American Feather Products Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 11, 1980

248 N.L.R.B. 1102 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

1102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
American Feather Products Corporation and Chica-
go and Central States Joint Board, Amalgamat-
ed Clothing and Textile Workers Unions, AFL-
CIO and Alyce Westhoff. Cases 33-CA-3482,
33-CA-3540, 33-RC-2209, and 33-CA-3537
April 11, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
PENELLO AND TRUESDALE
On September 5, 1979, Administrative Law
Judge James M. Fitzpatrick issued the attached
Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Re-
spondent and the Union filed exceptions and a sup-
porting brief, and the Union and the General
Counsel filed briefs in support of the Administra-
tive Law Judge's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings,' and conclusions 2 of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as
modified herein.
AMENDED REMEDY
We adopt the remedy set forth by the Adminis-
trative Law Judge in his Decision with the follow-
ing modification.
The Administrative Law Judge found, inter alia,
and we agree, that the Respondent unlawfully
failed to pay former strikers a retroactive cost-of-
living increase paid all other employees and cover-
ing a period during most of which the former strik-
ers were at work. He neglected, however, to rec-
ommend that the Respondent be ordered to make
the former strikers whole for the losses thus unlaw-
fully sustained. We agree with the Union that his
failure to do so was error. Therefore, we shall
order the Respondent to make whole its employees
who were on strike between November 9 and 13,
i The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi-
bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con-
vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products.
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950). enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
2 Member Penello concurs in setting aside the results of the election held in
Case 33-RC -2209, but he does so only on the basis of the Administrative
Law Judge's conclusion that each of the Unionl's five specific written
objections should be sustained. For reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion
in Daylon Tire Rubber (o., 234 NLRB 504 (1978), Member Penellodoes not
rely on the "Additional Objectionable Conduct" discussed by the Adminis-
trative I.aw Judge as further grounds for setting aside the election.
248 NLRB No. 147
1977, for any loss of pay they may have suffered as
a result of the Respondent's failure to pay them the
cost-of-living adjustments for work performed
during the period of July 1 through December 31,
1977, with interest thereon as prescribed in Florida
Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). (See, gen-
erally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716
(1961)).
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
As set forth in the Administrative Law Judge's
Decision, sections (g) and (h) of Conclusion of
Law 4 do not properly reflect the nature of the
8(a)(1) violations to which they relate. Consequent-
ly, we substitute the following for those sections of
Conclusion of Law 4:
"(g) Assuring a strike replacement that her
job was secure as the strikers would never be
reemployed;"
"(h) Demoting or terminating a supervisor
because of the supervisor's failure to take steps
to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them
under Section 7 of the Act."
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi-
fied below, and hereby orders that the Respondent,
American Feather Products Corporation, Maquo-
keta, Iowa, it officers, agents, successors, andas-
signs, shall take the action set forth in the said rec-
ommended Order, as so modified:
1. Substitute the following for paragraph l(h):
"(h) Demoting or terminating its supervisors be-
cause of their failure to take steps to interfere with,
restrain, or coerce its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them under Section 7 of the
Act."
2. Insert the following as paragraph 2(c) and re-
letter the subsequent paragraphs:
"(c) Make whole its employees who went on
strike between November 9 and 13, 1977, for any
loss of pay they may have suffered from its failure
to pay them the cost-of-living adjustment for work
performed during the period of July I through De-
cember 31, 1977, with interest thereon to be com-
puted as described in the section of the Board's
Decision and Order entitled 'Amended Remedy."'
3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
AMERICAN FEATHER PRODUCTS 1103
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all parties participated,
the National Labor Relations Board has found that
we violated the National Labor Relations Act. We
have been ordered to post this notice and to abide
by its terms.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close the plant if
employees select a union to represent them.
WE WILL NOT announce or grant pay in-
creases in order to prevent employees form
supporting a union.
WE WILL NOT solicit grievances or correct
them in order to prevent employees from sup-
porting a union.
WE WILL NOT assist or recognize any com-
mittee of employee representatives for the pur-
pose of dealing with conditions of employment
unless it is certified as a representative by the
National Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT separate work stations of em-
ployees in order to prevent their talking about
unions.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees about
union activities.
WE WILL NOT induce supervisors to influ-
ence relatives against the Union in order to
protect the supervisor's job.
WE WILL NOT tell strike replacements their
jobs are secure because strikers will never be
reemployed.
WE WILL NOT demote or terminate our su-
pervisors because they failed to take steps to
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ-
ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them under Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL NOT discriminate against strikers
by failing to include their names on our prefer-
ential hiring list.
WE WILL NOT discriminate against strikers
by withholding from them cost-of-living pay
increases for work they have already per-
formed.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the
exercise of their right to self-organization, to
join or assist Chicago and Central States Joint
Board Amalgamated Clothing and Textile
Workers Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization, and to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection, or to re-
frain from any and all such activities.
WE WILL .put Brenda Melton on our prefer-
ential hiring list effective November 14, 1977,
notify her of this, recall her to the job she
would have gotten if she had been on the list
since then or, if that job no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent one, without prejudice
to her seniority or other rights and privileges.
WE WILL offer Alyce Westhoff immediate
and full reinstatement to her former job as su-
pervisor or, if that job no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent one, without prejudice
to her seniority or other rights and privileges.
WE WILL pay Brenda Melton and Alyce
Westhoff for any earnings they lost as a result
of our discrimination against them, plus inter-
est.
WE WILL make whole our employees who
went on strike between November 9 and 13,
1977, for any loss of pay they may have suf-
fered from our failure to pay them the July 1-
December 31, 1977, cost-of-living adjustment
for the time they were at work during that
period.
WE WILL recognize and, upon request, bar-
gain with Chicago and Central States Joint
Board Amalgamated Clothing and Textile
Workers Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive
representative since October 10, 1977, of all
production and maintenance employees in our
Maquoketa, Iowa, plant, with respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours and other terms and con-
ditions of employment, and, if an understand-
ing is reached, embody such understanding in
a signed agreement.
AMERICAN FEATHER PRODUCTS
CORPORATION
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES M. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Law Judge: In
this case a majority of employees in a new plant gave au-
thorization cards to the Union which then asked for, and
was refused, recognition by the Company. The Union
also asked the Board to hold an election but before it
was held the Company did a variety of things, which I
find unlawful, to dissuade employees from supporting the
Union. The Union lost the election. As found below, the
election should be set aside and the Company required to
bargain with the Union.
The earliest of these proceedings commenced with the
representation petition (Case 38-RC-2209) filed on Octo-
ber 11, 1977, by Chicago and Central States Joint Board,
Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union,
AFL-CIO (the Union), seeking Board certification as the
1104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
collective-bargaining representative of the production
and maintenance employees in the Maquoketa, Iowa,
plant of American Feather Products Corporation (the
Company or Respondent). On December 9, 1977, the
Board conducted an election which the Union lost. On
December 14, the Union filed objections to conduct af-
fecting the results of the election and also filed unfair
labor practice charges (Case 38-CA-3482) against Re-
spondent. On January 24, 1978, a complaint issued based
on these charges alleging that Respondent had commit-
ted unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(l)
and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended
(the Act). On the same day the Board's Regional Direc-
tor ordered a hearing on the objections.
On January 25, 1978, Alyce C. Westhoff, an individ-
ual, and on January 26, 1978, the Union filed additional
unfair labor practice charges (Cases 38-CA-3437 and
3540, respectively) against Respondent. On March 10
these were consolidated with the earlier case and a con-
solidated complaint issued alleging 8(a)(l), (3), and (5)
violations by Respondent. On March 27 the objections
case was consolidated with the unfair labor practice
cases. On June 20 and again at the hearing the consoli-
dated complaint was further amended to allege additional
violations of Section 8(a)(l). Respondent answered the
complaints, admitting jurisdictional allegations but deny-
ing the alleged unfair labor practices.
The issues were heard before me at Maquoketa, Iowa,
on July 10-14 and August 2 and 3, 1978. At the close of
the hearing Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint
on grounds the evidence was insufficient to sustain it.
For the reasons set out below, I deny the motion.
Based on the entire record, including my observation
of the witnesses and considerations of the briefs filed by
the parties, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE EMPLOYER
Respondent, an Iowa corporation, is engaged at Ma-
quoketa, Iowa, in the manufacture and sale of pillows,
comforters, and slumber bags. It annually sells and ships
from its Maquoketa plant directly to points outside Iowa
finished products valued over $50,000 and also purchases
and causes to be delivered to that plant directly from
points outside Iowa goods and materials valued over
$50,000. Respondent is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
II1. THE UNION
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
1. The Chicago operation
For many years Respondent operated a plant and also
office and sales facilities in Chicago. Its production and
maintenance employees there were represented by a
local of the Furniture and Bedding Workers Union.
With the passage of time the Chicago plant became obso-
lete and inadequate for the business. In the mid 1970's, in
response to this inadequacy, Respondent's principal offi-
cers began searching for a new location. The search
ended with their determination in early 1976 to locate a
new plant in Maquoketa, Iowa. The decision was also
made to separately locate company offices and sales de-
partment at a new location in Chicago. During April,
May, and June, 1977 Respondent's offices were gradually
moved from the old plant to the Merchandise Mart in
Chicago.
2. The move to Iowa
New plant facilities in Maquoketa were constructed
during the months of August through October 1976,
with various phases of construction continuing thereafter
for many months. In mid-December Respondent took
possession of the new plant, although construction con-
tinued, and on March 1, 1977, finally closed its Chicago
plant. In the meantime, hiring and training of new em-
ployees in Maquoketa commenced and some processing
of synthetic fibers began.
At the Maquoketa plant, operations were arranged into
three departments; the pillow sew department, the com-
forter and sleeping bag department, and the Garnett de-
partment (for processing synthetic fiber). Although some
production began as early as March 1977, it was not
until July and August that significant production other
than synthetic fibers got underway. Sewing employees
were chiefly occupied in training.
3. Management structure
Respondent's principal officials, Elias Buchman, presi-
dent, and his son-in-law, Aaron Turk, vice president and
sales manager, are headquartered in the company offices
in Chicago and are only intermittently at the Iowa plant.
In Maquoketa during the early months of operation local
management included Tony Macri, manager; Sherry
Vondran, assistant plant manager; Heather Edwards, su-
pervisor of the pillow sew department; Alyce Westhoff,
supervisor of the comforter and sleeping bag department;
and John Miller, supervisor of the Garnett department.
Burnis Curry, who was then in Iowa only part time, was
also involved in setting up the operation. During July
and August 1977, by which time production had gotten
underway on the slumber bag line, he was involved in
preparing timestudies for that operation. On September
18, 1977, Curry officially became co-manager of the
plant with Macri, apparently as a prelude to his later be-
coming full plant manager and in anticipation of Macri's
planned retirement. From September on, Curry was the
effective onsite manager of the Iowa operation, subject
to the supervision of Turk, who appeared intermittently
and with some frequency, and of Buchman, who spent
most of his time in Chicago.
'That Union is not involved in the present matter And the Charging Union
here was not involved with Respondent's Chicago operation
AMERICAN FEATHER PRODUCTS 1105
4. Employee orientation
In late October 1976, while the Maquoketa plant was
still under construction, Respondent advertised for new
applicants. The response was substantial. On October 28
a management group including Turk and Curry came to
Maquoketa to interview and test applicants. They estab-
lished temporary headquarters at Cressy Construction
Company where three machines were set up for the test-
ing.
After the interviewing and testing Buchman spoke to
the applicants in groups of 30. For orientation purposes
he showed and commented on a film of Respondent's
Chicago operation. He also gave a rundown of what em-
ployee benefits might be expected. He told them that an
incentive program was in effect for the sewing and cut-
ting of pillows but that the Company planned to estab-
lish incentive rates in other departments in Maquoketa.
He also stated the number of holidays which the Compa-
ny would grant and he indicated there would be a cost-
of-living wage adjustment program as in the Chicago
plant. He announced that the starting rate for machine
operators would be $2.70 per hour, to be increased to
$2.90 per hour after completion of a 90-day probationary
period, and that by then the employees should be able to
go on an incentive program. 2 Buchman repeated this
performance three or four times with different groups
over a period of several days. From the foregoing it is
apparent that management led the Maquoketa employees
to hope for incentive pay rates and cost-of-living adjust-
ments.
Early in this recruiting process Sherry Vondran,
Alyce Westhoff, and Heather Edwards were hired and
designated as supervisors. Westhoff testified that on one
of the mornings that Buchman gave his orientation talk
he met with the three of them in Cressy's office and in-
structed them not to hire potential union organizers or
applicants with strong union backgrounds and that he
also told them he wanted any and all talk of unions to be
reported to him immediately. Buchman denied making
such statements and Vondran testified that nothing was
said about unions. Heather Edwards, who apparently
was in Australia at the time of the hearing, did not tes-
tify. On this credibility conflict I credit Buchman's denial
because he is corroborated by Vondran.
Applicants who were hired were put through exten-
sive training. It is not clear precisely when this training
program began. By March 1, 1977, the Chicago plant
had closed and a transitional period followed during
which operations in Maquoketa were limited because of
construction, incomplete setup of machines, and lack of
equipment and materials.
In April employees began inquiring about the expected
raises. Presumably these were directed to the hoped-for
cost-of-living increases and incentive pay rates. Employ-
ees who completed the 90-day probationary period were
automatically given the 15-cent-per-hour raise.
2 Regarding the eslablihmlenl of incentie wage rates, nothing was
done, so far as the employees ssere concerned, until October, after the
Union had requested recognilion and petitioned for a Board election
5. The employee manual
Around May 1, 1977, management distributed to em-
ployees an employee manual setting forth rules and regu-
lations for working in the plant. A covering letter signed
by Buchman and Turk described the purpose of the rules
and regulations and assured the employees that better
company profits would mean better pay for them, as fol-
lows:
No business can be successful unless there are rules
are to be adhered to. They prevent confusion and
result in better production. With better production
comes better profits, and better profits end up with
employees sharing these profits through better pay,
etc.
One section of the manual set forth the Company's plan
for cost-of-living adjustments. In a word, the plan pro-
vided an adjustment of 2 cents per hour upward or
downward for each point of change upward or down-
ward in the Consumer Price Index for Iowa, with a
maximum change of 10 cents per hour for each year. As
Buchman later testified, Respondent in this manner
promised the employees in very specific terms a program
of cost-of-living adjustments.
The covering letter for the manual also declared an
open door policy for communication between employees
and management. In this connection the letter stated:
Please read the manual carefully and if you have
any questions or suggestions to better your condi-
tions please let us know. This is our desire: To
work with you at all times. We cannot solve any of
your problems unless you tell us what those prob-
lems are. So please don't hesitate to make sugges-
tions and understand that we have an open door
policy with management/employee relationship.
It should be noted that at the time this open door policy
was announced there was no hint of employee interest in
a union.
6. Slowness regarding wage increases
In spite of the general reassurances of more money,
none was immediately forthcoming. By June employee
restiveness reached the point where management was
constrained on June 20 to issue a bulletin explaining why
employees had not received raises. Four reasons were
given, the first and most important being that increases
in pay depend on costs and, if labor costs are too high,
raises cannot be made. The bulletin stated that the labor
costs in the Maquoketa plant were higher than in the old
Chicago plant because of the inherent inefficiency of in-
experienced employees. It read in part as follows:
Although these costs are coming down gradually
with your on-the-job experience, we still have a
way to go until we get to that point where our
costs for labor should be. We know that eventually
we will reach that point but until we get there it is
impossible to offer across-the-board increases. You
as an employee should realize this and try to get
1106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
these costs down so that we can offer you justifi-
able increases.
The second explanation was, in substance, that the
staff was not sufficiently experienced to produce a qual-
ity product which could influence customers to give the
Company more business. The third explanation dealt
with the failure of employees to cooperate with supervi-
sors. The fourth explanation was the increase in absen-
teeism resulting in an increase in the cost of products
produced. Finally, the bulletin gave the following assur-
ance:
Raises are governed by costs and cannot be given
without such costs being "in line." We are well
aware of the fact that it is difficult to "make ends
meet" in our present economy with the way prices
are going up and by striving for perfection on your
part we will all reach our goals in time. The time
has not yet come, but we hope it will be soon.
It is apparent from the bulletin that by the third week
of June enough employees were expecting raises to cause
management to make an elaborate explanation why raises
were not forthcoming. During July and August Curry
completed the timestudies which were a necessary predi-
cate to instituting piecework rates. But nothing was said
to the employees about implementing them. If the June
bulletin had any soothing effect on the employees, such
was not permanent. By August employee dissatisfaction
on a variety of counts, including compensation, stimulat-
ed discussions about a union.
B. The Union Campaign
1. Organizing activity and company knowledge
The rank-and-file employees at the Maquoketa plant
were newly hired local residents of that area. So far as
the record indicates no employees transferred from the
Chicago plant to the Iowa plant. The Chicago union
made no effort to follow Respondent to its new loca-
tion. 3
Interest in a union among the Iowa employees began
in August 1977 at the time Curry was making his times-
tudies. The surveillance involved disturbed some of the
women, particularly Carol Frees who, together with
Donna DeMoss, began talking about a union. These con-
versations occurred between the two of them and with
several others in the plant area, in the restrooms, in the
lunchroom, and in the parking lot.
In early August Lotus Mutert, in a conversation with
Heather Edwards, her supervisor in the pillow sew de-
partment, about working conditions, including being
stared at (an apparent reference to Curry's timestudies),
conflicting instructions, and reassignments, stated that, if
they had a union, they would not have to have such con-
ditions. Edwards replied that they could not get a union
in because Buchman would not be able to afford the
a Contrary to the contentions of the General Counsel and the Union, I
consider the collective-bargaining agreement of Respondent and the Fur-
niture and Bedding Workers, as well as Respondent's employment prac-
tices in Chicago, to be irrelevant to issues in the different bargaining unit
in Iowa.
wages and would shut down and they would lose their
jobs.
I base this finding on the uncontradicted testimony of
Mutert. I credit her because of her forthright manner
even though she did not recall, without prompting from
counsel, Edwards' comment about loss of jobs. Also, the
fact that she did not report the conversation in her affi-
davit given a Board agent on February 2, 1978, is not a
reason for discrediting her considering her apparent lack
of legal knowledge and the limited scope of the affidavit
which dealt only with events in October and November.
In so finding I place no reliance on the lack of testimony
from Heather Edwards who, according to the statements
of counsel, was in Australia at the time of the hearing
and who apparently was equally accessible (or inaccessi-
ble) to all parties. I find that Heather Edwards' comment
was an unlawful threat violative of Section 8(a)(l) of the
Act.
In the third week of August, Alyce Westhoff separat-
ed DeMoss and Frees, who persisted in excessive talking,
by reassigning DeMoss to a different location. She ex-
plained to them the necessity for the move. They both
complained that if a union were in the plant she would
not be able to reassign DeMoss. Westhoff testified that
she then replied, "Well, I told her then to be quiet about
union and if she wouldn't be I'd have to report her and
she'd be out of a job."4
Feeling that there was sufficient employee interest to
warrant organizing DeMoss contacted the Teamsters and
also Amalgamated (the Charging Party Union in the pre-
sent matter) in the person of Edward Burns, organizer
for the Union, who set up a meeting at the home of
Frees for the evening of October 4. Approximately a
dozen employees, including DeMoss, Frees, and two
daughters of Alyce Westhoff (Connie Westhoff and
Catherine Jebsen), attended that meeting. They asked
Burns questions and he instructed them in the procedures
for organizing, including the signing of union authoriza-
tion cards. Some of those present executed authorization
cards. The next day Burns supplied Frees with additional
blank authorization cards for soliciting the signatures of
others. This further solicitation took place for the most
part on October 5 and 6.
Even before the meeting with Burns, top management
knew of employee interest in the Union. As early as Sep-
tember 26, employee Jean Bowden had told Assistant
Manager Sherry Vondran that there was union activity
among the employees. Vondran in turn informed Macri
and they both informed Curry. Curry then informed
Turk and Buchman in Chicago. At each step higher level
management informed the lower part not to say anything
to anyone or to do anything. As later events showed,
these standards of noninterference were not adhered to.
Turk told Curry they would seek legal counsel. But no
steps along this line were taken immediately, because of
the Buchman family difficulties mentioned below.
4 The complaint does not allege, nor does the General Counsel con-
tend, that Westhoff violated Sec. 8(a( ) on that occasion
AMERICAN FEATHER PRODUCTS 1107
2. The Buchman family tragedy
On September 23, Elias Buchman's son was killed
overseas. As a result of this personal tragedy, Elias
Buchman was inactive in Respondent's business until
about October 10. Turk assumed responsibility for the
entire business but he too was much absorbed in family
problems and arrangements following the death of his
brother-in-law. In Iowa, Curry was defacto running that
end of the business.
3. Union majority status
a. The appropriate unit
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find
that all production and maintenance employees employed
by Respondent at its Maquoketa, Iowa, facility, but ex-
cluding all office clerical employees, confidential em-
ployees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
b. The Union 's request and the Company's refusal to
bargain
By October 6 the Union believed it had in hand au-
thorization cards from a majority of employees in an ap-
propriate unit and on October 7 sent Respondent a re-
quest for recognition and bargaining on behalf of the em-
ployees. Curry received the request October 10. On Oc-
tober 11 Respondent refused to recognize and bargain
with the Union. That same day the Union filed the peti-
tion putting in motion procedures for the Board election
held December 9, 1977, which the Union lost.
c. The size of the unit
On October 7, the earliest date on which, according to
the General Counsel, the Union possessed authorizations
from a majority of employees, 74 employees were em-
ployed in the unit. On October 10, the day Respondent
received the Union's request for recognition, 72 were
employed in the unit.
d. The card majority
At the hearing, 51 signed authorization cards were re-
ceived in evidence. In addition, pursuant to permission
given during the hearing, the General Counsel in his
post-hearing brief moved the admission of the authoriza-
tion card of employee Catherine Jebsen. I hereby grant
the motion and receive the card of Jebsen. 5 I find these
5 In addition to Catherine Jebsen, card signers employed on October 7
include Donna DeMoss, Sandra Becker, Donna Daniels, Patricia Ralston.
Mary Ruggeberg, Hazel Short, Debbie Starr, Carol Frees, Nina Kilburg.
Herman Barten, Margaret Bonny, Myrna Green, Marjorie Shelton, Krista
Wells, Marilyn Edwards, Marjorie Clark, Barbara Edwards, Ellen
Hanson, Rebecca Miller, LaVonne Pahl, Ruth Peters, Robert Pollack,
Kathy True, Clara Weimerskirch, Cheri Pahl, Audrey Current, Joyce
Koos, Robert Winegar, Robin Gibson, Janet Howell, Karen DeLong,
Lotus Mutert, Maxine Easton, Mary Andresen, Myron Armbruster,
David Burkey, Helen McCutcheon, Denise Powers, Darlene Rimmer.
Betty Michels, Brenda Melton. Franklin Campbell, Connie Westhoff.
Sylvia Johnson. Sandra Kenniker, Gary Widel, Ronald Stoner. Pamela
Said, Linda Rorah, Brenda Palmer, and Deborah Graham Graham was
52 cards were valid authorizations. I further find that on
October 7 the Union held valid authorizations from 52 of
the 74 employees in the unit and on October 10 held
valid authorizations from 51 of the 72 employees in the
unit.
In its brief Respondent disputes the validity of the
cards by arguing in general terms that, "In case after
case it was revealed on cross-examination that the indi-
vidual did not know what they were signing." Having
heard the evidence and reviewed the record, I conclude
that with these 52 cards each of the signers knew they
were signing an authorization card for the Union.
Respondent further argues that the testimony of
Donna DeMoss, Lotus Mutert, Betty Michels, and Carol
Frees, each of whom testified to the validity of cards of
other employees, should be discredited on the ground
that affidavits supplied by the General Counsel for cross-
examination referred to attachments which in fact were
not attached to the affidavits. At the conclusion of the
direct examination of DeMoss, counsel for the General
Counsel supplied Respondent's counsel with two affida-
vits from her. Apart from that, the record contains no
reference to the contents of those affidavits or any at-
tachments thereto and neither affidavit was offered or re-
ceived in evidence. There is no basis for discrediting
DeMoss.
On direct examination Mutert testified she could not
recall making a list of those employees from whom she
obtained authorization cards and on cross-examination
she repeatedly reaffirmed that she could not recall
making such a list. Her affidavit, on the other hand,
reads in pertinent part, "I got seven employees to sign
cards. The list of these persons is attached." The affida-
vit has no such attachment and there is no explanation
for the discrepancy. The Board agent who took the affi-
davit did not testify. According to Mutert, he wrote out
the affidavit as she verbally answered his questions, she
then read it over and signed it under oath. Respondent's
counsel also points out that a number of points prejudi-
cial to Respondent made in her direct testimony are not
included in the affidavit. It should be noted, however.
that the affidavit does not purport to be all inclusive and
covered only her responses to questions asked by the in-
vestigator. After careful consideration, I conclude that
the discrepancies do not seriously impeach the testimony
of Mutert at the hearing. It was given in a forthright,
nonevasive manner under the scrutiny of all present and
should be credited.
Similarly, the testimony of Michels was the basis for
the admission of a number of authorization cards. She
too testified she made no list of the employees who had
signed cards for her and had not given the Board investi-
gator such a written list. Counsel for the General Coun-
sel informed the record that he never had such a list in
his possession. Michels had given a Board investigator
two pretrial affidavits, one of which was offered in evi-
dence. This affidavit stated in pertinent part, "I had
about 14 persons sign cards and return them to me. The
names are on a sheet of paper, a copy of which is at-
terminated on October 8 All the others continued to be emplosed on
October 10
1108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tached hereto." No list of names was attached to the affi-
davit. In this conflict between pretrial affidavit and testi-
mony at the hearing, I credit the latter and find that the
affidavit was obviously erroneous. Like Mutert, Michels
testified in a forthright, nonevasive manner and I credit
her testimony. The fact that she was confused about the
official identity of the person to whom she gave the affi-
davit does not, in my view, erode her credibility.
Frees also gave a pretrial affidavit indicating that the
employees from whom she obtained signed authorization
cards were named in a list attached to her affidavit. But
no such list was attached to the affidavit. However, she
identified a separate piece of paper as the list referred to
in her affidavit. She described it as a list she had created
"off the top of her head" while being interviewed for the
affidavit on February 1, 1978. It obviously is a rough
work paper listing names of those she signed up as well
as those who Mutert, Michels, DeMoss, and Connie
Westhoff signed up. Frees testified, as did DeMoss,
Mutert, and Michels, in a forthright manner. I find that
the nature of the list of employees and the fact that it
was not physically attached to her affidavit form no basis
for doubting her credibility.
One of the cards solicited by Michels, to which Re-
spondent objected and which nevertheless was received
over objection, was the card of Brenda Melton. The sig-
nature on the card obviously differs from that made by
Melton on her withholding tax form in Respondent's
files, thus raising serious doubt as to the validity of the
authorization card. However, Melton credibly testified,
and also demonstrated at the hearing, that she signs her
name both ways. Examination of her various signatures
and consideration of her testimony, including the forth-
right manner in which she testified, leave no doubt that
she signed the union authorization card on October 5,
1977.
In its brief Respondent also makes the general asser-
tion that in its organizing the Union engaged in a pattern
of misrepresentations which was accepted by the em-
ployees. This record, however, reveals no misrepresenta-
tions by the Union and no pattern of misrepresentations
by anyone engaged in the organizing. Respondent asserts
that, "The record shows that employees signed their
Union cards who were deaf, as well as being unable to
speak or understand English." Only one card signer,
Brenda Palmer, was deaf. Palmer reads and writes Eng-
lish. She was solicited, in writing, by Connie Westhoff
and, after reading the blank card, filled it out and signed
it. Two other employees who were not competent in
English were also solicited. The card of only one of
these was offered in evidence and it was rejected. In my
view Respondent's argument is without merit.
All 52 authorization cards received in evidence were
executed on or before October 7. Of these, 43 were re-
ceived without objection and the signers thereof clearly
were a majority of the 74 employees on the company
rolls as of October 7. There were 42 employees whose
cards were received without objection were on the com-
pany rolls as of October 10 when the Union requested
recognition and this number plainly was a majority of
the 72 employees on that date. Accordingly, I find that
on both these dates the Union represented a majority of
the employees in the appropriate unit.
1. Respondent seeks legal counsel
When Curry received the Union's October 10 request
for recognition and bargaining, he notified Buchman and
Turk in Chicago. They instructed him to do nothing
until they had obtained legal advice. The next day
(which was the same day the Union petitioned for an
election) they consulted with Attorneys Sidney Libit and
Irwin Thall in Chicago about the Union's request and
also about whether three types of wage increases (a cost-
of-living program, an incentive program, and a general
raise) should be implemented. The attorneys approved
implementation of cost-of-living adjustments as well as
incentive pay programs on the ground both had been
normal practice in the Chicago plant. But they advised
against the general wage increases even though such
raises had generally been planned earlier and Buchman
and Turk felt they had made a commitment to the Ma-
quoketa employees in the bulletin distributed about the
first of May. Finally, the attorneys counseled against any
communications, threats, promises, or actions respecting
the labor relations situation.
2. The decision to grant a general wage increase
On October 12, Buchman and Turk came to Maquo-
keta. During the afternoon they, along with Curry, met
with the supervisors respecting the nature of employee
complaints. Late that evening Buchman, Turk, and
Curry, notwithstanding the advice of counsel the day
before, decided to implement a 15-cent-per-hour general
wage increase on the ground that business conditions jus-
tified the raise.
3. Contact with the Union regarding the wage
increase
On the morning of October 13, Turk returned to Chi-
cago to consult again with Attorneys Libit and Thall
about the decision to grant the wage increase. During
the consultation Libit telephoned Arthur Loevy, then ad-
ministrative assistant to the manager of the Union at its
offices in Chicago. Libit identified himself and stated he
was calling because the Company wanted to give a wage
increase at Maquoketa. In the course of their conversa-
tion Libit said the increase had been planned in the past
and he mentioned a written policy indicating that a raise
was appropriate. Loevy responded that if the law al-
lowed the increase the Union would not object, but,
absent a past policy legally justifying the increase, the
Union would not consent. Libit suggested he send Loevy
a copy of their written policy. Loevy replied that upon
receiving the document he and union counsel would
review it and, if it appeared company policy justified the
increase, it could be put into effect, but if the policy did
not, then it could not be put into effect. According to
Loevy, the conversation ended at that point.
It was implicit in Loevy's remarks that the Union
would review what Respondent would send them and
then get back to Libit with some answer. But it is also
true that at that point Loevy raised no clear objection.
AMERICAN FEATHER PRODUCTS 1109
Apparently no reference was made respecting the immi-
nence of the raise.
On concluding his conversation with Loevy, Libit told
Turk that the Union had raised no objection and had
asked for some documentation. Turk immediately tele-
phoned Buchman in Maquoketa and told him there were
no objections to the raises.
Libit did not immediately forward anything to the
Union. On October 25 he sent Loevy a letter referring to
their telephone conversation and enclosing a copy of the
June 20 bulletin posted in the Maquoketa plant which
had discussed the question, "When do we get our next
raise?" and which set out four general considerations in-
volved in any management decision to grant a raise. In
the meantime, however, on October 13 and 14 Buchman
had announced the raises to the employees.
4. The meetings with employees
On October 13 and 14, Buchman met with employees
at the plant, at first individually and then, when that
proved impractical, in groups. He informed them there
would be a 15-cent-per-hour wage increase, that there
would be a cost-of-living increase, and that incentive
programs in the form of piecework rates would be estab-
lished. Then, according to his testimony, "after I told
them what we planned to do, I did ask them if they had
any problems that I could help them solve or if they had
any problems in the plant that I could be of assistance to
them, or if they had any complaints." This invitation
evoked a variety of employee complaints, including the
lack of vending machines, the production quota system
in effect, excessive heat in the plant, the movement of
employees from one job to another, the unfinished lunch-
room, the lack of employee lockers, the lack of floormats
on which to stand, the lack of a convenience box in the
ladies' restroom, and comments respecting the incentive
system. Many of the complaints were old ones which
then in the process of being handled, such as, for exam-
ple, the lockers and the floormats.
On October 14, Respondent also posted a notice in the
plant announcing that as of the first week of November
employees would receive the 15-cent-per-hour across-
the-board increase as previously promised because, "We
had the biggest shipping month in the history of the
Company during September." The notice also announced
an immediate cost-of-living increase of 6 cents per hour
to be in the paychecks of October 14 and establishment
of piecework rates for various departments effective Oc-
tober 17.6 Thereafter the increases were put into effect
on the dates announced.
5. The grievance and suggestion system
Management followed up the solicitation of grievances
by establishing a procedure for handling them. On Octo-
ber 17, pursuant to Curry's instructions, the supervisors
had groups of employees in the plant select a spokesman
6 It is not entirely clear which departments were to be affected by
piecework rates. Probably the pillow line and the comforter and sleeping
bag line were involved. In Chicago only the pillow line had piecework
rates, but Buchman from the beginning intended to use them more widely
in Iowa after Curry had made his timestudies.
for grievance purposes. Each spokesman chosen then
composed a list of the gripes of employees in that group
and promptly met with Curry for the purpose of present-
ing them to him and seeking a resolution. The list of
grievances and suggestions included many items that had
long concerned employees, including cleaner restrooms,
convenience machines in the women's restroom, food
vending machines, a cleaner eating place, and recogni-
tion of seniority. Some affirmative suggestions also were
made. Curry's response to the grievances was a promise
that they would be taken care of over a period of time.
Thereafter, the spokesmen met collectively with Curry
each month for the purpose of airing complaints and sug-
gestions.
This system resulted in correction of a number of
items complained of, such as refurbishing of the lunch-
room and the restrooms, installation of employee lockers,
and implementation of piecework rates.
6. Resolution respecting solicitation of grievances
and system for handling grievances
With respect to Buchman's meetings with employees
on October 13 and 14, 1 find that he invited them to
inform him of their grievances. This invitation must be
assessed in the context of the pending union request for
recognition and its petition for an election. Implicit in
the invitation was the assurance that management would
do something affirmative regarding complaints. Solicita-
tion of grievances in this manner was a clear violation of
Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. Alberts, Inc., 213 NLRB 686,
690, 691 (1974). It is no justification that Respondent had
an announced open door policy whereby employees
could come to the front office on any matter. This was
not a manner of leaving the door open for an employee
to come in of his own volition. Here the president went
to the employees and affirmatively solicited their griev-
ances.
This unlawful program was further implemented on
October 17 by the selection under management direction
of employee representatives who then collected griev-
ances and conveyed them to the plant manager, and who
subsequently met periodically as a committee with the
plant manager for conveying employee complaints and
suggestions and working out resolutions for the prob-
lems. This was a representative function. In setting it up,
management engaged in a type of interference violative
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. C & W Lektra-Bat Co., 232
NLRB 776 (1977). Although no violation of Section
8(a)(2) of the Act was alleged in the complaint, and an
unfair labor practice under that section was not litigated
during the hearing, the circumstances of the 8(a)(l) vio-
lation warrant a remedy appropriate in typical assistance
cases. Accordingly, I will order Respondent to disestab-
lish the employee representative and committee system.
7. Resolution respecting the granting of benefits
The announcing and implementing of increases in
compensation were violations of Section 8(a)(l) of the
Act. Each of the increases had in general terms been
promised employees long before the advent of the
Union. What the employees viewed as slowness in imple-
AMERICAN FE THER PRODUCTS
I110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
menting them had also long been a matter for complaint
and undoubtedly one reason they eventually sought
union representation. Assuming, without finding, that
even if the Union had not appeared on the scene man-
agement at some point would have put the increases into
effect, there is no persuasive showing why they were
precipitously announced and implemented immediately
following the Union's demand for recognition and its pe-
tition for an election. Such timing compels the inference
that the purpose of the improvements was to discourage
employee interest in the Union. N.L.R.B. v. Exchange
Parts Company, 375 U.S. 405 (1964). There is no apparent
sound business reason which required these measures in
mid-October or why management's promises, already
long delayed, could not have waited until after the elec-
tion.
Respondent's asserted justifications do not dispel the
inferences which flow from the timing. Thus, no reason
appears why the incentive (or piecework) rates could not
have been put into effect upon completion of Curry's ti-
mestudies in August when Buchman and Turk approved
them. yet no implementation occurred then or in Sep-
tember. Even assuming that decisional paralysis set in
September 17 as a result of the untimely death of Buch-
man's son, there obviously had been no rush before that
to install a piecework system. If no compelling business
reason required implementation prior to mid-October, it
would seem none required implementation before the
election. Argument urged by Respondent to justify the
other increases, such as increased productivity in Sep-
tember and the rising cost of living, provide no logical
basis for the sudden mid-October implementation of
piecework rates. In these circumstances, the outstanding
union demand for recognition and the pending election
are weighty factors in assessing Respondent's motive.
When consideration is also given to Respondent's ad-
mitted knowledge that lack of incentive rates was a
chronic employee complaint, its admitted preference for
a nonunion operation, and its various unfair labor prac-
tices indicating union animus, particularly its concurrent
solicitation of grievances, the conclusion is inescapable
that the incentive pay measures were launched in mid-
October for the purpose of eroding employee support for
the Union and affecting the results of the election. Emery
Air Freight Corporation, 207 NLRB 572, 575-576 (1973);
.- ce Manufacturing Co.. Inc. Division of A-T-O, Inc., 235
NL RB 1023, 1026-27 (1978).
Respecting the cost-of-living adjustments, the same
conclusion is required, there being no evidence other
than the timing as to why after many months this long
dormant policy was suddenly activated following the
Union's demand and petition by retroactively giving a 6-
cent-per-hour raise for work done in March, April, May,
and June. As an excuse for the delay Buchman pleaded
inefficiency and confusion resulting from the move to
Iowa. But such inadequacy, if true, does not reveal a
lawful motive for presenting employees with the increase
during the critical period.
The same reasoning applies to the general raise of 15
cents per hour, which Respondent asserts was promised
in June. It was not promised for mid-October. Rather the
June "promise" was an explanation as to why in June a
general increase had not yet been granted. At that time,
four reasons were given: (1) That labor costs were too
high, (2) that quality needed improving, (3) that better
cooperation with management was required, and (4) that
attendance would have to improve. Although Buchman
generalized that by October 14 labor costs were low
enough to justify the general increase, no documentation
was offered to support that position. If labor costs in fact
were down, it is reasonable to assume business records
would so demonstrate. Absent some more concrete expli-
cation, the generalization that costs were lower is insuffi-
cient to outweigh the persuasive factor timing.
Also, no evidence shows that the other explanatory
points in the June "promise" were satisfied. Thus, the
record does not reveal whether quality of product had
improved or whether employees were cooperating better
with management. And as for attendance, Curry's testi-
monly indicates it continues to be a problem. Thus, Re-
spondent's own preconditions for a general wage in-
crease were not shown to have been satisfied.
In support of its position, Respondent can point to
business records showing increasing production during
September which is consistent with its October 14 an-
nouncement that September had been its biggest shipping
month. It is also true that the employees had manage-
ment's past assurances that wage increases would be
forthcoming when conditions warranted them. And it is
further true that during the latter part of September and
early October top management was deactivated by per-
sonal problems.
Turk and Buchman resumed their managerial activities
around the time the Union requested recognition and pe-
titioned for an election. Then Buchman announced the
three types of increases. This timing, it seems to me,
warrants the same inference of unlawful motive for all
three increases, even though the across-the-board in-
crease had in general terms been planned and promised
months earlier. Ameri-Crete Ready Mix Corporation, 207
NLRB 509, 512 (1973); Buffet Restaurants, Incorporated,
201 NLRB 515, 519 (1973); Tonkawa Refining Co., 175
NLRB 619, 620 (1969). In sum, the only reasonable con-
clusion from the total record, including the evidence of
Respondent's opposition to the Union, is that the three
improvements in compensation were launched in an
effort to undercut employee interest in the Union.
.. L.R.B. v. Exchange Parts, supra.
This is not to say that a lawful course was crystal
clear to management, particularly in view of past assur-
ances to the employees. But Buchman and Turk sought
legal counsel and were advised, at least regarding the
general increase, to take no action. In the long policy
session on the night of October 12 various options were
open to management. In decisively settling on, and then
acting on, a course during the critical period, they acted
at their peril. N.L.R.B. v. Exchange Parts, supra. Unfor-
tunately, they made the wrong selection.
8. Separation of DeMoss and Frees
In September and October 1977, Donna DeMoss and
Carol Frees both worked under the supervision of Alyce
Westhoff and often worked next to each other. The two
talked with each other so much that Westhoff separated
AMERICAN FEATHER PRODUCTS 1111
them twice in September. In mid-October, she again sep-
arated them on orders from Vondran. The General
Counsel contends the October separation violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) because the purpose was to interfere with
their protected rights to talk about the Union. I agree.
One day in mid-October, according to the uncontra-
dicted testimony of Alyce Westhoff, she split the women
working under her into groups of threes in order to
handle a rush order. This resulted in DeMoss and Frees
working together. Vondran then directed Westhoff to
separate them. When Westhoff asked why, Vondran re-
plied that they were talking, that management felt they
were the instigators of the Union (as indeed they were),
and that she was to keep them apart, never let them
work together or talk, and to keep on their backs in
order to make them quit.
Respondent had adequate legal grounds for separating
DeMoss and Frees out of concern that they would talk
instead of work. But that is not the reason for the Octo-
ber separation. There is no objective evidence they were
then talking instead of working. Westhoff, who was
close to the problem, was apparently content for them to
work together. Vondran's purpose in separating them
was to prevent any conversation between them about the
Union, including legally protected conversations not ob-
structive of their work, and further to have their supervi-
sor ride them in order to force their resignations.
9. Interrogations by Curry
The General Counsel contends that, in individual talks
with two employee representatives on October 17, Curry
violated Section 8(a)(1) by in effect interrogating them
about union activity and by giving an impression that
union activities were under surveillance.
Betty Michels testified credibly, and I find, that on
October 17 Curry, in speaking with her in the office as
the chosen employee representative of her group, stated,
"As you probably know, there is something going on at
the plant. Maybe you know about it, maybe you don't."
I find this was unlawful because the remark put Michels
in the position where she reasonably would feel obligat-
ed to make a response about whether there was or was
not union activity in the plant and about whether she
knew of it or not. In the circumstances the remark was
an interrogation. The General Counsel contends that
Curry thereby gave the impression that union activities
were under surveillance. I disagree because union activ-
ity in the plant was open and notorious and because it is
normal for management to observe what goes on in the
plant. This was not a case of management officials seek-
ing out a union meeting at another location and observ-
ing what was going on or giving the impression to an
employee that such type of observations were being
made.
In meeting in the office with Frees, also a chosen em-
ployee representative, Curry, at or about the same time,
according to her credited testimony, asked her if there
was any response among employees to the raises which
Buchman had announced. Obviously this was an interro-
gation. I find it was unlawful because Curry was asking
her whether the unfair labor practices of announcing and
granting raises, which were undertaken for the purpose
of combating unionism, had had any impact. Thus, Curry
was asking her whether there was less interest in the
Union following the raises.
10. Alyce Westhoff pressures daughters
On the last Friday in October as Alyce Westhoff was
finishing her work, Vondran approached her about the
Union, asking her if she had heard about the organizing,
and telling her that such a young company could not
have a union, and if a union did come in, the plant
would close. Vondran reminded her she was a supervisor
and asked her to find out from her daughters (Connie
Westhoff and Catherine Jebsen), who were also em-
ployed at the plant, how far the organizing had pro-
gressed and how strongly the employees felt about it.
Over the weekend Westhoff did nothing about this.
On Monday Curry called her into the office, saying that
a union would hurt the Company, and that he had tried
to do everything he could for the employees but they
had stabbed him in the back. He asked Westhoff if she
knew her own position. She replied she did. He then in-
quired whether she had spoken with her daughters and
learned who started the organizing and who had passed
out cards. He advised her she would be in a better posi-
tion with the Company if she cooperated. Westhoff then
told him she could not ask her daughters for the infor-
mation, that she, Westhoff, was a company person, but
wanted to stay out of union affairs.
Nevertheless, just before the strike began on Novem-
ber 9, Alyce Westhoff asked her daughters to become
less active in the Union because of her own embarassing
position. She and her daughters argued, each holding to
their respective views.
The foregoing findings are based on the credited testi-
mony of Alyce Westhoff. Vondran and Curry each
denied speaking to her in the manner she reported. But
her daughter Connie Westhoff 7 corroborated her ac-
count that she did in fact attempt to persuade her to limit
her union activities. Thus, although she did not interro-
gate her daughters, she did, in a sense, follow through on
what Vondran and Curry told her respecting the danger
of plant closing and harm to the Company and her own
position by asking her daughters to ease up on their
union activities. Even though Vondran and Curry did
not obtain the information they sought, they set Alyce
Westhoff on a course which interfered with the protect-
ed rights of her daughters. While it is true that ambiva-
lence was an inherent aspect of Alyce Westhoffs situa-
tion, whether or not Vondran and Curry spoke as she
claims, the fact that she acted in a manner consistent wih
their words lends support to the conclusion that they ut-
tered them.
Based on the foregoing, I find that Vondran and Curry
through Alyce Westhoff interfered with the protected
rights of Connie Westhoff and Catherine Jebsen in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
11. Allen Campbell's threat of surveillance
The complaint alleges that in October or early No-
vember Allen Campbell, a supervisor and agent of Re-
7 Catherine Jebsen, the other daughter, did not testify
1112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spondent, threatened employees with surveillance of
their union activities. Respondent denies the conduct and
also that at the time in question Campbell was a supervi-
sor or its agent.
In support of the allegation the General Counsel of-
fered the uncontradicted testimony of Connie Westhoff
that in early November she had a conversation on the
Garnett line with Allen Campbell in which he told her
that comanager Tony Macri had just told him that if he
heard anything about the union from any of the employ-
ees he should report it to Macri, including who was in-
volved. Macri denied he so instructed Campbell.
The threshold question is whether Campbell was then
a supervisor or agent. It is undisputed that he was for-
mally made a supervisor on December 12. Respondent
denies he was a supervisor or agent prior thereto.
Campbell, who was no longer employed by Respon-
dent at the time of the hearing, testified for the General
Counsel on the first day of hearing but was not asked
about the conversation. Connie Westhoff, who testified
on the fourth hearing day, placed the conversation in
early November. I find this was prior to November 9
when the employees, including Connie Westhoff, went
on strike. She also testified that Campbell was not a su-
pervisor, that John Miller was.
Campbell himself testified he was not a supervisor
prior to December 12. He was hired February 8, 1977.
At that time involved here he worked as a garnett ma-
chine operator for which he was paid at a higher rate
than most other hourly employees. Some of his duties
prior to December 12 were supervisory in nature, such
as occasional shifting of employees along the Garnett
line to handle a buildup of work in one area. But he did
this on instructions from Curry. In this he appeared to be
a conduit for transmitting directions from Curry to em-
ployees on the line. On one occasion he recommended
dismissal of an employee, but not effectively. His testi-
mony respecting other duties often associated with super-
visors, such as handing out paychecks and approving
time off, appears to relate to the period after he was for-
mally made a supervisor. The same is true of the testimo-
ny of other witnesses who described his supervisory
duties. In addition, Curry testified categorically that
Campbell was not a supervisor prior to December 12.
Campbell's wife Norida, who was hired in November as
a strike replacement, generalized that his duties were the
same before and after December 12. I do not credit her
testimony on this. She appeared to be biased against Re-
spondent and on cross-examination was shown to be un-
reliable. Considering all the evidence on the question, I
find that at the time of his talk with Connie Westhoff in
early November Campbell was not a supervisor.
Counsel for the General Counsel contends further that
Campbell's conduct may be imputed to Respondent be-
cause employees could reasonably believe he was a su-
pervisor. But Connie Westhoff, the only employee who
testified about the conversation in early November, did
not consider him a supervisor at the time. Thus, it ap-
pears that here, unlike Clevenger Logging, Inc., 220
NLRB 768, 778 (1975), relied on by counsel, Respondent
had not at that time "clothed him with sufficient appar-
ent authority to make Respondent responsible." Accord-
ingly, I find that in early November Campbell was not
an agent of Respondent within the meaning of the Act.
Being neither a supervisor nor an agent at the time, his
conduct is not attributable to Respondent.
12. The strike
From November 9 through 13 the employees went on
strike and picketed the plant. Throughout the hearing all
parties considered the strikers to be economic strikers.
Respondent continued operating using supervisors, non-
striking employees, and replacements newly hired during
the strike to perform production work.
The day after the strike ended and the strikers offered
to return to work Respondent placed the strikers (with
the exception of Brenda Melton) on a preferential hiring
list. 8
13. Discrimination against Brenda Melton
Brenda Melton began working for Respondent on July
25, 1977, and continued until October 28 when she re-
signed to take what she hoped would be a better paying
job. She was disappointed in the new job and, on
Monday, November 7, went to Curry's office seeking her
old job. According to her, she asked him if anyone had
been hired for her position. He replied, "No." She then
asked if there was any chance she could have it back.
Curry said, "Yes," but that he would have to talk with
Supervisor John Miller to see when she could start.
Curry said she should call Miller the next day and he
would let her know.
According to Curry, when she asked him if she could
have her job back he said he would have to check with
Miller first to see if there was an opening and if Miller
wanted her back and that she should call Curry the fol-
lowing morning for an answer. She never called him
back.
Insofar as these two versions conflict, I credit Melton
because, as found below, she called back and spoke with
Miller. Moreover, in view of her conversation with
Miller the next day and the events which followed, the
practical consequences are the same even if Curry is
credited.
The following morning, November 8, according to her
uncontradicted testimony, Melton telephoned Miller. He
told her they were still undecided, that he had to talk
with Curry, and he would let her know that evening by
sending her a message with her friend Linda Rorah.
Around 6 p.m. that evening Rorah came by her house
and gave her a message from Miller to report for work
the following morning, Wednesday, November 9. I
credit this account by Melton. Miller did not testify and
there is no explanation for his not testifying. In these cir-
cumstances the inference is warranted that if he had tes-
tified about these matters his testimony would not have
supported Respondent's case. It is also true that Rorah
did not testify and there is no explanation for her ab-
8 In a posl-hearing motion the Union seeks reinstatement of the strikers
or, in the alternative, reopening of the record to receive evidence about
the strike, citing Drug Package Cmpan., Inc., 241 N.RB No. 44 (1979).
The General Counsel and Respondent opposed the motion I deny the
motion. The holding i Drug Package is limited to the facts therein and is
not authority for reinstatement of economic strikers in the present matter
AMERICAN FEATHER PRODUCTS 1113
sence. Her testimony, although significant, was not as
important as Miller's. Moreover, she was not under the
same degree of control by a party as Miller in view of
his position as one of Respondent's supervisors.
On the morning of Wednesday, November 9, Melton
came to the plant to go to work. When she arrived she
found the employees on strike and picketing in front of
the plant. She joined the picket line for the next 3 days.
On Friday, November 11, Respondent handed out pay-
checks for work previously performed to employees on
the picket line, including Melton.
On Sunday, November 13, each striker, including
Melton, signed a letter addressed to Respondent uncondi-
tionally requesting reinstatement. International Represen-
tative Burns delivered these letters to Curry the follow-
ing day, November 14. Also on November 14, Turk sent
letters to 45 strikers, but not to Melton, acknowledging
receipt of the requests for reinstatement, advising that
the employee's position had been filled, and also that the
employee was being placed on a preferential hiring list.
When she did not receive such a letter, as the other
strikers did, Melton contacted the Union and on Decem-
ber 6 Union Attorney Ronald Willis by letter protested
the failure to reinstate or place her on a preferential
hiring list. Finally, at the hearing Melton stated that she
wished reinstatement.
Respondent contends (a) that Melton was never re-
hired and therefore was not an employee entitled to rein-
statement, and (b) there is no proof of discriminatory
motive. Both defenses lack merit.
As found above, Melton was instructed to report for
work on November 9. With that instruction, although
not yet working, she became an employee entitled to the
protection of the Act. But for the picketing, a protected
activity, she would have worked November 9. Failure to
treat her in accordance with the law following that ac-
tivity was discrimination which discouraged membership
in the Union and was in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) of the Act. The Laidlaw Corporation, 171 NLRB 1366
(1968).
14. Statements to Allen Rowan
Allen Rowan first worked for Respondent from Feb-
ruary to June 1977. On November 11, he was hired as a
strike replacement. On the afternoon of that day he had
the following conversation with Macri:
Well, I just asked him what the strike was all about
and stuff and he said that he didn't really care to
talk about it because they had troubles with the
union in Chicago and that he didn't really care to
talk about it because Mr. Buchman was about to
close the doors the way it was.
Macri denied the conversation occurred. I credit Rowan
as the more disinterested witness because at the time he
testified adverse to Respondent's interest he was still em-
ployed by Respondent. Although Macri was by then re-
tired, he had been associated with Respondent for 40
years.
The General Counsel contends this was a threat of re-
taliation for employee union activity. I agree because
there is no clear evidence in the record that a decision to
close had already been made. Components, Inc., 197
NLRB 163 (1972); Gissel Packing Co., Inc. v. N.L.R.B.,
395 U.S. 575, 616-619 (1969).
Rowan also testified credibly and without contradic-
tion that about a week before the election on December
9, while he and Everett Bowling were working together
on comforter mats, Bowling asked him to talk to some of
the girls working with him about voting against the
Union because the Company desperately needed the
notes. He indicated that, if the Union won, the strikers
would be back in the plant and the strike replacements
(which would include Rowan) would lose their jobs.
The General Counsel contends these remarks were at-
tributable to Respondent and were unlawful.
As with Campbell, the threshold question is supervi-
sory status. It is undisputed that, on December 19, Bowl-
ing was formally made a supervisor for the feather, re-
ceiving, and shipping departments. Respondent contends
he was not a supervisor prior thereto. At issue here is his
status during the first day or two of December.
At the time Bowling spoke, Rowan did not know
whether or not he was a supervisor. Both were then
doing the same work. Bowling's normal job at the time
was operating a Garnett machine during the second shift
from 4 o'clock to 12:30. He, along with Campbell, was
among the highest paid hourly workers and, like others
on the second shift, received extra pay for night work.
According to Curry he himself was the only supervi-
sor during the evenings. Sometimes he was not present
for the entire shift. Even if Bowling was not a supervi-
sor, he, as a Garnett machine operator, was the most im-
portant person on the line because the work of others de-
pended on his. Curry gave Bowling the necessary work
orders and through him relayed them to employees
working on the line. These employees typically shifted
positions along the line of their own volition according
to the need. On occasion Bowling would shift them for
the same reason. He also acted as relief man when an
employee left to go to the restroom. On payday he dis-
tributed paychecks.
Although Bowling bordered on being a supervisor, I
find that in early December he was, at most, a leadman
in an operation which more or less functioned on its
own. His working of the Garnett machine was a key-
stone in the operation, but was not a supervisory func-
tion. Between the other employees and Curry he acted
as a conduit. His shifting of employees from one position
to another was occasional and something they often did
on their own. In this he acted as a leadman. His distribu-
tion of checks was a mechanical function.
As with Campbell, I find the evidence insufficient to
establish that when Bowling made the remark to Rowan
he was a supervisor or an agent of Respondent within
the meaning of the Act. Accordingly, his words may not
be imputed to Respondent.
15. Statements to Norida Campbell
According to the uncontradicted testimony of Norida
Campbell, a few days before the election on December 9
Bowling told a group of several employees who were
cleaning up "that he sure hoped that the Union didn't
AMERICAN FEATHER P ODUCTS
1114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
get in because if it did the plant was going to close its
doors. They wouldn't stand for it .... He told us that
Mr. Buchman and Mr. Curry had told him that if the
Union got in they would definitely close the doors." I
find this statement is not attributable to Respondent be-
cause Bowling is not shown to be a supervisor or its
agent at that time.
Norida Campbell then went to Curry and reported
what Bowling had said. She asked Curry whether the
jobs of the strike replacements were secure. He replied
that they need not worry, that their jobs were secure,
that the strikers would never come through the door
again.
Although this was reassuring to her insofar as her job
was concerned, it was a misstatement of the rights of the
strikers and a prediction that Respondent would discrimi-
nate against them. The inescapable effect of the state-
ment was to discourage Campbell from engaging in pro-
tected activity should she wish to do so. Accordingly, I
find that Curry thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
16. Discrimination against Alyce Westhoff
As noted earlier herein, Alyce Westhoff's regular as-
signment was supervisor of the comforter and slumber
bag line. When the strike began all supervisors per-
formed nonsupervisory work, Westhoff, Heather Ed-
wards, and Sherry Vondran being assigned to sewing pil-
lows.
With the recruitment of strike replacements, Edwards
and Vondran resumed full-time supervisory functions.
On November 14, the day after the strike ended, Von-
dran directed Westhoff to report to Edwards and not to
resume supervision of the comforter and slumber bag
line, that Vondran herself would supervise that line. At
that point Westhoff ceased to be a supervisor. Her demo-
tion was underscored when shortly after this, but still in
November, Norida Campbell asked Westhoff for instruc-
tions. Instead of giving them, Westhoff referred her to
Vondran who said, referring to Westhoff, "Thank God
she finally took the hint."
Westhoff and the other supervisors who performed
rank-and-file jobs during the strike continued to receive
the pay of supervisors. After the other supervisors re-
turned to their normal duties, Westhoff continued in non-
supervisory work sewing pillows in Edwards' depart-
ment, but she continued to receive her supervisory pay.
In all other respects she ceased to be a supervisor. Inas-
much as compensation was only one attribute of her
status, I find that on November 14 she was demoted to
nonsupervisory status. I also find, for the reasons stated
hereinafter, that she was demoted because her daughters
were active in the union movement.
Sometime in December, Allen Campbell asked Ed-
wards why Westhoff was sewing instead of supervising.
Edwards replied that management was wondering about
her loyalty, and her possible sympathy toward the Union
since her daughters were involved in it, and, not know-
ing what to do with her, just relieved her of supervisory
duties and had her sew. And about a week before the
election Curry told Campbell that he and Bowling
would be promoted after the election and also that they
were not sure of Westhoff's loyalty and were going to
make a change there also.
Sales of comforters and sleeping bags follow a seasonal
pattern. In early December, Respondent's sales of these
products dropped drastically. But production did not en-
tirely cease and at least by mid-December Respondent
had already settled on Rhoda Scott to succeed Westhoff
as supervisor of the comforter and slumber bag line. As
noted earlier herein, Allen Campbell was formally made
a supervisor on December 12. That evening he and his
wife Norida were told by Scott that she had been pro-
moted to Westhoff's job and had known about the pro-
motion for some time.
On January 6, 1978, Curry called Westhoff to the
office and told her he was going to have to let her go
because they were ceasing production of comforters and
slumber bags for lack of business and those doing that
work would be reassigned. He denied he was firing her.
But he also refused to allow her to continue to work as a
sewer. When she asked if she would be recalled, he told
her she would not be called back, but he would give her
a good recommendation and would not oppose her claim
for unemployment compensation. He complimented her
supervision, as well as her sewing, and wished her luck.
At the end she asked if she was being discharged because
of her daughters' union activity. He denied such a
reason, saying he respected her daughters' views. For
the reasons set out below I find she was discharged, as
well as demoted, because her daughters were active in
the Union.
It is undisputed that Westhoff was a good supervisor.
Respondent explains her demotion and eventual termina-
tion by the seasonal decline in business, contending that
her services as a supervisor were not needed and her
sewing was substandard.
Her sewing was not the best, but neither was it the
worst, and it was not so bad but that Respondent kept
her at it for several weeks at a high supervisory rate of
pay. It is understandable that management would not
want to continue paying supervisor pay for journeyman
work. But at her termination, although she asked, Curry
gave her no option to continue at any pay rate.
The seasonal decline in business may have warranted
some delay in reactivating a supervisor for the comforter
and slumber bag line, yet Curry gave Westhoff no hope
of recall. A permanent cessation of that production was
not even contemplated because a successor for that slot
was already chosen. It is obvious that management
wanted to be rid of her. It is also obvious that business
considerations did not require her termination.
Curry would have us believe that out of regard for
Westhoff's supervisory capabilities he purposefully
forced her to go elsewhere rather than keep her in a sub-
ordinate position. But that does not wash because Re-
spondent had a foreseeable future need for those supervi-
sory talents. He even lied about that in order to squelch
her hope for recall.
Other evidence clearly establishes the antiunion moti-
vation for demoting and discharging her. Thus, in late
October, Vondran, reminding her she was a supervisor,
tried to get her to unlawfully interrogate her daughters
about the status of union organizing. When a day or so
AMERICAN FEATHER PRODUCTS 1115
later Curry unsuccessfully attempted to reap a harvest
from those efforts, he advised her she would be in a
better position if she cooperated. She refused to inform
on her daughters. And, in early December, Edwards and
Curry indicated to Allen Campbell that management
doubted her loyalty in view of her daughters' unionism
and that a change was coming. Her refusal to unlawfully
trample on the protected rights of her daughters was the
only objective basis Respondent had for doubting her
loyalty. From this it is clear that if her daughters had not
been prounion Westhoff would have been neither demot-
ed nor discharged. She was thus subjected to discrimina-
tion in regard to her employment because of her daugh-
ters' union activities in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act. Russell Stover Candies, Inc., 223 NLRB 952 (1976),
enfd. 551 F.2d 204 (8th Cir. 1977).
17. Withholding accrued pay from strikers
On January 27, 1978, Respondent continued with its
program of retroactive cost-of-living adjustments by
paying employees an additional $1.04 per hour for work
performed in the period July 1 through December 31,
1977. But it withheld this money from employees who,
although otherwise eligible to receive it, had gone on
strike November 9.
Respondent claims it could not pay what it withheld
because of objections and charges pending before the
Board. Yet it paid nonstrikers. In reality Respondent has
no defense and its selective withholding of the increase
from strikers was a coercive and discriminatory violation
of Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act. Indiana & Michigan
Electric Company, 236 NLRB 986 (1978).
IV. OBJECTIONS TO CONDUCT AFFECTING RESULTS OF
ELECTION
As already noted, the Union filed timely objections
following the December 9 election. The conduct which
it is claimed was objectionable is also included in the al-
legations of unfair labor practices on which findings have
been made above.
A. Objection I
The Union's first objection is that during the critical
period Respondent granted employees a wage increase to
discourage support for the Union. As found above with
respect to the alleged 8(a)(l) unfair labor practices, the
mid-October wage increases were for that purpose. This
was objectionable conduct. Tonkawa Refining Co., 175
NLRB 619. I recommend that Objection I be sustained.
B. Objection 2
The second objection is that Respondent changed the
working conditions of employees in order to discourage
support for the Union. As found above with respect to
the alleged 8(a)(1) allegations, prounion employees
DeMoss and Frees, who normally worked together,
were separated in mid-October in order to prevent them
from lawfully discussing the Union and to facilitate su-
pervisory harassment aimed at forcing their resignations.
Such unlawful restrictions during the critical period
were incompatible with the holding of a free election.
In addition, beginning on October 13, Buchman
launched a program of soliciting employee grievances
about working conditions and instituted procedures for
funneling these to management. Management followed
by correcting many of the conditions complained of.
This whole ploy, including the methods and results, al-
tered working conditions and could have affected the re-
sults of the election. I recommend that Objection 2 be
sustained.
C. Objection 3
The third objection is that Respondent told employees
who had engaged in protected activity that they were no
longer employees and did not have jobs. No evidence of
direct statement to employees involved in union activi-
ties was offered. However, shortly before the election,
Curry, in reassuring Norida Campbell that her job was
secure, led her to believe that Respondent did not con-
sider those who had engaged in the strike to be employ-
ees. I find this was objectionable conduct sufficiently
close to the wording of Objection 3 to warrant sustaining
that objection. I so recommend.
D. Objection 4
The fourth objection asserts that Respondent discrimi-
nated against employees for engaging in union activity.
Immediately following the strike and before the election,
Respondent discriminated against Alyce Westhoff by ef-
fectively demoting her from her supervisory status. This
graphically pointed up for all employees prior to the
election the adverse consequences to her of her daugh-
ters' support for the Union. Accordingly, I recommend
that Objection 4 be sustained.
E. Objection 5
The fifth objection is that Respondent threatened plant
closure if employees voted for the Union. As found
above respecting alleged 8(a)(1) violations, the record
contains numerous verbal statements to employees by
management officials during the critical period indicating
company intent to close the plant if the Union won the
election. Accordingly, I recommend that Objection 5 be
sustained.
F. Objection 6
The sixth objection is that the Company discriminated
against employees engaged in protected activities by fail-
ing to reinstate or recall them. Following the strike, but
prior to the election, Respondent unlawfully failed to
place Brenda Melton on its preferential hiring list. I
therefore recommend that Objection 6 be sustained.
G. Additional Objectionable Conduct
The record reveals additional conduct by management
during the period between the Union's petition for an
election and the holding of the election, which conduct
also is objectionable. Incidents of such include Curry's
unlawful interrogation in mid-October of employee rep-
resentatives Betty Michels and Carol Frees. In addition,
around the end of October and the beginning of Novem-
ber, Vondran and Curry, in attempting to influence
1116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Alyce Westhoff to unlawfully interrogate her daughters
about union activities, set Westhoff on an unlawful
course pursuant to which she endeavored to dissuade her
daughters from further union activities on the ground
that it would embarrass her in the eyes of higher man-
agement. These are further incidents of objectionable
conduct.
Respondent's objectionable conduct during the critical
period was extensive and of a sufficiently serious nature
to utterly destroy the laboratory conditions necessary for
a fair election. Accordingly, I recommend the election
be set aside.
V. THE EFFECTS OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The unfair labor practices found herein, which include
the objectionable conduct during the critical period, are
unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act.
They have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship
to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
Respondent's unfair labor practices have been perva-
sive and aggravated, particularly in the period between
petition and election, so that the union majority existing
when it asked for recognition and bargaining has been
wiped out so effectively that it is unlikely that the labo-
ratory conditions essential for a fair election will be pos-
sible in the foreseeable future. In these circumstances em-
ployee authorization cards are a more reliable indicator
of employee sentiment than a rerun election. N.L.R.B. v.
Gissel Packing Co., Inc., 395 U.S. 575.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of
Section 2(2) of the Act and is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees em-
ployed by Respondent at its Maquoketa, Iowa, facility,
excluding all office clerical employees, confidential em-
ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the above-described bargaining unit in
the exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the
Act, thereby committing unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by:
(a) Informing various employees on a number of occa..
sions that, if the employees selected a union to represent
them, Respondent would close the plant.
(b) Announcing and granting increases in pay during a
union organizing campaign for the purpose of dissuading
employees from supporting the Union.
(c) Soliciting employee grievances respecting working
conditions during a union organizing campaign, establish.-
ing an employee representative and committee system for
funneling grievances and suggestions to management for
resolution, and correcting the conditions complained
about for the purpose of dissuading employees from sup-
porting the Union.
(d) Separating the work stations of employees in order
to interfere with their lawful communication with each
other about union matters.
(e) Interrogating employees about union activities.
(f) Causing a supervisor to pressure relatives to aban-
don support of the Union in order to protect the supervi-
sor's employment.
(g) Assuring a strike replacement that her job was
secure and that the strikers would never be reemployed.
(h) Discriminating against a supervisor by first demot-
ing her and then terminating her because her daughters
were active on behalf of the Union.
5. Respondent discriminated against employees re-
specting terms and conditions of employment, thereby
discouraging membership in a union, and committing
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act by:
(a) On and after November 14, 1977, failing to place
Brenda Melton on its preferential hiring list.
(b) On January 27, 1978, withholding from employees
who engaged in a strike during the period November 9
through 13, 1977, the cost-of-living adjustments in pay
for work performed during the period July I through
December 31, 1977.
6. At all times since October 7, 1977, the Union has
been the exclusive bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in the above-described appropriate unit within
the meaning of the Act.
7. By refusing since October 10, 1977, to recognize
and bargain with the Union as the exclusive representa-
tive of employees in the aforesaid unit, Respondent has
engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
8. These unfair labor practices affect commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices, I recommend it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
I recommend that Respondent be ordered to place
Brenda Melton on its preferential hiring list as of No-
vember 14, 1977, to recall her to the position to which
she would have been recalled had she been on the list
since November 14, 1977, or, if such position is no
longer available, to a substantially equivalent one, and to
make her whole for any loss of earnings incurred as a
result of not being on the preferential hiring list.
I also recommend that Respondent be ordered to offer
Alyce Westhoff immediate and full reinstatement to her
former supervisory job or, if that job is not available, to
a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to
her seniority and other benefits and privileges, and that
she be made whole for any loss of earnings incurred as a
result of being terminated on January 6, 1978.
Backpay for Melton and Westhoff is to be computed
in the manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company,
90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest as prescribed in Flor-
AMERICAN FEATHER PRODUCTS 1117
ida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). 9 I further
recommend that Respondent be required to preserve and
make available to Board agents, upon request, all perti-
nent records and data necessary in analyzing and deter-
mining whatever backpay may be due.
I also recommend that Respondent be ordered to dis-
establish its system of employee representatives and com-
mittees for communicating and resolving employee com-
plaints and suggestions.
Inasmuch as Respondent's violations of Section 8(a)(l)
and (3) of the Act undermined the union majority with
the result that an election is a less reliable guide to em-
ployee free choice than the authorization cards by which
they designated the Union as their representative, and
because Respondent, in refusing to recognize and bargain
with the Union while engaging in those unfair labor
practices, also violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act,
I recommend that Respondent be required to recognize
and bargain with the Union as well as to remedy the
other unfair labor practices found. Federal Prescription
Service, Inc.., and Drivex Co., 203 NLRB 975 (1973), enfd.
as modified 496 F.2d 813, 819 (8th Cir. 1974).
I further recommend that Respondent post appropriate
notices.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and the entire record in this case, and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following
recommended:
ORDER 0'
The Respondent, American Feather Products Corpo-
ration, Maquoketa, Iowa, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening to close the plant if employees select a
union to represent them.
(b) Announcing or granting increases in pay for the
purpose of dissuading employees from supporting the
Union.
(c) Soliciting employee complaints, or correcting
them, for the purpose of discouraging employee support
of a union, or assisting or recognizing any committee of
employees for the purpose of dealing with employee
grievances or other conditions of employment unless and
until such organization has been certified by the Board as
a representative of the employees.
(d) Interfering with lawful communication among em-
ployees about a union by separating employee work sta-
tions, or otherwise.
(e) Interrogating employees about union activities.
(f) Inducing supervisors to influence relatives to aban-
don support of a union in order to protect the supervi-
sor's employment.
(g) Assuring strike replacements of job security by
stating that strikers would never be reemployed.
9 See, generally. is Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1902)
In In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 10246 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided
in Sec 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, he adopted by the Board and
become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto
shall be deemed waived for all purposes
(h) Discriminating in the employment of supervisors
because their relatives support a union.
(i) Discriminating against strikers by failing to place
their names on a preferential hiring list.
(j) Discriminating against strikers by withholding cost-
of-living pay increases for work performed.
(k) In any other manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights to
self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or
assist a labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection as
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, or to refrain from
any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is
found will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Notify Brenda Melton forthwith that she is being
placed on, and place her on, its preferential hiring list as
of November 14, 1977, recall her to the position to
which she would have been recalled had she been on the
list since November 14, 1977, or, if such position no
longer exists, to a substantially equivalent one, and make
her whole for any loss of earnings incurred as a result of
not being on the list in the manner set forth in the sec-
tion entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Offer Alyce Westhoff immediate and full reinstate-
ment to her former supervisory position or, if that posi-
tion no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent posi-
tion, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights
and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of earn-
ings in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The
Remedy."
(c) 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 re-
cords necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Order.
(d) Recognize and, upon request, bargain collectively
with Chicago and Central States Joint Board Amalga-
mated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL-CIO,
as the exclusive bargaining representative since October
10, 1977, of all employees in the appropriate bargaining
unit found herein, and, if an understanding is reached,
embody such in a signed agreement.
(e)Post at Respondent's plant in Maquoketa, Iowa,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."'
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 33, after being duly signed by Re-
spondent's authorized 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.
" In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals. the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board
1118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 33, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that unfair labor practices al-
leged in the complaint but not specifically found herein
are hereby dismissed.