*2
COLEMAN,
Before
GODBOLD and
HILL,
Judges.
Circuit
HILL,
JAMES C.
Circuit Judge:
This case is before the
upon
court
of Mueller
petition
(the
Brass
“Compa-
Co.
of,
review
ny”)
cross-applica-
of,
tion for enforcement
an order of the
Labor
(the
National
Relations Board
“Board”).
presented
The issues
are wheth-
er substantial evidence on the record as a
supports
whole
the Board’s findings that
Company violated
8(a)(1)
Sections
(3) of the National Labor
(the
Relations Act
“Act”),
158(a)(1)
(3),
U.S.C.A.
§§
discharging employees Hansford Stone and
Roy Rogers
James
and that
the Company
8(a)(1) violated Section
Act
threatening employees with adverse conse-
quences
election;
if the union1 won the
intimidating
and warning
wearing
insignia; question-
employees as to
whether anyone had
America,
Steelworkers of
United
AFL-CIO-CLC.
early
talked to them about the union or had tried
1974. In NLRB v. Mueller
Brass
cards;
get
sign
asking
them to
em-
this Court
why they
wearing
were
union but-
ployees
upheld the Board’s findings that
the Com-
evidence,
Failing to find such
we
pany
tons.
violated
§§
of the Act
deny enforcement.
by discharging an employee, and by making
*3
threats and suggesting that union organiz-
appropriate
standard of re
being
ers were
blacklisted by employees in
in this case is clear. We are to sustain
view
area. Significantly,
this court found
they
sup
Board’s determinations if
are
question
is no
from
“[t]here
the record
by substantial
evidence on the
ported
Company
that the
was strongly anti-union.”
as a whole. 29
considered
U.S.C.A.
record
Id.
685.
at
Brown,
278,
160(e); NLRB v.
380 U.S.
85
§
980,
Later,
(1965);
13
839
L.Ed.2d
Universal
in NLRB v.
S.Ct.
Mueller
Co.,
Brass
509
NLRB,
474,
Corp.
(5th
1975),
71 F.2d
Camera
v.
340 U.S.
704
Cir.
this court refused
456,
(1951);
456
International
to enforce orders
95 L.Ed.
of the Board.
S.Ct.
This court
Masters,
Mates and Pilots
found that “even
Organization
considered
1976).
NLRB,
(5th
Company’s prior
It is
sentiment,”
v.
though scope our of review is thus DISCHARGES if, deny we should enforcement after a full Stone, Hansford Jr. went to work for the record, review we are unable consci March, in Company 1972. given Stone was entiously sup to conclude that the evidence warning a verbal about absenteeism in Feb- porting Board’s determinations is subs 1974, ruary, and he received a written tantial.2 Corp. Universal Camera April, in warning 1974. specifi- Stone was NLRB, supra; NLRB v. Mueller Brass cally informed warned about an auto- 704, 1975); 509 F.2d NLRB v. termination matic under Plant Rule 40.4 Super Markets, Inc., O. A. Fuller 374 F.2d 197, 1967). 25, 1974, April On went Stone to see his Collum, physician, Dr. who advised him that Background go to the hospital. should report- Stone Company began production Company Grissom, in ed to the and Glenn in 1971 Fulton, Mississippi. personnel representative, placed union conducted him on organizing campaigns unsuccessful in 1971 leave. Grissom sick advised Stone that he 1973, began campaign Company its third should contact when he important Roy Rogers. 2. It is to bear in mind that “[t]he 3. James substantiality of evidence into must take fairly whatever account record detracts Company provided: 4. Rule 40 of the 1974 rules weight.” Corp. from its Universal Camera An who is absent for three consec- NLRB, 488, 340 U.S. at at 464. See S.Ct. days working permission utive without will Transportation, Bowman also Inc. v. Arkansas- voluntary quit. be considered a 281, Inc., Freight System, 419 U.S. 234 n. Best 438, 2, (1974). 95 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 447 that the discharge that he should to work and Stone return was motivated able time. Company’s opposition release his doctor’s to the union present its desire to rid itself a known union April 25 from hospitalized Stone un-. adherent. to work he did not return but May til pales the Com- The conduct of Stone in comparison 14. He did not contact May until hospital actions which formed the date basis for pany between Roy Rogers. Rog- date his return to work. James lease Henson, Company’s general began employment with the Compa- ers Charles foreman, report February, ny received Stone Prior his dis- and, upon inquiry, charge February, around town he worked the seen been May p. plant. received a note on 11:00 m. 7:00 a. m. shift at the stating should had been active in union organiza- Dr. Collum May approximately able to return work on tion one and been one-half have *4 Thus, 9, 1974, years Stone and was well as May on was known a union activ- 1974. by Company pursuant to Plant Rule 40. ist officials. He terminated was dis- Company charged an for conduct the received in- which was Subsequently, characteriz- indicating by the report that Stone had ed Administrative Law Judge as surance “vulgar and discharged hospital from the and that offensive” “any standard been required. acceptable was home confinement conduct.” no summary, January 31, In during presented May himself for work on Stone m. Rogers the 5:00 a. break presented a May displayed He 13th note a 1974. artificial male organ mechanized sex stating that he Dr. Collum should be from employee plant. at female the The female May to return to work on 14. Stone able n was embarrassed employee and 9th turned May shown Dr. Collum’s note away. very night The Rogers, next on a why report he did not work on employee, approached dare from fellow May 6. Stone that he had contracted stated employee another female and made her an throat. He then left and returned sore proposition. She, indecent and offensive note Dr. day same a third too, upset was embarrassed the re- preceding attempting to void Collum mark. Company two notes. The refused to rein- him. state days Robinson, A few later Frank Company’s Industrial Manager, Relations (ALJ) Judge The Administrative Law report received a there had been an that Stone’s unexcused absence from the previous incident week previous work in his combination with upset had female employees. report record of absenteeism person responsible for the incident was visiting been he had seen around town were day identified. next Robinson be- the Company’s a sufficient basis for belief inquiry into the matter gan an and after an deliberately overstayed had his ex- that he Rogers investigation, extensive was inter- prevailed cused absence then and admitted the viewed incidents involved. reports. doctor to contradict his earlier De- was then Rogers discharged by the Compa- spite Company’s opposition admitted violation of Plant ny for Rule 22.6 knowledge sym- the union and its of Stone’s pathies,5 regard ALJ concluded With discharge Rogers, violating ALJ in light terminated rule about felt Company’s disagreed union, unexcused absences. to the its opposition knowledge of and from its review the Rogers’ sympathies, record concluded its prior discrimi- fact, previously provides: ALJ 5. concluded 6. Rule 22 by Company remarks to Stone offi- employee disorderly, engage An shall not cials violated Section Act. See immoral, illegal indecent or conduct. infra. him,7 protracted in- charged and its nation more, just as, or offenses, vestigation despite into capable as the one left job, to do the or employee complaints, then, compared absence the like the argument runs, to- investigations prior into offenses employer to its actually must not have been discharge female employees, ward by managerial considerations, motivated improper pre- (here for his was a Rogers conduct degree a full swing is finally getting made) of him. The text rid the stated reason thus dissipated agreed with the ALJ that the dis- pretense, nought as remains but anti- charge pretextual. purpose explanation. But as we have so often said: management involving employ In controversies management. Neither Board nor discharges suspensions, ee the motive of second-guess give Court can it or gen- controlling is the factor. guidance by tle super- over-the-shoulder v. Brown, U.S. S.Ct. Management vision. can discharge for showing Absent a of antiunion moti cause, cause, good or bad or no cause at vation, an employer may discharge em has, It as the all. master of its own ployee running without afoul of the fair affairs, complete business freedom with reason, good for a labor laws bad reason specific, qualification: definite but or no reason at all. NLRB O. A. Fuller may not when the real motivat- Markets, Inc., Super supra. The mere fact ing purpose is to do that which Section specific employee only that a breaks *5 8(a)(3) forbids. pro-union rule but also a evinces The Board cites two destroy is not reasons for its sentiment alone sufficient to decision to reverse the just discharge. his v. conclusion of the cause for NLRB 711; the fact see ALJ: that the Company Mueller Brass 509 F.2d no Laundry, Inc., effort to prior NLRB v. Soft contact Stone discharging Water to (5th 1965). of him the Company’s F.2d 930 Cir. The essence failure to credit the 8(a)(3) in violation Section final discrimination doctor’s note which attempted to void treating the Act is in like cases previous different all notes. However unreasonable Finally, the Board sustain the ly. may must the Board consider these actions on the on showing evidence part burden of record of the Company, is there no evidence which establishes reasonable inference in the record to indicate that the Company between the Company’s connection causal had ever conducted its business otherwise. employee’s and the dis animus requirement antiunion We know of no that it do so. charge. that We conclude there is no substantial evidentiary in basis the record for the find judice, ease sub the ALJ concluded In the discharge that the of Stone was discrim Company’s antiunion that sentiment inatory and in violation of 8(a)(3) Section part no its to in decision terminate played Act. reversing, In Hansford Stone. overstepped its As we in bounds. observed We are literally by shocked the con McGahey, 233 F.2d 412-13 clusion of the Board Rogers was dis (5th 1956): Cir. charged in violation of the Act and that he frequent Board’s error is the in is Rogers’ entitled be reinstated. admit
which existence the reasons stated ted conduct vulgar and statements were as the by employer basis for the dis- by any and offensive decency. standard of charge is evaluated in terms its reason- The Board opinion was of the light in If ableness. excessive- prevailing mores in and the harsh, if ly discipline lesser forms prior treatment afforded to transgressors of adequate, have been standards, would the dis- moral decent the termination of prominent Rogers’ in denied, (1974), name was N.L.R.B. enforcement N.L.R.B. granted, (1973), enforcement (5th 1975). Cir. suspended in 208 requires The answer such reinstatement pretextual. back pay Meats, Frosty him, in Morn lies enforcement is argument denied. an NLRB, 296 Inc. Employees “Threats” to 1961): Bobby Taylor working started for the however, If, . the misdeeds of November, Company in 1973. Foreman flagrant that he are so employee during Bud Gunter him his thirty day anyway be certainly fired almost would anyone review session if had talked to him is no room for discrimination there or get union had tried about him to will not have part. employee play addition, card. sign union during his by employer’s union ani- been harmed ninety day probationary Supervisor review any others will mus, he nor and neither him, Raymond Rose asked seeing discouraged membership a un- be button,8 what he will ion, all understand since Company. The ALJ concluded these anyway. have been fired employee would of no supervisors were concern to matters the statute be remembered It must question tended to intimidate discrimination, fo- and that the prohibits Taylor violation of Section only test dominant motivation cus on agreed. Act. oc- reveal whether discrimination has employee Foreman Charles Henson and in treat- Discrimination consists curred. Hansford Stone had conversation about differently. employer If an ing like cases February, the union in 1974. Henson asked organizer, a sympathizer a union fires thought Stone what he about the union to finding of rests on the as- discrimination Stone said that he know. the absence sumption went on to experi- tell about his sad Henson he would have treated em- activities ence as a union differently. member and of his belief ployee hurt that a union more than it employee gives When an again responded helped. Stone that he did did, him as Judkins much reason fire know, having never been in a union. instructions refusing to follow *6 that pointed then out if there Henson was a only supervisors but also not giving strike, money by the lost employees could impression the that employees fellow up. never be made then Stone stated that uncooperative, there is no basis was he he not that was being feel he treated the employer conclusion that has the right by Company the to which Henson differently he would than him treated that the responded Company was that employee. a non-union As treated have job. given him a matter, may may not be speculative larger in that animus loomed true The ALJ concluded Henson’s than Judkins’ employer’s motivation promised neither anything marks Stone if shortcomings as a worker. But when the rejected he the union not threatened him just as cause is any Company with the loss benefits he here, as the record as a whole great it is support continued union. ALJ support not the conclusion does attempt felt that Henson’s to convince any discharged employee deprived was gain that he nothing through Stone would activities. The right because of union protected union was 8(c) under Section of reinstatement remedial. It is power agree. Act. The Board did of the not an penalize It is not punitive. light Company’s forcing on anti-unionism employer for open hostility to the union perva- and the stay unfit to pay-roll practices sive unfair labor which it had seen job. record, Henson’s remarks were discharged good threatening and suffi- and coercive in violation of Sec- as the Board’s order tion Act. cient cause. Insofar Yes, read, America, United “Vote Steelworkers of AFL-CIO-CLC.” The button April 18, had a no Finally, on Stone evidence to indicate that the Company with Henson and conversation Foreman actively sought out union sympathizers to Caydo Smith. Intertwined Foreman engage in conversation. In each instance absences, illness and about Stone’s remarks employees responded candidly and the perhaps quipped Foreman Smith record does not anyone disclose that poisoning.” “rust problem was Stone’s intimidated the remarks or viewed them he only knew that replied that he warning Stone as a support discontinue for the by Manager Robin- being right treated As a fact, union. matter of the reverse by asserting to which Smith countered son appears more employees accurate —the reit- more hurt than Mana- the union could erated their support continued for the un- he stated that ger Robinson. Stone ion. The places heavy reliance going to what he wanted to do. The do the Company’s history of antiunionism and ALJ characterized these statements hav- discharges unlawful that it found from intimidating “the effect of foreseeable the record. We have failed to find substan- right in the exercise of his wear support tial in the record for the conclusion insignia engage and to in other union of the Board that the Company unlawfully accepted The Board conclu- activities.” this discharged employees and we likewise fail of the ALJ. sion to find support substantial for the conclu- sion Company violated Section After full review the record in 8(a)(1). Certainly, every remark aby conscientiously case are this we unable supervisor Company to employees with evidence is substantial conclude whom has day-to-day working contact enough support decision that Com support or sympathies about union does not with, restrained, interfered intimidat pany Act. supervisors’ violate the remarks ed, threatened or employees coerced its in this case were no more than innocuous rights. exercise their Section questions and isolated statements. See evaluating whether a Company’s conversa NLRB v. Corp., Fontainebleau Hotel unlawfully with its are tions co 1962); NLRB v. Hill & ercive, have numerous factors been identi Inc., Line, Hill Truck (1) history as relevant: fied 1959). Our review of the full record con- Company’s employees; attitude toward its vinces us that they were neither designed to sought or relat (2) type of information coerce they nor did tend to coerce the em- ed; (3) Company the rank of the official in ployees in the exercise of rights their under (4) hierarchy; place the Act. We thus refuse to enforce the conversation; the truth manner Board’s order in respect also. responses; (6) employees’ wheth fulness *7 Company purpose the had a valid er Enforcement denied. information; (7) obtaining the whether the Company this purpose communicated to the GODBOLD, Judge Circuit (dissenting): (8) whether and the employees; The majority opinion departs from our employees reprisals that no the assured proper role reviewing NLRB orders and Florida Corp. be taken. Steel would v. guide from the that standards us in this NLRB, 1225, 1976); 1229 role. Varo, Inc., F.2d 293 NLRB v. 1970). Thus, light assessed in of all of the (1) discharge The of Stone circumstances, the test surrounding questioning or whether the conversation majority opinion The is neither more nor Varo, Inc., to be tends coercive. NLRB less than a aspect retrial of this of the case. supra. prior Stone had a record of absenteeism
The conversations in the case at
and
April
was warned
it.
about
From
25 to
during
May
occurred
routine encounters be
bar
4 he was hospitalized. He did not
supervisors.
report
work,
and
There is
tween
the company
was told
town.
notice that
around
he had been
(5)
seen
terminated.
being
that he
from
company
three notes
admitted
received
it had no reason to
it
Thereafter
note, received
authenticity
first
the
doubt
of the third
doctor. The
note
Stone’s
have been
should
From
9,
that
from
doctor.
all of
evidence
May
stated
Stone
May 6. That same
Board drew inferences that
to work
third
return
able to
dissipated
suspicion
him without
note
that
company terminated
Stone had
day the
notice, pursuant
malingering,
to
and that
the discharge
been
or
discussion
pretextual. Certainly
three consecutive
it was entitled
absent for
rule
be
would
draw these inferences from the
permission
without
to
evidence
days
working
quit.
before it.
voluntary
considered
bring-
up
May
work
Language quoted
Judge
showed
Hill
Stone
doctor,
dated
McGahey,
(C.A.5,
second note from
NLRB
able to
he should be
May
change
It said that
does not
the standard
was not
14. Stone
May
to work
has
return
view
this court
followed in innu-
work, and
left
go
he
to
to
Further
opinion
cases.
on in the
permitted
merable
called the doctor
company then
plant. The
specifically
the court
noted that:
note
May
him what
asked
between lawful and
In the choice
unlaw-
that it referred
meant, and the
said
doctor
motives, the record taken
ful
as a whole
had contracted.
throat
that Stone
to a sore
present
must
substantial basis of believ-
back
later the doctor called
An hour
pointing
evidence
toward the
able
unlaw-
accept
May
to
company
ful one.
work
return to
for Stone’s
a release
note as
McGahey
at 413.
teaches us that rea-
Id.
9 note. Later the
destroy
May
and to
sonableness,
it, may
or lack of
be circum-
came
May
back
day,
Stone
same
of the employer’s
stantial evidence
motive
note,
the doctor said
the third
case,
discharge
in a
but the Board’s view of
take week off
told
to
probably
is not
to be treated as
action
leaving
hospital May
because
after
present
In the
case the
talismanic.
well
that he was
problems, but
back
not consider the
action
employer’s
all
May
enough
work as of
context
reasonableness
unreasonable-
by the doctor
statements
previous
accepted
credible,
ness. It
the third note as
no other notes
and void” and
were “null
dissipate
was sufficient
forthcoming.
would be
charge malingering,
pointed
out that
in-
these events
drew from
The ALJ
company admitted
was no
there
reason
excused
had used his
that Stone
ference
doubt the
authenticity
note. On
stay
an excuse to
for sickness
absence
evidence the
concluded that the
on the
prevailed
6May
and had
out after
Similarly,
pretextual.
if in-
reports.
his earlier
to contradict
doctor
troduced,
company
evidence
permissible
inference.
That was
acting
with its usual prac-
in accordance
however,
Board,
inference.
drew a different
part
have been
overall
would
tices
proof:
following
noted the
elements of
It
But it is quite
be considered.
company
was hostile
the union
hold
evidence of motive is
different
previously
before
had been
unless
includes evidence of
insubstantial
*8
practices.
of unfair
labor
for commission
practices.
inconsistent with usual
behavior
company knew of
(2) The
Stone’s
a
This is
substantial
case. The
actively sought
to dis-
sentiment and
fully supports the Board’s inference
record
(3)
union adherence.
him from his
suade
improper motive.
of
effort
made no
to contact
company
(4)
his condition.
On
determine
to
discharge
Rogers
of
determining Stone’s release
9,May
after
is a
company
plain, everyday
sum-
This
substantial evi-
hospital,
from
date
First,
gave
except
him no
case
for two factors.
him and
dence
terminated
marily
compa-
Rogers
target
finding.
as a
Board’s
Pornographic pictures
status of
passed
by
in
deci- were
previous
employees
action is recorded
two
around
ny
por-
and
Second, Rogers’
nographic
places
court.
con-
books left in accessible
of this
sions
duct,
employees
supervisors
was the
and
to
the Board found
assert-
examine. The
strong
discharge,
language,
including
was
of
pretextual
a
use
four-let-
basis for
ed
words, dirty jokes
suggestive
ter
and
sexually oriented.1
was
among employees
marks
common
and
I,
Co.,
v. Mueller Brass
Mueller NLRB
In
One
supervisors.
witness told of
in
means
(C.A.5, 1974),
we enforced
films,
plant
order
plainly
to
referring
of
finding
guilty
Mueller
Board order
films. The general
pornographic
foreman
8(a)(3) discharges
8(a)(1)
and
coercion.
§
§
Rogers’
p.
11 m. to 7 a.
freely
m. shift
targets
company
of
coercive
One
jokes
exchanged sex
with female Rogers.
was
I turn now ject the participants discipline. Rule majority, sexual content sized given as Rogers’ the basis for dis- Rogers’ actions. The Board found that charge: “An shall in engage keeping immoral, did was not out what disorderly, illegal indecent or con- level of conduct general with the than Rogers duct.” No one other has ever bawdy horseplay discharged sexual plant, where for violation of this I been rule. accepted, subject commonplace, already Rog- have described conduct of fully discipline. supports The evidence foreman and the industrial ers’ relations Respondent’s opposition pretext finally getting “In conduct 1. view as rid sym- Union, knowledge Rogers’ Respondent its him. I therefore find that violat- him, pathies, prior discrimination discharging Rogers.” its ed Section investigation Rogers’ protracted into and the Appendix p. 359. offenses, despite any em- .two absence I, Additionally, Mueller this court complaints, compared ployee with its question “no there was record complaints complacency em- over women strongly antiunion.” situations, ployees I am in similar satisfied *9 F.2d 501 at Rogers’ improper Respondent on that relied turn to I some of the concerning cases very to the circum- respect manager with coarse, profane abusive and conduct. In Also job. his Rogers cost stances I enforced reinstating Mueller we an order specific of incidents three evidence there verbally Blanton who abused a employee by em- male sexually oriented conduct of being accused of a “damn supervisor, him employees. female With toward ployees liar,” him fight. and invited to We relied the incident, husband and the to one spect grounds pro- the incident was the on to complained female victim father by employer that “Expres- and voked take promised manager and anger in the lan- sion [Blanton’s] ac- any is no evidence There action. mill” “not nearly was as guage taken, supervisor who was ever tion suggested. shocking” as the In later culprit promoted. was alleged was and Maltsters Local Union No. 6 v. Brewers employee the female year later More than NLRB, (C.A.8, 1962), F.2d the com- told that and was about the matter charged discharging was with pany at the complaint her drop it since ought to she request an employee who was “ob- union’s old. so noxious, profane, foul-mouthed and prone female incidents In two other apply descriptions vile and indecent offensive, oriented sexually complained of with a propensity argu- others by employees. male to them remarks complaining . . . ing and disliked just a before occurred week of these One few, by tolerated generally, frustrated employ- this case. male hearing in However Board (etc.).” found that: disciplined. ees were Profanity, calling, including vile name rely Frosty incorrectly majority diving “muff fink” and manners ordinari- NLRB, Meats, Inc. 296 F.2d Morn instances, in ly frowned most were un- 1961). In that case there was (C.A.5, kidding joshing in the beer- a form co- testimony from several atmosphere working contradicted frater- fumed workers, including signed who had he belonged seemingly some to which nity workers, cards, regarded by was a employee Judkins the Union so management, physical with slow, dangerous worker as- uncooperative and sault, measures, disciplinary rather than in a his duties manner performed who deterrent, only when used uncouth The trial endangered employees. his fellow conducts habits and of an vio- against this evidence balanced examiner accepted lated standards tolerances. company specific and of a threat animus Judkins, and the dis- concluded that fire (footnotes omitted). F.2d at 220 charge pretextual. This court refused Eighth Circuit enforced the rein- Board’s Judge As Wisdom noted enforce. order, pointing out statement Morn, and court Frosty reiterated permissible between either of two choice II, “Discrimination consists Mueller Board, was for inferences the court. treating differently.” Frosty cases like court, Georgia Mill, in NLRB v. Rug This Morn, was no that like cases there (C.A.5, 1962), enforced the differently. present In the treated directing were order reinstatement case, fact points all the evidence employer of a union adherent antiunion oth- Rogers’ and all the “like replied super- obscenities to a who cases”— disci- singled out for only questioning concerning him unau- visor’s ers— was the discipline inflicted And In NLRB Princeton pline. thorized absence. ev- (C.A.3, 1970), This uncontroverted available. harshest Inn even disparate acquires treatment that a foul union adherent’s idence strong against language force when laid toward a female em- greater and abusive specifically pretext discharge, manifested in con- ployee antiunion bias prior usage Rogers. directed similar past threats sidered employ- language warning, without at 708 n.5.
825
bias,
background
anyone
of antiunion
him
er’s
had talked to him about the
supervisor present
did not ad-
fact
or had
get
tried to
sign
him to
employee. The court enforced.
monish the
union card. Gunter told Taylor that
in NLRB v. Reynolds
The union adherent
company felt
the employees
did not
(C.A.7,
121
F.2d 627
Wire
need
union and that it would do anything
alleged ground
on the
that he had
fired
legally
keep
a union out. Two months
newly painted
scribbled on the
door of
later, during
“90-day
probationary re-
describing the
toilet an obscene remark
view,” Foreman Rose
Taylor
saw that
employ-
It
paint job.
was characteristic
wearing a union button and asked him what
toilet
indecent remarks on
ees to scribble
against
he had
the company.
company
request-
walls and doors. The
could infer
pointed
that these
this,
employees
ed that
refrain from doing
questions,
by foremen,
in meetings at
anyone
doing
but it had never fired
or
Taylor’s
future with the company
grounds
it would
dis-
indicated that
be
stake,
was at
the background
Board’s
order
charge. The
reinstatement
company’s open
hostility to the union
was enforced.
unfair labor practices,
and other
past and
are,
course,
many
There
cases in which
tended to be
present,
coercive. NLRB v.
have been fired for obscene lan-
Forge and Axle
Standard
Company, 420
conduct,
discharges
and the
have
guage
1969), cert.
(C.A.5,
denied,
508
400 U.S.
key
not to violate the Act. The
been held
140,
91
903,
S.Ct.
do we have good for the
judgments experience taste day-to-day expertise the Board
matters of industrial life. violations
(a) Taylor Bobby During
This is not even close. ease
“30-day probationary Taylor’s review” of performance
work Foreman Gunter asked