OFFICIAL REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD REGION 19. Respondent, Charging Party.

Transcription

1 OFFICIL REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE NTIONL LBOR RELTIONS BORD REGION In the Matter of: IM erospace Sumner, Inc., Respondent, Case Nos. -C- -C- and International ssociation of Machinists, District, Charging Party. Place: Seattle, Washington Dates: February, Pages: through Volume: OFFICIL REPORTERS escribers, LLC E-Reporting and E-Transcription North th Street, Suite Phoenix, Z 0 (0) -0

2 UNITED STTES OF MERIC BEFORE THENTIONL LBOR RELTIONS BORD REGION In the Matter of: IM EROSPCE SUMNER, INC., Respondent, Case Nos. -C- -C- and INTERNTIONL SSOCITION OF MCHINISTS, DISTRICT, Charging Party. The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, pursuant to notice, before ELENOR LWS, dministrative Law Judge, at the National Labor Relations Board, Region, James C. Sand Hearing Room, Jackson Federal Building, Second venue, Seattle, Washington, on Tuesday, February,, : a.m.

3 0 PPERNCES On behalf of the General Counsel: RYN CONNOLLY, ES. NTIONL LBOR RELTIONS BORD - REGION Second venue Seattle, W Tel. ()- Fax. ()-0 On behalf of the Charging Party: KTELYN SYPHER, ES. SCHWERIN CMPBELL BRNRD IGLITZIN & LVITT, LLP W. Mercer Street, Suite 00 Seattle, W Tel. ()-0 Fax. ()-0 On behalf of the Respondent: CHRLES P. ROBERTS, III, ES. CONSTNGY BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE LLP 00 N. Cherry Street, Suite 00 Winston-Salem, NC 0 Tel. ()-00 Fax. ()-00 W. MELVIN HS, III, ES. CONSTNGY BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE LLP P.O. Box Macon, G 0- Tel. ()- Fax. ()0-

4 INDEX WITNESS DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS VOIR DIRE James Herness 0 Christy Westover Corrine Peterson Guisseppee Mercado Dann Derrow 0

5 EXHIBITS 0 EXHIBIT IDENTIFIED IN EVIDENCE General Counsel: GC-(a) through GC-(j) GC- GC- GC- 0 (Not dmitted) GC- GC- GC- GC- Joint: J- J-

6 0 PROCEEDINGS JUDGE LWS: The hearing will be in order. This is a formal trial before the National Labor Relations Board in IM erospace Sumner, Inc. and International ssociation of Machinists, District. Cases -C- and -C-. The dministrative Law Judge presiding is Eleanor Laws. I am assigned to the San Francisco office of the Division of Judges. ny communications should be addressed to that office, and any requests for extensions of time should be addressed to the ssociate Chief Judge in San Francisco. Will counsel and other representatives of the parties please state their appearances for the record? For the General Counsel? MR. CONNOLLY: Ryan Connolly. JUDGE LWS: For the Respondent? MR. ROBERTS: Charles Roberts of Winston-Salem, North Carolina. MR. HS: Mel Haas of Macon, Georgia. JUDGE LWS: ll right. If settlement discussions are desired from any party at any time, please let me know. We're always willing to give time to talk settlement if the parties think that it might be fruitful. Sometimes positions changed during the hearing, so please just let me know if at any point in time settlement is discussed. MS. SYPHER: Pardon me, Your Honor, the Union is also

7 0 entering a notice of appearance. JUDGE LWS: Oh, I'm sorry. MS. SYPHER: No, that's okay. JUDGE LWS: Go ahead. MS. SYPHER: Katelyn Sypher for IM District Lodge. Thank you. JUDGE LWS: Thank you. Sorry I overlooked that. MS. SYPHER: That's okay. JUDGE LWS: Does the General Counsel have the formal papers? MR. CONNOLLY: Yes, Your Honor. Would you like to see a copy before I move for entrance? JUDGE LWS: (No audible response) MR. CONNOLLY: ll right. General Counsel would move for entrance of the formal papers marked as Exhibits -- GC Exhibit (a) through (j), (j) being an index and description of the formal documents. (General Counsel Exhibits Number (a) through (j) Marked for Identification) MR. ROBERTS: No objection. JUDGE LWS: ll right. The formal documents are admitted. (General Counsel Exhibits Number (a) through (j) Received into Evidence) JUDGE LWS: Does any party seek a sequestration order?

8 0 MR. ROBERTS: Yes, the Respondent does. JUDGE LWS: Okay. sequestration order is being issued in this proceeding. This means that all persons who expect to be called as witnesses in this proceeding, other than a person designated as essential to the presentation of a party's case, will be required to remain outside the courtroom whenever testimony or other proceedings are taking place. limited exception applies to witnesses who are alleged discriminatees, they may be present in the courtroom at all times other than when witnesses for the General Counsel or a Charging Party are giving testimony regarding the same events that the alleged discriminatees are expected to testify about. The sequestration order also prohibits all witnesses from discussing with any other witness, or any possible witness, the testimony that he or she has already given or will give. Likewise, counsel for a party may not disclose to any witness the testimony of any other witness. Counsel may, however, inform his or her own witnesses of the content of testimony given by an opposing party's witness to prepare to rebut that witness' testimony. It is the responsibility of counsel to see that they and their witnesses comply with this sequestration rule. So because there is a sequestration order in place, I'm going to ask at this point if there is anybody from either side

9 0 who the parties are designating as essential to the representation of our case, so their case? MR. ROBERTS: Yes, I believe Mr. Connolly and I discussed beforehand your -- you've got Mr. Herness, is it? MR. CONNOLLY: Yes, Mr. Herness -- JUDGE LWS: Okay. MR. CONNOLLY: -- will be appearing as a witness, but will also be -- MR. ROBERTS: nd Leah Booth, back here, is a -- will be a witness, but she's a representative -- the other gentleman is not a witness. JUDGE LWS: Okay. nd he may stay until he -- MR. ROBERTS: Gets bored. JUDGE LWS: -- gets too bored to take it anymore. ll right. Is there anything any party wants to discuss before we move on to opening statements? MR. ROBERTS: Nothing from the Respondent. MR. CONNOLLY: Nothing for General Counsel. JUDGE LWS: ll right. re you ready? MR. CONNOLLY: Yes, Your Honor. JUDGE LWS: Proceed whenever you're ready. MR. CONNOLLY: Right. Thank you and good morning. This case involves one of the fundamental principles of the National Labor Relations ct: the ability of employees to make a free choice regarding their representation without

10 0 interference from the Employer. Specifically, this case involved a Respondent withdrawing recognition from its employees' exclusive collective bargaining representative, a union selected by its employees in a election, and then certified by the Board. Respondent claims that it was bystander to its employees' decertification efforts and a mere recipient of the petition its employees presented it with; but this is not quite true. s the General Counsel contends, the employee petition Respondent relied upon to withdraw recognition from the Union, both existed because of, and was tainted by, Respondent's own actions and conduct. The evidence will show that Respondent's managers and supervisors repeatedly blamed the Union for a lack of an employee pay raise, even though the collective bargaining agreement in place, in fact, specifically provided that Respondent could provide pay raises at any time. This repeated blaming of the Union for the stagnant wages fomented such disaffection and undermined support for the chosen representative. It is not surprising then, that almost immediately after the third year of the contract passed, a petition opposed to the Union sprang forth. Respondent's actions directly cause the birth of this petition, making the subsequent withdrawal of recognition unlawful, consistent with the test articulated by the Board in Master Slack.

11 0 0 Second, the petition itself was tainted. s the General Counsel will show, Respondent tainted the petition by providing tangible assistance to Lori-nn Downs-Haynes, the employee collecting disaffection signatures. This assistance came in various forms. Respondent consistently refused to apply its no solicitation rule to her, allowed her to repeatedly approach her coworkers about the petition and solicit signatures on work time, and looked the other way as she went about collecting signatures, despite being aware Downs-Haynes was doing this. ssisting a decertification petition is a well-established violation of the ct and taints the petition. Then, when Respondent sought to -- then, what Respondent sought to have happen, did, in fact, happen. They rewarded Downs-Hayes, and publicly acknowledged their pleasure in their joint success. When the petition of employee disaffection was presented to Respondent, it announced to employees it was withdrawing recognition from the Union on July th,. In that meeting and meetings that followed, Respondent indicated its support of Downs-Haynes. Downs-Haynes was also promoted as a reward for her role in circulating the petition. Respondent also chose this moment to give employees a pay raise. Ultimately, the evidence will show Respondent caused a tainted petition to develop, garner support, and circulate, and

12 0 then used the very same petition to sever employees from the Union they had selected, and had had in place for its single contract. It also fully rewarded employees for doing so. Thank you, Your Honor. General Counsel is ready to proceed. JUDGE LWS: Okay. Does the Union care to make an opening statement? MS. SYPHER: No, not at this time, thank you. JUDGE LWS: Thanks. nd the Respondent? MR. ROBERTS: Yes, we would, Your Honor. JUDGE LWS: Thanks. MR. ROBERTS: little bit more background. s Mr. Connolly indicated, the Union was certified in ugust of following the campaign that had been going on for probably four or five months. nd during that time period, the Union employees -- the pro-union employees were actively engaged in solicitation and discussion of the Union out on the plant floor. It was rampant throughout the time period. The Union won the election. One of the big issues was the management team there was despised to put it lightly. fter that, there were charges filed by the Union concerning handbook policies, alleging that they were being -- they were overly restrictive, even though they had not been

13 0 enforced. nd what resulted was that Respondent had to revise its -- as part of a settlement -- revise its handbook to reduce the restrictions, particularly one of significance here is that, there was an access provision in the contract -- oh, I mean, excuse me -- in the handbook that the Regent viewed as overly broad. nd as part of that settlement, Respondent revised that access policy so as to be less restrictive of employees. That's significant because the allegation that's in the complaint -- there's not a specific allegation that Respondent assisted the petition. The allegation is that it provided Ms. Downs-Haynes greater access. nd it's our understanding that that allegation is founded on a contention that she was moved from one position, in what's known as autoclave, that was one department of the facility, to what was a second position in duct layup, where she purportedly had greater access to employees. That's -- at least that's the theory that there's a -- for your information, there's a parallel 0(j) that's going on, and that's the theory that's been taken. You know, with respect to the alleged solicitation, I don't believe the complaint contains that allegation. It does not specifically allege disparate enforcement of the solicitation policy. It does not allege that -- any violation with respect to that, so I think that's an issue that we can

14 0 address later, but Respondent does not view the complaint as containing anything other than the allegation of greater access. little bit more background. The Union successfully negotiated a contract. It was a four-year contract that was reached in pril of. Throughout the period of -- the contract contains what's known as a maintenance of membership provision. So it's not a total Union security provision, it's a provision that it -- you're free to join or not join, but if you join, you're locked in for the duration of the collective bargaining agreement. What the record -- or what the evidence will reflect is that a number of employees felt that they had been tricked or coerced into joining the Union, so there was a -- throughout the period of the contract, questions were raised of dissatisfaction with the Union. How do we get rid of the Union? That kind of thing. lso, Union dues were increasing every year. The contract had, basically, a step progression where you -- in three different categories -- where you progressed up through, and once you reached three years, you were at top rate. But once you reached top rate, the increases were very miniscule for each year of the contract. So employees expressed dissatisfaction with the contractual wage rates that were specifically negotiated in the contract.

15 0 So all of this was going on throughout ' and '. Respondent had new ownership. nd significantly, new ownership came in, in, and after a period of evaluation, it cleaned house. The management team was basically replaced. nd so there's a lot of reasons why employees -- circumstances that generated interest in the Union to begin with, you know, no longer existed. So then in February -- there's two sister facilities here that you'll hear testimony about, one in uburn and one in Renton, and both of those facilities are non-union. fter the new ownership came in, in February of this -- of ', they made some wage adjustments -- adjusted the scales, et cetera, with respect to uburn and Renton. So small -- I mean, grapevine-type thing, employees know that increases have occurred, or adjustments have been made there. The contract contains specific wage increases there. So -- and this all occurred around February of. nd at that point, we started -- or Respondent started getting more and more questions about dissatisfaction with the Union; how do we get rid of it? t that time, it conducted supervisory training in order to make it clear that management -- to its supervisors and managers that they could -- how to respond to those questions. nd essentially, it was that they could have no involvement in it. nd that all questions were to be referred to -- one --

16 0 the head of -- director of HR, or VP of HR was Leigh Booth. So that training occurred in pril and again in June. t that time, no petition was going on, but we knew the fourth year was coming up, there had been talk about dissatisfaction with the Union. nd as Mr. Connolly indicated, at some point in June, some employees -- a small group of employees began actually acting on what they had been talking about. nd one individual, one lady that you'll hear about, Ms. Downs-Haynes, was probably the primary instigator. There's others, employee Becky Cole. So what happened was Ms. Cole and Ms. Downs-Haynes, the evidence will reflect, researched on the -- nowadays, on the internet you can find almost anything, and they went -- a number of websites that -- and found a decert petition on one website. They printed it out, they circulated it. The first names were signed, or first signatures were June th of this year, and between June th and July th, they succeeded in getting signatures from a majority of the employees. The petition itself is not disputed. I believe we have an agreement that it will come in as a joint exhibit. nd while I don't think there's any stipulation to it, there's not really -- as far as I know, there's no contention that it's not, in fact, signed by a majority of the employees. So that

17 0 occurred during that time period. Now, with regard to the alleged involvement of Respondent, all -- the total scope of this involvement was that Ms. Downs-Haynes came to the HR department two or three times seeking information and was basically told that they couldn't provide it, and that she would have to go to the NLRB website, or the National Right to Work website. So there was no assistance -- no super -- there's no evidence that any supervisor passed the petition around. There's no evidence that any supervisor solicited anybody, encouraged anybody to sign the petition, made the petition available in any way. nd as you've heard from Mr. Connolly, there is at least, you know -- although it's encompassed within the scope of the complaint, there is at least some evidence, that I presume they're going to try to offer, to show that she was able to talk -- what you're going to hear is that there's no evidence, to our knowledge, that she ever presented to petition to any employee during working time. There may be evidence that she discussed the petition with employees during working time. I'm sure of some of that evidence will be disputed. But in any event, that's going to be the scope of the evidence, is that there was discussion of the petition, which under Board law, is not something that an employer -- even if it had a valid no-solicitation rule --

18 0 could prohibit. What the Union is basically -- and the two Union stewards, or two of the Union stewards came in and met with management during mid July. The Employer had posted a notice, once it had gotten a lot of questions about -- you know, reiterating that it could not be involved, but laying out to some extent, what procedure employees could follow if they wanted to. The Union's position was that Respondent should clamp down on it. nd I mean stop it, as if it was somehow immoral that employees -- or unethical that employees were -- had the audacity to circulate a decertification petition. Management did -- there were complaints about Ms. Downs-Haynes. Her supervisors reminded her that she had to stay at her workplace, and she could not be doing this during working time, but it's a large facility, and if in fact, she did do some of it during working time, management was not aware of it. s I indicated, there -- the other evidence is going to reflect that back in the Union campaign, and even after, there was rampant solicitation and discussion of the Union. I mean, I guess that background -- there's no lawful manner in which Respondent could have clamped down in any meaningful fashion on Ms. Downs-Haynes. Now, lastly, and I'll wrap this up, but lastly, the two allegations that Mr. Connolly mentioned: the blaming of the

19 0 Union. The evidence in that has to do with a couple of conversations between the Union stewards and certain members of management. Critically, while we don't even think the evidence -- basically, the evidence is that Respondent said it was bound by the contract. The Union representatives disputed that, taking the position, essentially, that they were misrepresenting the contract because there's a provision that allows for individual wage increases based on experience, education, any kind of compelling circumstances, or unique skills. Of course, that provision would never allow a general wage increase to all employees. But again, critically, none of the employees who that statement was made to signed the petition. It was made the Union stewards, and they disputed it. They knew what the contract provided, so there was really no -- that had no impact at all on this decert petition. s I indicated, the other allegation that's in the complaint is the transfer. Originally, I understood the Board's theory to be that we transferred her after the petition was being circulated so she could get greater access to other employees. Well, she was -- the record is going to reflect that she was transferred to this other position nine days before the petition began circulated (sic). nother employee was also

20 0 transferred, and these were at the request of a supervisor in that area who needed help. There was nothing out of the ordinary about these transfers, and in fact, they didn't give her any greater access to employees. nd then finally, with respect to the alleged rewarding of Ms. Downs-Haynes, there was an open shipping and receiving clerk position that was posted. Only two internal candidates, be it her and a lady named Ms. Havick (phonetic), the Employer interviewed both of them. They each had -- Ms. Havick had no prior experience in shipping and receiving, whereas Ms. Downs-Haynes did, and they eventually rewarded the job to Ms. Downs-Haynes. I mean, it was strictly pursuant to the existing Jobit system. It was not anything -- there is no allegation that -- if it was not given to her, there's no contention as to who it should have been given to. nd finally, with respect to the wage increase that came after the position and the so-called excitement about the fact that there had been a petition, you know, I think that evidence will be disputed. But in any event, it doesn't -- after the fact kind of excitement, even if true, doesn't rise to the level of tainting the petition retroactively. nd the wage increase is lawful or unlawful depending upon what you find with regard to the withdrawal of recognition. If the withdrawal of recognition was lawful, then the wage

21 0 increase is lawful. If it was not lawful, then of course, the wage increase would be unlawful. nd we believe that's what the evidence will show, so we'll be requesting a completer dismissal of the complaint. Thank you. JUDGE LWS: ll right. Thank you. re you ready with your first witness? Or do you -- MR. CONNOLLY: I am. JUDGE LWS: -- want to break? MR. CONNOLLY: You know, I don't think I need a break, but I should have -- we do have two joint exhibits. (Joint Exhibits Number and Marked for Identification) JUDGE LWS: Oh. MR. CONNOLLY: So maybe that's the best time now to enter those. JUDGE LWS: Let's go ahead and enter those. MR. CONNOLLY: General Counsel -- or Joint, excuse me, is a copy of the petition that's been referenced, and Joint Exhibit is a copy of the collective bargaining agreement that was in place. Would you like a copy? JUDGE LWS: Sure. Thank you. MR. ROBERTS: There's obviously no objection to that. JUDGE LWS: nd the Union is on board with these joint exhibits, too?

22 0 MS. SYPHER: Yeah. JUDGE LWS: Okay. MS. SYPHER: No objection, thanks. JUDGE LWS: I will go ahead and enter into evidence Joint Exhibits and. (Joint Exhibits Number and Received into Evidence) MR. CONNOLLY: nd with that, I think we -- MR. ROBERTS: Can we take -- Your Honor, just in light of some of the things I said in my opening, I'd like -- at least if -- before we get into the middle of a witness, what is the subject matter of this -- the scope of this complaint. nd you know, what's going to be allowed with regard -- rather than me interrupting witnesses unnecessarily. I don't think the complaint encompasses an allegation that the solicitation policy was enforced in some disparate manner. s I said, the allegation, at least the one that was put forth in the 0(j) proceeding, was that she was transferred to a specific position and I'd at least like to know what the scope of this hearing is going to be. JUDGE LWS: ll right. Why don't we -- it looks like that's probably -- let's discuss that off the record. nd then we can summarize what we've said on the record before going forward. Off the record. (Off the record at : a.m.)

23 0 JUDGE LWS: We had a brief discussion regarding the scope of complaint paragraph, which alleges that in June and July of, employees were given greater access to the facility -- employees who supported decertification, I should say. So I think there's some dispute between the parties as to what that encompasses. nd because of that, the Respondent wanted to enter a standing objection. nd you can either do that now, or the first time that you would make that objection, you can say that it will go throughout. MR. ROBERTS: Well, I think, if it's okay with you, I'll just make it now. JUDGE LWS: Okay. MR. ROBERTS: Is that -- you know, I think in our off-the-record discussion, Respondent took the position, and I'll take it on the record, that the complaint does not, in our view, encompass any kind of contention that Ms. Downs-Haynes was permitted to solicit during working time. It's strictly in access, you know, I guess freedom of movement, if you will, among the plant. nd so to the extent that questions are focused more on solicitation during working time, as opposed to wondering about the plant somewhere, then we would just ask for a standing objection on the grounds that that's not an issue that's in dispute -- or is not an issue that's in play in this proceeding.

24 0 nd we'd be satisfied with that without having to raise it again, if that's okay. JUDGE LWS: ll right. That is fine with me. nything General Counsel or Union wants to add to that? MR. CONNOLLY: No, Your Honor. JUDGE LWS: Okay. ll right. re we ready with the first witnesses? Or do people want to take a five-minute comfort break, get a drink? MR. ROBERTS: We're ready. MR. CONNOLLY: I'm ready. JUDGE LWS: You're ready. ll right. Let's march on. MR. CONNOLLY: Okay. General Counsel calls James Herness to the stand. JUDGE LWS: ll right. Come on around. Watch out for the cords. I'm going to swear you in. If you could raise your right hand. Whereupon, JMES HERNESS having been duly sworn, was called as a witness herein and was examined and testified as follows: JUDGE LWS: Please have a seat. Can you please state and spell your name for the court reporter. THE WITNESS: James Herness, last name is H-E-R-N-E-S-S. JUDGE LWS: Thank you, Mr. Herness. Just a couple of instructions before I turn things over to the attorneys.

25 0 First is, if you don't know the answer to a question you're asked, please just say I don't know. Only guess or speculate if one of the attorneys or myself asks you to take your best guess or speculate. nd if you don't understand a question, just say I don't understand the question and it will be re-asked. nd then finally, as best you can, try not to anticipate the end of the question and jump in with your question before it's completely finished. We, in normal life, do that, and I do it as much as anybody else, but because of our court reporter here needing to take down everything that's said, he can't do that when two people talk at once. Okay. Whenever you're ready. MR. CONNOLLY: Thank you, Your Honor. DIRECT EXMINTION BY MR. CONNOLLY: Mr. Herness, are you familiar with IM erospace? I am. nd how are you familiar? I'm an employee. nd are you employed there now? nd when did you start working for the Employer? I started January of as a temp. I was hired on in March of that year.

26 nd what's your current position with the Employer? I'm an LM assembler. nd do you know what LM stands for? Layup mandrel. nd is there a particular room or area that you're assigned to? 0 nd what's that called? It's the LM assembly area. nd what type of business is IM erospace? erospace composites and ducting. nd if I said, very generally, that the construction of composites involves the layering of materials, and then heat treatment; is that a very general description of how composites are produced? To my understanding, yes. Okay. MR. ROBERTS: Could you keep your voice up a little bit? THE WITNESS: Oh, my apologies. MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. JUDGE LWS: Yes, so the microphone in front of you doesn't amplify, it just goes to the court reporter's machine. So it's not amplifying what you say, so try to speak so the whole room can hear you. BY MR. CONNOLLY: Thank you. Can you describe your job

27 duties specifically as an LM assembly? Yeah. I work on P parts. They are for, I believe, military parts. I bond ducts, I clean out the insides, I bead the ends; it's generally what I do. (General Counsel Exhibit Number Marked for Identification) MR. CONNOLLY: If I can approach the witness, Your Honor? JUDGE LWS: MR. CONNOLLY: I've marked this document as General Counsel's Exhibit. 0 BY MR. CONNOLLY: If you could just take a moment to looked at it. It's identified as IM erospace Sumner. Do you recognize the layout? Does that look familiar? It does. Okay. nd before I continue here I should ask, IM erospace has facilities in addition to Sumner, where your work, correct? Correct. nd where are those facilities located? In uburn and Renton. Okay. nd you work exclusively at the Sumner facility? Okay. nd the Sumner facility is the one pictured here? MR. CONNOLLY: Your Honor, I'm going to request that the employee mark on the exhibit, if that's permissible?

28 0 JUDGE LWS: Sure, as long as everybody gets a chance to see what he's marking, and then anything that's entered in is something that all the parties have on their exhibits as well. MR. CONNOLLY: If it's acceptable to everyone, I'd propose that any exhibit that is marked and then gets moved into evidence, I'll make a copy -- JUDGE LWS: Okay. MR. CONNOLLY: -- of the marked and replace the one I've just given. JUDGE LWS: Okay. nd that sounds good. That's the only way that really it can work with cross-examination, so -- MR. CONNOLLY: Right. BY MR. CONNOLLY: So looking at the map you have in front of you, are you able to identify where your work area is? Okay. Could you, perhaps, write that on the exhibit? MR. ROBERTS: Can he state verbally where he's -- you know, so that we know where he's referring to. JUDGE LWS: nd show it as well, so -- BY MR. CONNOLLY: LM assembly, I believe is what you said the room called, correct? Correct. ll right. nd perhaps, after you've done that, you could hold it up and point, perhaps. (Counsel confer)

29 JUDGE LWS: So it's the shaded area, kind of a third of the way from the left side of the page? THE WITNESS: nd the little unshaded area. JUDGE LWS: nd the unshaded area, okay. BY MR. CONNOLLY: Okay. So in performing your work, when you receive products, where are they generally coming from? Generally from pressure test. Okay. nd how do they come to you? Is there an assembly line? re they brought to you? 0 They're brought to me. Okay. nd you don't go get them, they're brought to your area? Correct. ll right. nd after you've performed your duties on the products, where do they typically go after your job is complete?, and then shipping. Okay. nd is that a separate area? Shipping is, yes. nd is done in a department, or is it done at your work station -- or your work area? We have a inspector in my work area. Okay. nd when they go to shipping after you're done, is that -- are they taken there by somebody? Is there an assembly line?

30 They're taken there by somebody. Okay. nd not you -- Correct. -- somebody else has that responsibility? Okay. Can you describe your immediate work area in LM assembly? Whether you're working at a table, or a bench, or what your work area is like? I work at a table. I have two tables in front of me, and I have a rack of parts to be completed directly behind me. 0 nd how many coworkers in your area? I have three coworkers and a inspector. total of four people. nd how -- approximately how far apart are you from those coworkers in the area? I'm probably, on a rough guesstimate, about 0 feet from two coworkers, feet from another, and maybe to from the last one. nd who's your immediate supervisor? Jim Dildine. nd is he in that vicinity as well? Or is he have responsibility for a larger area and is somewhere else? The latter. He has a large responsibility and he's all over the place. Okay. Will he be in your work area at times during the course of the day?

31 0 Now, in performing your job as an assembler, do you need to regularly travel to other parts of the facility? s an assembler, no. nd how long have you been an assembler? I was transferred last summer. I believe it was May or June. 0 Okay. nd what position did you have before that? Trim operator. Okay. nd if you can hold up the map again, is trim operator in a different area? It is. Can you indicate -- point to where that is before you write on there? Oh. Just hold it up and point. ll right. nd can you write on there, your former area of employment? (Witness writing on exhibit) BY MR. CONNOLLY: nd I'm sorry, you indicated that you switched in? Okay -- Or -- pproximately when? , yes,. I'm sorry.

32 Okay. nd approximately when in? I believe it was May or June. Okay. re you familiar with the International ssociation of Machinists District Lodge? I am. nd how are you familiar? I'm a Union member and shop steward. Did you ever hold -- and in that capacity, that was 0 because IM represented employees at your employer for a period of time? I'm sorry? The Union represented employees at IM for a period of time? Correct. ll right. nd you were a steward during that time? Did you ever hold any other position in the Union? No. What shift do you work? First shift. Were there any other stewards on first shift? nd who were they? There's currently Guisseppee Mercado and Greg Clark. nd when you -- well, let me ask you this, does the

33 Employer currently recognize the Union? No. Okay. nd when did that change take place? July. Of? ', yes. nd the stewards that you mentioned, they were the stewards prior to that withdrawal of recognition? 0 Okay. nd who did the Union represent at the Sumner facility? Hourly workers. nd about how many employees is that, if you know? I don't know off the top of my head. Last I heard, it was about 0 or so. nd did the Union represent -- or does the Union represent any employees at the uburn and Renton facilities? No. You indicated you worked first shift, what time did you start? :0 a.m. nd the shift ended at? p.m. Okay. Is there a designated lunch time?

34 nd when was that? :0. Designated break times? nd when were they? :0 and :0. Is there -- when you start work, is there a time clock? Do you punch in? How does that work? 0 Yeah, there's a time clock. Okay. nd is there a designated time when you need to punch in? Five minutes prior is acceptable. To :0? Correct. ll right. What time do you normally arrive at work? nywhere between and : in morning. nd what do you do, typically, while you're waiting for your shift to start? When I arrive, I go into the facility, put my lunch in the refrigerator in the break room, and I go back out to my car. Now, you indicated that the Employer no longer represents the Union. How did you find out about that change? The Employer had a all-hands meeting in the middle of June, and they had stated they had received a petition signed by a majority of the membership. The COO, Pat Russell, I

35 believe his last name is, said that as of this moment, they were withdrawing recognition of the Union, and he said, we can now get on with our business the way it should be. nd where did that meeting take place? The large lunch room. nd who was present for that meeting? Was that all first shift employees? Correct. Okay. Now, prior to this announcement, were you aware 0 that a petition existed? nd had you heard about it? I first heard about it from an assembly worker named Eugene. He was approached about signing the petition, and he came to speak with Greg Clark, who works in my area to find out what was going on. He didn't understand or know anything about what was happening. nd I overheard, and that's when I learned about it. nd do you recall when that was, approximately? That was late June, I believe. Okay. So I think you just indicated that the meeting where they announced they were withdrawing recognition was mid June. Oh, I'm sorry, July. The meeting. Okay. So the meeting was mid July --

36 -- and you first heard about the petition in late June? Correct. Okay. Did you ever see a petition? Okay. When was that? That was early-mid July. I received a copy from member Christy Westover. nd did anyone ever approach you about a petition? 0 Signing the petition? Not about signing the petition, no. Did you ever observe anyone speak to -- or did you ever observe a coworker speak to another coworker about a petition? nd when was that? That was beginning to mid July when I walked into the break room in the morning and saw Lori-nn Downs-Haynes speaking with Darlene Goff about the petition. nd this was prior to your shift? nd can you describe what, if anything, you heard about the petition? I had -- was going to put my lunch away in the fridge like normal. I saw Lori-nn Downs-Haynes speaking with Darlene and I walked past, just giving their own space, and while I was

37 0 walking past, Lori-nn said, excuse me, and I turned and she had asked me, do you know any of the promises that the Union had made during their organizing drive that they were unable to fulfill? nd I said, well, I wasn't a steward three years ago, and I wasn't here during the organizing campaign, so I don't know. She wanted me to get her that information, along with any notes, financial documentation regarding dues, strategies that the Union was planning coming up, and other documents that were restricted; I didn't have access to them anyway. nd what, if anything, did you say in response to that question? I told her that I couldn't get her the documents, and even if I could they're -- you know, I'm not going to, that's absolutely unacceptable. Did she say anything further? We had a little bit of back and forth, and then I told her that she was angry at the -- that she seemed really angry at the Union, and she said, you have no idea. nd I said, well, you're angry at the wrong person. You know, if wages are what you're looking for, the contract allows for the Employer to give wages at any time. nd I even told her the page where she could find it in the contract. nd she had said something along the lines of, well, the Employer has already promised that we'd get a raise if we

38 decertified, so there's your guarantee. Did you say anything in response to that? I did, we had a little bit of back and forth. I didn't record them in my notes, I don't recall. But I was -- at that point, I was pretty upset, and so I just kind of ended the conversation and looked over to see if Darlene was still there to witness all of that. nd while she was there at the beginning, she had left at some point, and I don't recall when. Did you ever speak to a manager or supervisor about the 0 petition? Okay. Can you -- when was that? That was mid July. The Employer had just posted a three-page decertification info packet above each time clock. nd myself and Guisseppee Mercado, the other Union steward, went to go speak with Dave Blake about that. nd where did that conversation take place? We went to -- and we found in the hallway, and he agreed to speak with us about it and took us back to his office. nd did you, in fact, have a conversation with him? We did. Okay. Just briefly, can you describe the content of that conversation? We asked if he was aware, he said yes, he was aware of the packet, that Debbie Ruffcorn had posted it, and that we

39 should speak with her about it. it? Okay. nd did you, in fact, speak to Ms. Ruffcorn about We did. Okay. When did that happen? That happened in July, and Leigh Booth was there as well. Okay. Like, same day? couple days later? couple days later. We scheduled the meeting, and 0 usually, it's an hour or two hours to get an appointment with HR, but at this particular meeting, was scheduled at the end of the very next day, which was incredibly unusual. So you indicated that Ms. Ruffcorn and Ms. Booth were there? Correct. nd it was yourself and Mr. Mercado? nyone else present? No. Okay. nd where did that meeting take place? Debbie Ruffcorn's office. nd can you describe the conversation in that meeting? It was a very formal, rather tense conversation. It took quite a bit of time. fter every statement or after every question, we all stopped to take notes. It was a very diligent note-taking process.

40 What issue did you raise? The petition being circulated, and the Employer's posting of the decertification packet above the time clocks. nd what, if anything, was the Employer's response? The Employer claimed they had -- Well who -- I'm sorry, who was speaking? I should -- 0 Oh, it was myself speaking and Mr. Mercado. Okay. nd who responded for the Employer? Debbie Ruffcorn and Leigh Booth. Okay. Well, who said what first? Guisseppee opened the conversation, he said that we were there to discuss the flyer, and that we believed it promoted decertification. Okay. nd who replied to that? I believe Debbie Ruffcorn replied that -- saying, well, we're not offering any assistance, we're just giving facts. We're neutral. Do you recall anything further from that conversation? I recall that they -- we raised the issue of the petition fairly quickly thereafter. They claimed they had no knowledge of any petition. I had stated that we have statements from employees that say there's not only a petition, but that it's being allowed to widely circulate; that management supervisors are offering assistance.

41 0 nd at that point, they said -- Leigh Booth said that that's an outright lie, that no one in management is helping. nd I remember thinking that was strange because just prior, they had said that they had no knowledge of a petition even existing, but now they're saying that they know that no one is offering assistance. 0 Did you say that? Or that was you thought process? That was my thought process. Okay. nd what, if anything, did you say in response? I just said, okay, and I moved on. I had asked if we could post pro-union literature next to their decertification flyers so it was more balanced and the employee can make an informed decision, to make things a little bit more informative for them, and Leigh Booth said, absolutely not, you have your own board. To which, I replied that our boards are in the break rooms, both break rooms, that employees are required to be on break to go and read, versus their informational packet about the decertification, which is posted directly over each time clock in all areas to where employees are reading it on shift. nd what, if anything, did either of them say in response to that? They disagreed and we moved on. Do you recall anything else from that conversation? I recall that we had had statements going back and forth

42 0 about the decertification and their assistance. nd they said they want -- they denied everything. I recall asking if an employee came to HR and asked for assistance in decertifying, would the Employer help them? They said no. I said, would you give them a copy of the petition? They said no. I said, would you give them a copy of the decertification packet? nd which they said yes. I asked, well would you give them pro-union information if an employee came to you and ask you, would you -- if they were undecided, would you give them the pros and the cons and offer them information to -- that would help them in joining the Union? nd Leigh Booth said no, I'd tell them to go see you. I'd like to direct your attention back to the meeting you described when the Employer announced it would no longer recognize the Union. When, if ever, was another meeting held that addressed either the Union, or changes in terms and conditions of employment as a result of the Union no longer being recognized? We had a meeting -- we had a decertification meeting. We had a meeting within the next -- it was four days after. We had a meeting four days after. It was an all-hands meeting to discuss the financials and performance of the company. nd at the end of the meeting,

43 0 member Craig Beeder stood up and said -- and asked Mike Pratt, he says, we were all promised a dollar raise by employees (sic) if we decertified. Now that the petition has been signed and passed, is the company going to honor their promise of giving everybody a raise? To which Mike Pratt responded, we don't know. We don't know what's being said on the shop floor, we can't control any of that. nd then he hand (sic) the microphone over to the COO Pat, and Pat said, we're only four days into this transition. But now that we're no longer in the situation we are in, we can now review our financial situation to determine eligibility of giving wage increases on an individual-by-individual basis. nd there was one more meeting after that. We were all -- Okay. When was that? That was very late -- I believe it was actually the beginning of ugust. Okay. That meeting was held in the large lunch room as well? Correct. lso an all-hands meeting? Correct. Okay. nd who spoke at that meeting for the Employer? Mike Pratt. Okay. nd what was -- what, if anything, did he say, if you recall?

44 He had stated that when we had the first meeting to 0 discuss the decertification, the company didn't have any answers and that's why they weren't allowed to -- that's why we weren't allowed to ask any questions at that meeting. But now, they have answers, he said. nd then, he responded that, now that we're no longer union, they can change our perks for the better. He said that currently, IM Sumner had three-day bereavement leave, and uburn and Renton had five days, so they were going to change that to five days for us, so it was an across the board, five days for everybody. We were allowed a five-minute end-of-day wash up time for our personal hygiene. nd then, we're allowed -minute breaks. nd the other companies aren't -- don't have that same benefit. But he said that we're going to keep those -- five minutes end-of-day, and the extra minutes so that, you know, that would still be the same. nd then, he got on to pay, to where he said that four years and less, I believe -- four years -- I think it was four years or less -- would be getting wages increased to match the uburn and Renton plant. nd anybody that is over that, will get a straight five percent across the board raise. Did you say anything at this meeting? I did. nd when was that?

45 That was at the end of the meeting before everybody left. 0 I had my hand raised, and it took a while to get acknowledged, another member had been yelling out, hey, we have a question, we have a question. So I was acknowledged and I asked Mike, why are we getting raises now? You know, people have been asking for raises for the past three years. In fact, good workers have quit because they asked for raises and were denied, no matter how good of performance they had, or attendance, they were automatically denied. They ended up taking other jobs, so why is it now that IM decided to give raises? nd he says, well, we were locked into the union contract. nd I said, but that's not accurate because the contract, on page, actually states that the Employer can, for legitimate business reasons, give raises any time they see fit. nd Pat -- or Mike said, well, I wasn't here three years ago -- and he actually looked back at Leigh Booth, who just shrugged her shoulders, she didn't know what to say, so he said -- looked back at me and said, well, I wasn't here three years ago, so I can't tell you, but I can find out the answer and get back to you, and we can talk about it later. nd he never did. Now, prior to that, had you ever had a conversation with a manager or supervisor before about wages in the union

46 contract? Yes, quite a few times. Okay. Do you recall any time in particular? Yeah, I -- other than then, I had a conversation shortly 0 after I was hired, it was probably about six months after I was working in trim. nd we had an OJT, an on-the-job training, with the plant -- or production manager Rob nderson, and after we had finished, I'd say, you know, hey, can I speak with you for a moment? You know, I have a couple questions. nd he said, sure. nd I said, you know, I'm being cross-trained in paint prep. You know, my attendance is pretty good, I'd like to know just what I can do to set myself up to get a raise in the future? You know, I believe I'm, you know, a pretty good candidate, so can you just tell me the process of, you know, how you guys generally base your wage progression on? Because I was still a new employee, I had only been there for a few months. nd he says, well, we can't give you a raise because if I gave you a raise, then I'd have to give that person a raise, and that person a raise, and that person a raise. nd even if I could, we're under the union contract, which prohibits us from giving additional wage increases. Did you say anything in response?

47 I did. I said, well, you know, that's -- you know, I said something along the lines of, that's you know, really unfortunate. I was really disappointed. It was a pretty crushing moment. t that moment, I felt like there was no -- MR. ROBERTS: Objection. Objection. He's wandering away from the question. Nonresponsive. JUDGE LWS: I'll allow it, but let's -- MR. CONNOLLY: Right. JUDGE LWS: -- move it along. 0 BY MR. CONNOLLY: Setting aside that conversation, do you recall any other conversations where you spoke to a manager or a supervisor about wages in the union contract? I was dropping off a couple of grievances for Katy Pine and Dann Derrow to Debbie Ruffcorn in her office in July of ; I believe it was around the th, maybe the nd. I had walked in before my shift. It was about :, and I had said that I was dropping off a couple grievances and she said, well, what are they for? nd I said, well, you know, they're pay discrepancies. nd she just kind of got this -- you know like (sighs). You know, it seems like there's a lot of pay issues, she said. I said, well, you know, the employees aren't making very much money, and you know, they ask for more wages and they're denied, so you know, they get upset when what little money they are given is not being given to them correctly.

48 nd she got a really confused look on her face, she says, but I thought -- you know, and she pointed to the union contract that was sitting on the top of a stack of other papers. She pointed at that, and she said, well, I thought we couldn't give any more money because of the contract. nd I said, no, you can give raises any time you want for a legitimate business reason. I can show you if you'd like. nd she just brushed her hand away to dismiss it. 0 nyone else present for that conversation? No. Okay. nd I'm sorry, you may have said, but that was in Ruffcorn's office? ny other conversations you recall regarding wages and the union contract? Other than those two and the all-hands meeting, I don't recall specifics. MR. CONNOLLY: No more questions, Your Honor. JUDGE LWS: Okay. ny additional questions from the Union? MS. SYPHER: No, not at this time. Thanks. MR. ROBERTS: ny statements -- JUDGE LWS: ll right. MR. ROBERTS: JUDGE LWS: Let's see what we have in terms of length of