Opinion ID: 363952
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Discriminatory Discharge of 46 Employees

Text: 28 The Board found that Hartz terminated 46 employees because of their adherence to District 65 and their refusal to join or support Local 806. Hartz contends that (1) there is no evidence that it had knowledge of the current union affiliation of any of the alleged discriminatees; (2) it had substantial and legitimate business reasons for each termination; and (3) the terminations were neither inherently destructive of employee rights nor motivated by a discriminatory purpose. 29 The administrative law judge found that Hartz had knowledge of the identity of the District 65 supporters, either through the authorization cards delivered to the company on April 11, 1974 or through observation of its supervisory employees. The judge credited testimony from the 46 dischargees to establish discriminatory intent. Their testimony differed in some particulars, but generally established that they were summoned to the plant cafeteria, singly or in groups, and informed that they had a choice of either affiliating with Local 806 or facing termination. The plant public address system was often used to summon the employees, and the plant manager was often present. The 46 discharged employees resisted this coercion and were later terminated. To recite in detail the testimony of the employees witnesses would unduly lengthen this opinion and would serve no useful purpose. We are convinced that the record supports the Board's conclusion that Local 806 was engaged in its activities to enforce the security clause of the contracts with the knowledge and assistance of Hartz, and that a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination was made. 30 Hartz argues that the discharges were justified by either substantial business reasons or poor work performance. Hartz vice-president Kaye testified that during the period in question the company was in a financial decline which required a reorganization of its production operations, with a concomitant lay-off of employees. He testified further that he personally decided which employees to terminate based on reports from high-level supervisors at the Jersey City plant and on his personal review of the personnel folders of the employees. 31 The administrative law judge discredited Kaye's testimony that the discharges were due to business retrenchment and found that under admitted facts less qualified employees were in many instances retained, many new employees were hired while the 46 discriminatees were terminated, 18 none of the laid off employees were recalled, and the economic justifications offered were belatedly added to Hartz' answer to the complaint by amendment during the trial. While the judge's inference of incredibility is not compelled, we agree that it is warranted by the evidence, and we will not disturb it. 32 The Board likewise found no justification for Hartz' contention that poor work performance was the basis of the discharge of the 46 employees. On the contrary, the administrative law judge, following his analysis of the work records of each of the employees, noted, Inter alia, the fact that, without explanation, no line supervisors were produced by the Employer to testify to dispute or refute the testimony of the terminated employees as to lack of criticism or fault found with their work, and the precipitate nature of the terminations and the manner in which they were effected for what was in most cases long-term, satisfactory employees. 19 33 Kaye's testimony that he personally reviewed each personnel file and ordered the discharges on the advice of plant supervisors was strongly discredited. 20 At the time the alleged file review took place, there were, according to Hartz Personnel Manager Levy, no centralized personnel files at Hartz' Harrison headquarters. Hartz did not call any official other than Kaye or any supervisor to testify as to the poor work performance of these employees. 21 The only supervisor who testified, Domingo Negron, 22 was called by the General Counsel. He testified that neither he nor the other supervisors knew why their employees were being discharged; that no one asked his opinion on their work performance; that he found no fault with the work of these employees who were working for him; and that he was informed by General Manager Feinberg that the discharges were upon orders from Harrison. 34 On the basis of this testimony and other inconsistencies in the evidence presented by Hartz, 23 the administrative law judge concluded that the offered justifications were mere pretext and insufficient to rebut the prima facie case of discrimination. From our review of the record we find substantial support for this conclusion. The portion of the Board's order finding discriminatory discharge of 46 Hartz employees will therefore be enforced. 24