Opinion ID: 355906
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Discharge of Carleton

Text: 10 Whether the dominant reason for the discharge of Carleton was his union activities rather than his work performance is a more difficult question. To find a violation of § 8(a)(1) and (3), (w)here there are both proper and allegedly improper grounds for discharge, the Board's burden is to find affirmatively that the discharge would not have occurred but for the improper reason. Coletti's Furniture, Inc. v. NLRB, 550 F.2d 1292, 1293-94 (1st Cir. 1977). Like so many other cases this Court has had occasion to review, e. g., NLRB v. South Shore Hospital, 571 F.2d 677 (1 Cir. 1978); A. J. Krajewski Manufacturing v. NLRB, 413 F.2d 673, 676 (1 Cir. 1969); NLRB v. Pioneer Plastics Corp., 379 F.2d 301, 306 (1 Cir. 1967); NLRB v. Joseph Antell, Inc., 358 F.2d 880 (1 Cir. 1966), at issue preliminarily is whether the Board has sustained its burden of showing that the petitioner knew of Carleton's union activity. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. v. NLRB, 536 F.2d 461, 464 (1st Cir. 1976). The evidence that Lee knew of union activity among the men generally, including Carleton, is quite strong. The combination of Lee's independent information about the union drive, the fact that the drivers, including Carleton, gathered to discuss the union in full view of Lee and which Lee admits observing although he denies he knew what they were discussing, the testimony of Giordano and Anderson that they told Lee about the union efforts before Carleton's discharge, Lee's admission that Giordano may indeed have told him about the union prior to discharge, the smallness of the plant and, finally, the telephone call from the NLRB on the day of Carleton's discharge asking Lee if he had received their literature, all establish that Lee knew of the union activities of all four drivers, including Carleton. 11 The fact that Lee did not fire all four drivers but only Carleton bears on the ultimate question of whether Carleton's union activities were the dominant reason for the discharge. Petitioner argues that if union activities were the motive, Lee should have fired all the men; that the only factor that distinguished Carleton from the other three was not his union participation but rather his poor job performance and misconduct which allegedly formed the basis for the discharge. Only one incident supports circumstantially respondent's position that Lee believed Carleton to be the instigator. In late April, Lee passed through the group of drivers who had been discussing the union. While one driver motioned for silence, Carleton said that he did not care if Lee heard, since the men had already signed union cards. Carleton testified that he spoke loud enough for Lee to hear but that he did not know if Lee actually heard. The ALJ found only that it was quite possible that Lee had heard this remark and consequently had singled Carleton out as the leader. 1 In addition to this incident, Lee testified that based on past encounters, he perceived Carleton to be quite outspoken about his grievances. Lee may have inferred from this characteristic that Carleton was the union instigator. 12 Standing alone, this evidence would not persuade us that Carleton's union activities were the basis for the discharge. See NLRB v. Pioneer Plastics Corp., supra, 379 F.2d at 306. However, the evidence that the reasons petitioner has offered for the discharge are inconsistent with its previous practice, against its apparent interest and inconsistent with its subsequent actions, Joseph Antell, Inc. v. NLRB, supra, 358 F.2d at 883 (Malone Knitting, companion case), quoted in NLRB v. South Shore Hospital, at 684, sufficiently compensates for the other weak links in respondent's case. 2 Four incidents were cited by Lee at trial as forming the basis for Carleton's discharge. In February, 1976, Carleton and Anderson collected oil that had so much water in it that it was nearly worthless. However, no warning nor disciplinary order issued. In March, 1976, Carleton initially resisted driving the truck Lee had ordered him to drive but he eventually complied with Lee's order. The most serious incident occurred in mid-April when Lee ordered Carleton to pick up a supply of oil in New Hampshire. Reluctant at first, Carleton did eventually make the pick-up but was unable to collect any additional oil, although, according to his logs, he solicited at 10-15 places. Upon his return, Lee reprimanded Carleton for taking a lunch break and for not making more stops to improve his day's oil total which was far below Carleton's average. Breaking with his usual practice, Lee also called some of the stops Carleton had listed on his log; two of the stations reported that Carleton had never stopped there. When confronted with this report by Lee, Carleton insisted to Lee he had made all the stops logged; however, he admitted at trial that in fact he had not. Carleton also told Lee he was not going to bust his hump for the company. By the end of the discussion, Lee felt Carleton had MELLOWED AND CONSEQUENTLY TOOK NO DISCIplinary action against him. the fourth and final incident was similar to the first incident in February. On May 11, Carleton reported to Lee what he thought was a good source of oil. After testing a sample, Lee authorized Carleton and Anderson to make a purchase. On May 12, Carleton and Anderson filled each of their trucks, with one driver positioned on the top of his own truck to make sure water was not coming in, while the other held the pump, skimming the oil off the top of the supply tank. Upon their return, Lee pronounced the entire load junk because too much water was mixed in with the oil. After agreeing to wait overnight to let the mixture settle, the next morning, May 13, Lee found that some oil was salvageable and had the remaining water returned to the seller who reimbursed petitioner in full for the water. 3 Carleton's truck had only between 700-1000 gallons of salvageable oil while Anderson's contained between 1400-1600 gallons of oil, the equivalent of Anderson's daily average. Anderson and Carleton began their normal routine at 10:00 a. m. without any indication from Lee that disciplinary action was contemplated. Late that afternoon Lee received a call from the NLRB inquiring whether he had received any of their literature. Upon Carleton's subsequent return, Lee told him he was fired. According to Lee's pretrial affidavit, he gave as a reason only that Carleton had tied up two trucks. When Carleton demanded more reasons, according to both Carleton and Anderson, Lee refused to give any reason. According to Lee's trial testimony, he then recited the four incidents. 13 Although this catalogue of employment problems is substantial, several factors persuasively indicate that these reasons were not the dominant reason for the discharge. Most significantly, even Lee admitted that Carleton had a good record for quality and quantity oil and that he could not recall any alterations for the worse following Carleton's April expression of unwillingness to make an extra effort. The most important job qualification the ability to collect large quantities of oil Carleton more than adequately satisfied. In addition, at the time of the discharge, the company was particularly short-handed. A persistent record of low oil collection consistently motivated Lee's decision to discharge in the past; it was not his general practice to discharge for occasional bad days such as Carleton had. Water mixed with oil to varying degrees was a daily occurrence that never occasioned even a warning. Admittedly, both the first and last incidents involved unusually large quantities of water, however, on neither occasion was Anderson, Carleton's partner, so much as warned. 4 14 Lee's reaction after each incident further belies petitioner's position. No disciplinary action was even threatened after any of the incidents. Even after the last incident, Lee gave no indication of his intentions, allegedly formulated the night before, simply because, he explained, he did not feel like it. In fact, Lee's actions the day of dismissal facilitated Carleton's return to a normal routine. Most telling is the fact that Lee discharged Carleton within an hour or two of the NLRB telephone call. In contrast to Lee's delayed reaction following the last incident, Lee immediately called Carleton to task after the New Hampshire episode. However, even after that more serious confrontation, Lee continued to have faith in Carleton's ability to work hard for the company. At trial, Lee's testimony that he might have fired Carleton then if he had known Carleton had lied to him about his stops necessarily implies that Lee was convinced at the time by Carleton's explanation that Carleton had in fact made the stops. Thus, Lee may not have even actually considered seriously the charge of falsifying records, the most grievous charge presently against Carleton. See Trustees of Boston University v. NLRB, supra, 548 F.2d at 393. The discrepancy between Lee's trial testimony and his pretrial statement with respect to the reasons he gave Carleton for discharge cast further suspicion on petitioner's present reliance on all four incidents. 5 See NLRB v. Teknor-Apex Co., 468 F.2d 692, 694 (1st Cir. 1972); A. J. Krajewski Manufacturing Co. v. NLRB, supra,413 F.2d at 676. 6