Alliance Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 22, 1966

160 N.L.R.B. 1194 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

1194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert our
jurisdiction over its operations.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec-
tions 9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.e
All installers and technicians employed by the Employer at its
Athens, Georgia, place of business, including the lineman but exclud-
ing salesmen, office clerical employees, and sales manager, the senior
installer, professional employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 7
9 The parties were in general agreement upon the unit and stipulated as to the classifica-
tions to be included and excluded , but were unable to agree on the status of senior installer
Ernest Smith The record indicates that Smith interviews and screens applicants, eliminat-
ing some from furthei consideration , trains employees, and was consulted about the recent
discharge of two employees He is paid about 60 percent more than the installers His
authority in hiring and discharging is sufficient to meet the statutory standard of effec-
tive recommendation Accordingly he is found to be a supervisor and is excluded.
An election eligibility list , containing the names and addresses of all the eligible
voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 10 within
7 days after the date of this Decision and Direction of Election . The Regional Director
shall make the list available to all parties to the election No extension of time to file this
list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances.
Failure to comply with this iequirenient shall be grounds for setting aside the election
whenever propel objections are filed Excelsior Underwear Inme, 156 NLRB 1236.
Alliance Manufacturing Company and International Union of
Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers , AFL-CIO. Case 5-
021-3311. September 22, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
Oil June 8, 1966, Trial Examiner John G. Gregg issued his Deci-
sion 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 Deci-
sion. ThereaFier, the Respondent and the Charging Party filed excep-
tions to the Trial Examiner's Decision.
160 NLRB No. 92.
ALLIANCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1195
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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members Brown and Zagoria].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the entire
record in this case, including the Trial Examiner's Decision and the
exceptions, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner 's Recommended Order.] I
1 The telephone number for Region 5, appearing at the bottom of the notice attached to
the Trial Examiner's Decision, is amended to read : Telephone 7 52-8460, Extension 2159.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A hearing in the above-entitled proceeding was held before Trial Eaxminer John
G. Gregg on March 17, 1966, at Harrisonburg, Virginia, on complaint of the Gen-
eral Counsel against Alliance Manufacturing Company, herein called the Respond-
ent or the Company. The issues litigated were whether the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act in the discharge of two employees and whether
the Respondent interefered with, restrained, or coerced its employees in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The General Counsel filed a letter brief after the close
of the hearing.
Upon the entire record and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is a corporation organized under and existing by virtue of the
laws of the State of Ohio, maintaining its principal place of business in Alliance,
Ohio. Its Shenandoah, Virginia, plant involved herein is engaged in the manufac-
ture of small electric motors. The Respondent during the preceding 12 months, a
representative period, sold and shipped products valued in excess of $50,000, from
its Shenandoah, Virginia, plant directly to customers located outside the Common-
wealth of Virginia. I find that the Respondent is and at all times material herein
has been engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) of the Act, and
that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to exercise jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO,
is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The complaint alleges that the Respondent by its officers, agents, and supervisors
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act by (a) on or about October 11, 1965, granting to
its employees hourly wage increases and other benefits or improvements in their
terms and conditions of employment in order to discourage their selection of or
sympathies toward the Union (b) on or about October 21, 1965, Respondent pro-
mulgated and enforced a company rule prohibiting distribution of union leaflets
by employees in nonworking areas of company premises during nonworking hours
(c) on or about September 14, 1965, Respondent posted a notice in its plant and
1196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mailed copies to its employees in which it threatened among other things that selec-
tion of the Union would result in serious harm to the employees (d) on or about
September 16, 1965, Respondent by its Plant Superintendent William Bloom threat-
ened and interrogated employees in the plant concerning their membership in,
adherence to, and activities on behalf of the Union. The complaint further alleges
that the Respondent did discharge Reba Breeden on September 17, 1965, and Julia
Slye on September 24, 1965, because of their membership in, assistance to, or activ-
ity on behalf of the Union or because they engaged in concerted activities with
other employees of the Respondent for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection, and has at all times since failed and refused to
reinstate them. The Respondent denies the foregoing allegations except that it
admits the discharge of Breeden and Slye, but for cause.
A. The background
In August 1965 the Union commenced an organizing drive which included the
distribution of leaflets and several meetings. The high point occurred in Septem-
ber 1965, in which monthly meetings were held on September 14 and 23. The Com-
pany's plant rules, posted on all plant bulletin boards on June 24, 1963, and dis-
played since that time, included among other things prohibitions against leaving the
work area without permission of the foreman and prohibitions against interfering
with the work of others. Around September 7, 1965, the Respondent posted on the
bulletin board a notice to all employees stating or setting forth the Company's posi-
tion on the union campaign. This notice included a statement that the Company's
sincere belief is that if the Union were to get in it would not work to the employees'
benefit but in the long run would itself operate "to your serious harm." Copies
of this notice were mailed individually to the employees at their homes about a
week later. On September 21, 1965, the Respondent posted on the bulletin board a
copy of a notice of wage increases which was put in effect on October 11. The
notice referred to a general wage increase of 5 cents per hour for all employees
effective October 11; an incentive rate increase from 64 cents per bonus hour to 661/2
cents per bonus hour; and a second shift 5-cent hourly premium. On September 24,
1965, the Respondent posted on the bulletin board a notice in the form of a memo
regarding attention to duties which indicated that it served as a reminder that all
employees were to be at their workplaces during working hours. The notice indi-
cated that there had been recent scattered instances of employees neglecting their
work and interfering with the work of others even though the Company had endeav-
ored to make it clear to all that leaving work stations and interfering with the
work of others would not be permitted. The notice closed with the statement that
henceforth anyone engaging in the activities prohibited will in effect be subjecting
himself to dismissal.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
The record establishes the distribution of leaflets by the employees of the Respond-
ent in September 1965. It also establishes the fact that on the morning of Septem-
ber 15, 1965, while employees of the Respondent were distributing leaflets inside
the parking lot on company premises on their own time prior to the 7 a.m. report-
ing time, they were directed by a foreman of the Respondent to move outside of
the plant gate to distribute leaflets. They were subsequently permitted to resume
distribution inside the plant gate for several weeks following which in October they
were again directed to move outside the plant gate to distribute the leaflets. The
record also establishes the fact that there was no company rule, nor was there a
prohibition, against employees entering the premises before their actual worktime.
The Respondent contends that the passing out of leaflets inside the plant gate
interfered with the flow of traffic in and out of the plant and that the anticipation
of having two opposing factions passing out leaflets at the same time would cause
interference with production or discipline at the plant. It is well settled that no-
distribution rules which prohibit distribution of union literature on company prop-
erty by employees during their nonworking time are presumptively an unreasonable
impediment to self-organization. Republic Aviation Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 324
U.S. 793. Since credible, probative evidence of record herein does not establish nor
persuade me that it was necessary to prohibit this activity within the gate in order
to maintain production or discipline I find that by such action the Respondent inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced employees of the Respondent in the exercise of
activity protected by the Act and did thereby violate Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
ALLIANCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, 1197
With respect to the matter of employee benefits Reeder, the Respondent' s person-
nel director, testified that the decision to grant such benefits is made at Alliance,
Ohio, that the Company had a policy of reviewing employee benefits at irregular
intervals, that he was involved in the decision to grant -benefits which was announced
in September 1965 and that it had come under consideration at Alliance 2'/2 to 3
months prior to that time. Reeder stated that the decision to grant the benefits was
not connected with union activity and that the Company had granted benefits and
improvements at least annually since the plant opened. The Respondent provided
,evidence by way of two interoffice comunications dated June 24 and July 27 indi-
cating that the matter of a second shift differential had been considered as early as
June 1965 but delayed pending a review of the Company's wage and fringe policies
which was to be accomplished later in the year. There was evidence to indicate that
on July 27 a 5-cent general wage increase was tentatively approved by manage-
ment together with a 5-cent differential for the second shift and that Reeder stated
to management personnel Baker and Bloom at Shenandoah on July 27, "As you
realize increases were granted December 1, 1964, and January 1, 1965, and in our
competitive position we cannot allow cost to climb too rapidly." The matter was
then held over for later discussion. There was further testimony by Reeder indicat-
ing that subsequently there was considered the question of whether these benefits
-should be withheld because of the possible consequence of placing them in effect at
a time when union activity was involved and that he was advised nonetheless to
place them into effect. Reeder characterized the grant of benefits as following the
normal practice.
The General Counsel contends that while benefits had been granted on an irregu-
lar basis a pattern existed of not making a grant within a year of the prior grant,
that is, that the practice was not to give a second raise within a 12-month period. An
analysis of the stipulated facts on the granting of benefits contained in Exhibit R-4
indicates this to be true. It also indicates that by calendar year the base wages were
increased once in 1961, not in 1962, once in 1963, not in 1964, and twice in 1965.
The actual time between raises in base wages prior to the one in question is about
24 months and 18 months. The grant in question comes 9 months after the previous
grant. It is clear that this was outside the normal pattern.
I recognize that the record establishes the fact that the Respondent had con-
sidered the grant of benefits prior to the union campaign and had tentatively
approved the grant of benefits but no final and irrevocable action had been taken,
and the first general announcement of the changes to the employees coincided with
the height of the union campaign.
As the Court stated in N.L.R.B. v. Exchange Parts Co., 375 U.S. 405, the Act
prohibits not only intrusive threats and promises but also conduct immediately
favorable to employees which is undertaken with the express purpose of infringing
upon their freedom of choice for or against unionization and is reasonably cal-
,culated to have that effect.
I find that the announcement to the employees of employee benefits in September
and their conferral on October 11 during the union organizing campaign was for
the purpose of inducing employees to reject the organizing effort and did thereby
interfere with the protected right of the employees under the Act to organize, and
a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
On the matter of threats and interrogation Comer testified that on September 16,
1965, she discussed with Bloom and Baker the warning she had received relative
to leaving her work area. Bloom asked her why she was "so strong for the Union"
and Comer indicated that she did not think he was treating the girls fairly. Accord-
ing to Comer he asked her if she was some kind of crusader and she answered
affirmatively.
Charlotte Dean testified that the first day she wore a union button Bloom came
down to her line and started a conversation in which he said he was shocked to
see a good worker with a button on and that he wanted to convince her that she
did not need to wear that button. Dean stated that she asked Bloom whether the
plant would move if the Union got in. Bloom answered , "Not because of the
Union. But everyone knows that you can operate a plant in Ohio cheaper than
here." Dean testified that Bloom also stated on this subject "after all we don't have
26 acres of land just sitting out there for nothing." Dean testified that Bloom stated
that "You know, you're receiving a lot of benefits that this Company doesn't have
to give you." He also stated that as a company policy the employees could prob-
ably expect a few more benefits.
1198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS 13OARD
Bloom denied asking Comer why she was so strong for the Union. He admitted
that he may have asked her whether she was a crusader and admitted the con-
versation with Dean, but that he had stated only that the Union would not affect
the matter of a plant move . From my observation of the witnesses and their
demeanor on the stand , and from the testimony of record, I am convinced that
Bloom questioned Comer and Dean concerning their union sympathies and that
under the circumstances of this case the questioning contained a veiled threat of
economic reprisal, was coercive and interfered with the protected right of the
employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Coming to the testimony concerning the publication of the Respondent's notice
to its employees stating the Respondent's position on the union campaign , Reeder
testified that he participated in the publication of the notice, that he could not recall
when it was determined to post the notice. When queried as to what prompted the
publication of the notice Reeder stated that there was union activity and the
Respondent wanted the people to know exactly what its position was, what was
expected of all employees.
In Surprenant Manufacturing Co. v. N.L.R B., 341 F.2d 756, a notice very similar
to the notice posted herein was considered by the United States Court of Appeals,
Sixth Circuit. In that case the Board had held the notice to amount to a veiled
threat tending to coerce the employees in their selection of a union, centering its
contention on the two statements that the advent of a union "would not work to
your benefit but to your serious harm," and that the Respondent in that case pro-
posed "to use every proper means to prevent a union from becoming established
here." The court, in reversing the Board finding that the notice violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act stated that an employer has the right of freedom of speech
and may express his hostility to a union and his views on labor problems or policy
providing he does not threaten or coerce his employees. The court went on to,
point out that this statement of the law has since been recognized in the enactment
of Section 8(c) of the Act in 1947, Section 158(c), Title 29 United States Code,
providing that "the expressing of any views, argument or opinion, or the dissemina-
tion thereof, whether in written, printed, graphic, or visual form, shall not consti-
tute or be evidence of an unfair labor practice under any of the provisions of this
subchapter, if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of
benefit." The court adverted to N.L.R.B. v. Threads, Inc., 308 F.2d 1 (C.A. 4),
holding that such statements as are contained in the notice herein were privileged
under Section 8(c) of the Act. With high respect for the decision of the United
States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, expressed in Surprenant I am compelled to
find, nevertheless , in the notice posted by the Respondent herein a distinct coercive
flavor, not lessened by the Respondent's attempt to package the coercion under the
label of opinion, belief, or prediction of unfavorable consequences. I would center
attention on the use of the word "serious" in the phrase "serious harm ." In normal
language this would convey the thought that the consequences of unionization on
which the Respondent is focusing the attention of the employees would have
important or dangerous connotations of much greater potential than mere economic
detriment. In Surprenant accompanying speeches by representatives of the Respond-
ent tended to indicate the extent of the possible consequences thereby providing
parameters within which the employees might contemplate possible consequential
impact. Herein there are no accompanying statements delimiting the distinctly
coercive radius of the communication. It could, under the circumstances, be inter-
preted by the employees as a threat of economic reprisal to close down the plant
if necessary to keep the Union out. It is quite apparent that the Respondent could
easily have conveyed its opinion to its employees in language less susceptible to
interpretation as coercive in context rather than to have selected a phrase such as
"serious harm" which is frought with unlimited consequential implication. I find
therefore that the notice posted by the Respondent is coercive in nature and tends
to interfere with, coerce, and restrain the employees of the Respondent in the exer-
cise of protected concerted activity in violation of Section 8 (a)( I) of the Act.
C. The discriminatory discharges
The General Counsel contends that Breeden and Slye were discharged for dis-
criminatory reasons. Reba Breeden testified that she went to work at Alliance in
1961 and worked until the date of discharge except for a 7-month period. At the
time of discharge she was employed as a tester in department 34. Breeden attended
the union meeting on September 14, signed a union membership card, and promi-
ALLIANCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1199
nently displayed a union badge on September 15, 16, and 17 . She was discharged
on September 17. On this date, she testified, she went to get a drink of water about
2:25 p.m. and on the way back she was hailed by Barbara Eppard, another girl in
her department . Breeden went over to her , spoke with her, and went back to her
line. Shirley Beaghan stopped her and told her to get her timecard and clock out.
Breeden queried Beaghan as to the reason and was told that she had been away
from her work station . According to Breeden she discussed this with Roberts, the
Respondent's quality control manager , and said she thought she was supposed to
get a warning before being fired, but Rogers said he had to go along with Beaghan.
Breeden testified that prior to September 17, she had never received a warning nor
a reprimand for leaving her work station . Breeden further testified that she went
back the following Tuesday to talk to Baker , the Respondent 's personnel manager
at the Shenandoah plant, about getting her job back , that Baker said there were no
openings but that Breeden had a good record and when an opening developed he
would let her know. Breeden stated that she told him she thought she was supposed
to get a warning before discharge and he said they had posted a paper on the
bulletin board. Breeden told him she had not seen it, but he said they had to tighten
down on the rules since the union campaign had started . Breeden's testimony on
cross-examination was not consistent with her statement that Baker had said "they
had to tighten the rules since the union campaign had started." This was her per-
sonal conviction but not a statement made by Baker.
Vera Good, another employee of the Respondent and also a tester in department
34, testified that she was riding home with Beaghan one evening and they were dis-
cussing Breeden 's discharge . Beaghan said that Breeden had left her work station,
that on the date of Breeden's discharge Beaghan had been told by George Dowery
to report any girls that left their work area while the foremen were at a regular
Friday meeting. After having her recollection refreshed by reading her prior affi-
davit, Good testified that Beaghan told her that Dowery told Beaghan to watch
the girls with the union badges on while he was at the meeting. While Good was
reluctant to testify relative to "watching the girls with union badges," even though
she stated this in her affidavit, the subsequent testimony of Beaghan did not con-
tradict the statement. I am inclined to credit Good's account of the conversation.
Julia Slye testified that she was employed by the Respondent since August 1962,
as a coil winder in department 31 when discharged by the Respondent., She wore
the union button , passed out literature on the bus , and attended two meetings, the
second on September 23. The next day, in the afternoon, she was clocked out on
205, meaning that she had completed all the work at her work station, and was
helping Charlotte Meadows and Vivian Campbell until they caught up on their
work at which point she went over to help Shelby Shiffiett. About 5 minutes later
Katherine Sigafoose came to her, asked whether she had seen the notice on the
bulletin board regarding absence from work station, and when Slye answered that
she had, but that she had no work to do, Sigafoose told her she was discharged and
ordered her to take her timecard and clock out. Slye testified that in past she had
gone to help other girls after she was clocked out on 205 and that this had been
a common practice in the 3 years she had worked there, that she had never been
warned against it. Subsequent to the discharge by Sigafoose, Slye went to Baker,
told him she did not think the posted warning applied to employees clocked out on
205. Slye stated that Baker said there were a lot of girls leaving their work sta-
tions going to help other girls "talking about unions and all." Slye alleges that she
said she was not talking about a union. While Baker denied in subsequent testimony
making this statement, 1 credit Slye's account.
Charlotte Dean, another employee in department 34, testified that before she
started to wear the union button she used to "run around a lot," that no one had
ever said anything to her, she had never had any warning about leaving her work
area either before or after the notice was posted on the board. She testified that in
her presence one day Baker told Bonita Comer that "everyone needs a warning,
receives a written warning, and the next time they are out." The time of this
alleged statement was not fixed, and it was denied by Baker in subsequent testimony.
Ralph Reeder, personnel director for the Respondent, testified that the Respond-
ent had no system for oral or written warnings at its Shenandoah plant, and that
employees at that plant were not entitled to a warning of any kind in the sort of
situation involved. His testimony concerning the reasons for the policy of requiring
employees to stay at their work stations was essentially that it would be disruptive
to production to have large numbers of employees moving about in a relatively
confined area, that since employees are on the incentive basis the result of one
1200 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
-employee assisting another is an increase in the cost per item, consequently the
employees are prohibited from helping others except where a team effort is
involved . On cross-examination Reeder testified that he did not know what the
practice was in the Shenandoah plant insofar as employees leaving their work sta-
tions was concerned . Reeder was queried as to why the Company , which had had
a notice posted for several years prohibiting the leaving of work stations, should
find it necessary to post a new notice at the time of the union activity,
Q. But you felt it necessary to enact another notice?
A. No, not necessary . We felt that it was more than proper, more than
kind , before taking further action.
Q. Well what occasioned this sudden need for another warning, another
notice?
A. I frankly don't remember what brought the subject up. I know that I
approved it, that it should have been issued . I don 't remember the specific inci-
dent that brought the subject up.
However, subsequently , Reeder testified that he had received a report from
Baker about Comer being away from her work station the day before.
Q. What was this report?
A. The report was that she had been away from her work station and she
had been warned.
Q. Did the report say anything about whether or not she was wearing a
union badge?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. And was there any connection between the Comer incident and putting
this notice on the board the next day?
A. Yes, sir, there was.
Reeder testified further as follows:
Q. Now isn't it true , Mr. Reeder , that prior to this notice of September 24th
the employees were permitted and in fact did leave their work stations to help
one another?
A. Not to my knowledge , it's against the policy to do so, if they did.
Q. You don 't know whether they did or they didn't?
A. They didn 't when I was in the plant. I never observed any, in other
words.
William Bloom , the Respondent 's plant superintendent , testified that the company
policy was that employees were not to leave their work station except to go to the
restroom , drinking fountain , or during break periods , that the rule was enforced
to the best of his ability, that if employees were caught away from their work
stations they were discharged . Bloom testified to the discharge by Respondent of
Lois Thomas for leaving her work station and interfering with the work of others
by talking on the subject of religion ; of Derrell Shifflett for neglecting to do his
work, involving talking to others; of Jeffrey Pettit for neglect of work.
Robert Baker, personnel manager of the Shenandoah plant since June 1965 testi-
fied that they had no system of warning employees . In discussing why Comer had
been warned he testified as follows: "Now on the occasion of her warning I recom-
mended that she not be discharged."
Q. And why?
A. Because it was obvious that she was interested in the Union and it looked
likely to me that we would wind up with an unfair labor practice charge if
we discharged her, and I felt that she would straighten out and we would not
lose a capable employee if she were warned and not discharged.
Baker testified relative to the discharge of Slye and Breeden and denied making
the statements alleged by Slye in the discussions and telephone conversations which
he had with her.
H. F. Karnes, Jr., foreman of department 31, testified that Slye had been dis-
charged while he was at the regular Friday meeting. He testified that while in the
past he had warned several employees about getting up and helping other employees
he had not warned Slye.
Shirley Beaghan , floorlady, testified that the rule about staying at work stations
had always been enforced at the plant, that others had been discharged for violating
this rule. When queried as to whether she told Good that she had been told to
- ALLIANCE MANUFACTURING, COMPANT% ' - 1201
watch' people wearing union buttons she answered "I don 't remember saying it that
way." When further queried as to whether she ever told Vera Good that Dowery
had told her to watch girls who wore union buttons she answered , "I don't remem-
ber." Beaghan testified further that Reba Breeden was the first girl she had dis-
charged , that it was the first time she discharged any girl for talking to another,
girl, and that she did not know whether Eppard called Breeden over or whether
Breeden went over to her, she knew Breeden had been wearing a union button.
Roberts, quality control manager for the Respondent, testified that while his
private office was in front of the building he worked plantwide . He stated that it
was not common practice for employees to go to the water fountain , stop, have a
short conversation, and return to their work station. He testified, however, that he
had seen employees talking to other employees.
Katherine Sigafoose, a supervisor for 5 years, testified that the rule requiring
employees to stay at work stations was enforced in the plant. She saw Slye talking
to the other girls whereupon Slye hurried back to her machine. Sigafoose then
noticed that Slye left to go to the washroom with Shelby Shiffiett that since Slye,
had already been there she timed her. Slye and Shelby Shifflett were gone for about
10-12 minutes. On their return Slye went to where Shifflett was working, and was
there for a few minutes when Sigafoose asked her if she had read the notice on
the bulletin board. When Slye said "yes," Sigafoose ordered her to clock out and
leave. Sigafoose testified that before the foremen went into the meeting her fore-
man, Karnes, told her that this rule would be enforced. Sigafoose admitted that
there had been occasions in the plant when girls have helped other girls , but not
as a rule. She also testified that no other girls had been discharged for helping
other employees although other girls had assisted other employees, but that she did
not know of any employee who left her work area under these circumstances or
helped another employee who knew about this rule and was not taken to task
for it. She stated that she had, in the past, warned employees who assisted other
employees prior to Slye 's case.
From the testimony and exhibits of record the Respondent has established the
existence of a rule requiring employees to remain at their work station and to
refrain from interfering with the work of others. This rule was displayed on the
bulletin boards. All foremen had been instructed to carry out the rule. However,
from the testimony adduced at the hearing, and from my observation of the wit-
nesses as they testified I am convinced that while the rule was in existence it was
not uncommon for employees to be away from their work stations and talking to
other employees, and that there had been in existence a practice of warning such
employees prior to application-of the drastic action of discharge By its notice of
September 24, warning the employees that infraction of this rule would subject
employees to dismissal the Respondent initiated a more stringent application of the
rule. At the same time foremen , as they went to the regularly scheduled Friday
meeting, emphasized to the floorladies that the rule would be enforced. With this
prompting two floorladies , Beaghan and Sigafoose , took their first action in sum-
marily discharging employees without prior warning.
While the Respondent made much of the point that other employees, naming
Thomas, Knott, Shifflett, Burner, and others had been discharged for being away
from work stations and interfering with the work of others, the testimony does not
clearly, establish this. Jessie Knott was discharged in 1963 for "substandard produc-
tion and holding conversations away from her work place." Roberta Burner was
discharged in July 1964, for "Unsatisfactory job performance, neglect of duties, and
talked excessively." Shifflett was discharged for "lack of progress during probation-,
ary period , was inclined to neglect his work and talk."
The testimony does not clearly establish whether or not these discharges were
effected without prior warning . Bloom testified that Bonita Comer was warned
because it was the policy that the determination as to whether a warning would
be given depended on the degree of the infraction . He stated that Comer's infrac-
tion was not serious enough to warrant discharge . Bloom also testified that he was
not involved in the discharges of Thomas, Knot, Shifflett, and Burner and did not
know the number of infractions involved in these cases. The matter of the nature
of the infraction is significant when the prior discharges are analyzed. Knott was
labeled a substandard producer . Burner was an employee with unsatisfactory job
performance. The testimony of record in this case would indicate that both Slye
and Breeden were satisfactory employees with good records and there has been no
allegation nor testimony to the contrary . It is true that an employer may discharge
257-551-67-vol. 160-77
1202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for any reason or for no reason and has no burden to justify his action . N.L.R.B.
v. Ace Comb Co., 342 F.2d 841, 970. However, the testimony herein has estab-
lished a change in the Respondent's application of the company rule which raises
an inescapable inference that the rule has been discriminatorily applied to effect the
discharges of union adherents Breeden and Slye.
Accordingly, the timing of the discharges, coming summarily as they did at the
height of the union organizing drive, accompanied by the Respondent's knowledge
of the union activities of both Slye and Breeden, and the unconvincing basis
advanced by the Respondent for the stringent application of the drastic action of
discharge to satisfactory employees under circumstances in which other employees
had been accorded prior warning convince me, and I find, that the discharges were
discriminatory, that Breeden and Slye would not have been discharged under these
circumstances but for their union activities which were protected by the Act. I find
therefore that in the discriminatory discharge of Breeden and Slye and the failure
and refusal to reinstate them the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth above, occurring in connection with
the operations of the Respondent described above, have a close, intimate, and sub-
stantial 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
It having been found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It having been found that Respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of Reba Breeden by discharging her on September 17, 1965,
and of Julia Slye by discharging her on September 24, 1965, I will recommend that
Respondent offer them immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substan-
tially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by
reason of said discrimination against them by payment to them of a sum of money
equal to that which they would have earned as wages from the date of the discrimi-
nation to the date of their reinstatement, less net earnings during such period, in
accordance with the formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB
289, with interest thereon at 6 percent per annum, as provided for in Isis Plumb-
ing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
Because of the variety, extent, and type of the unfair labor practices engaged in
by Respondent, I sense an opposition to the policies of the Act in general, and
hence I deem it necessary to order Respondent to cease and desist from in any
manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed its employees in Section 7 of the
Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent Alliance Manufacturing Company is an employer within the
meaning of the Act and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
2. International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discrimination in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Reba
Breeden by discharging her on September 17, 1965, and of Julia Slye by discharging
her on September 24, 1965, thereby 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)(3) and (1) of the Act:
4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees through the grant-
ing of wage increases and other benefits or improvements in order to discourage
their selection of, or sympathies toward, the Union; the prohibition against distri-
bution of union literature in nonworking areas of company premises during non-
working hours; the post of threats; and the threatening and interrogation of
employees concerning union membership, adherence, and activities, Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ALLIANCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1203
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law , and upon
the entire record in this case , I recommend that the Respondent Alliance Manu-
facturing Company, its officers, agents , successors , and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership and activities in International Union of Electrical
Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, by discriminating in regard to the hire
and tenure of employment of any of its employees by discharging such employees
in order to discourage membership or activities therein.
(b) Interfering with, restraining , or coercing its employees through the granting
of wage increases and other benefits or improvements in order to discourage their
selection of, or sympathies toward the Union; the prohibition against distribution
of union literature in nonworking areas of company premises during nonworking
hours; the posting of threats ; and the threatening and interrogation of employees
concerning union membership , adherence , and activities.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its employees
in the exercise of their rights to self-organization , to form labor organizations, to
join or assist the International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing , and to engage in any other concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate 'the policies
of the Act:
(a) Offer to Reba Breeden and Julia Slye immediate and full reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority
or other rights and privileges and make them 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
examination and copying , all payroll records , social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports , and all other records necessary to analyze
the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Decision.
(c) Post at Respondent 's plant in Shenandoah , Virginia , copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix A." 1 Copies of the said notice are to be furnished by
the Regional Director for Region 5, upon being duly signed by Respondent 's repre-
sentative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt of it thereof , and be main-
tained 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 other materials.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 5, in writing , within 20 days from
the date of the receipt of this Decision , what steps the Respondent has taken to
comply herewith?
IIn the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , the words "a
Decision and Order " shall be substituted for the words " the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner" in the notice . In the further event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a
decree of a United 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."
I In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , this provision
shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director , in writing, within 10 days from
the date of the Order , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX A
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 Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activities on behalf of Interna-
tional Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization of our employees, by discriminating in regard to the
hire and tenure of employment or any other terms or conditions of employ-
ment of our employees because of their union affiliation or activity.
1204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL offer Reba Breeden and Julia Slye immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges and will make them whole for any
loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination practiced
against them together with interest thereon at 6 percent per annum.
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain , or coerce our employees by the grant-
ing of wage increases and other benefits or improvements in order to dis-
courage their selection of, or sympathies toward the Union; the prohibition
against distribution of union literature in nonworking areas of company prem-
ises during nonworking hours; the posting of threats; and the threatening and
interrogation of employees concerning union membership , adherence, and
activities.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization , to form labor
organizations , to join or assist International Union of Electrical , Radio and
Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in any
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any or all such activities.
ALLIANCE 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 the employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Sixth
Floor, 707 North Calvert Street , Baltimore , Maryland 21202 , Telephone 752-2159.
Baltimore Lithographers and Photoengravers Union , Local 2-P,
Lithographers and Photoengravers International Union, AFL-
CIO and Lithographers and Photoengravers International
Union, AFL-CIO and Alco-Gravure , Division of Publication
Corporation . Cases 5-CC-303 and 306. September 22, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 13, 1965, Trial Examiner Morton D. Friedman issued
his Decision in the above-entitled consolidated proceeding, finding
that Respondent Local 2-P had engaged in and was engaging in cer-
tain 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. He also found that Respondent
International had not engaged in any unfair labor practices and rec-
ommended that the complaint be dismissed as to it. Thereafter,
Respondents, the General Counsel, and the Charging Party (herein
called Alco), filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and
supporting briefs, and an answering brief was filed by Alco.
The National Labor Relations Board has reviewed the rulings of
the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial
error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has
160 NLRB No. 9G.