Aerojet-General Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 27, 1969

175 N.L.R.B. 149 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

CAMDEN MANUFACTURING CO.
Camden Manufacturing Company, a Division of
Batesville Manufacturing Company, a Subsidiary
of Aerojet-General Corporation and Clyde E.
Morton . Case 26-CA-3037
March 27, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS BROWN, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On October 1, 1968, Trial Examiner John P. von
Rohr issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, 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 attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Decision and a supporting brief, and General
Counsel filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the
Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire
record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as
modified herein, and orders that the Respondent,
Camden Manufacturing Company, A Division of
Batesville Manufacturing Company, a Subsidiary of
Aerojet-General Corporation, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order,
as so modified:
1. Add the following as paragraph 2(b), and
reletter the following paragraphs accordingly.
"(b) Notify the above-named employee, if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States, of his right to full reinstatement, upon
application, in accordance with the Selective Service
Act and the Universal Military Training and Service
Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed
Forces."
2. Add the following as the last indented
paragraph of the Appendix:
WE WILL notify the above-named employee if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the
149
United States of his right to full reinstatement
upon application in accordance with the Selective
Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act, as amended, after discharge
from the Armed Forces.
TRIAL EXAMINER ' S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN P VON ROHR. Trial Examiner: Upon charges,
filed on March 21 and April 30, 1968, the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the
Regional Director for Region 26 (Memphis, Tennessee),
issued a complaint on May 3, 1968 against Camden
Manufacturing Company, a division of Batesville
Manufacturing Company, a subsidiary of Aerojet-General
Corporation, herein called the Respondent or the
Company, alleging that it had discharged employee Clyde
E Morton in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 51 stat 136,
herein called the Act The Respondent's answer denies the
allegation of unlawful conduct alleged in the complaint.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Trial
Examiner John P. von Rohr in Camden, Arkansas on
June 18 and 19, 1968. All parties were represented by
counsel and were afforded opportunity to adduce evidence,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses and to file briefs.
Briefs have been received from the General Counsel and
the Respondent and they have been carefully considered.'
Upon the entire record in this case and from my
observation of the witnesses, I hereby make the following
1 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Respondent is an Arkansas corporation with its
principal office and place of business located at Camden,
Arkansas where it is engaged in the manufacture of
ordinance items for the Department of Defense. During
the 12 months preceding the hearing herein, the
Respondent sold and shipped goods manufactured at its
Camden, Arkansas plant valued in excess of $50,000 to
points and places located outside the State of Arkansas.
During the same period, the Respondent purchased and
received at its plant in Camden materials valued in excess
of $50,000, which materials were shipped to it from points
and places outside the State of Arkansas.
The Respondent concedes, and I find, that it is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO,
Lodge 502, herein called the Union, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issue
Clyde E. Morton was a probationary employee and a
The Respondent attached an affidavit of one Ada Joyce Smith to its
brief In view of the submission of this affidavit after the close of the
hearing and since this witness did not testify at the hearing, this affidavit
must be rejected as an exhibit
175 NLRB No. 24
150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
union steward at the time of his discharge. To quote from
its brief, Respondent asserts that Morton was terminated
on March 19, 1968, because "he failed to demonstrate the
ability to perform in the classification of tool and die
maker, in both the area of workmanship and attitude."
The General Counsel, on the other hand, contends that
Morton was terminated because of his aggressive activities
as a union steward and that his discharge was therefor
violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act
B Background; Morton's Activities as a Union
Steward
International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO,
Lodge 502 was certified as the collective bargaining agent
for Respondents production and maintenance employees
on December 15, 1967 Thereafter the parties entered into
a collective-bargaining agreement, effective from
December 15, 1966 to November 13, 1969. There are
approximately 1,060 employees in Respondent's employ.
Morton was hired by the Respondent on December 26,
1967, as a tool and die maker at the rate of $3.80 per
hour. He was placed to work in the machine shop along
with approximately 10 to 12 employees classified as tool
and die makers and machinists, all of whom are included
in the above-mentioned bargaining unit . The machine shop
(also referred to as the tool room) is under the supervision
of Foreman Garnet Adamson
Prior to his employment with the Respondent, Morton
was employed for 3 or 4 years with a company whose
employees were represented by the Machinists Union, of
which during this period Morton was a member He also
became a member of the Union when employed by the
Respondent and in latter February 1968, was elected to
serve as steward in Respondent's machine shop. By letter
dated February 21, 1968, the Union notified the Company
of Morton's appointment to this position.
Except for the matter in dispute herein, the record
reflects that at all times since the inception of the
bargaining relationship the Respondent enjoyed a
harmonious relationship with the Union Particularly
relevant to this case is the undisputed fact that prior to
Morton's appointment as steward, no written grievances
had ever been filed by the Union, it appearing that all
employee complaints reached no further than oral
discussions between the departmental stewards and the
respective departmental foreman.'
There is no doubt, as the record amply demonstrates
and as will be discussed below, that within his short tenure
of employment Morton became by far the most active and
aggressive of all the plant stewards Indeed, in early
February 1968, even before he became a steward, Morton
made a protest to his foreman concerning a claim to
Saturday overtime. When the matter was not resolved to
his satisfaction, Morton pressed this grievance to the
highest plant level by taking it to the office of Thomas A.
Robertson, Respondent's Industrial Relations and
Administration Manager.'
Following his appointment as union steward, Morton
daily brought up grievances of his own and those of other
employees with Foreman Garnet Adamson. As has been
'Such was in accordance with the first steps of the grievance procedure
as set forth in the contract
'On this occasion , and at Morton ' s behest, the president of the Local
Union accompanied him to the office The record does not reflect the
outcome of their discussion with Robertson at this time
indicated, Morton had formerly been a union member and
had been employed by a union employer. That other
employees looked upon him as being more experienced in
union affairs than the other plant stewards, of which there
were a total of six in Respondent's plant, was brought out
in the following credited testimony of Ted L Vickers, the
Union president:
Mr Morton is a man that's been in labor for some
time, and I felt, and he felt that he knew more about
labor organizations than the other stewards did. Some
of the other stewards are women, and they don't know
what actually the purposes of the stewards are, getting
right down to detail, and what they actually should
bring up and so forth like the lighting and so forth in
the machine shop down there. Mr Morton is more
educated, I feel, toward stewards than the rest of the
stewards we have at the plant
In addition, Vickers testified that whereas prior to
Morton's becoming a steward there had been no problem
in "thrashing out" matters with the foreman on an oral
basis, Morton proceeded to bring up "major items" with
Adamson which had not been theretofore discussed. The
testimony of Morton and Vickers reflect that Adamson
was not in a position of sufficient authority to resolve or
give answer to the major problems and grievances which
Morton brought to him Accordingly, Morton finally
advised Vickers that there was a need "to file some
grievances " Vickers accepted this recommendation and
made arrangements to meet with Robertson. A meeting
was thereupon held in Robertson's office on March 6,
1967. Participating in the meeting were Morton, Vickers,
Robertson and John Marlar, the employment supervisor
In preparation for the meeting, Morton prepared a
handwritten list of 12 specific grievances. It is undisputed
that Morton took this list with him to the meeting and
that the discussion centered on the grievances listed
thereon, these being taken up item by item. In reality, the
so-called grievances presented by Morton were a list of
requests or demands relative to changes of improvements
concerning working conditions and wages. Included
among these were the following: that a rest room and
washing facilities be constructed for the machine shop
area, that job descriptions be drafted and furnished; that
an area for breaks be furnished, that safety shoes, a
material rack, and a coke machine be provided; that
machinery maintenance be improved; and that a 5-cent
hourly wage increase be given to new hires. The meeting
was amicable, with Robertson indicating that he would
reject some of the requests but that he would take some
action with respect to others.' At one point, however,
Morton stated that he would "take action" if the matters
he presented were not acted upon.' He made the same
point to Adamson shortly after the meeting. Thus,
Adamson testified:
I don't recall whether it was immediately after the
meeting he had been in that he was talking to me or
whether it was the next day. . he told me that he had
been up there. He said he thought he had some people
straightened out. He said he thought he had brought
some light on the subjects and he said from now on
when you ask for things, he said I think there will be
some action taken, and he said if it is not, he said, "We
'The record discloses, however, that the only result brought about by this
meeting was the installation of a coke machine
'Although Robertson denied that Morton made a statement to this
effect, I credit the corroborated testimony of Morton and Vickers that the
statement was made
CAMDEN MANUFACTURING CO.
will carry it further."
Additionally, Morton credibly testified that during a
conversation with Adamson shortly after the March 6
meeting Adamson stated "that if we did not stay out of
the personnel office, that the company would farm this
work out and we would be out of a job ""
On March 18 , 1967, the day before his discharge,
Morton was instrumental in again attempting to get an
appointment with Robertson When Robertson advised
that he was busy , Morton prevailed upon Vickers to
accompany him to the office of Employment Supervisor
Marlar ' Marlar advised that he was busy at the moment
but that they should wait for him in the cafeteria. He
appeared in the cafeteria a short time later and a
discussion thereupon ensued concerning which there is no
substantial dispute Morton stated that although at the
March 6 meeting Robertson had indicated that a 5-cent
hourly wage increase in overtime pay would be granted to
himself and two or three other machine shop employees,
no action had been taken with respect thereto. Marlar
testified that he responded by advising the two employees
that "we were not in any contract violation on the five
cents . . but that we would check each man individually
and let them know what the Company planned to do
about putting them at the top of the rate . ." Morton
then alluded to the fact that one Jackie Rogers, a machine
shop employee who had been absent the preceding work
day, had been marked as A.W.O.L. He thereupon asked
Marlar for an explanation of company policy concerning
absences without leave , particularly " if they were held
against a person ." Marlar stated that he was not familiar
with company policy in this respect but that he would
"look it up ." Marlar added, however, that he was "sure"
that an employee would be subject to further action if he
had too many A W.O.L 's marked against him. When the
conversation thus terminated , Morton and Vickers
returned to the machine shop and spoke to Adamson.
Vickers reported their conversation with Marlar and
particularly requested that he not mark employees
A W.O.L. until such time as there was a resolution of
company policy in this respect It is undisputed that
Adamson thereupon took out the timecard of employee
Jackie Rogers and erased the words "A W.O L."'
'This testimony in substance was corroborated by Vickers Thus Vickers,
who testified that he was with Morton when the statement was made,
testified that Adamson stated "that if we bring these major complaints up
there, and the Company - in a roundabout way, if we bitched too much,
you might say, that the Company might contract the work out " I do not
credit Adamson ' s denial of not having made this remark From my
observation of them as they testified, Morton and Vickers impressed me as
honest and credible witnesses Indeed, since I observed that Vickers at
times displayed a reluctance to testify against his employer , I hardly think
he would fabricate this testimony
'Morton testified , and correctly so, that under the collective -bargaining
agreement it was requisite that he consult with the president of the Union
before processing a grievance beyond the first step of the grievance
procedure It was for this reason , Morton said , that he requested Union
President Vickers to arrange for any meetings , or to accompany to any
meetings, with company officials beyond the rank of department foreman
or supervisor
'Marlar denied that this conversation with Morton and Vickers took
place on March 18 and instead placed it as having occurred on or about
March 6 The preponderance of the credible testimony and documentary
evidence reflects that Marlar was mistaken in the first place, Morton was
positive in his testimony that this conversation occurred on the day before
his discharge Because of the unusual event of his discharge , I have no
doubt but that the time and occasion of the conversation in the cafeteria
would stand out in his memory and I credit his testimony as to the time
151
Early in the afternoon of the same day, which was
shortly after the foregoing conversation, Adamson came
up to Morton while he was working at a machine and said
he wanted to talk to him According to the testimony of
Morton, which I credit, the following conversation then
ensued: Adamson began by stating, "I don't know what's
the matter with you lately You are stirring up trouble
around here and you are dragging your feet and trying to
run the shop and not putting out enough production " He
thereupon added that Morton was taking up "too much
union time" and that he was "tending to union business
that wasn't any of his business." Morton responded that
he did not think he was taking up too much union time,
that anything that concerned the shop was his business,
but that if he was tending to any "improper business"
Adamson should so advise him and that he would "change
his ways." Morton then stated that he did not know how
to answer the charge that he was dragging his feet and
that he thought he had been doing a good job He added,
however, that if Adamson thought he was working too
slowly Adamson should give him a time estimate on the
various jobs and that he would try to work within the time
estimates Adamson replied to this by stating that he
would not give time estimates because it would cut his
production. When Morton thereupon responded that the
department was a maintenance shop, not a production
shop, Adamson stated that nevertheless he had to have so
much production out of the shop The conversation
terminated with Morton stating that he did not know how
to answer the latter point and his repeating that "if I was
tending to any union business that wasn't my business I
would change it " Adamson did not refute Morton's
testimony that during this conversation he charged
Morton with stirring up trouble and that he was spending
too much time on union business. However, on
cross-examination Adamson conceded that during this
conversation he alluded to various grievances which
Morton had brought up (particularly his demands for a
restroom and material racks) and that in this context he
told Morton that he was "trying to run the shop."
Further, in his direct testimony concerning this
conversation, Adamson testified, inter alga, "He (Morton)
had been talking to, I believe, Mr. Robertson about
facilities and certain items, and - the steel racks - and
at that time I told him that he was concerning himself
with things that didn't concern him, such as steel
racks "
Morton was discharged on the following day, March
19, 1967, at about 2:30 p.m. At this time Adamson came
up and told Morton that it was no use putting it off any
longer, that he had to let him go When Morton asked for
the reason he was being terminated Adamson stated that
he had been dragging his feet. The discharge was
thereupon effected.
when it occurred Secondly, Adamson stated in his pre-trial affidavit that it
was on March 18 that he removed the A W 0 L from Roger 's timecard
when Morton and Vickers came to see him On re-direct examination,
Adamson, upon leading questions from his counsel , sought to indicate that
this date might not be correct because it was suggested to him by the
Board agent who took his statement Significantly, however, in his earlier
cross-examination Adamson not only placed this date as March 18 but
indeed testified that later in the same day he issued an oral reprimand to
Morton As hereafter indicated , there is no dispute but that this alleged
reprimand occurred during a conversation which Morton had with
Adamson the day before Morton' s discharge Finally, Morton' s timecard,
which was introduced in evidence, reflects that he was clocked for 1 6
hours on March 18 as being on union business
152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. Respondent's Defense, Conclusion
As previously indicated, Respondent asserts that
Morton was terminated because of unsatisfactory work
performance and because of his poor attitude Adamson
testified that the decision to terminate Morton was
initiated by him He said that in the latter afternoon of
March 18, following his conversation with Morton, he
spoke to H H Speer, Respondent's maintenance
supervisor and plant engineer and also his superior, and
that they then "mutually agreed" that Morton be
terminated' Adamson and Speer then consulted with
Robertson and Robertson approved the decision.
Although the Respondent contends that Morton was
terminated principally because of poor workmanship,
there is very little other than generalized and
conclusionary testimony to support this assertion. Thus
Adamson, the foreman directly in charge of the machine
shop employees, was able to allude to only two specific
°instances involving defective work produced by Morton "
The first such incident occurred approximately 4 or 6
weeks after Morton was hired. According to the unrefuted
testimony of Adamson, at this time a part produced by
Morton had to be scrapped due to the fact that he cut
some weld chamfers on the wrong side. Adamson did not
indicate whether this was a minor or major mistake nor
did he specify the cost or the loss of time involved.
Morton was not reprimanded for this mistake.
The second incident occurred on March 16, which was
the Saturday before he was discharged. On the preceding
day, March 15, Morton was given a job to build a part
known as a cam Morton said that upon being given the
job he studied the blueprints to determine the size of
material required, which in this instance involved a long
heavy piece of steel. After measuring for size with a scale,
Morton asked Adamson whether an 8 inch piece would
suffice." Morton credibly testified that Adamson agreed
that an 8 inch piece was proper for the job. When Morton
thereupon asked where there was any material of that
size, Adamson accompanied him out to the yard
According to Morton, Adamson pointed out a piece and
said, "There it is." Adamson then helped Morton carry
the piece into the machine shop Adamson conceded that
he went out with Morton and helped him carry in the
piece of material. However, Adamson said that it was
Morton, not he, who selected the material. On the
following day, Saturday, Morton was still working on the
cam when at a certain point he determined that the 8 inch
piece of material was too small for the job. Morton
thereupon called Adamson over and explained the
situation According to Morton, Adamson merely stated,
"Well, the only thing we can do is just make another
one" As to Adamson's testimony concerning this
development, he testified as follows
Well, like I said, he was working on the lathe, and
made his remark again that he was going to give it the
'Although during the hearing Robertson indicated that absenteeism
played some part in the decision to terminate Morton, Adamson testified
that absenteeism "had nothing to do" with his recommendation that
Morton be discharged Since Respondent ' s brief also abandons any
mention of this defense, I do not deem it necessary to discuss the
testimony in this regard
'"This does not include a defective part which was discovered after
Morton's discharge Although there is a dispute as to whether this was
caused by a defective machine on which Morton was working , this incident
is immaterial since it was not discovered until after the discharge
"Morton testified that it was usual shop procedure to discuss a job this
type with the foreman before performing it.
tool and die touch, and he discovered that he had
selected the wrong size material, the cam was too small,
and I told him, "Well, that is certainly not a tool and
die touch " I said, "We need this job It is hot " And
he asked what he should do about it and I said, "Well,
there is nothing that we can do but start another one"
and this we did.':
Although Adamson was also called upon to testify
concerning Morton's alleged poor attitude, this testimony
was mostly of a conclusionary nature. Thus, Adamson
began by stating that Morton "was a hard man to talk
to " Continuing, Adamson said, "You couldn't hardly tell
when (sic) he was getting across your message to him
Sometimes he would just smile as if he wasn't even
listening and other times it didn't seem to make any effect
on him " Later in his direct testimony Adamson testified
that Morton's attitude was "poor from the beginning" and
that he was "always rebellious." When asked to give some
illustration or explanation concerning Morton's attitude
and alleged rebelliousness, Adamson's response was that
Morton continually complained about the sketches,
drawings or blueprints which were furnished to him upon
assignment to a job. Yet, when asked to give further
specifics in this regard, Adamson could refer to only one
such instance, this in regard to an occasion when Morton
was furnished a blueprint from which to build a cam
According to Adamson, Morton at this time stated that
"he wanted a graph drawing" and that "he made several
remarks to the engineer that this (the blueprint) was poor,
that it was not very good to do this, first one way and
another, time and time again "
Jerome McCarty, employed with the Respondent in a
non-supervisory capacity as a tool engineer , was called as
a Respondent witness and testified that on one occasion
he requested Morton to make a bracket for a gas machine
and that he needed it in a hurry. McCarty said that some
time later when he came back and found Morton to be
still working on the piece he asked Morton when it would
be finished. According to McCarty, Morton replied "that
he would have been through with it an hour earlier if he
hadn't heard all of that about the line being down."
McCarty testified that it took Morton "probably three
hours" to complete the job and that in his opinion this
was "excessive time " Although McCarty said he
"believed" that a similar part took about an hour to
complete, McCarty was not present while Morton worked
on the part in question and therefor was unable to say
whether the alleged excessive time was due to loafing or to
some delay that may have incurred at the welding shop.
He did say, however, that "once it (the part) was finished
it was satisfactory.""
I turn now to my conclusions. Although Respondent's
collective-bargaining agreement with the Union gives it
the right to discharge employees for any reason within
their 90-day probationary period, there remains the issue,
which is here essentially one of fact, as to whether
Respondent terminated Morton for legitimate cause or for
reasons proscribed by the Act. Upon the entire record in
this case, and notwithstanding the fact that Morton was a
"Adamson said that the cam was about 75 percent completed when the
error was discovered Morton testified without contradiction that later in
the day Adamson came up to him and said that he had some personal use
for the scrapped cam and that he would take it home with him
"Although Adamson and H H Speer also testified that Morton was a
slow worker , this testimony was also of a conclusionary and unspecific
nature Speer, it may be noted , testified that he spent only 30 minutes to I
hour a day in the machine Undoubtedly he had other duties there and did
not spend much of this relatively short time in observing Morton at work
CAMDEN MANUFACTURING CO. 153
relatively new employee (a factor which I have carefully
considered) I am persuaded that a reason, if not the
reason, for Morton's termination was Respondent's
disapproval of his aggressive activities as a union steward.
In reaching this conclusion, I would first note that not
only was Morton the first steward to process employee
grievances beyond the first step of the grievance
procedure, but that the evidence also reflects that
Respondent was aggravated with his bringing up matters
which it apparently regarded as not being within the realm
of his concern. Thus, during Morton's presentation of the
12 grievances at the March 6 meeting, Robertson
admittedly told Morton that the matter of job descriptions
was beyond the level of his stewardship, that it rather was
a "negotiable item" with the International Additionally,
in his testimony Robertson also indicated that "other
subjects" which Morton brought up at this meeting were
"inappropriate "'° That Respondent was aggravated over
the extent of Morton's stewardship activities is further
manifested by Adamson's statement to Morton and
Vickers shortly after the March 6 meeting that
Respondent would farm out the work and they would be
out of a job if they did not stay out of the personnel
office 15 Morton, however, disregarded the warning and on
the day prior to his discharge again took the lead in
arranging a meeting with John Marlar, the employment
supervisor, wherein he pressed his demands that certain
grievances be settled. Later in the same day, accompanied
by Vicker, these employees related their meeting with
Marlar to Adamson and at the same time pressed him to
delete an A.W.O.L. from another employee's timecard
While not alluding directly to this matter, Adamson's
displeasure of Morton's foregoing activities was hardly
concealed when shortly thereafter he approached Morton
purportedly to criticize him for dragging his feet. Thus,
during this conversation Adamson told Morton, inter alia,
that he was "stirring up trouble," that he was "taking up
too much union time," that he was "concerning himself
with things that didn't concern him," and that he was
"trying to run the shop." Indeed, and in view of all the
foregoing, it must be concluded that the General Counsel
has made out a prima facie case establishing that
Morton's discharge on March 19 was in direct
consequence of his above noted activities on March 18.
I further conclude that the Respondent has not
overcome the case made out by the General Counsel.
Aside from unspecific generalities, Respondent was only
able to point to two occasions of deficiencies in Morton's
"Concerning the manner in which the above was brought out at the
hearing, it must be remembered that Robertson acted as counsel for the
Respondent Thus, Robertson in effect conceded his version of this aspect
of the meeting when he queried Morton on cross -examination as follows
Q (By Robertson ) Is it not property stated, Clyde. that what we said
was that job descriptions were beyond the level of your stewardship, and
that they were a negotiable item with the International , either through
themselves or through a committee, and that we had no provision for job
description negotiations at that time' (underlining supplied)
A I believe you said something to that effect , but I also told you that
it was in the contract for job classifications
Robertson 's view of this aspect of the meeting was otherwise expressed
when questioned by the General Counsel as an adverse witness, as follows
Q Was there any mention of job descriptions from the company,
requesting job descriptions from the company'
A I don't believe there was , however, if that was the case, that would
not be appropriate in that type of meeting , if you are requesting me to
rule on them
"There is no allegation in the complaint that this statement was
independently violative of Section 8 (a)(l) of the Act. Accordingly, I make
no finding in this respect
work. The first involved a defective part produced by
Morton some 4 or 6 weeks after he was hired However,
he was not given any warning for this mistake. The second
involved the cam which occupied Morton on March 15
and the morning of March 16. Although the cam had to
be scrapped, under the circumstances heretofore detailed I
can but conclude that Adamson must share at least some
of the responsibility for this result in view of his
participation with Morton in the selection of the material
to be used for this job. It is also noteworthy, as Adamson
conceded, that other of Respondent's permanent machine
shop employees also made mistakes in their workmanship
As he further put it, "anyone makes mistakes." With
respect to Respondent's further contention that Morton's
"poor attitude" was a factor that led to his discharge, the
testimony of Respondent witnesses in this regard has been
heretofore set forth and requires little comment. Suffice it
to say that Jerome McCarty, the tool engineer who was
called by the Respondent to testify adversely to Morton,
conceded that Morton "generally gave me good
cooperation."
Perhaps yet the most incredible aspect of this entire
case is the fact that Morton was terminated at a time
when Respondent was in critical need of tool and die
makers and machinists Thus, H H. Speer said that there
was a lack of qualified personnel in the area and that he
had sought to recruit skilled employees ever since the
company began operations. He testified further that there
was such an abundance of tooling and machining work
that the machine shop was forced to work "extreme
overtime right now" and that "if Clyde Morton had of
done his job as a tool and die maker I could use him right
now and all other people that I can get ahold of, up to six
tool and die makers." Additionally, Respondent states in
its brief "The Company has actually recruited for Tool &
Die Makers through a large area of the United States
with little success; the immediate Camden area produces
virtually no Tool & Die Maker candidates."
Notwithstanding the assertions of Speer and Adamson
that they had discussed Morton's alleged deficiencies
between themselves a number of times before his
termination, the remarkable thing is that neither of them
took it upon themselves to warn Morton, or to attempt to
correct any such deficiencies, at any time prior to his
discharge " In view of Respondent's critical need for
skilled machine shop employees, I consider very
significant the fact that Respondent failed to take any
meaningful steps to attempt to correct any of Morton's
alleged deficiencies. Indeed, its failure to do so convinces
me that the testimony of Respondent witnesses concerning
such alleged deficiencies was grossly exaggerated " In
short, Respondent's defense that Morton was discharged
because of deficient workmanship and a poor attitude
does not stand up under scrutiny.18 This conclusion is
further buttressed by the testimony of Respondent Witness
Jerome McCarty, the tool engineer, who testified that
Morton was "a pretty fair machinist." Significantly, a
little later in his testimony McCarty testified, "About all
the work that we have is machinists work. We don't have
any tool and die work as such, and these machinists can
do the work ...."
"To be sure, Adamson testified that on two occasions he told Morton
that Morton was not giving his work " the tool and die touch " However, a
mild statement of this nature, without anything further, can hardly be
regarded as a serious warning or reprimand
"Such also was my reaction as I observed these witnesses testify
"Three machine shop employees who worked in the same room as
Morton testified that as far as they were able to observe Morton
154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Accordingly , and for all of the reasons hereinabove set
forth, I conclude and find that Morton's discharge was
motivated by Respondent ' s hostility toward his zealous
efforts as union steward . 19 By this conduct Respondent
violated Section 8 (a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with its operations set
forth in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
V THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, it will be recommended that
Respondent be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and
to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
It will be recommended that Respondent offer to Clyde
E. Morton immediate and full reinstatement to his former
or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to
his seniority and other rights and privileges, and to make
him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered
by reason of the unlawful discrimination against him, by
payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he
normally would have earned, absent said discrimination,
from the date of his discharge to the date of an offer of
reinstatement, less his net earnings during said period.
Backpay shall be computed in the manner prescribed by
the Board in F. W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289,
and with interest thereon as prescribed in Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of
employment of Clyde E. Morton by discharging him
because of his legitimate activities as a union steward,
thereby discriminating against him because of his
performed his work in a satisfactory manner Although these employees
(Doyle Langley , Jackie Rogers, and James Erwin) impressed me as
credible witness, in view of all the other evidence herein I do not deem it
necessary to rely on this testimony in reaching my ultimate conclusion that
Morton was discriminatonly discharged
"For a closely parallel case, see N L R B v Symons Mfg, Co , 328
F 2d 835 (C A 7), enfg 141 NLRB 558
protected concerted and union activities and thus
discouraging union membership and activities among its
employees, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) 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.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, it is recommended that Respondent Camden
Manufacturing Company, a Division of Batesville
Manufacturing Company, a Subsidiary of Aerojet-General
Corporation, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall-
1. Cease and desist from discouraging concerted and
union activity, and union membership, by discriminating
in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of any of
its employees by discharging or in any other manner
discriminating against employees with regard to their hire
or tenure of employment or any term of employment.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find
will effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Offer to Clyde E. Morton immediate and full
reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
and privileges, and make him whole in the manner set
forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The
Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examining and copying, all payroll
records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary to determine the amount of backpay due under
this Recommended Order
(c) Post at its plant in Camden, Arkansas, copies of the
notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 26,
after being duly signed by Respondent's representative,
shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof,
and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter,
in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 26, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this
Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply
herewith."
"In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Tnal Examiner" in the notice In the further
event that the Board ' s Order is enforced by a decree of a Unites States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order "
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 26, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
CAMDEN MANUFACTURING CO.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify our
employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage concerted or union activity
or membership in International Association of
Machinists , AFL-CIO, Lodge 502 , or any other labor
organization , by discriminating in regard to the hire
and tenure of employment of any of our employees
because of their concerted or union activities.
WE WILL offer immediate and full reinstatement to
Clyde E Morton to his former or substantially
equivalent position , without prejudice to his seniority or
155
other rights and privileges, and make him whole for
any loss of earnings he may have suffered because of
the discrimination against him.
CAMDEN
MANUFACTURING
COMPANY
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced,
or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions they may communicate
directly with the Board ' s Regional Office, 746 Federal
Office Building 167 North Main Street, Memphis,
Tennessee 38103, Telephone 534-3161.