Reference no: EM131281182

Kathy Denaple worked in a nonsupervisory capacity at a missile component plant operated by Rockwell International. The Communications Workers of America began a successful organizing campaign among Rockwell's employees. Denaple supported the campaign by attending meetings and distributing authorization cards. In September, Denaple's supervisor, Bernice Cash, asked her if she was involved with the union. When Denaple responded that it was none of Cash's business, Cash stated that union involvement would hurt Denaple's work record.

One morning the following January, supervisors Cash and Cheek held a meeting at which Cheek told the employees in Denaple's department that they spent too much time in the washrooms and that the music from their radio headsets was too loud. Denaple contradicted Cheek at the meeting by stating that the music was not loud and, in fact, was softer than the sound of the wire-cutting machine in their area. Denaple also reminded the supervisors of Rockwell's unfulfilled promise to remove the noisy machines. After this meeting, the supervisors discussed issuing Denaple a written warning for speaking out. Later that same day an employee complained that Denaple was laughing loudly and excessively at her workstation. The supervisors issued Denaple a written warning for "allowing excessive laughing to disturb a work group."

In February, six employees were discharged by Rockwell after urinalysis revealed that they had used drugs. After the tests, but before the discharges, one of the tested employees had asked Denaple to find out if the union could help him if he was fired. She agreed. During the morning on which the employees were fired, Denaple was discussing the firings with a coworker when a supervisor cautioned Denaple that she was already in enough trouble and that she should return to her workstation. Denaple complained to the supervisor that the firings were unfair and asked if all employees would be tested. Later that day Denaple asked Cash for time off to attend to personalbusiness. Cash refused permission although she noted that Denaple's attendance had improved of late. Denaple told Cash that she had to leave.

The supervisor told Denaple that she would not be fired if she left, but she explicitly refused to grant Denaple's request. Nevertheless, Denaple left the premises. Cash shared this latest incident with the other supervisors, and they consulted Rockwell's manager of employee relations, Wanda Saed, by phone. Saed ordered Denaple terminated. The next day Denaple was terminated for "work-related behavior and attendance." The union asserted that Denaple was fired because she engaged in protected activity. The employer claimed that Denaple was fired because she was an insubordinate employee with an attendance problem.

Have any unfair labor practices occurred? Could the General Counsel bring a case on behalf of Denaple challenging her dismissal? Decide.