Associated Naval Architects, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 14, 1964

148 N.L.R.B. 1674 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

1674 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) You are entitled to facts without irresponsible promises . We make you
no promises except to point to our record. The history of AE proves that
when we have been able to operate at a profit, you also have benefited through
Profit Sharing, wage improvement, improved benefits and greater security and
opportunity. All of these have been accomplished without a union.
Our basic concern on the Union matter is well stated in the following direct quo-
tation from an article appearing in the September issue of Reader 's Digest entitled
"The Strike Nobody Won"':
"There are, of course, many valid reasons for the existence of unions. But
there are questions no less valid about the mistakes of unions , the power and
ambitions of their leaders, the exorbitant costs of some strikes both to the
community and to the union members."
Thoroughly discuss the contents of this letter and other questions relating to this
subject. Be certain you obtain all the facts on which to make a sound decision.
Consider carefully. Then decide what will be in the best interests of you and your
family.
We neither ask nor expect you to do more."
Sincerely,
ALUMINUM EXTRUSIONS, INC.
Associated Naval Architects, Inc. and United Industrial Work-
ers of North America of the Seafarers ' International Union
of North America, Atlantic , Gulf, Lakes and Inland Waters
District, AFL-CIO. Case No. 5-CA-4992. October 14, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 31, 1964, Trial Examiner George A. Downing issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Decision.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-mem-
ber panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner 's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record
in this case , and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended , the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts, as
'Contrary to the Trial Examiner 's finding, the record does not establish that the union
activity was in fact strongest among the machinists . However, the record does show
that the Respondent Employer believed union activity was strongest among this group.
148 NLRB No. 168.
ASSOCIATED NAVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. 1675
its Order, the Order recommended by the Trial Examiner and orders
that the Respondent, Associated Naval Architects, Inc., its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth. in the
Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, with the following addition
and modifications :
(1) Insert the following as paragraph 2 (b) of the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order: "Notify Alvah H. Jones and Edward A.
Brown if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accord-
ance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from
the Armed Forces."
(2) Paragraphs 2(b), 2(c), 2(d), and 2(e) are redesignated para-
graphs 2(c), 2(d), 2(e), and 2(f), respectively.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, brought under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended (61 Stat. 163, 73 Stat. 519), was heard before Trial Examiner
George A. Downing in Norfolk, Virginia, on January 21, 1964, pursuant to due
notice. The complaint, issued on October 18, 1963, by the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board on charges dated June 17 and July 25, 1963, alleged
in substance (as amended) that Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices
proscribed by Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by specified acts of interference,
restraint, and coercion and by discriminatorily discharging on June 14, Junious
E. Parker, Walter D. Tate, Alvah H. Jones, Edward A. Brown, Hoyt A. Teller, and
Donald J. Paquin because of their union membership and activities. Respondent
answered, denying the unfair labor practices as alleged.
The issues herein are whether certain undenied statements and conduct attributed
to General Superintendent W. O. Forbes and to Supervisors C. F. Oliver and L. C.
Wade 1 establish the complaint allegations of interference, restraint, and coercion and
whether the terminations made on June 14 were discriminatorily motivated, as the
General Counsel contends, or whether the action was a temporary layoff made for
economic reasons, as Respondent asserts.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS
Respondent, a Virginia corporation, is engaged at its Norfolk shipyard in the re-
pairing and building of ships. During the year preceding the issuance of the com-
plaint, it received directly from extrastate points goods, materials, and products valued
in excess of $50,000, and in the same period it performed for the United States Navy
services valued in excess of $50,000. Respondent is therefore engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction; the union activities
Respondent employs in its shipyard some 60 to 80 employees in various job classi-
fications such as pipefitters , plumbers, machinists, machinists ' helpers , sandblasters,
'Not to be confused with L D. Wade, a nonsupervisory working foreman, who also
figured in some of the testimony.
Allegations concerning T. H. Kirk were dismissed at the hearing, by agreement of the
General Counsel, because the evidence failed to establish supervisory status on his part.
1676 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and laborers. The Union began an organizational campaign around June 1, 1963,
by handbilling the plant and thereafter held meetings and obtained signatures to
authorization cards. The evidence showed that interest in the organizational cam-
paign was strongest among the machinists; and the six alleged discriminatees (four
machinists and two helpers) participated in the union activities in varying degrees.
Respondent was aware of the organizational campaign from its inception, and the
supervisors combated it by engaging in the conduct set forth in section B, infra. On
Friday, June 14, the six alleged discriminatees were laid off shortly after being notified
that they were to do certain work over the weekend. Four of them were recalled
on July 16.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
Respondent's supervisors engaged in the following conduct-
Superintendent Forbes, in the presence of employees and acting at the direction of
President Edgar S. Everhart, photographed the handbilling at the plant around June 1.
Everhart testified that he directed Forbes (by telephone from California) to take the
picture because he knew nothing about the Union and was curious to know who was
engaged in the handbilling.
Following the first union meeting held on Friday, June 7 (which was attended only
by four of the alleged discriminatees, according to Junious Parker's testimony), Super-
visor Wade interrogated a group of machinists, which included Parker and Walter D.
Tate, concerning attendance at the meeting by any of Wade's "head hunters" (or
"hedge hunters"), by which Parker understood Wade to mean the Negro employees
who worked under Wade. Parker replied that they had not attended because Wade
seemed to have them "pretty well indoctrinated." Wade continued that he had in-
formed them they were not to attend the meeting or other union activities and that
if the Union came in they would be allowed to perform only such work as they were
hired in for.
Oliver also questioned Parker, in Tate's presence, concerning the same meeting
and the Union generally, inquiring whether Parker had gone to the union hall and had
gotten his free beer. Parker replied that he had and that he also won a door prize.
On another occasion at the plant, Oliver commented to Parker that he had seen Alvah
Jones talking to a union man who was passing out handbills and that Jones must be
"tangled up with" the Union. Oliver discussed the Union further with Tate on
June 14, stating that if the Union should come in, the machinists would have to be
used only in a machinist's category and that layoffs would result because machinists
could not be used for other jobs but only on a machinist's line of work.
Parker and Superintendent Forbes had grown up in the same area and had common
friends, though they did not associate socially. On the evening of June 13, Forbes
called Parker on the telephone at home (the only such call Parker had from Forbes)
and questioned him about what was going on in the yard and what the employees
wanted or were concerned about. Parker replied that if wages were raised slightly
Forbes would not have to worry about a union coming in. Forbes inquired further
who was stirring up the Union with the colored employees, and when Parker dis-
claimed knowledge, Forbes insisted that Parker should be able to hear what was
going on among them because Parker ate with them and worked with them. Parker
stated that he would be a "white rat," but Forbes assured him he would not be "white
ratting," because Parker should be once for the Company and always for the Com-
pany, and that Parker should notify Oliver of anything that would be of any value.
Parker finally agreed that if he had anything to report, he would do so through Oliver.
Wade did not testify. Though Oliver professed not to recall the specific conversa-
tions to which Tate and Parker testified, he admitted that he discussed the Union
freely with them and with other employees. Forbes in turn admitted the telephone
conversations with Parker, explaining that he had heard about the (union) activity
on the yard, and was interested in knowing what was going on.
On the foregoing facts, I conclude and find that by the surveillance of union activi-
ties by photographing the handbilling (Radio Industries, Inc, 101 NLRB 912, 914,
925; Hudson Hosiery Company (Monroe Road Plant), 109 NLRB 1410), by solicit-
ing employees to inform on the union activities of other employees, by interrogating
employees concerning the union activities and sympathies of themselves and of other
employees, and by threatening employees with economic reprisals if the Union should
come in, Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced employes in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
ASSOCIATED NAVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. 1677
C. Discrimination
There was also scant dispute concerning the facts surrounding either the layoff or
Respondent's defenses thereto. Briefly stated, the General Counsel's evidence was
-to the following effect:
1. Tate, Parker, Jones, and Paquin.were those who alone attended the first organiza-
tional meeting. Tate, Jones, and Teller signed authorization cards and Jones made
arrangements for, and actively participated in, an organizational meeting held among
the Negro employees. All six discrmunatees were machinists (or helpers) among
whom the interest in the organizational activities was the strongest and who, under
the evidence, were the most active (if not the only active) participants. The inter-
rogations of the machinists by Wade, Oliver, and Forbes and statements made by
Oliver to Parker concerning Jones and to Parker and Tate concerning Paquin were
plainly demonstrative of Respondent's knowledge that the machinists were taking an
active part in the activities.
2 Around 1:30 o'clock on the afternoon of June 14, Foreman L. D. Wade in-
formed Tate and Teller that they were to work on Saturday to get some boats out.
Around 2 p.m. Oliver, in assigning Jones and Paquin to a job on a tanker, inquired
whether they could continue working until the job was finished in case it ran into
overtime and also informed them of the possibility that they could work on Saturday
and Sunday. Around 3:30 p.m., Supervisor McKee (also spelled McGee) informed
a group of four employees, including Brown, that they were to work on Saturday in
order to get out a boat they were working on and commented that it would be a
long day.
3. Around 4 or 4.15 p.m., Oliver informed the six alleged discriminatees that they
were being laid off for lack of work. The formal layoff notices were as follows:
Because of an unusually small workload it is necessary for us to reduce our
work force, effective immediately. You are being furloughed until we can obtain
additional work.
The management does not know how soon you will be re-called. Just as soon
as work is available you will be notified to return.
4. A tanker, the Nancy Ann, was brought into the yard on either the 13th or the
14th, and there also remained a group of eight LCVP's on which the jobs were un-
finished.
5. During prior slack periods within the tenure of the General Counsel's witnesses,
employees were not laid off, but were put on cleanup, maintenance, and other types of
"make work."
6. Two men, C. E. Jones and one Haynes, with less seniority than those laid off,
were retained. Of the four employees ordered by McKee to work on Saturday,
Brown was the only one laid off. One of them, Hawkins, with less seniority, was
retained.
Respondent's defenses were based almost entirely on President Everhart's testi-
mony which may be briefly summarized as follows:
1. Everhart himself serves as Respondent's personnel officer, interviewing appli-
cants and determining when reductions in force shall be made by discharge or layoff.
Respondent's policy is to utilize all employees on a 40-hour workweek basis, but when
that cannot be done, to reduce the staff so that those retained can be kept on a 40-hour
week. In event of a reduction in force, seniority is followed although not always on a
strict basis.
2. By early May, work had become slack and as the month progressed Everhart
felt that if Respondent got its usual proportion of bids there would be adequate work.
Accordingly, some employees were retained in the latter part of May and early June
that might otherwise have been let go, and such employees were put on certain mainte-
nance projects even though it meant using them outside of their trade. By June 14
it had become apparent that Respondent was unsuccessful in its bids, and Everhart
met with Superintendent Forbes around 2 p.m. (pursuant to their usual custom) to
discuss what overtime work might be required for the weekend and whether there
would have to be a layoff. Although the workweek ends on a Thursday, Respondent
ordinarily makes layoffs on a Friday.
3. As a result of the discussions, Everhart decided that economics dictated that he
release some 14 employees, and he made the selections himself from the personnel
list in the order of seniority with the exception of one employee named C. E. Jones,
who had been recently hired as a trainee for a supervisor's position. Forbes had no
hand in making the selections. The layoff included five machinists, two machinists'
helpers, five laborers, and two sandblasters.
1678 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. Though it is usual for Respondent to give employees a day's notice of layoff,
none was given on June 14. No explanation was offered.
5. Only Everhart could make decisions whether employees should work on Satur-
day or Sunday, and he made that decision at 2 o'clock Friday afternoon. L. D. Wade
had no authority to order employees to work on those days, and no work was done
with the exception of a pipefitter making some adjustments and steaming the tanks on
the Nancy Ann.
6. Though Respondent endeavors to retain its force (including machinists) during
slack periods by putting them on general yard maintenance work or other "make-
work," that is not its invariable practice. There was a drastic layoff in 1961 (which-
was prior to the employment of any of the alleged discriminatees), and there was no.
substantial slack period between early 1962 and the spring of 1963.
7. Pipefitters occupy a higher classification than machinists and are more difficult
to obtain. Respondent therefore makes it a practice to hire them whenever it can
get them . Shortly before the layoff it hired Haynes, a former employee who was the
best pipefitter it ever had, and on Monday following the layoff it hired Shorty Thomp-
son, another pipefitter. Neither was a machinist. Hawkins (mentioned by Brown),
was also a pipefitter, not a machinist's helper.
8. Respondent hired as many as 10 college boys for the summer months as general
helpers and laborers, in accordance with its usual practice. Those employees are paid
at the rate of $1.25 an hour against the machinists' rates of $2, $2 20, and $2.40.
9. The work on the Nancy Ann, costing approximately $3,000, involved only
steaming out her tanks; it required only pipefitters and laborers, and no machinists-
The work on the LCVP's was at a phasing out or finishing stage, the machinists' work.
having been completed.
10. The five laborers and one of the sandblasters were recalled within 10 days
following their layoff. Respondent learned on July 11 that it had bid successfully on
a fairly large job, and it sent out letters of recall on that date to the five machinists-
previously laid off (including one Preston, not claimed to be a discriminatee), direct-
ing the men to report on July 16. Tate and Parker returned to work, but Teller and
Paquin did not come back. The machinists' helpers, Brown and Jones, were not
recalled because Respondent has needed no helpers and has hired none since June 14.
11. As compared with the 80 employees at the time of the layoff on June 14,
Respondent presently has something under 60. There has been a steady decline since
June 14 and never any rise.
The remainder of Respondent's evidence may be briefly summarized. Wade and;
McKee did not testify concerning the circumstances of their directions to employees.
to work over the weekend, leaving undenied the testimony of the General Counsel's
witnesses. Oliver admitted that he "possibly" informed Jones it might be necessary
for him to do some extra work on Saturday and Sunday, but testified he later decided
to have Haynes and Robertson do that work. Forbes testified that he gave Wade
no authorization concerning the assignment of extra work for the weekend; that
Wade had nothing to do with the tanker on which the work was to be done; and that
if Wade had any such instructions, they would have come from his supervisor, McKee.
However, Forbes gave McKee no instructions for work to be done on Saturday and-,
Sunday. Finally, Forbes admitted that there might have been a mixup or misunder-
standing concerning the overtime work and testified that such mixups had happenedi
before.2
Concluding Findings
Considering first the General Counsel's case, his evidence as summarized above-
made out a strong prima facie case that Respondent made the layoff of June 14 for
the purpose of discouraging the organizational activities, in which the machinists.
had shown the greatest interest. The interrogations and other conduct summarized
in section B showed plainly that Respondent knew the machinists were the active-
participants in the union activities. None of them had been laid off before during
slack periods, but had been put on maintenance or other "make work" outside of
their normal job classifications. The latter fact was of prime significance, for it was-
2 Respondent also introduced forms which the discriminatees filed with the Virginia,
Employment Commission shortly after the layoff, in which each inserted as the reason for-
separation "Laid off-lack of work " What significance Respondent would attach to such,
evidence is difficult to fathom since it made no attempt to refute the testimony of the
discriminatees, leaving it undenied in the record. Furthermore, rebuttal testimony
showed that the forms were so filled in at the suggestion of a person in the office of the
commission In addition, the unfair labor practice charge, which was filed contemporane-
ously, charged that the terminations were made because of union activities.
ASSOCIATED NAVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. 1679
exactly that practice on Respondent's part which Wade and Oliver threatened would
be ended if the Union should come in. The actual layoff, immediately to follow, was
a pointed reminder of those threats , if not an actual implementation of them. Fur-
thermore, it was made abruptly, just after the men were notified of work over the
weekend , without even the day's notice which it was Respondent 's practice to give.
And since Respondent 's action, taken with knowledge that union interest and ac-
tivity was predominant among the machinists , was for the purpose generally of dis-
couraging membership in the Union, it was not necessary for the General Counsel to
establish that Respondent had knowledge of the union membership or activities of
the individual employees. Wagner Iron Works, a corporation, 104 NLRB 445, 448;
Ellis and Watts Products, Inc., 130 NLRB 1216, 1220, enfd. 297 F 2d 576 (C.A. 6);
N.L R.B. v. Piezo Manufacturing Corporation, 290 F. 2d 455, 456 (C.A. 2),
enfg. 125 NLRB 686; Arnoldware, Inc., 129 NLRB 228, 229
We turn then to the question whether Respondent's evidence is sufficient to over-
come the General Counsel's case and the conclusion required by it, if unrefuted, that
Respondent made the layoff for the purpose of restraining and discouraging the
employees from further participation in the organizational activities.
Respondent's evidence established that its failure to bid successfully had resulted
in the small workload which it assigned in the layoff notices and that, accordingly,
there existed a sound economic basis for a temporary reduction in force. It showed
further that the work force had varied in the past according to the workload, though
it had made no layoff for some 2 years and had retained its staff during that period
through the expedient of assigning temporarily unneeded employees to doing main-
tenance, laboring, or other "make work ," outside of their job classifications . Despite
the latter facts, Respondent was' free , of course , absent discriminatory motivation,
to discontinue at any time the carrying of surplus employees.
But to establish that a justifiable ground existed for making a layoff does not estab-
lish that Respondent in fact acted for that reason, for it is no defense if that was a
pretext and not the moving cause. N.L.R.B. v. Solo Cup Company, 237 F. 2d 521,
525 (C.A. 8); Sunshine Biscuits, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 274 F. 2d 738, 742 (C.A. 7).
The controlling and ultimate fact is, what was the true reason back of the layoff
(Victor Manufacturing and Gasket Company v. N.L.R.B., 174 F. 2d 867, 868
(C.A. 7); and see N.L.R.B. v. C. & J. Camp, Inc., et al. d/b/a Kibler-Camp Phos-
phate Enterprise, 216 F. 2d 113, 115 (C.A. 5) enfg. 107 NLRB 1068), for if Re-
spondent's real purpose in acting when it did was to discourage the organizational
activities, the fact that economic considerations may have warranted a layoff will not
avail Respondent as a defense.
Where Respondent 's case falls down is in failing to meet and to overcome the
facets of the General Counsel's case which were indicative of discriminatory moti-
vation , the more significant of which will again be noted.
Respondent 's action was taken against the immediate background of its coercive
conduct which had continued to the evening before and to the very morning of the
layoff. -It acted abruptly, without even the usual day's notice to the employees, and
its decision was being made at the very time that the employees involved were being
notified of assignments to overtime and weekend work.3 Forbes, who participated
with Everhart in the conference in which the layoff was decided upon, had engaged
in surveillance and in the revealing ' telephone call to Parker as late as the night
before. As Everhart directed Forbes' act of surveillance in order to obtain infor-
mation about the organizers , it may safely be assumed that he obtained from Forbes
all other information which Forbes accumulated during Everhart's absence in Cali-
fornia concerning the organizational activities among the employees . By putting an
end to a 2-year practice of assigning employees during slack periods to work outside
of their job classifications, Respondent implemented the threats which Wade and
Oliver-made (the latter on the morning of the layoff) concerning exactly those un-
toward effects to follow if the employees succeeded in their organizational efforts.
Though Respondent made its selections among the machinists largely on the basis
of seniority in their classification ( distinguishing examples of lesser seniority on the
ground that those retained were pipefitters), that fact does not detract from the
essentially discriminatory nature of the layoff, for Respondent knew that it was the
machinists group who were actively participating in the union activities . Ellis and
Watts Products, Inc., supra.
8 ,Though Everhart testified the decision to do overtime work was made around 2 p.m ,
Respondent's evidence contained no satisfactory explanation as to why Supervisors Oliver
and McKee continued to make assignments after that time.
1680 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I therefore conclude and find upon a preponderance of the evidence on the record
as a whole that Respondent made the layoff on June 14 for the purpose of restraining
and discouraging the organizational activities among the employees , thereby engaging
in discrimination within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.4
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact , and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent engaged in interference, re-
straint, and coercion within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
2. By laying off Junious E. Parker, Walter D Tate, Alvah H. Jones, Edward A.
Brown, Hoyt A. Teller, and Donald J. Paquin on June 14, 1963, Respondent engaged
in discrimination to discourage membership in the Union, thereby engaging in unfair
labor practices proscribed by Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid 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 certain unfair labor practices, I shall
recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative
action which is conventionally ordered in such cases as provided in the Recommended
Order below, which I find necessary to remedy and to remove the effects of the unfair
labor practices and to effectuate the policies of the Act. For reasons which are stated
in Consolidated Industries, Inc., 108 NLRB 60, 61, and cases there cited, I shall rec-
ommend a broad cease-and-desist order.
As Parker, Tate, Teller, and Paquin were offered reinstatement as of July 16, back-
pay will end in their cases on that date.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and
pursaunt to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby • recommend that the Respondent,
Associated Naval Architects, Inc., its officers, agents, successors,'and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in United Industrial Workers of North America of
the Seafarers' International Union of North America, Atlantic, Gulf, Lakes and In-
land Waters District, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of its employees, by
laying them off or failing or refusing to recall them, or in any other manner discrim-
inating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment.
(b) Interrogating coercively employees concerning the union activities and sym-
pathies of themselves and of other employees.
(c) Threatening employees with economic reprisals if the Union should come in.
(d) Soliciting employees to inform on the union activities of other employees.
(e) Engaging in surveillance of union activities by photographing or by other
means.
(f) In any other manner interfering- with, restraining, or coercing their employees
in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist said United
Industrial Workers of North 'America, or any, other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing or to engage in other con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection, or to refrain from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action:
(a) Offer to Alvah H. Jones and Edward A. Brown immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges, and make each of them whole for any loss
of pay which he may have suffered by payment to him of a sum of money equal to
that which he would normally have earned from June 14, 1963, to the date of the
offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during said period (Crossett Lumber
4 Even if the economic situation assigned by Respondent were one of the reasons for the
layoff `that would not gainsay that the discouragement of union membership was also a
substantial and motivating reason, thus'requiring nonetheless a finding of unlawful dis-
crimination. N.L R B v. Whiten Machine Works, 204 F 2d 883, 885 (CA. 1), and cases
there cited, Town & Country Mfg Co., Inc. v. N.L R B , 316 F. 2d 846, 847 (C.A. 5).
ASSOCIATED NAVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. 1681
Company, 8 NLRB 240), said backpay to be computed on a quarterly basis in the
manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, to-
gether with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum. Isis Plumbing &
Heating Company, 138 NLRB 716.
(b) Make whole Junious E. Parker, Walter D. Tate, Hoyt A. Teller, and Donald
J. Paquin in the manner described in the preceding paragraph for any loss of pay
which they may have suffered by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal
to that which he would normally have earned from June 14 to July 16, 1963, less their
net earnings during said period.
(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 records necessary to analyze the
amounts of backpay due under this Recommended Order.
(d) Post in its offices and shipyard at Norfolk, Virginia, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix A." 5 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for Region 5, shall, after being signed by Respondent's represen-
tative, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 5, in writing, within 20 days from the
date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply here-
with.6
IIn the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Oider of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Deceree of the United
States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Deci-
sion and Order "
° In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, I hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in United Industrial Workers of North
America of the Seafarers' International Union of North America, Atlantic, Gulf,
Lakes and Inland Waters District, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization
of our employees, by laying off or failing to recall them, or in any other manner
discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or
condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT interrogate coercively our employees concerning the union ac-
tivities and sympathies of themselves and of other employees.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with economic reprisals if the Union
should come in.
WE WILL NOT solicit our employees to inform on the union activities of other
employees.
WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of union activities by photographing or
by other means.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees
in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist said
United Industrial Workers of North America of the Seafarers' International
Union of North America, Atlantic, Gulf, Lakes and Inland Waters District,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing, or to engage in other concerted activities for
the purposes of collective-bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all such activities.
1682 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL offer to Alvah H. Jones and Edward A. Brown immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without preju-
dice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make each of them
whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of our discrimination
against him.
WE WILL make whole Junious E. Parker, Walter D. Tate, Hoyt A. Teller, and
Donald J. Paquin for any loss of pay which each may have suffered as a result
of our discrimination against them.
All our employees are free to become or remain or to refrain from becoming or
remaining members of the above-named or any other labor organization.
ASSOCIATED NAVAL ARCHITECTS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NoTE.-We will notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon applica-
tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Sixth
Floor, 707 North Calvert Street, Baltimore, Maryland, Telephone No. 752-8460,
Extension 2100, if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions.
Pure-Vac Dairy Products Corp. and R. E. Moore. Case No. 26-
CA-1669. October 14, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 22, 1964, Trial Examiner Frederick U. Reel issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had not engaged in unfair labor practices as alleged in the com-
plaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its
entirety, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Charging Party filed excep-
tions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner 's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire
record in this case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings,
conclusions , and recommendations.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
148 NLRB No. 165.