Court Opinion

ID: 9458411
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:51:31.171182+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:45.527698
License: Public Domain

WEICK, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
The Trial Examiner, who heard the witnesses and observed their demeanor, after holding that the General Counsel had established a prima facie case, found that it was rebutted by the testimony of Evans which he credited, and recommended a dismissal of the complaint. He stated:
“To state that inferences are permissible and that a prima facie case exists is not to say, however, that they are inescapable, and that a finding must be made. In my judgment Ev-' ans’ testimony concerning Bush’s attendance in January rebutted the prima facie case. I was impressed not only with the amount of time Bush missed but also with Evans’ testimony that absenteeism was not a problem with any other employee. At this point, it seems to me, the burden of going forward with the evidence reverted to General Counsel. I found Evans a credible witness in his testimony, and, in the absence of further evidence, I would dismiss the complaint.2” (footnote in Majority Opinion).
A divided panel of the Board, in reviewing the record, reversed the Trial Examiner and held that Evans violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act and issued a cease and desist order requiring the Company to cease and desist from interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights by discharging employees for engaging in activities protected by said section and granted affirmative relief requiring the Company to- reinstate employee Bush with back pay.
Chairman Miller dissented, stating in his opinion:
“I would adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
His analysis of the record and his application of burden of proof are, in my view, free of reversible error.
As he points out, the Respondent’s testimony (which he credits) as to the degree and amount of Bush’s absenteeism, and to the effect that it was greater than that of other employees —(“I mean it wasn’t even close”)- — ■ was not refuted by the General Counsel. It was the General Counsel’s burden, once such testimony had been given, to establish, if he could, either by contrary testimony or by documentary evidence, that the testimony offered by Respondent was inaccurate or unreliable. He did not do so.
In this state of the record, the Trial Examiner properly dismissed the complaint.
Dated, Washington, D.C. May 19, 1971.”
The complaint filed by General Counsel charged only a violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. No charge was made in the complaint that the discharge of Bush violated Section 8(a) (3) of the Act which is the only section dealing with discharges. The Board *198made no finding that the employer violated Section 8(a) (3).
Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, in pertinent part provides:
“(a) It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer—
(3) by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization.”
There was not a scintilla of evidence that the employer discriminated against Bush to discourage membership in the Union. The Board made no such finding. It wasn’t even charged in the complaint.
In N.L.R.B. v. Ogle Protection Service, Inc., 375 F.2d 497, 505 (6th Cir. 1967), Judge Cecil, in writing the opinion for the Court stated:
“Section 158(a) (3), Title 29, U.S. C., makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to discriminate ‘in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization.’ It is unlawful for an employer to discharge an employee if the primary motivation therefore is his membership in or his activities on behalf of a labor organization. Subject to this qualification, the National Labor Relations Act does not restrict an employer’s right to discharge his employees.” (Citing authority.)
In Ogle, the employee was discharged because he came to work with the odor of liquor on his breath. Id. 506.
In N.L.R.B. v. McGahey, 233 F.2d 406, 410 (5th Cir. 1956), the Court held:
“The finding of 8(a) (1) guilt does not automatically make a discharge an unlawful one or, by supplying a possible motive, allow the Board, without more, to conclude that the act of discharge was illegally inspired. Indeed, we have frequently sustained 8(a) (1) charges while rejecting those under 8(a) (3).” (Citingauthority.)
In N.L.R.B. v. Dan River Mills, Inc., 274 F.2d 381, 384 (5th Cir. 1960), the Court stated:
“Of course, the violation of § 8(a) (1) does not bring all discharges made during its pendency within § 8(a) (3). * * *' A discharge becomes forbidden only if motivated by an unlawful purpose to discriminate against the Union or its adherents. A general bias or a general hostility and interference, whether proved or conceded, does not supply the element of purpose. It must be established with respect to each discharge.” * * *
“The bias and coercive threats were fully established, but except for union membership nothing else was proved save these equivocal conversational exchanges to show that this employee’s discharge came from a purpose to discriminate. This unlawful motive ‘is not lightly to be inferred. In the choice between lawful and unlawful motives, the record taken as a whole must present a substantial basis of believable evidence pointing toward the unlawful one.’ ”
The usual order issued by the Board when it finds a violation of § 8(a) (1) is to cease and desist while the order issued for a § 8(a) (3) violation is to reinstate with back pay.
In my opinion, the flimsiest kind of evidence was relied upon by the Board to support even an 8(a) (1) violation. It is detailed in the majority opinion as follows:
“On January 22, 1970, Bush and several other employees were discussing the subject (overtime pay) in the company lunchroom when a foreman, Carl Hood, entered. Bush spoke up and asked what Hood ‘could do about getting us paid overtime for anything over eight hours a day.’ Hood responded, in effect, that he could not help, and that Bush would have to speak to higher management about it.
On January 29, Bush spoke to another foreman, William Frazee, about the same subject and received a simi*199lar answer. On January 30, foreman Hood informed Bush that Merle Evans, respondent’s vice-president, secretary and plant manager wanted to speak to him. Evans then discharged Bush and gave him a check for his wages. According to Bush, no explanation was offered, except that Evans ‘mumbled something about staying in the locker room too long.’ ”
The company had been paying overtime for work in excess of forty hours a week. The discussions of the employees related to daily overtime where the total number of hours worked in an entire week did not exceed forty hours.
There was not a scintilla of evidence that these conversations, alleged to be protected activities, were ever communicated to the management of the company. There was no proof that Bush or any other employee of the company ever made any request of management for daily overtime pay. It is most significant that no employee, other than Bush, of the many employees involved in the discussions was discharged. This is substantial proof that the overtime discussions were not a motivating factor in the discharge of Bush. Kellwood Co. v. N.L.R.B., 411 F.2d 493, 498 (8th Cir. 1969). The fact is that Bush was properly discharged for other good and sufficient reasons.
The mere coincidence of the employee’s alleged protected activity with his discharge will not support a discrimination. Broadway Motors Ford, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 395 F.2d 337 (8th Cir. 1968) ; N.L.R.B. v. Swan Super Cleaners, Inc., 384 F.2d 609 (6th Cir. 1967).
Nor are suspicious circumstances that an employer may have been activated by unlawful motives in discharging an employee sufficient to support a finding of an unfair labor practice. Lozano Enterprises v. N.L.R.B., 357 F.2d 500 (9th Cir. 1966); Kellwood Company v. N.L. R.B., supra.
An inference must be based upon substantial evidence either direct or circumstantial and not upon mere surmise or suspicion.
As well stated in N.L.R.B. v. Ogle Protection Service, Inc., supra:
“The Board is limited to determining whether there was a discriminatory motive behind an employee’s discharge, and not whether the Board agrees with the employer’s reasons or even finds them unreasonable.”
It is well settled in this Circuit that an employer may discharge an employee for any reason so long as he is not motivated by anti-union discrimination. As well stated in N.L.R.B. v. Bangor Plastics, Inc., 392 F.2d 772, 776 (6th Cir. 1967):
“The law is clear that an employer may discharge an employee for any reason whatsoever, so long as he is not motivated by anti-union discrimination. National Labor Relations Board v. Waterman S. S. Corp., 309 U.S. 206, 60 S.Ct. 493, 84 L.Ed. 704, rehearing den. 309 U.S. 696, 60 S.Ct. 611, 84 L.Ed. 1036; N.L.R.B. v. Challenge-Cook Brothers of Ohio, Inc., 374 F.2d 147 (C.A. 6); N.L.R.B. v. Ogle Protection Service, Inc., 375 F.2d 497 (C.A. 6), cert. den. 389 U.S. 843, 88 S.Ct. 84, 19 L.Ed.2d 108: Union membership and activities is not a shield behind which a discharged employee can take refuge and claim discrimination. N.L.R.B. v. Ogle Protection Service, Inc., supra; Wellington Mill Division, West Point Mfg. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 330 F.2d 579 (C.A. 4), cert. den., 379 U.S. 882, 85 S.Ct. 144, 13 L.Ed.2d 88. The burden remains upon the General Counsel to prove that the reason for the discharge was the employer’s anti-union hostility. An employer is not obliged to treat a union member differently or with greater deference than any of his other employees. Poor performance, misconduct and insubordination, for example, do not have to be tolerated merely because the offenders are among the plant’s most active union supporters. An employer’s stated opposition to unioniza*200tion is not in itself sufficient evidence to sustain a finding that an employee was discharged because of discrimination against a union. N.L.R.B. v. Ogle Protection Service, Inc., supra; N.L.R.B. v. Redwing Carriers, Inc., 284 F.2d 397 (C.A. 5).”
N.L.R.B. v. Ogle Protection Service, Inc., supra; R. J. Lison Co. v. N.L.R.B., 379 F.2d 814 (9th Cir. 1967); N.L.R.B. v. McGahey, 233 F.2d 406, 412 (5th Cir. 1956).
In Kellwood v. N.L.R.B., supra, the Court held that pro-union activities do not insulate an employee against a lawful discharge for cause. N.L.R.B. v. Swan Super Cleaners, Inc., 384 F.2d 609 (6th Cir. 1967). Also, an employer’s general hostility toward a union does not, standing alone, supply unlawful motivation for a lawful discharge.
Plant Manager Evans testified that neither Hood or Frazee ever reported the alleged protected conversations about overtime pay to him, and he did not learn of them until after the charge had been filed in the present case. Notwithstanding the lack of any testimony to the contrary, the Trial Examiner and the Board did not credit Evans’ testimony on this point. In a similar situation, the Court in N.L.R.B. v. Whitfield Pickle Company, 374 F.2d 576, 581 (5th Cir. 1967) said:
“The trial examiner and the Board find it ‘incredible’ that the company officers did not know of Mrs. Goodwin’s union activities, but the barrenness of the record on this point indicates that their incredulity springs from nothing more than the assumption or suspicion that the officers’ denials are false. The officers gave sworn testimony in an attempt to prove a negative: it can be well-nigh impossible to prove that one did not know something in the past by any other means than sworn denials. Such sworn testimony cannot be ‘arbitrarily disregarded’ because of the merest suspicion or assumption, without more, than the denials are lies. N.L.R.B. v. Atlanta Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 5 Cir. 1961, 293 F.2d 300, 306; Universal Camera Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 1951, 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456.”
Even assuming, however, that the General Counsel had made out a prima facie case of a Section 8(a) (1) violation, the Trial Examiner found credible evidence to counter-balance it. He credited Plant Manager Evans’ testimony concerning Bush’s habitual tardiness and absenteeism and, on this basis, recommended a dismissal of the unfair labor practice charge. Absenteeism and tardiness constitute a proper and reasonable basis for discharge. DC International, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 385 F.2d 215 (8th Cir. 1967); N.L.R.B. v. Blue Bell, Inc., 219 F.2d 796 (5th Cir. 1955).
Plant Manager Evans further testified that as far back as 1969 there were occasions when Bush was tardy and absent from work. This continued over the months to get progressively worse. In December, 1969, Bush was tardy five different days and absent a half day. In January, 1970, (month of discharge) he was absent four out of twenty working days and tardy on three other days. Evans had warned Bush on more than one occasion that the company would not put up with his tardiness, but these warnings had no effect. Bush had explanations, however for his tardiness but they were frivolous. One explanation was that he did not have the money to purchase an alarm clock. The other was that his automobile was wrecked in an accident. (He lived only two city blocks from the plant and he never claimed that he could not walk).
Bush was warned several time about spending too much time in the locker room.
He was involved in a fight at the plant with another employee about fifteen months before his discharge. More recently, in fact only two weeks before his discharge, he engaged in a fight with his own brother in a barroom argument over a woman and fractured his brother’s nose. The majority opinion concedes that Bush’s “attendance prob*201lems apparently resulted from a social life offensive to local morality and from excessive consumption of alcohol.” The excessive consumption of alcohol also resulted in his coming to work under the influence of intoxicants and with a “hangover”; throwing up all over the place, leaving work and going home. There was testimony that his absenteeism occurred sometimes over weekends when he would not work on Fridays or Mondays, and would be out with the women. All of this happened in the little town of Gallipolis, Ohio, where respondent operated a small plant. Bush’s misconduct was testified to by witnesses for the General Counsel who were fellow employees of Bush. In addition to the above, the company was frequently annoyed by Bush’s creditors pressing for payment of his bills.
The hearsay evidence concerning the discussion between Bush and Charlie Kinder over the possible benefits of unionization, and Evans rebuking Bush for talking about the union, involved an isolated incident which took place in October, 1969. In any event, the employer has a right of free speech. 29 U.S.C. § 158(c).
As well stated in Lozano Enterprises v. N.L.R.B., supra:
“But it is well settled that an employer is not required to favor a union or refrain from opposing it, nor is it prohibited from expressing opposition to it. N.L.R.B. v. Threads, Inc. (4th Cir. 1962), 308 F.2d 1.”
Both the Board and the majority rely on the fact that the employer did not introduce in evidence Bush’s time cards. There was abundant testimony concerning Bush’s tardiness and absenteeism without the cards and Bush did not deny it, but gave flimsy excuses for it. In any event, the burden of proof was not on Evans but on the General Counsel to establish the unfair labor practice. AHI Machine Tool & Die, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 432 F.2d 190 (6th Cir. 1970); N.L.R.B. v. Bangor Plastics, Inc., 392 F.2d 772 (6th Cir. 1967); N.L.R.B. v. Swan Super Cleaners, Inc., 384 F.2d 609 (6th Cir. 1967); Rivers Manufacturing Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 376 F.2d 511 (6th Cir. 1967). The General Counsel recognized his deficiency when he filed a motion to reopen the case to subpoena the cards.
In Universal Camera Corp. v. N.L.R. B., 340 U.S. 474, 490, 71 S.Ct. 456, 466, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951), the Court stated:
“We conclude, therefore, that the Administrative Procedure Act and the Taft-Hartley Act direct that courts must now assume more responsibility for the reasonableness and fairness of Labor Board decisions than some courts have shown in the past. Reviewing courts must be influenced by a feeling that they are not to abdicate the conventional judicial function. Congress has imposed on them responsibility for assuring that the Board keeps within reasonable grounds. That responsibility is not less real because it is limited to enforcing the requirement that evidence appear substantial when viewed, on the record as a whole, by courts invested with the authority and enjoying the prestige of the Courts of Appeals. The Board’s findings are entitled to respect; but they must nonetheless be set aside when the record before a Court of Appeals clearly precludes the Board’s decision from being justified by a fair estimate of the worth of the testimony of witnesses or its informed judgment on matters within its special competence or both.”
It is apparent to me that, applying these standards, the evidence in this case lacks substantiality and that the order of the Board ought not to be enforced.