Adel Precision Products Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 27, 1946

65 N.L.R.B. 1439 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of HUNTINGTON PRECISION PRODUCTS, DIVISION OF ADEL
PRECISION PRODUCTS CORPORATION and UNITED OPTICAL & INSTRU-
MENT WORKERS' UNION, C. I. O.
Case No. 9-C-2091.-Decided February 27,1946
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On May 31, 1945, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices,
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, exceptions to the Intermediate Report
and a supporting brief were filed by the respondent. On December
18, 1945, the Board at Washington, D. C., heard oral argument, in
which the respondent participated.
The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings made at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rul-
ings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate
Report, the respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire record
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner, with the exceptions, additions,,
and modifications hereinafter set forth.
I. We agree with the Trial Examiner that by the following acts
and statements, more fully described in the Intermediate Report, the
respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act: (1) Per-
sonnel Director Goodwin's interrogation of employees Price, Full-
wood, Fain, Webb, Trogden, Saunders, and Billups as to the activities
of the Union; his attempts to have Fullwood, Trogden, and Saunders
engage in espionage in an effort to determine which employees had
joined the Union; his questioning of Saunders as to whether she was
"for" the Union; his statement to Price that "we don't want a union"
and his threat that respondent would close its Huntington plant
and move to California rather than "have a union"; his statements
to Fullwood that a union would cause trouble and "break up the
65 N. L R. B, No. 239.
679100-46-vol 65-92 1439
1440 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
plant," that "the union caused strikes and caused trouble between
plants, people and plants," and that if anything should happen to his
son in the service "he would feel the Union was to blame"; his request
of Trogden that she try to dissuade employees from joining the
Union; his suggestion to Billups, made after Billups informed him
that both she and employee Smith were members of the Union, that
Billups and Smith resign; his statement to Union Organizer Wolf ord
that the respondent would combat any attempt to organize its employ-
ees; his questioning of Rev. Mitchell as to the latter's knowledge of
union activities in Department 80, and his accusation, directed at
Mitchell, that the latter was helping the employees in that department
to organize; (2) Plant Manager Ellinwood's statement to Wolford
that he did not want "an organization" and that he intended to run
his own business; Ellinwood's interrogation of Mitchell as to union
activities among the employees in Department 80, and his threat to
Mitchell that the respondent could eliminate Department 80; Ellin-
wood's reminder to Mitchell that in most union plants "only a few
Negroes are actually hired," coupled with his suggestion that if the
Union succeeded in organizing the employees in Department 80 it
might then organize the entire plant; (3) the attempt by Ellinwood
and Goodwin to have Mitchell use his influence with the employees in
Department 80 for the purpose of discouraging their union activities;
(4) Supervisor Marcum's inquiry of Trogden as to whether she had
heard any of the employees discussing the Union, his request that she
report to him if she should hear such talk, and his statement that he
knew she had joined the Union; (5) Foreman Wheeler's statement to
employee Coleman that he had called upon her at her home because he
understood the Union "really originated" at Table F, the assembly
table at which Coleman worked; Wheeler's inquiry of Coleman as to
whether she had joined the Union and as to whether she had heard
any talk about the Union in the plant, his statement to her that a
union "is no good," his advice to her "to think it over" before she
joined the Un ion, and his threat that the respondent could either close
the plant or cease producing the articles it was then making and
employ new people to work on another product.
In concluding that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act, we do not
concur in the Trial Examiner's finding that the anti-union statements
and activity of Plant Guard Carson constituted a part of the respond-
ent's illegal conduct. Carson was not a supervisory employee, and
we are of the opinion that the evidence is insufficient to warrant the
Trial Examiner's finding that Carson's anti-union conduct "was
inspired by Goodwin." Nor is there evidence that the respondent
otherwise encouraged, authorized or ratified Carson's activities, or
HUNTINGTON PRECISION PRODUCTS 1441
that it acted in such manner as to lead the employees reasonably to
believe that Carson was acting for and in behalf of management.
Consequently, we do not charge the respondent with the statements
and conduct of Carson.
2. We do not agree with the Trial Examiner 's finding that the
employees in Department 80 were laid off from October 24 to October
28, a period of 3 working days, because of their membership in and
activity on behalf of the Union. This lay-off was one of seven lay-offs
in Department 80 within 2 months; it was the fifth lay-off in October,
and it was followed by two more in November. Although all were
assertedly made because there was not enough work available for
Department 80, the lay-off of October 24th is the only one which gave
rise to a charge that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices. It is undisputed that all the other lay-offs were due to a lack
of work for the department; and several of the employees in that
department, called as witnesses for the Board, testified that work was
slack immediately before the lay-off of October 24th. Although we
are convinced that the respondent sought to discourage the organiza-
tional efforts of the employees in Department 80, we are of the opinion,
under all the circumstances, that the evidence does not warrant a find-
ing that the employees in Department 80 were laid off on October 24
because of their membership in and activities on behalf of the Union.
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the complaint insofar as it alleges that
the respondent, by laying off its employees in Department 80 from
October 24 to October 28, 1944, engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3'. We agree with the Trial Examiner, and we find, that Coleman,
Lester, Perry, Billups, Smith, and Saunders, all of whom were
employed in Department 8, were discharged in October 1944 because
of their membership in and activities on behalf of the Union. How-
ever, although we concur in his ultimate determination, we do not
agree with, or rely upon, certain of the findings made by the Trial
Examiner. The Trial Examiner in effect has found that the state of
the respondent's business did not require a reduction in personnel in
October 1944, and that the said reduction was, in itself, discriminatory.
Although the evidence leaves room for doubt, we are not convinced,
upon the record before us, that the reduction in personnel was itself
an unfair labor practice.' But we are convinced that the respondent
3 The record indicates that during the latter part of 1944 the volume of the respondent's
business did not require the services of as large a force as theretofore In August, an
entire shift in Department 8 was permanently laid off ; it was never replaced . Between
August and the time of the discharges in question , the respondent operated 11 assembly
tables in Department 8 whereas since the discharges only 10 tables have been in use
Several witnesses , including witnesses called by the Board , testified that work was slack
prior to the discharges. Department 80, which supplied some of the work to Department
8, was, as we have found above, forced to suspend operations 5 times during October
because of an insufficient amount of work
1442 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
utilized the reduction in force as a means of ridding itself of active
participants in the organizational efforts of its employees and that its
selection of the 6 employees named above as the ones to be discharged
was motivated by anti-union considerations. The evidence establishes
that these 6 employees were able workers, that each was senior to 35
or more employees at the time she was discharged, that all were mem-
bers of the Union, that the respondent was aware of such membership,2
and that the respondent vigorously opposed all attempts to organize
the employees in its Huntington plant. Moreover, the reasons as-
signed by the respondent for the selection of these 6 employees for
discharge are unconvincing. Production Manager Starling testified
that, in selecting the employees to be discharged :
I considered the people who were working, the workers, paying
attention to their age, their marital status, dependency, length
of service with the company, and their ability as workmen de-
termined from my own observation, and in conference with the
foremen, and on my findings, and I made my decision as to who
would be laid off.
The respondent asserts that, governed by this formula, it selected
and discharged:
(a) Billups and Smith, because, according to Starling, "They were
young, unmarried, . . . lived together ..' . were related," and "ap-
plying my method and my procedure for selecting persons for ter-
mination it occurred to me that they both should be laid off because
they would be happier somewhere else." Although Starling assert-
edly considered length of service and ability, as well as age and
marital status in selecting the employees for dismissal, both Billups
and Smith admittedly were capable workers and each was senior
in points of service to at least 35 employees. And the respondent has
not shown that the age or marital status of any of these other em-
ployees was different from that of Billups and Smith. Nor has any
explanation been offered as to why, in Starling's opinion, Billups and
Smith "would be happier somewhere else."
(b) Saunders, because, according to Starling, he had been told
by her foreman, Wheeler, that she spent too much time in the rest
room and did not do her share of the work. Wheeler testified that
several of Saunders' fellow, employees had complained that because
she stayed too long in the rest room they were forced to do some of
2 As heretofore noted, the record shows, among other things, that Foreman wheeler
told Coleman that he understood that the Union "really originated" at Table F, where
Coleman, Lester, and Perry worked ; that Personnel Director Goodwin learned that on
October 25, the day before she was discharged, Saunders had discussed the Union with
a fellow employee : and that Billups infoinied Goodwin on the morning of October 26,
the day she and Smith were discharged , that she and Smith were members of the Union.
In view of the foregoing and the respondent 's various efforts to learn of the employees'
union membership and activity, we are satisfied that the respondent was well aware of
the union membership of the employees under consideration.
HUNTINGTON PRECISION PRODUCTS 1443
her work. That Wheeler did not consider such alleged conduct seri-
ous in nature, however, is shown by the fact that at no time had he
complained to Saunders concerning her work.3
(c) Coleman, Lester, and Perry, because, in substance, they lagged
in production and were unfriendly to other employees. The respond-
ent asserts that the team of employees regularly working at Table
F comprised a "clique" which was unfriendly to employees not regu-
larly employed at their table; that this regular team engaged in a
"slowdown;"; and that it therefore decided to discharge Coleman,
Lester and Perry, members of this team. The Trial Examiner has
found, and we agree, that "there was no credible evidence to support
the contention the production lagged on Table F." In so finding, the
Trial Examiner refused to credit several of the respondent's witnesses
who testified, in substance, that the girls at Table F were "tempera-
mental," and that they sometimes slowed down in their work, used
rough language and were unfriendly to girls regularly employed at
other tables. The respondent asserts that the testimony of these wit-
nesses stand uncontradicted in the record and, therefore, that the
Trial Examiner erred in finding its contention to be unsupported by
credible evidence. But the ,fact that no one testified to the contrary,
even if true, would not of itself require the Trial Examiner to credit
the respondent's witnesses. Moreover, the record discloses that the
testimony of its witnesses was contradicted : Coleman testified that
"We never slowed down when there was work to do." Additionally,
Foreman Wheeler testified that "Whenever the girls [in his depart-
ment] . . . work together as, a group for awhile, they get so that
they lag, slow down, why, I just move them around to some other
table." According to Wheeler, production at Table F had been lag-
ging since August and he had complained to the girls because of their
alleged "slowdown." Yet he admitted that he did not move anyone
from Table F until October 23, 3 days before these girls were dis-
charged, when he moved Perry to another table. Again, it is note-
worthy that Staley, another member of the "regular" Table F crew,
was not discharged along with her fellow employees. And, as to
the respondent's contention that the discharged girls were unfriendly
to other employees, the record indicates that the respondent itself fos-
tered a spirit of rivalry between the various assembly tables; further
as noted above, although Wheeler allegedly separated members of
"regular" teams whenever he deemed it necessary to do so, he made no
effort to break up this alleged "clique" of "overbearing" and "un-
friendly" employees.
3 In so finding , we credit the testimony of Saunders whom we, like the Trial Examiner,
find to be a credible witness. According to Wheeler , he had reprimanded Saunders The
Trial Examiner has found, and we agree , that Wheeler 's testimony in other respects Is
unworthy of credit, and we do not accept it in this regard.
1444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As previously set forth , although Starling testified that he consid-
ered length of service and ability in selecting the individuals to be
discharged , the evidence reveals that all 6 of the discharged employees
were capable workers, and that each was senior in point of service
to at least 35 employees . Moreover , although Starling assertedly
based his selection to some extent upon conferences with Foreman
Wheeler, the latter told Coleman, Perry, and Brown immediately after
their discharge :
Girls, I am awfully sorry about this. I want you*to know I
didn't have a thing to do with this. One of your own stooges
gave you away , one of the girls that was in this [union activity]
with you all.
We are convinced that the various reasons assigned by the respond-
ent were not the true reasons which motivated the respondent in its
selection of the employees to be discharged . On the contrary, we are
convinced that the true motive was their union membership and
activity as reflected by Wheeler 's statement quoted above.
In arriving at our conclusion that these six employees were dis-
criminatorily selected for discharge , we find it unnecessary to decide
whether, as found by the Trial Examiner , it was Goodwin who selected
the employees for discharge , or, as urged by the respondent, it was
Starling who made the selection . As the Trial Examiner in effect has
found, there is no showing that, apart from having sent Trogden to
Marcum's office where 'she was interviewed concerning union activ-
ities, Starling took any part in the respondent 's anti-union campaign.
Nevertheless , assuming that it was Starling who selected the employees
for discharge , the evidence establishes that the selection was motivated
by anti-union considerations . The record is replete with evidence of
the respondent 's hostility toward the Union and its vigorous attempt
to stem self -organization . As we have previously found, the respond-
ent engaged in a variety of coercive acts and statements , several of
which were directed at the employees under discussion . Thus, Good-
win and others persistently questioned employees in an effort to learn
which of the employees were members in or active on behalf of the
Union; Saunders was asked to spy on her fellow employees and to
elicit information from the Union's president; Coleman was advised
to "think it over" before she joined the Union ; Billups, after inform-
ing Goodwin that she and Smith were members of the Union, was
advised that she and Smith should resign; Ellinwood warned Mitch-
ell that an entire department might be eliminated , and its employees
thrown out of work if the Union succeeded in organizing the plant.
These and the many other instances of interference , when considered
with the fact that Personnel Director Goodwin and Plant Manager
Ellinwood , both of whom played the leading roles in the respondent's
HUNTINGTON PRECISION PRODUCTS 1445
extensive campaign to thwart the employees ' organizational efforts,
were high in the respondent's official hierarchy, demonstrate clearly
that it was the respondent's policy to oppose employee organization.
It is a reasonable inference , which we draw , that Production Manager
Starling was aware of and acquiesced in that policy. This inference
is further supported by the fact that the respondent waged its cam-
paign so openly and extensively by the fact that Ellinwood was
Starling's immediate superior; by the fact, previously mentioned,
that Starling sent Trogden to Supervisor Marcum's office, where
Trogden was interviewed concerning union activities; and, finally,
by the lack of persuasiveness in the reasons assigned by Starling for
the selection of these employees for discharge.
We are convinced and find that on October 26, 1944, the respondent
discharged Lillian Coleman, Juanita Lester, Maxine Perry, Freda
Peters Saunders , June Billups, and Pauline Smith because of their
membership in and activities on behalf of the Union, that the respond-
ent thereby discriminated in regard to their hire and tenure of employ-
ment and discouraged membership in the Union, and that by such dis-
crimination , by the other unfair labor practices heretofore found, and
by the totality of such conduct, the respondent interfered with,
restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in conduct violative
of the Act, we shall order it to cease and desist not only from such
conduct, but also, for the reasons hereinafter set forth , from in any
other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The
respondent , acting through its personnel director , plant manager, and
other supervisory employees , interrogated its employees concerning
union membership and activity , attempted to have employees engage
in espionage to determine which employees had joined the Union,
threatened to close or move its plant and to discontinue certain opera-
tions because of its employees' union membership and activity, urged
and warned employees not to become or remain members of the Union,
sought to enlist the aid of other persons in discouraging union mem-
bership and activity , and suggested that members of the armed forces
of the United States might suffer injury as a result of the employees'
attempt to join and assist the Union. The respondent 's coercive course
of conduct to defeat self-organization and its objects was climaxed
by the discriminatory discharges of Coleman , Lester, Perry, Saunders,
Billups, and Smith, conduct -which "goes to the very heart of the
1446 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Act." 4 Upon the entire record we infer and find that the respondent
has displayed an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act to
protect the rights of the employees generally. Because of the respond-
ent's unlawful conduct, and the underlying purpose manifested
thereby, we are convinced that the unfair labor practices found are
persuasively related to the other unfair labor practices proscribed by
the Act, and that danger of their commission in the future is to be
anticipated from the respondent's conduct in the past." The pre-
ventive purpose of the Act will be thwarted unless our order is coex-
tensive with the threat.
We shall also order the respondent to take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. We have found that
the respondent selected Coleman, Lester, Perry, Saunders, Billups,
and Smith for discharge because of their union membership and activ-
ities. We have also found that these discharges were part of a reduc-
tion in force which was not, in itself, motivated by anti-union consid-
erations. Under these circumstances, sufficient positions may not be
available for the six named employees affected by the respondent's
discrimination. Accordingly, we shall order the respondent to rein-
state the six named employees 6 in the following manner : each employee
shall be reinstated to the position that she occupied or would have
4N. L. R. B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F (2d) 532, 536 (C C. A. 4) ; see also N. L.
If. B. v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Company, 116 F. ( 2d) 350, 353 (C. C. A. 7),
where the Court observed :
No more effective form of intimidation , nor one more violative of the N. L R. Act
can be conceived than the discharge of an employee because he joined a union .. .
See N. L. If. B. Y . Express Publishing Company, 312 U. S. 426; May Department Stores
Co. v. N. L. R B , 66 S. Ct. 203.
6 The respondent urges 'that we refuse to order reinstatement of the six named em-
ployees because they made no application to the respondent for reinstatement. We find
no merit in this contention.
The respondent also urges that certain of the discharged employees be denied reinstate-
ment because they have secured "what may be regarded as substantially equivalent
employment ." Assuming that they have received substantially equivalent employment, we
are of the opinion, for the reasons stated in Matter of Ford Motor Company, 31 N. L. R. B.
994, that an order of reinstatement is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
With respect to Saunders, the respondent contends that she be denied reinstatement
because of her physical condition . Saunders testified that she had not worked since her
discharge and that for part of this period she had been too ill to work There is also
some indication in the record that at the time of the hearing Saunders was physically
unable to assume her former duties However , inasmuch as it is impossible to ascertain
whether Saunders ' health will permit her to accept an offer of reinstatement made in
compliance with our Order hereinafter set forth , we shall include Saunders among those
to be offered reinstatement . In so doing , we wish to make it clear that our Order is not
intended to prevent or interfere with the exercise by the respondent of its right to dis-
charge its employees for any legitimate cause. If, upon reinstatement , the respondent
finds that Saunders ' physical condition renders her unfit for work , it may terminate
her employment for that reason . In this connection , it is to be noted that even if her
disability were to render her unfit for the position she held at the time she was discharged,
or for any substantially equivalent position , the respondent may nevertheless wish to
retain her in its employ by transferring her to other work which she might be able to
perform. Our sole concern is that the respondent 's treatment of Saunders be non-dis-
criminatory and we shall carefully scrutinize any attempt by the respondent to terminate
her employment in order to ensure that it was not induced by her union membership
or activity . See Matter of Salmon and Cowin, Inc, 57 N. L. It. B. 845, enf 'd 148 F. (2d)
941 (C. C. A. 5).
HUNTINGTON PRECISION PRODUCTS 1447
occupied but for the respondent's discrimination, or to a substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights
and privileges, the respondent to dismiss, if necessary, all persons now
employed in the same or similar positions who were hired or rehired
after the respondent's discrimination on October 26, 1944; if, after
dismissal of all such employees, there are insufficient positions remain-
ing for all employees, including those ordered reinstated, the available
positions shall be distributed among all employees, without discrim-
ination against any employee because of his or her union membership
or activity, following such a system of seniority or other non-discrim-
inatory practice to such an extent as has been heretofore applied in
the conduct of the respondent's business; those employees, if any,
remaining after such distribution for whom no employment is imme-
diately available shall be placed on a preferential list, with priority
among them determined in accordance with such system of seniority
or other non-discriminatory procedure as has been heretofore applied
by the respondent in the conduct of its business, and, thereafter, in
accordance with such list, shall be offered reinstatement to positions
as provided above, as such employment becomes available and before
other persons are hired for such work. °
We shall also order the respondent to make the six named employees
whole for losses incurred because of the respondent's discrimination.
It is possible that one or more of these six employees might have been
discharged in the course of the reduction in personnel even if the
respondent's selection had been made on a non-discriminatory basis.
This possibility will be taken into consideration in determining the
amount due to the employees in compliance with our Order herein.?
We also expressly reserve the right to modify the back-pay and
reinstatement provisions if made necessary by a change of conditions
in the future, and make such supplements thereto as may hereafter
become necessary in order to define or clarify their application to a
specific set of circumstances not now apparent.'
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondent, Huntington Precision
Products, Division of Adel Precision Products Corporation, Hunting-
7 In view of the fact that Saunders admittedly was unable to work during at least
part of the time following her discharge , we shall exclude the period during which she
was unable to work in awarding her back pay. Inasmuch as the record does not disclose
the exact length of this period , we shall leave the precise period which is to be excluded
for determination upon compliance . Matter of W. W. Rosebraugh Company, 60 N. L. R. B.
787.
8 Matter of Fairmont Creamery Company, 64 N. L. R. B . 824; cf . N. L. R. B. v. New
York Merchandising Co., 134 F. (2d) 949 (C. C. A. 2) ; International Union v. Eagle
Picher Mining & Smelting Co., 65 S. Ct. 1166.
1448 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ton, West Virginia, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in United Optical & Instrument
Workers Union, C. I. 0., or any other labor organization, by discharg-
ing or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or by discriminating
in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment,
or any term or condition of their employment;
(b) Interrogating employees concerning union membership or
activity; attempting to have employees engage in espionage to deter-
mine union membership and activity of other employees; threatening
to close or move its plant or to discontinue any of its operations because
of its employees' union membership or activity; warning employees
not to become or remain union members; seeking to enlist, or enlisting
the aid of other persons unlawfully to discourage its employees' union
membership; and suggesting that members of the. armed forces of
the United States might suffer injury as a result of its employees'
attempt to join and assist a union;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist United Optical & Instrument
Workers' Union, C. I. 0., or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act: 9
(a) Offer to Lillian Coleman, Juanita Lester, Freda Peters
Saunders, Maxine Perry, June Billups, and Pauline Smith immediate
and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and
privileges, in the manner set forth in our Decision under the section
entitled "The remedy," placing those employees for whom no employ-
ment is presently available on a preferential list and offering them
employment as it becomes available, in the manner therein set forth;
(b) Make whole Lillian Coleman, Juanita Lester, Freda Peters
Saunders, Maxine Perry, June Billups, and Pauline Smith for any
loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the respondent's
discrimination against them, by payment to each of them of a sum
of money equal to the amount which she normally would have earned
as wages from the date of her discharge to the date of the respond-
The Board expressly reserves the right to modify the back-pay and reinstatement
provisions if made necessary by a change of circumstances in the future, and to make
such supplements thereto as hereafter may become necessary in order to define or clarify'
their application to a specific set of circumstances not now apparent.
HUNTINGTON PRECISION PRODUCTS 1449
ent's offer of reinstatement or placement on a preferential list, less
her net earnings during said period; 10
(c) Post at its plant at Huntington, West Virginia, copies of the
notice attached hereto marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice,
to be furnished byithe Regional Director for the Ninth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the respondent's representative, be posted
by the respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained
by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for theNinth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith ;
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed insofar
as it alleges that the respondent engaged in unfair labor practices
by laying off employees in Department 80 from October 24 to October
28, 1944; and by transferring and assigning Vivian Staley and Mary
Trogden from their regular employment to less desirable jobs.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the,
above Decision and Order.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning union mem-,
bership or activity; attempt to have employees engage in espion-
age to determine union membership and activity of other em-
ployees; threaten to close or move our plant or to discontinue any
of the operations of our plant because of our employees' union
membership or activity; warn our employees not to become or
remain union members; enlist or seek to enlist the aid of other
persons unlawfully to discourage our employees' union member-
ship or activity; or suggest that members of the armed forces of
10 In determining the amount due under this provision of our Order , consideration shall
be given to the possibility that one or more of the named employees might have been
discharged in the reduction in personnel even if the respondent 's selection had been made
on a non-discriminatory basis ; and, as set forth in footnote 7, supra , with regard to
Saunders , the period during which she was unable to work because of illness shall be
excluded from the period set forth under this provision of our Order.
1450 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the United States might suffer injury as a result of any attempt
on the part of our employees to join or assist a union.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain
or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist United
Optical & Instrument Workers' Union, C. 1. 0., or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
WE WILL OFFER to the employees named below immediate
and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions, in the manner set forth in the Board's Decision and
Order, without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss
of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination, in the manner
set forth in the Board's Decision and Order.
Lillian Coleman,
Juanita Lester, Maxine Perry, Freda Peters Saunders,
June Billups and Pauline Smith.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the
above-named union or any other labor organization. We will not
discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term
or condition of employment against any employee because of member-
ship in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
HUNTINGTON PRECISION PRODUCTS, DIVISION
OF ADEL PRECISION PRODUCTS CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated------- By----------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
NOTE.-Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the armed forces
of the United States will be offered full reinstatement upon application in accord-
ance with the Selective ,Service Act after discharge from the armed forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Messrs. Herbert J. Nester and James A. Shaw, for the Board.
Mr. James M. Gusher, of Clarksburg, W. Va., and Mr. W. W. Goodwin, of Hunt-
ington, W. Va., for the respondent.
Messrs. B. T. Wolford and L. T. Koleetka, of Huntington, W. Va., for the Union.
STATEMENT OE THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed by United Optical & Instrument Workers'
Union, C. I. 0., herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
HUNTINGTON PRECISION PRODUCTS 1451
called the Board, by its Regional Director for the Ninth Region (Cincinnati, Ohio),
issued its complaint dated January 29, 1945, against Huntington Precision Prod-
ucts, Division of Adel Precision Products Corporation, Huntington, West Virginia,
herein called the respondent, alleging that respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations
Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and notice of
hearing thereon were duly served upon the respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleiied in substance:
(1) that the respondent, since on or about September 15, 1944, and thereafter,
engaged in anti-union threats, questioning, and other anti-union statements and
conduct; (2) that on or about October 24, 1944, respondent laid off all the employ-
ees employed in Department 80, consisting of approximately 52 employees, because
of their union activities; (3) that on or about October 26, 1944, the respondent
discriminatorily discharged six employees;' (4) that on or about October 28, 1944,
the respondent discriminatorily transferred Vivian Staley and Mary Trodgen from
their regular employment to less desirable jobs; and (5) by the acts described
above, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
On, or about February 6, 1945, respondent filed its answer to the complaint
denying that it had engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Huntington, West Virginia, from
February 13 through February 20, 1945, before Peter F. Ward, the Trial Exam-
iner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the respond-
ent were represented by counsel, and representatives appeared for the Union
All participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues
was afforded all parties.
During the hearing, the undersigned reserved rulings on motions to strike
certain testimony of Board witnesses as to alleged anti-union statements of
employee Brammer; and the testimony of Board witness Helena Arthur con-
cerning statements alleged to have been made by one W. W. Payne. The
motions are hereby denied. At the close of the hearing, counsel for the Board
and for the respondent moved that the complaint and the answer be amended
in formal matters to conform to the proof. The motion was granted. Also, at
the close of the hearing, counsel for the respondent moved to dismiss the
complaint ; the undersigned reserved ruling on such motions. The motions
are hereby denied. The parties argued orally at the conclusion of the hearing.
While the parties were afforded an opportunity to file briefs with the under-
signed, no briefs have been received.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Adel Precision Products Corporation is. a California corporation with its home
office and principal plant located at Burbank, California. Huntington Precision
Products is a division of Adel Precision Products Corporation, located at Hunt-
ington, West Virginia. The principal business of said corporation, at its Hunt-
ington Division, is the manufacture and production of various types of metal
and rubber clips and line supports utilized in the construction of aircraft. The
essential raw materials used in the manufacture of these products consist of
i Lillian Coleman, Juanita Lester, Maxine Perry, Freda Peters Saunders, June Billups,
and Pauline Smith.
1452 DECISIONS, OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
synthetic rubber, steel, aluminum, and asbestos. The raw materials used at
the Huntington Precision Products Division are valued in excess of $1,000,000
,annually, over 50 percent of which materials is purchased and acquired from
points outside the State of West Virginia. Finished products manufactured
by Huntington Precision Products Division are valued in excess of $5,000,000
-annually, more than 50 percent of which is shipped to points outside the State
of West Virginia.'
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Optical & Instrument Workers' Union is a labor organization affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to membership em-
ployees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion ; the discriminatory lay-off of
Department 80
1. Background
The Huntington plant began operations in July 1942. The first union activity
at the plant occurred in September 1943. At that time, the United Steel
Workers distributed leaflets about and near the plant. Herbert H. Callicoat,
then employed in the tool and die shop under the supervision of Foreman Robert
Terrell, secured one of the leaflets. As he started to enter the plant with it,
William Carson, a guard, told him to throw it away before he would be
permitted to enter the plant. Callicoat, however, took the leaflet into the plant,
and as other employees had disposed of their leaflets, Callicoat read the Steel
Workers' leaflet to them. Callicoat had received a 10-cent automatic raise in
July 1943, and had been expecting a further 10-cent raise. He asked Terrell
about it. Terrell said that he had been wanting to talk to Callicoat, since,
"You seem as though you are interested in unions or labor organizations . ..".
Terrell then advised Callicoat that the reason he did not get the raise was
because he had read the Steel Workers' leaflet in the plant.
Shortly thereafter, Callicoat talked with William W. Goodwin, personnel
director for the respondent, concerning his expected raise. Goodwin reminded
Callicoat that he had informed the latter, at the time he was hired, that the
respondent wanted nothing to do with any labor organization. Goodwin added :
"They tell me that you have been connected with unions before." Callicoat
admitted that lie had belonged to unions before. He was advised by Goodwin
that he would get no raise. When Callicoat asked for a release, Goodwin
refused to give it to him. During January 1944, Callicoat received a 10-cent
raise. On March 3, 1944, he was discharged.'
Lillian' Coleman, whose discriminatory discharge is discussed below, was
employed on or about February 18, 1943. Shortly after her employment, Good-
win called her to his office and asked her if she had heard of any union talk in
the plant. She advised him that she had not.
Josetta Williams was hired on December 8, 1942, to work in Department 80,
more particularly referred to below. At the time she was employed Goodwin
2 The facts found in this section are based upon a stipulation of the parties entered into
at the hearing.
3 Terrell, Goodwin, and Carson each denied statements attributed to them by Callicoat
above. The undersigped credits Callicoat's testimony. Terrell testified, in substance, that
he recommended a second 10-cent raise for Callicoat, in January 1944, approximately 6
months after he had received the first raise. The delay in granting the second raise,
together with the discharge of Callicoat in March 1944 and the respondent' s anti-union
attitude, described below, all indicate that it resented Callicoat's reading the Steel Workers'
leaflet in the plant. The credibility of Goodwin and Carson is discussed in another
connection below. '
HUNTINGTON PRECISION PRODUCTS 1453
asked her if she belonged to a union. She replied in the affirmative and stated
that she had quit her former job with Casey-Jones, a local firm, because she had
some trouble with the Union and had resigned from it.
In or about February 1943, Dana A. Gordon, supervisor, in charge of Depart-
ment 80, called Williams aside and asked if she had heard anything about the
Union, or if the girls employed in the department had said anything about it.
Williams replied that she had not heard anything on either score. Following
the foregoing conversation, Gordon had a further talk with Williams. He asked
her if she thought Blanche Fain, also an employee in Department 80, "would be
a leader to start a union." Williams replied that "I know nothing about it."
Gordon suggested that Williams keep him advised on organizational activity
in Department 80.'
2. Union activity in Department 80
The employees of two departments are involved herein: (1) Department 80,
wherein only Negro employees worked, and where, with the exception of Fore-
man Gordon and two material men, the employees are women; and (2) Depart-
ment 8, wherein all the employees are white women, and where, insofar as it is
material herein, the foreman, Richard A. Wheeler, is a white man.
The Union began to organize Department 80 about the first of October 1944,6
and by October 15, had secured more than 80 percent of the employees of that
department as members.
Goodwin was absent from Huntington from on or about September 18 until
October 9. During his absence, a drive on behalf of the local Community Chest
was carried on. Gordon, as supervisor of Department 80, had his secretary make
out the pledge cards for the signature of the employees in Department 80. Each
card, as made out, contained a pledge for the sum of $4, the equivalent of 1 day's
pay. Many bf the employees objected to this amount being inserted and contended
that it was more than they could afford to donate. A number of Department 80
employees complained to Gordon and voiced dissatisfaction with the assessment.
Goodwin returned to Huntington on October 9 and learned of the dissatisfaction
concerning the Community Chest drive. On October 10, Goodwin had Gordon
send a number of the Department 80 employees to his office. Each employee was
sent to Gordon's office separately.
Employee Ruth Price was one of those employees sent to Goodwin's office by
Gordon. Goodwin told Price that, upon his return from California, he found
that there was unrest in Department 80 and asked her what the unrest was.
Price replied that the $4 assessment, above referred to, had caused unrest.
After discussing the Community Chest matter, Price asked Goodwin, "Was that
all?" He answered, "Yes." As Price was leaving Goodwin's office, the latter
said, "Well, have you heard anything about a union?" Price replied in the nega-
tive. Whereupon, Goodwin stated, "Well, we don't want a union ..." He
added:
The Company would break up and go back to Fairbanks, [sic] e California,
before they would have a union because there is hard feeling and break up
production.
* Gordon categorically denied having discussed the Union with Williams He testified,
in substance , that while she was no blood relation of his, she was his "adopted" niece ;
she called him "Uncle Dan" ; he had known her for 8 or 9 years ; and that she bore a good
reputation in her community The undersigned does not credit Gordon's denial, and is
convinced that he made the statements substantially as found above. Goodwin was not
questioned concerning Williams' conversation referred to above.
5 Unless otherwise specified, all events herein occurred in 1944.
6 As set out above, the respondent's main plant is located in "Burbank," California.
1454 DECIS.TONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Marguerite Fulwood was also sent to Goodwin's office by Gordon on October 10.
Prior to this time, Fulwood had been laid off and thereafter rehired. When
she entered Goodwill's office on October 10, he reminded her that he had been
"awful nice" to her on the occasion he had rehired her. Goodwin then asked
if the girls were uneasy about anything and Fulwood said that they were con-
cerned about the Community Chest pledge. Goodwin then said that he was going
to Department 80 on the evening of October 10 and make an announcement con-
cerning the Community Chest matter. Before Fulwood left his office, he asked
her if she thought that the Chest matter was the "only" matter causing dissatis-
faction. Fulwood stated that insofar as she knew, it was. Goodwin then asked
if anyone ;,p Department 80 had asked her "about the Union or C. I. 0." When
she replied in the negative, Goodwin stated that if anyone in Department 80
asked about the Union, she was to have Gordon excuse her on "personal business"
and report the fact to Goodwin. On this occasion, Goodwin further stated that
he wanted no union in the plant because it would cause a lot of trouble and
"break up the plant." He referred to the fact that he had a son in the service
and stated that if anything should happen to his son "that he would feel that
the Union was to blame." Goodwin further said, "The unions cause strikes and
cause trouble between plants, people in plants, and plants."
Blanche Fain was also sent to Goodwin's office on October 10. Goodwin
told her that he wanted to ask her some very "confidential" questions. After
discussing the Community Chest, Goodwin asked her if she had heard anything
about an organization starting in the plant. She replied, "No."
Florida Webb also went to Goodwin's office. On her arrival there, Goodwin
discussed the Community Chest matter. He then asked her if she had heard any-
thing concerning the Union, to which she replied in the negative. He advised
her that whatever she said was "strictly confidential . ." Webb then told
Goodwin that one of the girls in the department had asked Webb if she had heard
anything about a union and Webb had informed her that she had not, whereupon
the girl said, "Well, I heard they were going to get a union here, . . " Goodwin
then said that he "could get along without" the Union?
During the early stages of organization, the Union advised the employees that
in order to get the organization well under way without the knowledge of the
respondent's officials, they were not to engage in any union activity about the
plant. Some of the employees informed B. T. Wolford, the Union' s organizer,
that "foremen" had asked employees not to participate in the organization.
During October, and after Goodwin's return from California, as referred to, above,
Wolford called the respondent's manager, Raymond S. Ellinwood, and informed
the latter of the existence of the rumors to the effect that the foremen were
seeking to discourage the employees from participating in organization matters.
7 Tne findings as to what occurred in Goodwin's interviews with the four employees,
mentioned above, are based upon the credible testimony of Price, Fulwood, Fain, and
Webb Goodwin admitted having mentioned the Union in his separate talks with the
four ',mployees He contended, however, that he mentioned the Union as a result of a
tele shone call made by one Borge Rosing, who was connected with United Steel Mills and
head of the industrial committee on behalf of the Community Chest. According to Good-
win, Rosing had phoned Goodwin's office and talked to Florence Childers, an employee in
the office, and had stated that the Union had complained to the Community Chest con-
cerning the assessment made by the respondent against the employees in Department 80.
Goodwin did not contend, and the record does not support, a suggestion that the Union
ever made such complaint. Rosing, although not shown to have been unavailable, was not
called as a witness. From the foregoing and the record, the undersigned is convinced
that no union made a complaint concerning the Community Chest matter, and that Goodwin
made such statement merely as a plausible pretext in an explanation of his having ills
cussed the Union with the employees, as above described . It is so found.
HUNTINGTON PRECISION PRODUCTS 1455
Ellinwood accused Wolford of "coming in the back door." He stated that he
did not "want an organization," told Wolford that he intended to run his own
business , and advised Wolford to do the same.
On the day following Wolford's conversation with Ellinwood , Goodwin called
Wolford, and informed the latter that Ellinwood had reported Wolford's state-
ments of the preceding day with reference to the foremen's alleged interference.
Goodwin asked Wolford which of the employees wanted the organization. Wol-
ford refused to tell him, whereupon Goodwin stated that the respondent didn't '
want an organization and would fight it.°
During October 1944, and prior to October 24, Supervisor Gordon telephoned
to J. Carl Mitchell, a Baptist minister of Huntington, West Virginia, for 12 years,
and active in the National Association for Advancementdof Colored People, who
had "sponsored" Department 80, and informed him that the respondent was about
to discontinue the operation of Department 80 Gordon requested Mitchell to
talk to the company officials and especially to Ellinwood, the manager a Mitchell
made the appointment with Ellinwood and went to the latter's office. The pro-
posed lay-off of the employees in Department 80 was discussed. Ellinwood asked
Mitchell if he "had heard anything around there with reference to the organiza-
tion ." Mitchell denied any knowledge of it. During this conference between
Ellinwood and Mitchell, the former called attention to the fact that he "had run
Department 80 all the while and had never cut any of them off." Ellinwood
added, "I know that if this thing continues that I am going to have to cut them
off, and I don't see the need of them talking about a union over there, because
this department can easily be cut off and not even have Department 80 over there
and we can ship out our work to California."
Subsequent to his talk with Ellinwood, above referred to, Mitchell had a discus-
sion with Goodwin, during which Goodwin asked him if lie knew anything about
any union activities in Department 80. Goodwin, in effect, accused Mitchell of
having had a part in organizing the department. He informed Mitchell that some
white person had told' Goodwin that all of Department 80 had been canvassed
and organized . He then asked Mitchell if lie knew about this. Mitchell replied
that he didn't know anything about it "particularly." As is set forth in further
detail below, the employees in Department 80 were laid off on October 24, 1944.
After the lay-off, Mitchell had a further talk with Ellinwood, at which the latter
pointed out that he had cooperated in getting Department 80 into the plant, and
suggested that it might be carried on after the war Ellinwood added, however,
.that in most plants where there were unions "only a few Negroes are actually
hired " Mitchell admitted that this was tine. During the same conference,
Ellinwood suggested that Department 80 was being used`to seek entrance, of the
g These findings are based on Wolford's credible testimony . Both Ellinwood and
Goodwin in the main denied Wolford ' s testimony Ellinwood testified, in substance, that
Wolford had said that the Union was going to organize at the plant and that the foremen
were hindering it ; that lie wanted harmonious relationship between the respondent and
the Union: "and I [Ellinwood] said that was all right, that we had a small plant, how-
ever, and anything . I didn ' t think the Union was probably necessary , or something
of that sort,. " 'Goodwin testified, in this connection, that he called Wolford and
asked the name of the foremen and said that he would investigate and if he found Wol-
ford 's statement correct , he "would have the nian discharged " He denied saying that
he would fight the organization or the Union On the above, and the record, the under-
signed is convinced that Ellinwood and Goodwin made statements substantially as found
above
Gordon denied that he phoned Mitchell, and testified that he "thinks" Mitchell called
him and discussed Department 80, and then said, "Well, do you think it would do any
good if I would go down there and talk to Mr Ellinwood9" According 'to Gordon, he
replied in the affirmative The undersigned credits Mitchell 's version of this incident.
6791 00-4 6-%of (i5--9a
1456 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union in the plant since "if the Negroes sign up and the Union got in Department
80, it would make it easier for the Union to get into the entire plant." 0
Commencing on or about October 17, the Union began distribution of union
literature. The first leaflets were distributed the week of October 17; the second,
on or about October 24; the third, on or about October 28; and the fourth was
distributed subsequent to October 28. Leaflets were distributed on October 24
about 3:30 p. in, At about 4 p. in., on that day, October 24, all the employees
in Department 80 were called together in one room and addressed by Supervisor
Gordon. Gordon told them that they were to be laid off ; that the lay-off would be
indefinite ; that the Company had no materials ; and that orders were low. Good-
win (who was present at a lay-off in Department 80 for the first time) then
addressed the employed and stated that any of those who wished releases could
have them. This was the first occasion among a number of lay-offs of Depart-
ment 80 in which.the employees were informed that they might procure releases.
In all prior lay-offs, the employees were given it definite time when they were to
report back to work. The record shows that the "Reel Sewers" had materials
upon which to work and were supposed to call Gordon the next day. Some of
the employees tried to call Gordon on October 25, but were unable to locate
him.'-`
On the evening of Friday, October 27, the employees of Department 80 held a
banquet, in lieu of the picnic formerly planned to be held during the summer.
During the banquet, Gordon announced that Department 80 would be reopened
the next morning, October 28. The employees returned to work. Department 80
has continued in operation since that time with a few lay-offs, none of which was
designated as "indefinite."
10 These findings are based upon the credible testimony of Mitchell. Ellinwood cate-
gorically denied that he ever discussed the Union with Mitchell Goodwin, on the other
hand, testified, in substance, that there were two conferences between Ellinwood and
Mitchell in the former's office, and that he was asked to take a seat during one of the
conferences In this connection, Goodwin testified :
Q. What was the substance of the conversation, if you remember1
A Well, it was generalities. I couldn't recall the whole thing I think we were
speaking in this one meeting about the Community Chest and the Union. I more or
less kidded Reverend Mitchell about some of those things, and it is possible, in joking
or kidding with him, I may have said something about this.
Q You said something about the Union. What did you mean by that?
A The organization, that is all
Q. Well, what do you mean, speaking to him in a kidding way?
A. Well, it is customary, we joke and kid a little when he is down there, about
what he said about organization of the Department 80. I may have, in a joking way,
said "Well, are you the head of it," or "What did you have to do with it." That would
have been all that was said in a very ioking way.
In view of the foregoing and the record, the undersigned is convinced that neither Ellin-
wood nor Goodwin was "kidding" about the advent of the Union, and that the conversa-
tions and events, described above, occurred substantially as testified to by Mitchell.
11
This was not only the first "indefinite" lay-off that had been made in Department 80,
but it was the first time in which Goodwin had been present Goodwin testified, in sub-
stance, that the reason he was present on this occasion was because of the dissatisfaction
that had arisen in connection with the Community Chest pledges earlier in that month.
Since the record discloses that following the Chest dissatisfaction, there were three lay offs
preceding the one on October 24, at none of which Goodwin saw fit to be present when the
lay-offs were made, the undersigned does not credit his explanation for his presence on
October 24.
HUNTINGTON PRECISION PRODUCTS 1457
3. Contentions of the parties
The Board contends in effect, that the lay-off of the employees in Department 80
on October 24, was a discriminatory one designed to discourage membership in
the Union.
The respondent contends in effect: (1) that the lay-off was made in the regular
course of business by Production Manager Starling without the prior knowledge
of either Ellinwood or Goodwin; and (2) that the lay-off was occasioned by a
shortage of orders.
As to the first contention, the record shows that long before the advent of the
Union the respondent was vigilant in its effort to learn of any organizational
activity in its plant; that on the advent of union activities in Department 80,
Goodwin sought to learn who had joined or were discussing it and tried to induce
several employees to make inquiries among their fellow employees and report to
him;'- that Gordon learned of the respondent's plan to abolish Department 80
and reported such fact to Reverend Mitchell, the sponsor of the department;
after which the respondent engaged in the various acts of interference detailed
above; and on October-24, made the "indefinite" lay-off and offered "releases"
to the Department 80 employees.
It is clear from the record that, notwithstanding Starling's testimony that he
alone decided, during the afternoon of October 24, to make the lay-off and had
Gordon make the announcement about 4: 00 p. in on that day, the lay-off was
not made in the regular course of business The proposed lay-off was known to
Ellinwood, Goodwin, Gordon, and Mitchell before October 24 Goodwin super-
seded Starling in announcing the availability of "releases" for the laid-off em-
ployees, thereby emphasizing the "indefiniteness" of such lay-off. This contention
therefore is without merit, and it is so found.
As to the second contention., the respondent sought to explain the recall of the
employees of Department 80 on October 28 as being the result of orders listed on
a "summarized statement" and received on October 24, 25, 26, and 27. Such orders
totaled 135,639 "bonded" " clips for the 4 days mentioned. Respondent contended
that it required orders for approximately 100,000 clips per day to keep the depart-
ment employed. The record discloses that the department worked 6 days from
October 28 to November 3, both inclusive." From October 28 to November 3,
inclusive, orders for only 143,060 additional clips were received. This total of
orders taken together with the orders for 135,639 clips on hand as of October 27,'
make a total of 278,699 clips on order, or a sufficient amount to keep the depart-
ment employed for only 3 days 10 Since the department worked 6 days, orders for
1' As found below, Goodwin engaged in similar conduct with the employees in Depart-
ment 8
1$ Starling sought to assume full responsibility for this lay -off, and testified that he had
instructed Gordon to make it. He also testified that he gave no instructions that the
employees were to be told that they might get their releases , if they wanted them. This
was the first instance , where employees were offered "releases" at the time of a depart-
mental lay-off.
14 Department 80 worked on "bonded " clips only.
11 The department did not work November 4
16 After testifying that Department 80 was recalled to work on October 28 as a result
of the orders received from October 24 to 27, inclusive , and listed on the "summarized
statement ," Starling stated in connection with Department 8, that the figures contained
in such "summarized statement " were "of value only to show the trend " He did not seek
to qualify his former testimony to the effect that Department 80 was called back to work
as a result of orders received from October 24 to 27 , inclusive . On cross-examination,
however, be testified that "the production of Department 80 is not at all dependent on the
daily orders that come in or bonded clips from day to day."
1458 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
an additional 300,000 clips must have been on hand or available from the backlog
of orders in existence on October 24. In either event it is clear that a "shortage"
of orders was not the real reason for the "indefinite" lay-off of October 24. This
contention is without merit.
4. Conclusions
From the above, and the record as a whole, the undersigned finds that the
respondent and its officials were determined not to have the union organized in its
Huntington, West Virginia, plant; that from the beginning of its operations, its
officials were alert in their efforts to forestall any union activity ; that after the
Union succeeded in organizing a majority of Department 80 employees, Goodwin
,used the dissatisfaction existing over the Community Chest pledge as an excuse to
interview certain employees separately in his effort to get employees to spy on
their fellow employees and to discourage union activity; that both Ellinwood and
Goodwin sought, by threatening the removal or abolishment of Department 80, to
force Reverend Mitchell to use his influence with employees to discourage their
union activity; that it ordered the "indefinite" lay-off of October 24, with Good-
win's proffer of "releases" in an attempt to convince both Mitchell and the
employees that the latter would lose their jobs unless they quit the union ; and
that the employees of Department 80 were laid off from October 24-to 28, a period
of 3 work days, because of their membership in and activity on behalf of the
Union.
B further inter ference, restraint, and coercion; the discriminatory discharges
1. Anti-union activity
Mary Trodgen was employed in Department 8, on Table R. She had formerly
worked at National Steel Products Company ui Huntington, under the super-
vision of Fred Marcum. Marcum was supervisor in charge of the Punch Press
Department 7. On or about October 1, Marcum accosted Trodgen at her table
in Department S, and invited her to come to his office after working hours.
Trodgen went to Marcum's office as requested. During a conversation with him,
he asked her if she "had heard any of the girls talking about the Union." She
replied in the negative, whereupon Marcum asked her that in the event she did
hear such talk to come and tell him. Trogden replied "Okay" and left the office.
On or about October 10, a. in. Starling, production manager in charge of both
departments, 8 and 80, went to Trogden's table and requested her to report to
Marcum's office. Marcum informed Trodgen that he had heard that she had
signed a union card, and said, "Well, you have trusted somebody, or they told
a lie." He added, "I am going to get to the bottom of it." On October 23, Fore-
man Wheeler sent Trodgen to Goodwin's office. Goodwin asked her if she had
heard any of the girls talking about the Union, to which Trodgen replied, "No."
Goodwin then stated in substance that be was not allowed out in the plant to
tell the employees not to join the Union, but that there were a few "of us"
there he could trust and that she was one of those. He requested that, in the
event she "heard of any of the girls talking union, to come and tell him." He
also requested her to tell the employees that the Union wasn't any good.
Later, on October 26, Trodgen was called back to Goodwin's office. Marcum was
also present Goodwin informed her that the work was, "slacking" in Depart-
ment 8, and that lay-offs were coming He asked her how she would like to
work in Marcum's department. She replied that she would not care to work
there and suggested that she was being transferred because of union activities.
HUNTINGTON PRECISION PRODUCTS 1459
She had joined the Union on October 3. Trodgen's "demotion," on October 28,
14is discussed below'
Hobert Callicoat, hereinabove referred to, is and was during October 1944,
president of the Union. During October, he was assisted in passing out union
leaflets at respondent's plant. On one occasion, he tendered a leaflet to Goodwin
as the latter passed by the entrance to the plant.. Goodwin refused the leaflet
and stated, "Get away from here ; I don't want any of those union lies." ie
Goodwin sent for Freda Peters Saunders, who was then employed in Depart-
ment 8 on table I. He asked her if she had talked to Callicoat with reference to
the Union, and she informed him that she had not. Goodwin then asked her if
she had signed a union card and she again made a negative reply. Goodwin
then asked if she was "for" the Union and again she replied in the negative.
Goodwin then proposed that Saunders talk to Callicoat ; pretend that she was
neither for nor against the Union ; learn from Callicoat the names of girls who
had signed cards and bring them to him. He also asked her to talk to the girls
and learn which were for the Union and which against it and then report back
to him. He cautioned her not to mention to the other girl employees why she
had been called to his office. When Saunders stated that she did not know
whether she could do that or not, Goodwin replied "that [will] mean a lot, you
know." 19
On October 25, Foreman Wheeler of Department 8 called at the home of Lillian
Coleman (whose discharge is discussed below), after working hours, and invited
Coleman out on the porch for a private talk. He told Coleman that he wanted
to know if she had heard any talk of the Union at the plant. Coleman replied,
"Well, yes, Shorty [Wheeler], that is all the talk there has been yesterday since
they passed those handbills. You know that." Wheeler said that the reason
that he had called on her was that he had heard the Union "really originated" at
her table. Coleman denied this statement and said that the talk was taking place
at all of the tables, after the passing of the handbills, above referred to. Wheeler
"Marcum denied discussing the Union with Trodgen and denied having met her twice
at his office. He testified, in substance, that he needed an experienced operator and knew
that she was a fairly good one, so had Starling send her to his office. He then asked her
how she would like to work In his department, that she replied that she would think it
over, and that "that was all" at such conference. Marcum testified that he had a con-
ference, 2 days later, in Goodwin ' s office when Trodgen was present ; and that at this
conference, Goodwin had asked her if she would like to work in Marcum's department ;
and that she had replied that she didn't know and that she thought that she would not
get "along well there at all " With reference to the meeting with Trodgen, Marcum,
and himself , Goodwin testified that Marcum had asked for a girl ; mentioned that Trodgen
had previously worked for him; and that he had Starling send her to his office where no
mention of the Union was made. As found herein, the record discloses that Goodwin
made every effort to learn which of the employees were active in the Union, and then
sought contacts, both direct and indirect, with such employees in an effort to discourage
their union activities In view of the record and the above, the undersigned does not
credit Marcum's and Goodwin's versions of the above-described episodes, and is convinced
that the events occurred substantially as found above
18 Goodwin's version of this incident was to the effect that when Callicoat offered him
the leaflet, he merely stated, "Oh hell !" The undersigned credits Callicoat's testimony.
19 Saunders fixed the date of this event indefinitely as occurring in "the latter part of
September." The record discloses that Goodwin left Huntington for California on or
about September 18 and returned on October 9. He was in his office on and after October
10. Goodwin categorically denied that such conversation ever took place. Saunders was
a highly credible witness. As is disclosed elsewhere herein, Goodwin did not prove to be
a credible witness. As testified to by Saunders, the conversation had to do, among other
things, with Union President Callicoat's activities at the plant. These activities did not
come into the open until on or about October 15. The undersigned Is convinced that the
conversation took place and that Goodwin made the statements attributed to him, sub-
stantially as testified to by her, and that she was in error in fixing the time as "the latter
part of September," rather than about mid-October. It is so found.
1460 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
informed Coleman that he had called at her home on his own accord. He
reminded her of the fact that the Company could close the plant ; move back to
California ; shut down on the products that they were then making ; and hire
all new hands to work on a different product. Wheeler asked Coleman if she
had signed a union card. She replied, "I couldn't tell you that." Wheeler then
stated, "I would advise you to think it over before you put your name down on
anything." He told her that he had served on a grievance committee at Miller
Casket Company (Huntington) for 41/2 years, and that the Union "is no good and
I know i 2°
On the morning of October 26, the date of the discharges described below,
William Carson, a guard, called Saunders into his office at about 7: 30 a. m.
He asked her if she had signed with the Union and she replied that she had not
He then asked her if she knew anyone who had signed, to which Saunders
replied that she did know but refused to give Carson any names Carson then
asked her what she was getting from Hobert (Callicoat) for getting the Union
into the plant. He stated that he understood that Callicoat was getting $500
which he should divide with her. Carson indicated to Saunders that the card
signers would be discharged and those who did not sign would be retained.
During the lunch hour on this same day Saunders went to Carson's office to
use the telephone. Carson was present and advised Saunders that she better
see Callicoat and make him divide the $500 with her, because she "was going
to need it. . . ." 21
2. The discharges
Coleman, Lester, Perry, and Brown" were employed on Table F and had
been steadily so employed as a regular team for 6 to 8 months prior to October
26. The regular employees on Table F were rated as the best in Department 8 22
20 Wheeler categorically denied most of the statements attributed to him by Coleman
He testified that he was at the Coleman home and had gone there because "one day" at
the factory Coleman came to him and asked him what his "opinion of the Union" was.
To this inquiry, wheeler testified he made absolutely no answer of any kind at the time,
and had called at her home to answer the question theretofore asked. He further testified
that he gave his personal experience with the C. 1 0. when employed at the Miller Casket
Company. He admitted telling her that if she had not already joined or signed up, "she
ought to think it over." From the above and -the record, the undersigned does not credit
wheeler's version of his interview with Coleman, and is convinced that he made the
statements substantially as found above
'n These findings are based on Saunders' credible testimony. Carson categorically
denied having discussed the Union with Saunders Carson's wife and Saunders are
cousins He had known her "ever since she was a little kid " Carson works under the
direct supervision of Goodwin. Carson was an evasive witness and seemed determined
not to relate what he knew. He testified that he had received no instructions from re-
spondent's supervisors as to what his attitude should be if the Union was mentioned in
his presence The undersigned does not credit Carson's denials and is convinced that he
made the statements to Saunders substantially as found above. The record does not indi-
cate that Carson was a supervisor. It does disclose, however, that Goodwin made every
effort to learn of any union activity in the plant, and interviewed employees in both De-
partments 8 and 80 to this end. It is reasonable in all the circumstances, to believe that
Goodwin would not fail to make use of employees working under his direct supervision
and that Carson's conduct in this instance was inspired by Goodwin. It is so found.
21 Brown is not a claimant herein. She did not join the Union until after her discharge
on October 26. She was reinstated on or about December 4, and is referred to herein
because of her membership on the "team" that operated at Table F
a This fact was not seriously contested by the respondent. Starling admitted that
they had been complimented from time to time and that "they were capable of performing
good work " He contended, however, that before and at the time of their discharges their
"attitude changed " Respondent's witness, Julia Maynard, an inspector on Table F,
testified that the employees on Table F were "good workers" and put out the work when
they wanted to. She further testified, "Yes, Shorty [wheeler] liked those girls. They
made a lot of production in the Department .. .
HUNTINGTON PRECISION PRODUCTS 1461
With the exception of Brown, they had joined the Union before October 26. The
three claimants herein were hired and had seniority as follows : Coleman hired
on February 18, 1943, and had seniority over 47 employees; Lester hired February
10, 1943, and had seniority over 55 employees; and Perry was hired on June 3,
1943 n and had seniority over 38 employees As found hereinabove, Wheeler
called at Coleman's home on October 25, and sought to learn of her union activity
and the activities of the other "team members " On this occasion Wheeler said
the reason he made the call was because he had heard that "it [the Union] had
originated at table F."
A day or two before the discharges, Wheeler transferred Perry from Table F,
first to Table C and then to Table E. After the second transfer, Perry informed
Wheeler that if he did not return her to Table F she would quit. Wheeler then
told Perry that she "was too good a worker" ; that he did not want her to
quit ; and that she could return to Table F the next shift, which she did 26-
At about 2 p. m., October 26, Starling instructed Wheeler to send Coleman,
Lester, and Perry (among others), to Goodwin's office, and he did so. When the
group of girls selected for discharge arrived in Goodwin's office, he told them
that due to slack work the respondent was making some lay-offs, and, "your
table happens to be first." Coleman then asked : "Mr. Goodwin, why are you
laying off the oldest and best workers?" He replied, "That is our privilege
to lay off whom we please." The discharged employees were then given separa-
tion slips and releases and left the plant. After and on the day of the discharges
Wheeler talked to Coleman, Perry, and Brown with reference to their having been
discharged . He stated :
Girls, I am awfully sorry about this. I want you to know I didn't have a
thing to do with this. One of your, own stooges gave you away, one of the
girls that was in this [Union activity] with you all2°
The respondent's contentions as to the above discharges are discussed below.
Billups and Smith are cousins and live together. Billups was hired February 2,
1943, and at the time of her discharge had seniority over 53 retained employees;
Smith was hired on February 15, 1943, and had seniority over 48 employees. Both
joined the Union on October 22 . On the morning of October 26, Goodwin called
Billups to his office ; told her that "he had ways of finding out things" ; that he
had heard that Saunders had discussed the Union with Billups on October 25;
that he wanted the truth ; that he thought Billups would give it to him ; and he
asked if she had signed up with the Union. Billups admitted that she and Smith
had signed with the Union on "Monday night" (October 22).
Upon Billups' admission that she and Smith were union members, Goodwin
stated that the two girls were good workers whom he "hated to see leave." He
then proposed that Billups and Smith resign their jobs, stay off 2 or 3 weeks,
after which he would rehire them as if "nothing had happened." Billups prom-
ised to think the matter over. Goodwin requested that she talk with Smith
concerning his suggestion and then inform him as to the results
" Lester had been laid off due to lack of work in April 1944 and subsequently was
reinstated.
21 Wheeler admitted returning Perry to Table F on her threat to quit, but denied paying
her the compliment above set out By his action in returning her to Table F, Wheeler
indicated that he thought well of Perry as a worker , and that, insofar as he was concerned,
he wanted to retain her in his department The undersigned credits Perry's testimony in
this connection.
26This finding is based on Coleman 's credible testimony Wheeler categorically denied
making the statement It is undisputed that at the time he sent the girls to Goodwin's
office on October 26, lie did not know that they were to be discharged He had no part
in their selection for discharge The undersigned does not credit his denial , and is con-
vinced that he made the statement substantially as found above.
1462 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At about 2: 30 p. m. the same day, Goodwin went to Billups' table and asked
her if she and her "Buddy" (Smith) were coming to his office to see about the
"insurance." n Billups understood that he wanted a report from her informing
him, whether she and Smith would follow his suggestion and resign After work-
ing hours and after,Coleman, Lester, Perry, and Saunders had been discharged,
Billups and Smith, who had gone to their nearby home, called at Goodwin's
office. Upon their arrival, Goodwin asked if they were going to resign or be laid
off. They chose the lay-off and refused to "resign." Goodwin then gave them
separation slips and releases and they left the plant 2' Respondent's contention
in justification of their discharges is discussed below.
Saunders was hired on June 6, 1943, and at the time of her discharge on
October 26 had seniority over 35 retained employees She joined the Union
between October 15 and 18. As found hereinabove, shortly before she joined,
Goodwin sought to induce her to get in touch with Union President Callicoat,
seek to get from him the names of those who had signed union cards, and report
such names to him. Goodwin also sought to have her find out which of the
girls were for and which against the Union, and to relay such information to him.
The record discloses that union leaflets were distributed on October 24, after
which all of Department 80 was "indefinitely" laid off ; that on October 25,
Saunders discussed the Union with Billups ; and that on October 26, before "the
lay-offs were announced, Goodwin informed Billups that he had learned of Saun-
ders having discussed the Union with her. '
Saunders was included in the group sent to Goodwin's office from Table F for
discharge. Respondent's contentions as to its reasons for her discharge are
discussed below.
Contention of the respondent as to discharges
The respondent contends in effect: (1) that all discharges made on October
26 were made "to reduce personnel brought about by reduction of orders" ;
(2) that Starling had the sole responsibility for making selections for discharge;
and (3) that the employees discharged were selected by Starling for the reasons
detailed below.
As to the first contention, the respondent during the hearing relied in part
on a "summarized statement" covering "Sales Orders" and "Canceijations,"
which statement indicated that sales orders received for the month of October
1944, amounted to $3,079,754 worth of clips, and the production for the same
period amounted to $5,287,933 worth of clips, or that the production during
October "was just a little short of twice the orders that came in."
27 Goodwin had no reason to see Billups concerning any insurance He admitted going
to her table on this occasion and telling her "I will see you about your insurance after
you finish work."
28 These findings are based on the credited testimony of Billups and Smith. Goodwin's
version was to the effect that he hired the two girls, ran into Billups on a tour of the
plant ; called her to his office where he gave her advance confidential information of the
coming lay-off, expressed regret thereat : and promised to do anything lie could to
help them. He further testified that Billups made the request that she and Smith be
called in separately and apart from the others who were being discharged. His admission
that he used the "insurance" ruse referred to above disproves this contention. He further
testified that he stated to Billups :
I would like for you to keep It confidential and If I can do anything to help you,
I will certainly be glad to. I am very sorry that you are to be laid off.
Q. What did she say?
A She said, "Is it because I have signed a C I. 0. card?"
Q And I said, "That has nothing to do with it." .
The undersigned does not credit Goodwin's version, and Is convinced that the events In
connection with Billups ' and Smith's discharges occurred substantially as found above.
HUNTINGTON PRECISION PRODUCTS 1463
The record also shows that the respondent had a backlog of orders extending
back from a year to a year and a half, and that, as a matter of fact, a temporary
decrease in orders did not affect production. While respondent relies upon the
summarized statement referred to in justifying the recall of the employees of
Department 80, it subsequently contended that each summarized statement was
of value merely in order to show the trend of orders and cancellations. There
were no lay-offs in September, yet September cancellations were in excess of
October cancellations." The record shows that despite increased orders in
November and December, production remained substantially the same during
these 2 months as it had been in October.'° This contention is without merit.
As to the second contention, the record clearly discloses that only those
employees who were union members or were suspected of union activity were
discharged on October 26; that Goodwin, with the aid of Foreman Marcum and
Wheeler, had interviewed many employees of both Departments 80 and 8 and
sought to learn of their union activities and to induce them to engage in espionage
on behalf of the respondent; that other than having sent Trodgen to Marcum's
office where she was interviewed concerning union activities, Starling took no
part in anti-union activities ; and that at least three of the discharged employees
were rated as among the best employees in the plant, from all of which it appears
that it was Goodwin and not Starling who, in fact, selected the employees for
discharge. This contention is also without merit.
As to the third contention, Starling contended : (a) that he followed a formula >n
in making selections for discharge, and selected Coleman, Lester, and Perry who
had ". . . from time to time at various times when they were in our employ
they had been complimented for good work. They were capable of performing
good work," for the reason that before and at the-time of the discharge their
attitude had changed and their "production was lagging."
There was no credible evidence to support the contention that production
lagged on Table F where these girls were employed." The record discloses that
they were the best workers in the department ; that they joined the Union and
were active in its behalf, a fact that came to the knowledge of Wheeler and
Goodwin 33
z1 See table
Total Sales Orders Production Cancellations
Sept-------------------------------- 3,973,810 5,376,884 1,106,136
Oct--------------------------------- 3,079,764 5,287,933 842, 665
Nov--------------------------------- 5,506,998 5,237,847 1,443,660
Dec---------------------------------
w See footnote next preceding
5,063,271 5,115,475 408, 551
°1 In this connection, he testified "I considered the people who were working, the workers,
paying attention to their age, their marital status, dependency, length of service with the
company, and their ability as workmen determined from my own observation, and in con-
ference with the Foremen , and on my findings, and I made my decision as to who would
be laid off."
ffi A number of respondent 's witnesses testified, in substance , that Table F girls were
"temperamental"; that they would not work unless they wanted to ; that they thought
they were better than other table workers : that they used rough language, and told dirty
jokes, and on occasion had transferred work they should have done to other tables. Most
of such witnesses admitted, however, that Table F girls were the best workers in Depart-
ment S.
g' Goodwin denied knowledge of `wheeler's visit to Coleman's home. He testified that
he first learned of the visit after a Field Examiner for the Board had called at the plant
when investigating the charges herein. The record clearly indicates that Goodwin sought
to have many non-supervisory employees reveal their own union actvity and that of their
fellow employees. The undersigned does not believe that he would fail to make use of the
foremen in immediate charge of the employees, and finds that Goodwin knew of and
inspired wheeler' s anti -union conduct hereinbefore described.
1464 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) With reference to Billups and Smith, Starling testified they were "two
youn*irls, tine young girls, I have always thought. They were young, unmarried.
They lived together. They were related." He stated that Billups had resigned
on one occasion and had returned to the respondent's plant and that Smith had
been ill for a month, and
Applying my method and my procedure for selecting persons for termina-
tion it occurred to me that they both should be laid off because they would
be happier somewhere else . . .
(c) With reference to Saunders, Starling testified that she was a very good
worker when she wanted to work; that her foreman, Wheeler, had reported that
she spent an undue amount of time in the rest room and did not carry her part
of the load and that he deemed it advisable to select her for lay-off As found
above, Goodwin sought to have Saunders get in touch with Union President
Callicoat to learn the names of those who had signed union cards, and also sought
to have her find out which of the girls in the plant were either for or against the
Union and inform him He also learned that Saunders had discussed the Union
with Billups on October 25.
It is clear that the reasons assigned by Starling for the discharge of Coleman,
Lester, Perry, Billups, Smith, and Saunders were, and are, under the circum-
stances disclosed by the record, without merit, and it is so found
Conclusions
On the entire record, it is clear that the respondent determined from the
outset to keep the Union out of its Huntington plant; that to Personnel Director
Goodwin was assigned the task of anticipating and checkmating any organiza-
tional attempt ; that through personal interviews and with the aid of Foremen
Marcum and Wheeler, Goodwin learned of the union activity of the discharged
employees; that although the respondent professed a policy of considering
seniority and ability of employees in making discharges, neither qualification
was co,isideu ed in making the discharges described herein ; and that notwith-
standing his claim of having had and exercised sole responsibility in selecting
the employees discharged, Starling merely carried out the instructions of the
respondent. The undersigned concludes and finds that the respondent discharged
Lillian Coleman, Juanita Lester, Maxine Perry, Freda Peters Saunders, June
Billups and Pauline Smith on October 26, 1944, because of their membership in
and activity on behalf of the Union, and by such acts and by the other acts of
interference found and described above, the respondent interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
C. The alleged discrimination against Vivian Staley and Mai y Trodgen
The complaint alleges in substance that Staley and Trodgen were transferred
from their regular employment and assigned to less desirable jobs because of
their union activities.
At the time of the discharges referred to above, Staley was employed at
Table F but was not among those selected for discharge. On October 27, Staley
went to Goodwin's office on her own accord, in which connection she testified :
Q They (Table F girls discharged) were all employed with you on
Table F?
A. Well, Lillian, Juanita, Maxine and I. I went to Mr Goodwin's office
and told him I didn't think it was fair to lay them off for something that
I was into myself, and he asked me what I meant by that and I said, the
. HUNTINGTON PRECISION PRODUCTS 1465
union, and he said, "Are you in love with the union?" I said, "No, only
love things that can return love." He said, "Well, can the union return
love," and I said, "Well, they can do a lot for us," so he asked me what my
husband in France would say if he knew I had joined the union, and I told
him that my husband would be awfully mad if lie thought I was letting
someone run over me, and he said, "Well, what makes you think we let
the girls off because of the union?"
I said, "Well, you let your best workers go," and he said, "Well, we have
our records," and he told me to go back to my job.
As set forth hereinbefore, Goodwin had sought to induce Trodgen to give him
Information if she "heard any of the girls talking union . . . " Goodwin also
sought to get her to transfer to department 7 under Foreman Marcum, which
transfer Trodgen refused to accept. Like Staley, she was not included among
those discharged on October 26.
On the morning of October 28, when Staley and Trodgen reported for work,
Wheeler assigned them to certain bench work in the department where they
would be required to perform "a very simple job." Within a matter of some
5 to 10 minutes, Staley and Trodgen refused to perform the bench work to
which they were assigned and left the plant.
The Board contends that their transfer to less desirable jobs was occasioned
because of their union activities. Respondent's officials contend to the con-
trary, and the record discloses that many of the girls employed on the tables
were from time to time assigned "bench work." The record further discloses
that bench work was individual work of a monotonous nature and if continued
for any length of time became a drudgery. The pay was the same, the work was
in the same department, and the record indicates that the job to which Staley
and Trodgen were assigned would have lasted but a few hours. According
to Staley, Wheeler said he had orders to move them, and when she asked him
to put them back on the tables he replied that he would not do it as "he had
orders to leave" us there. I
From the above, it appears that Staley and Trodgen refused to do the bench
work assigned; they made no effort to take the matter up with Production
Manager Starling or to discuss the transfer with Goodwin; and the respondent
did not, of its own motion terminate their employment. By the action taken by
them they became strikers. The record will not support a finding that Staley
and Trodgen were transferred from table to bench work because of their
union membership and activity. It is so found.
D. Alleged interference, restraint, and coercion
Shortly prior to October 26, the Union passed out handbills at the plant. Anna
Brammer, employed in the first aid room at the respondent's plant, saw a
woman passing such leaflets after which she approached Table F and asked
the girls employed at such table whether, when they were out to lunch, they had
seen "a woman passing handbills for the C I. 0 that day . . . She received
no reply from the girls at Table F and then stated that Goodwin had said if he
ever hoard the girls talk of the Union, "there would be a 6-months lay-off."
Brammer further stated that there was nothing to the C. I. O. and added that
it had ruined ". . . our business years ago."
The record contains no evidence that Brammer was in fact a supervisory
employee, nor will the record support a finding that her statements set out above
were made at the request of or were inspired by respondent's officials, and it is
so found.
1466 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
r
Helena Arthur, an employee of the Zenith Optical Company at Huntington
since December 1941, is a member of the Union, and was financial secretary and
chairman of the grievance committee during the fall of 1944. On or about
October 15, she had a party at her home attended by about 10 of the respondent's
white employees. Some weeks after the party above referred to, Arthur had
occasion to call at the store of W. W. Payne. While at the store, Payne invited
her into his private office, where he told her in substance that Goodwin had,
informed him that Arthur was one of the main organizers attempting to organize
the plant ; that if the plant remained unorganized the residents of "West End"
Huntington would profit by having the plant remain in operation after the war;
that he hoped that none of her actions would ever "bring grief to a company who
the Chamber of Commerce had worked hard to bring to Huntington" ; and that
he was requesting that she discontinue her activities at Goodwin's suggestion.
While the record)discloses that Goodwin and Payne "are very close friends,"
who meet frequently, it will not support a finding that the respondent authorized
Payne's anti-union statements and conduct. The respondent is accordingly not
chargeable therefor.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LA13OR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and such of them as have been found to constitute
unfair labor practices, tend to lead to labor disputes, burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, the undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
The undersigned has found that the respondent discriminated in regard to the
hire and tenure of employment of all of the nonsupervisory employees employed
as a unit in its Department 80, consisting of approximately 55 employees, by
discriminatorily laying them off on October 24, 1944, and depriving them of work
on October 25, 26, and 27. It will be recommended that respondent make said
employees of Department 80 whole for any loss of pay they have suffered by
reason of the said discrimination, by payment to each of them of a sum of money
equal to the amount she would normally have earned as wages during the
period from the date of the lay-off on October 24 to October 28, 1944, the date
said employees were recalled to work, less their net earnings during said period TM
The undersigned has found further that the respondent discriminated in regard
to the hire and tenure of employment of Lillian Coleman, Juanita Lester, Freda
Peters Saunders, Maxine Perry, June Billups, and Pauline Smith, by discharging
them on October 26, 1944. It will be recommended that respondent offer to
Lillian Coleman, Juanita Lester, Freda Peters Saunders, Maxine Perry, June
Billups, and Pauline Smith immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions. It will be further recommended that the
84 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses, such as for transportation, 'room,
and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere. See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Company, 8 N. L. R. B. 440. Monies received for work performed upon
Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects shall be considered as
earnings. See Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 7.
7
r
HUNTINGTON PRECISION PRODUCTS 1467
respondent make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by
reason of the discrimination, by payment to each of them of a sum of money
equal to the amount she would normally have earned as wages during the period
from the date of the respective discharges to the date of the offer of reinstate-
ment, less her net earnings g° during such period. The undersigned has found
that the respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of
employment of Vivian Staley and Mary Trodgen. It will be recommended that
the complaint as to them be dismissed.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the entire record in the case,
the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Optical & Instrument Workers' Union, affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
3 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of all the
nonsupervisory employees employed in Department 80 and by discriminating in
regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Lillian Coleman, Juanita Lester,
Freda Peters Saunders, Maxine Perry, June Billups, and Pauline Smith, thereby
discouraging membership in United Optical & Instrument Workers' Union, C. I. 0.,
the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3 By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the
Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of
employment of Vivian Staley and Mary Trodgen by their termination of employ-
ment on October 28, 1944.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under-
signed recommends that the respondent, Huntington Precision Products, Division
of Adel Precision Products Corporation, Huntington, West Virginia, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in United Optical & Instrument Workers'
Union, C. I. 0., or any other labor organization of its employees by laying off or
discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or in other manner
discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment, and any terms
or conditions of their employment ;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist United Optical & Instrument Workers' Union, C. I. 0., or
any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining, or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act.
u See footnote 34, supra. ,
1468 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(a) Offer to Lillian Coleman, Juanita Lester, Freda Peters Saunders, Maxine
Perry, June Billups, and Pauline Smith immediate and full reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority
or other rights or privileges previously enjoyed ;
(b) Make whole the said Lillian Coleman, Juanita Lester, Freda Peters Saun-
ders, Maxine Perry, June Billups, and Pauline Smith for any, loss of pay they
may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against them by
payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount that she would
normally have earned as wages during the period from October 26, 1944, to the
date of the offer of reinstatement, less their net earnings during such period: '
(c) Make whole all the non-supervisory employees employed in Department
S0 on October 24, 1944, for any loss of pay they have suffered by reason of the
respondent's discrimination against them by payment to each of them of a sum
of money equal to the amount which she normally would have earned as wages
during October 25, 26, and 27, 1944, less their net earnings during such period ; '
(d) Post at its plant in Huntington, West Virginia, copies of the notice attached
hereto, marked "Appendix A." Copies of such notice to be furnished by the
Regional Director of the Ninth Region, shall, after, being duly signed by the
respondent 's representative, be posted by the respondent immediately upon re-
ceipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are custom-
arily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material ;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Ninth Region in writing within ten
(10) days from the date of receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
(late of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies said
Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recom-
mendations, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the
respondent to take the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board- Series 3 , as amended, effective July 12, 1944-
any party may within fifteen (15) days from the date of the'entry of the
order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 32 of Article II
of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building.
Washington, D C, an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting
forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the
record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he
relies upon together with the original and four copies of a brief in support
thereof. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or
brief, the party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a copy
thereof upon each of the other parties and shall file a copy with the Regional
Director. As further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire per-
mission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in
writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of the order trans-
ferring the case to the Board
Dated May 31, 1945.
PnrEa F. WARD,
Trial Examiner.
See footnote 34, supra.
See footnote 34, supra.
HUNTINGTON PRECISION PRODUCTS 1469
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations
Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain, or `Coerce our employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations,
to join or assist United Optical & Instrument Workers Union C. I. 0 or
any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection
We will offer to the employees named below immediate and full reinstate-
ment to then- former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice
to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make
them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination.
Lillian Coleman, Juanita Lester, Maxine Perry, Freda Peters
Saunders, June Billups, and-Pauline Smith.
We will make whole those employees of Department 80 for any loss
of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination found in connection with
the lay-off of said departiient on October 25, 26, and 27, 1944
All our employees ale free to become or remain members of the above-named
union or any other labor organisation We will not discriminate in regard to hire
or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against any
employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor or-
ganization. %
HUNTINGTON Pi?CISION PRODUCTS, -
DlvisloN OF ADxa. PRECISION PRODUCTS CORPORATION,
Employer.
------------------------
(Representatlve). (Title)
Dated ---------------------
NOTE. Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the armed forces
of the United States will be offered full reinstatement upon application in ac-
cordance with the selective service act after discharge from the armed forces
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not
be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material