American Auto-Felt Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 7, 1966

158 N.L.R.B. 1628 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

1628 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to its members
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.
(b) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 14 signed copies of said notice for
posting, if Couples Products Corporation, Robert R. Wright, Inc., Modern Elec-
tric Company, Edward Seitz Plumbing Supply Company, or Peters-Eichler Heating
Company, or any of them, are willing, at all places where notices to their respective
employees are customarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to com-
ply therewith.9
O In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF GLAZIERS LOCAL UNION No. 513, AFFILIATED WITH
BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, DECORATORS AND PAPERHANGERS OF AMERICA, AFL-
CIO
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner National Labor Rela-
tions Board, and in order to effectuate the policies'of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encourage any individual employed
by Robert R. Wright, Inc., Modern Electric Company, Edward Seitz Plumbing
Supply Company, Peters-Eichler Heating Company, or any other person
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, to engage in a
strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, proc-
cess, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials,
or commodities or to perform any services, and we will not threaten, coerce,
or restrain the above-named employers or any other person engaged in com-
merce or in an industry affecting commerce, where in either case an object
thereof is to force or require the above-named employers or any such person
to cease doing business with Cupples Products Corporation or any other
employer engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce.
GLAZIERS LOCAL UNION No. 513, AFFILIATED WITH BROTHERHOOD OF
PAINTERS, DECORATORS AND PAPERHANGERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
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 members have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 1040
Boatmen's Bank Building, 314 North Broadway, St. Louis, Missouri, Telephone No.
622-4167.
American Auto-Felt Corporation; Morrie Chaitlen and Interna-
tional Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO. Case No.
7-CA-49493. June 7,1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 8, 1965, Trial Examiner William J. Brown issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respond-
ents had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommending
158 NLRB No. 139.
AMERICAN AUTO-FELT CORPORATION 1629
that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He
also found that Respondents had not engaged in other unfair labor
practices alleged, and recommended dismissal of those allegations.
Thereafter, the General Counsel and Charging Party filed exceptions
to the Trial Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs.
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 Fanning and Jenkins].
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 Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and the briefs, and the entire
record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the modifications noted
below.
Contrary to the Trial Examiner, we find that the evidence in this
case clearly preponderates in favor of a conclusion that Respondents
terminated Carol Cope's employment because of her `union sympa-
thies in violation of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. The facts on which
we rest our conclusion are as follows :
Carol Cope, employed by the Respondent Company as a telephone
switchboard operator, was an active supporter of the Union's at-
tempts to organize Respondent's office clerical employees. Cope's
allegiance to the Union was well known to Respondent Company's
managerial officials who openly opposed the Union, their opposition
often taking the form of unlawful conduct, as related in the Trial
Examiner's Decision.
On the morning of November 4, 1964, Cope was called into Winona
Sprague's office.' Sprague, acting on instructions of Chaitlen, told
Cope that she was being taken off the telephone switchboard and
"demoted" to a position in the shipping and receiving department.
There then ensued a discussion of Cope's union attitudes and activi-
ties which culminated in a request by Sprague that Cope sign a state-
ment that "she was with the Company," i.e., that she supported the
Company in its opposition to ' the Union, with the definite implica-
tion that if she signed the statement she could remain on the tele-
phone switchboard. Cope refused to sign this "loyalty oath" and
objected to the transfer because there was no work for her in the
i Though Sprague was classified as executive secretary to Morrie Chaitlen, president of
Respondent Company , the record supports the Trial Examiner's finding that she exercised
a substantial measure of discretion and independent judgment in assisting Chaitlen in
directing Respondent Company's operations , and that she is a supervisor within the mean-
ing of the Act.
1630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR. RELATIONS BOARD
shipping and receiving department. Sprague replied to the latter
objection to the effect that Cope could "clean toilets and empty
wastebaskets for all she cares." At about this point in the discussion,
Sprague called Jim Dawkins, supervisor of the shipping and receiv-
ing department, on the telephone to inform him that Cope was being
sent down to his department. Dawkins told Sprague that he did not
have any work for Cope and Sprague repeated her observation that
Cope could "clean toilets and empty wastebaskets." 2 The discussion
between Cope and Sprague then concluded with Cope reiterating that
she would rather quit than do what Sprague was demanding of her.
Sprague then sent Cope into the outer office where eventually her final
check was delivered to her.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Trial Examiner concluded that
Respondent's attempt to make Cope sign a statement that she was
loyal to the Company restrained and coerced Cope in her exercise of
the right to engage in union activity in violation of Section 8(a) (1).
He further found that "Cope was taken off the switchboard because
of her refusal to give assurances of loyalty to the Company." Not-
withstanding the foregoing findings, which we adopt, the Trial
Examiner found that, because Cope quit her employment rather than
accept the transfer to the shipping, and receiving department, and,
because there was no indication that the transfer involved a reduc-
tion in salary or more onerous work, the evidence does not preponder-
ate in favor of a, conclusion that Cope was discriminated against
with respect to her wages, hours, or conditions of employment. We
do not agree.
The evidence summarized above plainly establishes that Re-
spondents conditioned Cope's continued employment as a telephone
switchboard operator 3 upon her abandonment of her union allegiance
and upon her