyone, including employ-
ees, relatives of employees, spouses, and friends of em-
ployees. She said the breakroom was "cozy" with four
people in it.
Armstrong testified:
Carol McNulty-Jones informed us on November
14 that the break room was no longer open to just
anybody outside of employees and she said that yes,
we could have an immediate family member
present—you know, they could wait in the break
room for us and I asked her if my husband—who
788 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was not my husband at the time—but I asked her if
he could—he was included in that, and she said yes.
Armstrong testified that, when she talked with
Dennis and Jones on November 14 about leaving
early on the preceding day, Dennis stated, among
other things, ". . . from now on, no one would be
allowed in the break room except employees."
Thacker testified that Scheidler, a union representa-
tive, was waiting in the breakroom on November 13 to
take Armstrong to the union meeting that day, and while
there, doodled on a piece of scrap paper, which he later
threw into a trash basket. She said Jones talked with her
the next day:
She told me that I had been pretty foolish to
invite a union organizer back into our break room. I
said, I didn't see why. She knew that Russ was
coming there to pick up Mary and it was just—she
said, no, he was probably back there campaigning
for the union and they didn't like that; he'd even
left a note. And I said, yes he did. And I said, oh,
you mean—he was trying out his pen and he wrote
that this is now a union pen. And now, Dennis has
it.
Q. Dennis has what?
A. Had the little scrap of paper.
Q. That Scheidler had been writing on?
A. Yes.
Q. Did she tell you how he got it?
A. He got it out of the trash.
Q. What else did she tell you in that conversa-
tion, your sister?
A. Well, that I'd reAlly blown it because I had a
union member back in there and now everybody
was all up in arms about it and now they were
going to have to restrict the break room.
On cross-examination Thacker stated, inter alia, "As I
said I'm not certain to the exact date; but the policy did
change. But I'm not certain of the date." She also testi-
fied that the change of policy occurred "a few weeks, a
couple of weeks" after the union election. She said the
breakroom policy "remained the same up until that spe-
cific announcement."
Jones denied Thacker's testimony on this subject and
testified:
The break room was becoming crowded with
people that were not supposed to be in the break
room. It was a small area. It had three chairs, and
we have 16 employees. I would schedule breaks
carefully to make sure that everybody had a place
on their break to sit down and drink their coffee.
And occasionally I would hear a loud noise from
the break room. I would go back there and I would
say, "You have to keep it down. We can hear you
out in the show room. Customers can hear you." At
one point, I went in there because it was so loud in
there, and I said, "What is going on in here? It
sounds like you are having a party." There was a
customer in the break room, and Mary replied to
me, "You can't tell us to be quiet. There is a cus-
tomer in here now." The break room was for em-
ployees. It was back behind the counter. You would
not want—or, the company would not want strang-
ers to be able to wander in there. So it got to the
point where something had to be done to limit that
use. So I told the employees that we were going to
have to limit the use of the break room. There was
not enough room to crowd all of the people in
there, and we were going to have to limit it to em-
ployees' use and immediate family members if they
had somebody there waiting to pick them up or
something.
Q. Was there any discussion about whether the
employees' boyfriends or something like that—
A. [Interrupting] Yes; Mary asked me if she
could have her boyfriend in the break room. And I
said, certainly.
Q. At any time up to the time that Elizabeth left
her employment with the company, were the em-
ployees told that they could not bring anyone into
the break room, even relatives or friends, like her
case?
A. No.
Q. Did they continue to have people sit in there
and wait to pick up employees?
A. Yes.
Q. Did they still do it?
A. Yes.
Jones later testified that the breakroom change was insti-
tuted on November 14, and that, prior to that date, there
had been no firm policy on the use of the breakrooin.
Jones said she did not know about Scheidler being in the
breakroom on November 13, until the trial in this case.
It is clear that the practice relative to use of the break-
room was changed by Jones on November 14, which
was well after the union election. It also is clear that, set-
ting aside the matter of union activity for the purpose of
analyzing the change, a reasonable restriction would be
proper. The room was quite small, and it was located
near the customer area in the sales room. Sixteen or sev-
enteen employees used the breakroom, and it was neces-
sary even prior to November 14 to rotate use of the
room on breaks, because it only had three or four chairs.
The change was not a drastic one—it was understood
by Armstrong and Thacker to restrict the use of the
room only as far as "outsiders" were concerned. Arm-
strong's boyfriend was not excluded.
The change affected all employees of Respondent—it
did not affect only unit employees, or certain members
of the unit.
The principal question is whether the change was insti-
tuted in order to interfere with union activity. Union or-
ganization could not be involved, because the election al-
ready had been held, and the Union already, by Novem-
ber 14, represented the employees. Respondent and the
Union had executed no contract, and there was no con-
tractual agreement relative to the presence of union rep-
resentatives on Respondent's premises. In any event,
Scheidler was not in the room for any purpose other
than to wait to pick up Armstrong. Jones testified that
when the change was made she did not know of
SANTA ROSA BLUEPRINT SERVICE 789
Scheidler's presence in the room, but Thacker said Jones
instituted the restriction because of Scheidlees presence.
In any event, it is clear that the restriction did not inter-
fere with any union activity—Scheidler could have
picked up Armstrong at the curb, as well as in the break-
room. Even assuming that Thacker's version of the re-
striction is accurate, Respondent would not have violat-
ed the Act by restricting the breakroom to preclude
union representatives from its use, since it was closely
and personally associated with employees. There was no
stationary or contractual requirement that union repre-
sentatives be permitted to use the room.
Assuming arguendo, that the restriction indicated Re-
spondent's union animus, that animus is clear in any
event. Whether the matter should have been discussed
with the Union is a separate matter, discussed infra Cer-
tainly the breakroom change was trivial, and did not
impose more onerous working conditions on employees.
No employee, including Thacker and Armstrong, testi-
fied that they were inconvenienced by the change.
No violation of the Act is found, relative to this issue.
5. Refusal to accept Armstrong's doctor's "excuse"
This matter is discussed supra, and it is found that this
matter did not involve the institution of more onerous
work conditions.
6. Refusal to permit Thacker to work at the front
counter
The fact that Thacker was removed in October from
part-time counter work, which work was easier and
more pleasant than printing, is not in dispute. Thacker
credibly testified that she enjoyed counter work and
wanted to keep doing it. Chris and Dennis made the de-
cision to transfer Thacker to a full-time printer, and
Jones credibly testified that Chris did not confer with
her prior to the transfer. She said she was told about the
matter after the decision was made, and that the reason
given was Thackees poor performance at the counter.
Jones was Thacker's immediate supervisor. When
Thacker was transferred, a new employee was hired to
work at the counter full time.
Chris testified that his chief complaints about
Thacker's work at the counter were that she leaned on
the counter, talked too much with customers, and failed
to keep herself occupied between customers. He said he
was informed by Dennis and Jones of errors made by
Thacker. He denied taking Thacker off counter work be-
cause of her union activity. He said he spoke with
Thacker about her leaning on the counter, but there is no
evidence that he otherwise talked with her about her
work performance at the counter.
Respondent's union animus, and knowledge of
Thacker's union activity, are found supra. Further, as
discussed elsewhere in this decision it is clear that Chris
resented Thacker's union actiVity, and changed his atti-
tude toward her because of that resentment, from friend-
ly to cool and distant.
Although Thacker was a difficult employee because of
her frequent failure to accept supervision by, and her fre-
quent arguing with, Jones, and her resentment of Dennis,
and even though she made errors for which she was ad-
monished, it appears that her counter work with custom-
ers generally was satisfactory. Certainly she never was
warned that any of her alleged shortcomings in the sales-
room could result in discipline, or removal from counter
work.
Chris' explanation of the reason for Thacker's transfer
was weak and unconvincing. He did not testify to any
credible event, or series of events, that precipitated the
transfer, nor did he explain why, after her past work at
the counter, she suddenly became unsuited for that work.
In view of his resentment of Thacker's union activity, it
seems clear that Chris transferred Thacker as a form of
punishment, or discipline, because of that activity.
Printing being more onerous and less interesting than
counter work, and Thacker preferring counter work, it is
found that this allegation of the complaint was proved
by the General Counsel.
7. The change of Thacker's work hours
Employees other than Thacker normally worked from
8 a.m. to 5 p.m. The shop was not open to customers
until 8 a.m.
Sometime in the past, Thacker's hours were changed
at her request, to start at 7:30 a.m. and quit at 4:30 p.m.
The request was made in order that Thacker could ride
to and from work with her husband. She did not have a
key to the shop, but usually started to work at 7:30 a.m.
after being let in by Chris, who customarily started wcirk
at an early hour. On November 5 Dennis told her that
her hours had been changed back to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., at
Chris' instructions. Chris later verified that fact.
Chris testified that he changed Thacker's hours be-
cause she was not under supervision between 7:30 a.m.
and 8 a.m., and in view of the fact that she was on pro-
bation, he wanted her to be supervised at all times.
Respondent's motivation relative to this matter is the
same as that discussed in the section next preceding this
one.
The fact that Thacker's early hours were a personal
accommodation for her is not in dispute.
Chris' explanation for the change is illogical and un-
convincing. He was in the shop at an early hour, and
could provide any required supervision of Thacker.
Clearly, the only reason for the change was to harass
Thacker by saddling her with hours that were inconven-
ient, rather than permitting accommodation for her as in
the past.
This allegation of the complaint is well supported by
the record.
P. Thacker's Quit
Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the complaint in Case 20-CA-
16030 allege that about January 14, 1981, Respondent
constructively discharged Thacker because of her union
activities.
Thacker testified that commencing a few days after
the negotiation scheduled for November 17 there was
severe and frequent harassment of her, particularly by
Dennis. The alleged matters of harassment are discussed
below.
790 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1.Thacker testified that, commencing a few days after
November 17, she observed Dennis standing and watch-
ing her, with his arms folded. She said he did the same
thing, almost daily, until she quit her job.
No other witness testified in corroboration of this
statement by Thacker.
Dennis denied watching Thacker.
This is a subjective matter, unless Dennis is shown to
have manifested his surveillance in some obvious manner.
The only manifestation alleged by Thacker are the star-
ing and the folded arms. That testimony was not cor-
roborated, and without convincing corroboration this
testimony is considered doubtful. There is no doubt
about the animosity between Thacker and Dennis, but
Dennis is a supervisor, and his daily routine takes him
into all parts of the business. It is possible that Dennis
watched Thacker, but in view of Thacker's intense dis-
like of him, it also is possible that his routine was misin-
terpreted by Thacker, who was sensitive and prone to
breaking into tears. This matter is given no credence.
2. Thacker testified that on December 10 Jones misin-
terpreted to Chris her volunteering to work overtime
during the lunch hour to get a job out.
Jones testified that her conversation with Thacker was
an insignificant disagreement and that when Chris, who
was nearby, asked what was going on, Jones replied
"nothing."
This clearly was a trivial matter, and is given no
weight, regardless of whose version is accepted.
3. Thacker testified that, also on December 10, she
was joking with employee Jim Long about her being in
the front office to pick up supplies and Dennis, who
overheard the conversation, took it as an affront, and ad-
monished her about it. She said she felt harassed, and
cried about the incident.
Dennis testified about the incident and said he only
asked Thacker to keep her voice down.
This is another trivial incident that does little more
than show the animosity between Thacker and Dennis,
and 'Thacker's extreme sensitivity. In her testimony,
Thacker repeatedly told about her crying, at home and
in the office, and graphically described the emotional
trauma she was undergoing each day at work. Her de-
scriptions appeared overdrawn and dramatic, and are
given little weight.
This incident is given no weight.
4. Thacker testified that in late December Dennis gave
her a rush job and they argued about the sequence of
jobs to be run. Thacker told Dennis that it was her re-
sponsibility to establish the sequence. She said Chris
came over and straightened the matter out.
This was no more than a minor disagreement between
Thacker and Dennis, that immediately was settled by
Chris. It is entitled to no weight, and is given none. At
most, it only shows the animosity between Dennis and
Thacker.
Thacker testified that she returned to work on January
5, after the holidays. She testified:
Well, over the holiday, I had a chance to review
my position at Santa Rosa Blueprint. My job had
not improved. It had just gotten worse. Conditions
had not improved. They had gotten worse. I was
leaving work in tears at least every other day. My
husband was saying it's not worth it. He knew that
I felt very strongly at this point about the union. I
felt, since Mary was already gone, I was the only
person left that would really represent the union at
Santa Rosa Blue. I felt that 1, had a moral obligation
just to stick it out. It was just taking too much out
of me. I was getting a lot of pressure from my hus-
band to leave. And so on that day, I told my sister,
Carol McNulty-Jones, that I would like to give my
two-week notice.
Q. What did she say?
A. She said okay. I said, do I need to tell Chris
Amato. And she said, no, that she'd tell him
Q. At that time that you gave that notice, did
you have any prospects for another job?
A. No, I did not.
Jones testified that approximately January 4 Thacker
talked with her about quitting, and when she asked why,
Thacker replied "Well, Fred [Thacker's husband] and I
are going back to Virginia." Jones further testified:
There was a specific problem that happened
during the last week of her employ where she
was—Dennis came into the front office and said,
"Do you see what is happening in the white print-
ing department?" And from where I am seated I
can see directly to the back of the white printing
department, and I looked and I saw all of the ma-
chine operators congregated in one spot around the
paper cutter. So I went back there, and I said,
"What is going on?" And Elizabeth said, "Well I
am counting paper, and Elaine is cutting paper, and
somebody else is doing something else. Do you
have any more questions to ask me?" And I said,
"No; but I sure wish all of you would go back to
your work stations," and I left. And, when I walked
back out front, Dennis said, "I heard Elizabeth's re-
sponse to you, and I don't think it was appropriate.
Would you ask her to please come out front be-
cause I would like to speak with her?" And so I
Went back and I said, "Would you come out front
for a second, please?" And she came out front, and
Dennis spoke with Elizabeth. He said, "There is just
too much chatter going on back there. The work—
it is disrupting the work flow. Work isn't getting
done." And then he told her that she could go back
into the white printing department.
Jones testified that, on the same day soon after the
above-quoted incident; an employee reported to her that
Thacker was shouting at Dennis about an apology, and
Dennis was not responding Jones stated:
And when I heard about that situation, I went to
Chris, and I said, "Chris, it is escalating out of con-
trol. We can't seem to control what is going on
with the work flow here, and I think it would be a
good idea if we allowed Elizabeth to leave a couple
of days early before her two-weeks notice is up."
And Chris agreed.
SANTA ROSA BLUEPRINT SERVICE 791
Q. What was the next thing that happened?
A. I went and got Elizabeth and asked Elizabeth
to come back from the white printing department.
And we went into Dennis', and there was Chris and
Dennis and myself. Chris explained to her that he
was going to allow her to leave work with pay for
the last two days of her employ.
Jones testified that Thacker said nothing about being har-
assed, or about the Union, or about having anyone
present with her during her interview with Chris.
Dennis corroborated Jones' testimony, with a few ir-
relevant discrepancies.
Thacker testified that on January 14 she was doing
some printing work, and also was assisting Risley. Verna
Thacker, a fellow employee, came to where they were
to discuss a job Thacker was doing. After some conver-
sation, the three employees went back to the work they
were doing. Jones came to Thacker and asked her to
come into Jones' office, and she said there was too much
conversation among employees in the printing depart-
ment. Thacker explained that the three employees were
discussing jobs they were working on, and Dennis said
"no, no, that was not what was happening, that I'd been
back there campaigning for the Union." Thacker denied
Dennis' statement and Denms replied that she always
was campaigning for the Union, and that Doug Simons
told him that he, Simons, overheard Thacker talking
with the pressman about the Union. Thacker responded
that the pressman had asked her how negotiations were
going, and she just responded to his question. Thacker
told Dennis that he was singling her out, and trying to
find reasons to reprimand her. Thacker returned to the
printing department, and told Risley what had happened.
Risley went to Jones' office to explain what had hap-
pened. Dennis walked and Thacker told him he
should apologize for his false accusation of her. Dennis
said, "You've got to be kidding." Thacker then went to
see Chris about Dennis' conduct, and Chris said he
would get it straightened out. After lunch, Dennis told
Thacker that Chris wanted to see her and Thacker said
she wanted to have Risley with her. Dennis told her to
see Chris about that. Then:
So then I finished what I was doing and I went
back. And Chris Amato, Dennis Amato, and Carol
McNulty-Jones were all back there. Chris—I said to
Chris, I said Chris, may I have another union
member present. And he said, no, we just want to
keep this simple and amongst ourselves. He said, I
just want you to leave; I want you to leave now;
any problems that you're having with Dennis, this
will clear all those problems up; if you have any-
thing in white printing department,' go ahead and go
in the white printing department and get your
things and then go ahead and leave. He said, I'll
pay you for the rest of the week since that what
was originally agreed upon, that you were going to
work out a two-week notice; and I'll have your hol-
iday pay ready for you, that—to come again on
Friday; come late in the afternoon to make sure the
checks were prepared, and just come and pick up
my check. So I said, okay.
Risley testified that Thacker told her she was going to
quit her job and move back to Virginia with her hus-
band, because:
She and Dennis didn't get along at all. And they
just couldn't work together. So there was quite a bit
of conflict there, and that was one of the reasons
that she was leaving.
Q. My question was did she say that she was
leaving because the company was making her job
impossible because of her activities, or words to
that effect? She never said that, did she?
A. Well, no, not like that, no.
Sheets testified that, a month or two before she quit
her job, Thacker told her that Thacker and her husband
had talked "about moving back East."47
Jones testified that she and Thacker often talked about
Thacker's father-in-law being seriously ill with cancer,
and Thacker acknowledged that fact.
The Board does not lightly infer a constructive dis-
charge, and each case rests on its own merits. Several
words have been used to describe the kind of conduct
required in order to infer such a discharge. Included are
"intolerable,"48 "abusive,"49 and "unbearable." 5° The
fact that an employer has committed 8(a)(1) violations
against the employee who quit is not controlling, even
though those violations may be numerous and of varied
character. 51 Nor is an employer's hostility toward an
employee, or its hope that the employee quits, necessari-
ly decisive. 52 The test must be whether the employee
reasonably cannot take it any longer because of the em-
ployer's conduct.
Thacker testified at length, and in detail, concerning
Chris' change in attitude toward her after learning of her
union activity. Whereas he once was friendly and warm
toward her, he became cool and distant, she said. That
testimony by Thacker is credited.
It is clear that one of Thacker's principal problems
was Dennis. She said Chris never threatened her. On
several occasions during her testimony Thacker made it
clear that she was not vindictive or resentful toward
Chris; to the contrary, she spoke kindly of him on sever-
al occasions. Also, it is clear that, in spite of her inability
to get along with Jones at work, she did not harbor
hatred of Jones. Jones' testimony that Thacker wanted
Jones' daughter for a traveling campanion to the East
Coast after Thacker quit, was not denied by Thacker,
and belies any irreconcilable estrangement between the
two sisters. Risley was not a consistent union supporter,
but she was a friend of Thacker, and still works for Re-
41 Thacker denied that she ever told Risley that she left her job to
move to Virginia. Risley is credited.
42 Missourian Publishing Co., 216 NLRB 175 (1975)
42 Donohue Beverages, 199 NLRB 581 (1972).
5° Liberty Markets, 236 NLRB 1486 (1978)
51 G. A. Dress Co, 225 NLRB 60 (1976); Van Pelt Fire Trucks, 238
NLRB 794 (1978).
52 Van Pelt Fare Trucks, supra.
792 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spondent. Renette was not Thacker's supervisor, and al-
though Renette's attitude toward Thacker cooled as did
Chris', there is no indication that Thacker resented, or
could not get along with, her. Only Dennis seemed to be
her implacable opponent. Nearly all of her allegations
and complaints revolve around, or involve, Dennis.
Many of her confrontations with him were over trivial
work matters. Thacker contends that Dennis instigated
all those confrontations because of his resentment of her
union activities, but the record does not support that
contention. Thacker's fellow employees—Risley, Sheets,
and Levine, as well as Jones, Dennis, and Chris—made it
apparent that Thacker simply could not, or would not,
accept Dennis as a supervisor. It appears likely that one
of the problems at the core of this controversy was
Dennis' disinclination to tolerate Thacker's frequent and
loud confrontations with Jones, in the paternalistic
manner therefore shown by Chris.
Thacker did not, even by her own testimony, tell
Jones when she quit that the reason was that she was
being harassed by Dennis, or anyone else.53
After Thacker quit her job, Risley was asked by a
fellow employee-friend of Thacker to write a statement
on behalf of Thacker, to be submitted to the State De-
partment of Employment. Risley testified:
I was very busy that day, and Elizabeth was wait-
ing outside for the statement. And another girl,
Verna, came in and asked me for it. And I told her
I didn't have it. And she said, "Well, write what I
tell you." And I wrote it, and signed it, and gave it
to her. And then I got to thinking maybe I
shouldn't have.
. . . .
Not normally, I don't write or do as I'm told.
But I was in a hurry, and I was busy, and I didn't
feel like stopping to put things in my own words.
Q. So you figured the best thing to do was, "I'd
better write whatever Verna wants me to write
since I'm busy".
A. I thought she had worked there three years,
that she was entitled to her unemployment.
The statement read:
I have worked at Santa Rosa Blueprint with Eliza-
beth since December 26, 1979. Since negotiations
started with the Printers Union last August, Eliza-
beth was harassed by management for her union ac-
tivities.
Aside from the fact that harassment does not necessarily
equate constructive discharge, this note is not reliable
evidence of harassment, in view of Risley's explanation
of the manner in which she wrote it out. The note is
constituted of Verna's words; it was written hurriedly,
without thought; it was written for a friend (Thacker); it
was written in order that Thacker could collect unem-
ployment pay.
53 Thacker often wanted, and requested, overtime work She contin-
ued to be assigned to such work in December.
Thacker alleges that she quit her job because of Re-
spondent's harassment of her, but her decision was made,
and carried out, in leisurely and contemplative fashion.
No one thing precipitated her decison to quit. To the
contrary, the situation at work appeared, even by
Thacker's testimony, to have been worse prior to No-
vember 17 than thereafter. Very little of any import oc-
curred after November 17. Certainly constructive dis-
charge in January 1981 would be unlikely based on
events occurring 2 months earlier. Thacker thought the
matter over during the holiday season, and decided that
things were not working out, particularly her relation-
ship with Dennis. When she returned after the holidays,
she did not then leave her job. Rather, she gave 2 weeks'
notice, which was not the usual pattern of quits, as far as
the record shows. If conditions at work were intolerable,
2 weeks' notice would be unnecessary, as well as unlike-
ly.
Thacker graduated from college in the State of Virgin-
ia, was married there, and lived in Virginia for 3 years
with her husband. She and her husband have land in Vir-
ginia, on which she has told some persons they may
build a home. She and her husband moved to Virginia
approximately 9 months after Thacker quit her job with
Respondent, and they still live there. Risley credibly tes-
tified, and Thacker denied, that Thacker told her prior
to January 1981 that she, Thacker, was going to move to
Virginia with her husband. Thacker testified that she did
not quit her job to move to Virginia. It is quite clear that
Thacker had strong family and personal ties in Virginia,
and that she planned to move there with her husband. It
is not clear when that decision was made, or when the
move was planned to be made. It appears likely that the
plan to move predated Thacker's decision to quit her
job, but that the move definitely was decided on after
her problems with Respondent became serious. This
matter, however, still does not answer the question
whether Thacker quit her job because her working con-
ditions became intolerable.
Thacker had three supervisors—Jones, Chris, and
Dennis. Aside from any desire to move to Virginia, if
she wanted to remain, there seems little doubt but that
Thacker still would be employed by Respondent, had
Dennis not come to work to relieve Chris. Thacker was
a problem employee, but Jones and Chris had come to
an accommodation with her albeit reluctantly and with
some misgivings. Dennis made the difference in her job.
Thacker and he had what Thacker termed a "personality
conflict." They often argued and bickered. Dennis gave
her a hard time on occasion, but she was not incapable
of arguing back, or going over Dennis' head to Chris or
around him to Jones. Dennis sometimes prevailed on
Chris and Jones to confront Thacker with problems, and
he made it clear to her that he would not give her the
same leeway that Chris and Jones did. Her working con-
ditions were not as pleasant after Dennis came to work
as they previously were, but quitting for that reason does
not constitute discharge. The test is whether those condi-
tions became intolerable or unbearable.
After Thacker thought over her problem during the
holidays, she decided the job was not worth the candle.
SANTA ROSA BLUEPRINT SERVICE 793
Dennis was there to stay, and the two of them simply
could not get along. Dennis was Jones' boss, hence the
Jones-Thacker relationship, with all its problems, would
not stay the same as it had been. Further, the softness of
Chris had been removed from the equation. Thacker
now had to work with a managerial supervisor whom
she did not like, and with whom she was not compatible.
Possibly she could have made her peace with Dennis,
but that effort was not expended. Her hours had been
changed, but they still were reasonable and were the
same as all other employees. The altered hours she had
been working had been arranged solely for her personal,
convenience—reversion to regular hours involved a
change of only 30 minutes. She had been removed from
counter work, but she still was a printer, the same as she
had been prior to having been assigned to work the
counter part time. Some of the bickering and arguing
was Thacker's fault as well as Dennis'. It may well be
that Thacker was frustrated and resentful because of the
new managerial hierarchy, and that she was unwilling to
accept the change, but it seems apparent that when she
quit, she did so because of her emotions and personal
preference, and not because her working conditions had
become intolerable.
It is found that Thacker was not constructively dis-
charged by Respondent.
Q. Alleged 8(a)(5) Refusals to Bargain
1. Changed telephone policy
Paragraph 11(a) of the complaint alleges that Respond-
ent refused to bargain with the Union concerning its
changed telephone policy.
The facts relative to this matter are discussed supra.
The change was dictated by business necessity (the
Union already had won the election on August 26)
rather than by a design to interfere with the Union's or-
ganizational attempts or employees' union activities.
Fazio credibly testified that, at the negotiation session of
October 2, the subject of possible working rules, includ-
ing use of the telephones by employees, was discussed
and Ziolkowski said he had received a copy of Respond-
ent's telephone notice from Armstrong or Thacker.
Fazio credibly stated, through inadvertent error, howev-
er, that Ziolkowski was not notified by Respondent of
the policy change until approximately 1 week after the
notice was posted. In any event, the question is whether
Respondent had a duty to bargain with the Union con-
cerning the change. As discussed above, the change was
insignificant, and no employee was shown to have been
inconvenienced by it. This case is similar to that of La
Mousse, Inc., 259 NLRB 37, 49-50 (1981), in which Ad-
ministrative Law Judge Jensen stated, inter alia, in dis-
cussing possible 8(a)(5) violations after the respondent
there issued notices to employees concerning changes in
breaktimes, cooking on the premises, and security of per-
sonal property:
I conclude and fmd that the Respondent has
demonstrated justifying circumstances for issuing
the December 29 notices. There is no indication
that they were discriminatorily motivated as retalia-
tion against the employees for any protected activi-
ties, nor that they in any way undercut the Union's
representative status. Absent discrimination, an em-
ployer is free to choose more efficient and dependa-
ble methods for enforcing its workplace rules.
Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., 235 NLRB 8 (1978).
Moreover, the publication of the rules does not rep-
resent a "material, substantial, and significant
change" constituting a breach of the bargaining ob-
ligation. Peerless Food Products, Inc, supra.
The Board agreed with the findings and conclusions of
the administrative law judge. This allegation is found not
to be supported by the record.
2. Employee absences; making up time off
This matter is discussed supra. As found, no policy
change is involved.
3. Use of breakroom
This matter is discussed supra. As discussed, this
change was dictated by business necessity, and was not
motivated by a desire to interfere with any union activi-
ties. No employee was shown to have been inconven-
ienced by the change, which was an insignificant one.
Respondent's unilateral institdion of the change was not
a violation of the Act, as alleged.54
4. Refusal to accept doctor's excuse
As discussed supra, no policy change was involved,
and this matter was not a subject for negotiation. No vio-
lation of the Act is found.
5. Changes in Thacker's work hours and duties
As found above, these two changes unilaterally were
made by Respondent in order to harass Thacker, and
should have been bargained in advance with the Union.
Violations of the Act are found as alleged."
6. Changes in medical and dental plans
Respondent did not initiate these changes, as discussed
above. They were initiated by the insurance carrier, and
Respondent's reasonable course to follow was to institute
them. Respondent notified its employees of the changes,
but it did not notify the Union, which was the employ-
ees' certified representative. That failure to notify the
Union constituted an 8(a)(5) violation, as alleged.56
7. Respondent's refusal to bargain
When the parties met on November 17 to bargain, as
described supra, Armstrong was present for the Union
k with Ziolkowski and Thacker, although she no longer
was employed by Respondent. Chris objected to Arm-
strong's presence because she no longer was a member of
54 La Mousse, Inc., supra; Peerless Food Products, 236 NLRB 161
(1978).
55 Pilot Freight Garners, 221 NLRB 1026 (1975); Sundstrand Heat
Transfer, 221 NLRB 544 (1975)
56 La Mousse, Inc , supra
794 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the bargaining unit, and refused to negotiate with her
present. The meeting was discontinued. 57 The following
day Fazio addressed a letter to Ziolkowski, as directed
by Chris. The letter read as follows:
Dear Jim:
Santa Rosa Blueprint Service is quite willing to
engage in productive, good faith bargaining with
the Union.
We are not willing, however, to negotiate with
an individual who does not share any community of
interest with the bargaining unit and whose pres-
ence would be disruptive and whose demeanor
would be antagonistic to the Employer and subse-
quent negotiations.
We expect to meet, as planned, on Thiirsday, De-
cember 4, at 1:00 p.m. at the El Rancho, in Santa
Rosa. Aside from Elizabeth Thacker, Would you
please advise me, in advance, of your second com-
mittee member so that the Employer can make the
necessary arrangements so that he/she can attend. I
also ask that you contact me if you do not agree
that Mary Armstrong will not be present during
any bargaining session.
Again, I reiterate our position that Santa Rosa
Blueprint is willing to engage in good faith bargain-
ing with the Union.
Sincerely,
/s/ Lynn Fazio
Lynn Fazio
California Association of Employers
Representing Santa Rosa Blueprint Service
P.S. Attached is a list of Personnel changes in
your unit.
A meeting was scheduled for December 24 and Fazio
appeared, but no one appeared for the Union. No further
meeting was scheduled.
The fact of Respondent's refusal to negotiate as long
as Armstrong was present is not in dispute, and clearly is
shown by Fazio's letter of November 18, quoted above.
There was no showing that Armstrong's presence at
negotiations would constitute a "clear and present
danger to the bargaining process."58
Respondent's refusal interfered with the rights of the
Union and Respondent's employees to choose their own
bargaining representative, and is a violation of Section
8(a)(5) of the Act, as alleged."
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE ON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent, set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with their operations de-
scribed in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce
57 Fazio testified that she and Ziolkowski had a disagreement about
Armstrong's presence and that Ziolkowski stated, inter alia, "I can de-
stroy Santa Rosa Blueprint if you want me to and if that's what you want
me to do, I'll do it" Ziolkowski did not testify Fazio is credited
58 General Electric v NLRB, 412 F 2d 512 (2d Cir. 1969).
59 Thiene Answering Service, 257 NLRB 284 (1981)
among the several States and tend to lead to labor dis-
putes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Santa Rosa Blueprint Service, Inc. is, and at all
times material has been, an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
2. Printing Specialities & Paper Products Union, Dis-
trict Council No. 1, the International Printing and
Graphic Communications Union, AFL-CIO is, and at all
times material has been, a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
,3. The following employees constitute a unit appropri-
ate for purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of the Act:
All full-time and regular part-time production and
maintenance employees including delivery people
employed by Santa Rosa Blueprint Service, Inc. at
its Santa Rosa, California, facility; excluding profes-
sional, confidential, office clerical, sales and tempo-
rary employees, and guards and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
4. The Union is the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of Respondent's employees in the unit de-
scribed above, for the purpose of collective bargaining
with regard to wages, hours, and other terms and condi-
tions of employment.
5. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
soliciting an employee to spy on the activities of other
employees; by threatening employees with job loss if the
employees became unionized; by interrogating an em-
ployee concerning how he happened to get mixed up in
the union bargaining; and by interrogating employees
concerning their union activities.
6. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act by harassing an employee through a counseling ses-
sion; and by imposing more onerous working conditions
on an employee because of the union activities engaged
in by those two employees.
7. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act by failing and refusing to notify and bargain with
the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of
Respondent's employees concerning changes in Respond-
ent's medical and dental plans; changes in working hours
of an employee; changes in the work duties of an em-
ployee; and by failing and refusing to bargain with the
Union so long as a discharged employee was one of the
Union's bargaining representatives.
8. Respondent did not engage in unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint that are not found here.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices, I will recommend that Respondent be ordered
to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
SANTA ROSA BLUEPRINT SERVICE

795
It is recommended that allegations of the complaint
found not to be supported by the record be dismissed in
their entirety.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed6°
ORDER
The Respondent, Santa Rosa Blueprint Service, Inc.,
Santa Rosa, California, its officers, agents, 'successors,
and assigns, shall
IL Cease and desist from
(a) Violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by Soliciting
employees to spy on the activities of other, employees; by
threatening employees with job loss if the employees
became unionized; by interrogating employees conceriv
ing how they happened to get mixed up in union orga-
nizing; and by interrogating employees concerning their
union activities.
(b) Violating Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by har-
assing employees through counseling sessions; and by im-
posing more onerous working conditions on employees
because of the union activities engaged in by such em-
ployees.
(c) Violating Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by fail-
ing and refusing to notify and bargain with the Union as
the exclusive bargaining representative of Respondent's
employees, concerning changes in Respondent's medical
and dental plans; changes in working hours of an em-
ployee; changes in the work duties of an employee; and
by failing and refusing to bargain with the Union as long
as a dischalged employee was one of the Union's bar-
gaining representatives.
60 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, bargain collectively with Printing Spe-
cialities & Paper Products Union, District Council No. 1,
the International Printing and Graphic Communications
Union, AFL-CIO as exclusive bargaining representative
of Respondent's employees in the union found appropri-
ate above, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment and, if an understanding is reached with the Union,
embody such understanding in a written agreement with
the Union.
(b) Notify and bargain collectively with the Union on
request concerning changes in Respondent's medical and
dental plans, changes in working hours of employees,
and changes in work duties of employees.
(c) Post at its Santa Rosa, California facility, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." 61 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 20, after being signed by the Respondent's au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by the Respond-
ent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 con-
secutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
61 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board."