Booth, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 28, 1971

190 N.L.R.B. 675 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

BOOTH, INC.
Booth, Inc. & Balcar Aluminum Foundry , a Division
of Booth , Inc. and International Union of Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC, Dis-
trict 10. Case 16-CA-3706
May 28, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND KENNEDY
On March 26, 1970, Trial Examiner Marion C. Lad-
wig issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceed-
ing, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in certain unfair labor practice and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the at-
tached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner
further found that the Respondent had not engaged in
certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the com-
plaint. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions
to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting
brief, and the Respondent filed exceptions and a sup-
porting brief.
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 powers
in connection with this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Ex-
aminer made at the hearing and finds that no prejudi-
cial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the
entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions,' and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of
the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Re-
spondent, Booth, Inc. & Balcar Aluminum Foundry, A
Division of Booth, Inc., Dallas, Texas, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order.'
' These findings and conclusions are based, in part, upon credibility reso-
lutions to which the Respondent has excepted, alleging that the Trial Exam-
iner was biased and prejudiced After a careful review of the record we
conclude that the Trial Examiner's credibility findings are not contrary to
the clear preponderance of relevant evidence Accordingly, we find no basis
for disturbing those findings and reject the charge of bias and prejudice on
the part of the Trial Examiner Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB
544, enfd. 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3)
' In footnote 4 of the Trial Examiner's Decision, substitute "20" for" 10"
days.
675
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MARION C. LADWIG, Trial Examiner: This case was tried
at Dallas and Fort Worth, Texas, on December 1-4, 1969,'
pursuant to a charge filed on August 15, and amended on
August 22 and on September 3 and 22, by International
Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-
CIO-CLC, District 10, herein called the Union, and pursuant
to a complaint issued on September 29 and amended Novem-
ber 14. The primary issues are whether the Respondents,
Booth, Inc. & Balcar Aluminum Foundry, a Division of
Booth, Inc., herein called the Company, discriminatorily dis-
charged two union supporters during the Union's organizing
drive and, through its president and vice president, restrained
and coerced its employees in various ways, in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended.
Upon the entire record,' including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the
briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Company, I make
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
AND THE UNION INVOLVED
The Company, a Texas corporation, is engaged in the busi-
ness of manufacturing soft drink dispensers and related
equipment at its Dallas, Texas, plant where it annually sells
products valued in excess of $500,000 and ships products
valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the
State. The Company admits, and I find, that it is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act, and that the Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Sometime before July, the Union began an organizational
campaign at the Company's plant. In July, after President
Jack J. Booth returned from a visit to the Company's foreign
plants, the Company engaged in a campaign, during working
time, to offset the Union's efforts. Company officials talked to
individual employees, and conducted many employee meet-
ings, some of which lasted for hours.
Meanwhile, several of the Company's "supervisors," now
called line leaders, were also campaigning against the Union
on company time. (These line leaders, each of whom worked
with two to six other employees, were presumably nonsuper-
visory.) About the third week in July, after the Union filed
a petition for an election on July 11, line leaders began pass-
ing out blank index cards for employees to sign to show their
opposition to the Union. Section leader Frank Cooper tes-
tified that he initiated the idea, and told the approximately 15
employees working under him that "I am against the Union,"
and that "if they wanted to vote against the Union at this
time, it was their privilege." Employee Gene Crocker (a line
leader under Cooper) thereafter met with small groups of
employees in the production office, solicited signatures on a
petition opposing the turning of the employees' names and
addresses over to the Union, and "started around" a separate
petition (typed by another line leader), stating that the "fol-
All dates, unless otherwise indicated, are in 1969
The General Counsel's December 31 motion to correct the record is
granted and the transcript is corrected accordingly
190 NLRB No. 134
676 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lowing employees.. definitely do not want a union to repre-
sent us in this plant."
At the trial, it was developed that the Company not only
had permitted the leaders to engage in this antiunion activity
on working time, but had specifically authorized some of the
conduct, and had encouraged the leaders to oppose the Union
by giving them specific instructions about what they could
and could not do as "supervisors" in the election campaign.
Section leader Cooper revealed that about mid-July, in the
leaders' Monday morning production meeting, Vice Presi-
dent Carl Hecht and Plant Superintendent Douglas Hope
"went over" with the leaders a leaflet , "SOME DOs and
DON'Ts FOR SUPERVISORS" in an election campaign,
and distributed to them copies of the sections, "What you as
a supervisor can do," and "What you as a supervisor cannot
do " Thereafter, Hope met with individual leaders in his
production office, explained what they could and could not
do in connection with the Union's organizing campaign, and
gave them the Company's arguments against unionization
Hope admitted authorizing line leader Crocker to use the
production office to meet with groups of employees to discuss
unionization. (Crocker called small groups of employees into
Hope's office for these discussions, on company time, and
gave them the Company's arguments against unionization.)
There is no evidence that the Company specifically author-
ized the circulation of the antiunion petition. However, the
evidence does show that when line leader Crocker showed the
petition bearing 87 signatures to President Booth on July 23,
Booth asked whether or not Crocker knew if the signatures
were real, and Crocker replied that he "would check on it
further." Crocker then returned to the plant and, on com-
pany time, asked the employees individually if their signa-
tures on the petition were genuine before delivering the peti-
tion again to Booth.
The evidence further shows that President Booth author-
ized line leader Crocker to engage in other antiunion activity.
Crocker testified that before he began meeting with groups of
employees in the production office, Booth authorized him on
July 17 to hold a meeting with 10 or 11 employees in the
conference room. When asked whether he explained to Booth
what he wanted to talk to the employees about, Crocker gave
an obviously fabricated response, "No, sir, I didn't explain to
him." After repeating this denial several items, Crocker
finally testified, "I did mention to him that I would like to ask
the ladies about a committee within the company to report
grievances instead of union." (Elsewhere Crocker also ap-
peared to be giving fabricated testimony, as when he denied
talking against the Union in his meetings with employees in
the production office.) When employee opposition arose to
the meeting with Crocker in the conference room on July 17,
Crocker resigned. Later that day, at Booth's suggestion, the
employees signed a petition for Crocker to return. Crocker
returned the next day.
In his brief, the General Counsel contends that "the line
leaders who engaged in antiunion activity at the request and
upon instructions of the Respondent are agents of the Re-
spondent and the Respondent is liable for their conduct."
However, the General Counsel did not offer any trial amend-
ments to the complaint to allege that the Company violated
the Act through the line leaders ' conduct. The General Coun-
sel further urges, in the alternative, that if the line leaders are
not found to be company agents, "the act of calling the line
leaders together and instructing them to engage in antiunion
activity violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act on the theory that
they were interfering with rights of rank-and-file employees."
Again, the Company was not put on notice at the trial that
it was being so charged with violating the Act.
In the absence of appropriate allegations in the complaint,
I do not rule on whether or not the above-described conduct,
in itself, violated the Act. Nevertheless, I attach some signifi-
cance to this evidence as background, showing the context of
other conduct and also the antiunion activities of section
leader Cooper and line leader Crocker, who played roles in
the latter discharge of two union supporters.
B. Discharge of Union Supporters
1. Antiunion solicitation condoned
On July 30 (the week after a large percentage of the plant
employees signed the antiunion petition), the Company
posted a no-solicitation rule which read- "IMPORTANT
NOTICE. There will be no solicitation of any kind during
working time. Employees who violate this rule may be dis-
charged."
About 3 weeks later, on August 21, employee Evelyn Hill
brought some union buttons into the plant and began passing
them out before work. During that day, she and employee
Rammey Washington were separately called to the office and
accused of violating the no-solicitation rule by attempting to
pass out union buttons during working time. Hill was dis-
charged that morning , and Washington on August 26, as
discussed hereafter. Meanwhile, the Company condoned so-
licitation against the wearing of union buttons.
Employee Wilma Ragsdale (a line leader who subsequently
wore a union button) gave credited, undisputed testimony
that on the morning of August 21, the following occurred.
Employee Bob Duke (another line leader) came to where she
was working and "was pounding me about these union but-
tons ... I asked him why didn't he go and talk to the people
that was wearing those union buttons." Duke said, "No, I'm
giving the information to you, and I feel like that you will pass
it on, because these people that are wearing these buttons
... It's just like telling Mr. Booth to go to hell." Ragsdale
started crying, stated that she would rather walk out and go
home "before I sit here and get all nervous and upset listening
to you talk like this," and started to walk out. Evelyn Hill
(who was discharged later that morning) telephoned Presi-
dent Booth, who came into the plant area and asked Ragsdale
what was wrong. She was still crying. Booth took her and
Duke to the office, along with section leader Cooper who had
been present.
In the office, Ragsdale told Booth what had happened, and
(in her words), "I told him that I felt like it was actually a
frame-up, for the simple reason ... that when Bob Duke was
talking to me, Frank Cooper immediately walked up and
stood there during the whole conversation." Duke apologized
to Ragsdale, and left the office with Cooper. Then Booth
urged Ragsdale again to help in opposing the Union, saying
"that he had been begging me for my help ... ever since this
thing started." She told him, "Mr. Booth, there are only a
handful of us Negroes out there ... what can eight or nine of
us do?" He said, "That's what I know. There are only a
handful of you out here. But a handful can make the differ-
ence, if this thing would come to a vote." (Both Hill and
Washington are Negroes. Duke was not called as a witness.
Neither Booth nor Cooper was questioned about this inci-
dent. Concerning Booth's other conversations with her, Mrs.
Ragsdale credibly testified on cross-examination that Booth
talked to her about 20 times-about 3 or 4 times in his office,
that one of the conferences lasted almost all day, and that he
told her, "Wilma, you know a union won't do this company
any good, and I know you can help me, if you will." When
later asked by company counsel whether she had been "aw-
fully confused throughout the whole organizational cam-
paign," Ragsdale answered, "No, I wasn't confused. Just like
I told you that day, that I had been talked to and talked to
BOOTH, INC
and talked to so much until I was a nervous wreck , and you
would have been , too, if you had had people talking to you
constantly day by day by day " Except for one, in which there
was an alleged promise , these conversations were not alleged
to have violated the Act.)
Thus, on the morning that union buttons appeared at the
plant, employee Duke interrupted employee Ragsdale's
work , solicited her help in discouraging the wearing of the
union buttons , and continued insisting until she began to cry
and threatened to go home. This violation of the no-solicita-
tion rule was witnessed by section leader Cooper , and the
entire matter was reported directly to President Booth. Duke
then apologized . Despite the clear violation of the rule, and
the extended interruption of Ragsdale 's work, Duke was not
discharged (and apparently not disciplined in any way) for
soliciting on working time against the wearing of union but-
tons.
2. Discharge of Evelyn Hill
Mrs. Hill , who had been employed for about 16 months,
had openly supported the Union , and had passed out union
handbills at the plant . She worked in a different department
and about 15 feet away from the employee Hazel Gates. Mrs.
Gates had previously attended two union meetings , but had
turned against the Union and had signed the July 23 antiun-
ion petition which was submitted to President Booth. She
testified that Booth "told me the benefits of the company,"
and that she liked what he said.
On August 21, employee Hill arrived at work about 7:10
or 7:15 a.m., and passed out union buttons until 7 : 30 when
she began work . A little after 11 o'clock , she was called to
Vice President Hecht 's office. She testified that after Treas-
urer William C. Hall joined them in the office, Hecht "told
me that some girls had reported that I had been passing out
union buttons" and that "it was done on company time and
stopped the girls from doing their work . I told him that this
wasn 't true, that I had passed out those buttons, but it wasn't
on company time, that I stopped at 7:30 and that if he would
get those girls, whoever it was, to come in, that I would talk
to them and see why they told a lie about me ... He said he
wouldn 't do this, that he was going to take the word of the
majority of the people . I told him if this was so, if he was
going to take the word of the majority, that I could get some
of my friends to come in and say that I didn 't pass out those
buttons on company time . He just ignored this, and he told
me that I was fired and that this was a violation of the
company's rules." [Emphasis supplied.]
Vice President Hecht testified that he called Hill into his
office, and that he and Treasurer Hall told her that they had
statements from some employees that she was soliciting "peo-
ple" to wear union buttons during working hours, interfering
with work and violating company orders , and that "Evelyn
did not deny that she had done this." He added, "She did
mention that she could get affidavits from some people saying
that she hadn't approached anybody." (Hall did not testify
about this incident .) Hecht also testified that Frank Cooper
(the antiunion section leader who , as indicated above, wit-
nessed the solicitation by employee Duke that same morn-
ing), reported around 8 a.m., that about 7:45, "Hazel Gates
had been approached by Evelyn Hill , and he was standing
there, and he saw them talking together and that he finally
had to go over there and ask Hazel what they had been
talking about , and Hazel stated that Evelyn had been trying
to induce Hazel to accept and wear a union button."
Section leader Cooper himself testified that "between 7:30
and 8 o'clock ... I would say about 7:45," he was looking at
a machine with employee Floyd Brokeshoulder , and saw Eve-
lyn Hill come from her department and stop at Hazel Gates'
677
department . "I saw the pin in Evelyn 's hand when she offered
it to her. And it looked like Evelyn said , `Do you want this?'
And it looked like Hazel said, 'no.' (When told that Gates
testified that there was no pin involved , Cooper testified, "I'm
absolutely sure about it.... I say the pin in her hand.")
Cooper then gave testimony which conflicted with Hecht's
claim that Cooper reported that "he saw them talking
together and that he finally had to go over there and ask
Hazel what they had been talking about ." Cooper testified
that he was standing about 9 feet from Hazel , and that she
called over to him, "Hey, Frank , did you see what just hap-
pened?" Cooper testified that he responded , "I saw Evelyn
approach you," and Gates told me she had offered her a union
pin." Cooper testified that he then went to the office of Presi-
dent Booth , "and I told him that Evelyn was in the plant
soliciting among the employees . He told me he would take
action and for me to go to Carl Hecht and report it, and I
wrote the letter to Carl Hecht ." (The "house letter" which
Cooper wrote Hecht that morning read : "About 7:45 AM
this AM I saw Evelyn Hill offer Hazel Gates a union pin and
Hazel refused and asked me if I saw her offer her the pin and
I said Yes.")
Employee Gates (who confirmed that she had turned
against the Union) testified that the only union button she
saw was the one Evelyn Hill was wearing, and gave a different
version of what she and section leader Cooper said to each
other . She testified that between 7:30 and 8, Hill stopped at
her work station and "asked me if I wanted an IUE union
pin." I said "Evelyn , are you supposed to do that?" She said,
"Yes." "I laughed , because I thought it was funny, and said
that I didn 't want one. And Frank Cooper and Floyd Broke-
shoulder were standing on Floyd Brokeshoulder's line right
across from me." I said , "She asked me if I wanted one of
those silly pins." Floyd laughed and said , "Did you take
one?" I said , "No." Then, according to Gates, Cooper said,
"She asked you on company time." (Gates' house letter, wnt-
ten at Hecht 's request that morning , read : "Evelyn Hill ap-
proached me about 7:45 A.M today Thursday Aug. 21, 1969
and asked me if I would accept one of her I.U.E. union pins.
This was an interruption to my work.")
Thus, in addition to the direct contradiction in Cooper's
and Gates ' testimony about whether Hill did or did not have
a union button in her hand, there is the pronounced conflict
in the testimony by Hecht, Cooper , and Gates regarding the
conversation between Cooper and Gates . According to
Hecht, Cooper reported "that he finally had to go over there
and ask Hazel what they had been talking about." Cooper,
however, testified that Gates called out, "Hey, Frank , did you
see what just happened," and he responded, "I saw Evelyn
approach you." Gates , in contrast, testified that she told
Cooper and Brokeshoulder , "She asked me if I wanted on of
those silly pins," and that Cooper's comment was, "She asked
you on company time." (When giving these conflicting ver-
sions of the stand , all three of these witnesses appeared to be
giving fabricated testimony, and attempting to conceal what
actually happened that morning.)
There are other contradictions . Vice President Hecht tes-
tified that when he talked to employee Gates that morning,
"She told me she had been approached by Evelyn Hill ... and
that Evelyn had talked to her at length about asking Hazel
to accept and to wear a union button ." [Emphasis supplied.]
When asked if Gates used the words , "at length ," Hecht
stated that he did not recall, but that Gates and Cooper both
indicated that a discussion went on, and that whether "it
lasted five minutes or ten minutes, I can't tell you, but it
wasn 't a casual situation." This testimony sharply conflicts
with Gates' and Cooper's testimony, as quoted above, that
only a few words were said . Concerning the Company 's inves-
678 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tigation of the matter, section leader Cooper testified that he
wrote the house letter to Hecht about 30 minutes after the
incident, and Gates testified that she was called in about 8:15
or 8:30, that she was in Hecht's office about 5 or 10 minutes,
and that Hecht never said anything more to her about it.
When asked why he waited until 11 o'clock to discharge Hill,
Hecht answered, "Because we investigate these matters.
... I do go back and talk to the people involved, ask them
myself, because if they put it in wasting, they do feel strongly
about it. This probably took a matter of a couple of hours.
. We don't look lightly upon terminating an employee."
Yet, he later testified that he talked only to Cooper and Gates,
"because I was just investigating that incident." Thus, he was
purporting to take the word solely of an actively antiunion
section leader and a known antiunion employee, without
making any further investigation in the period of 2 or 2%
hours preceding the discharge, and without questioning why
Mrs. Hill, a leading union supporter, would-in front of the
antiunion section leader-disregard the no-solicitation rule,
leave her department, and start soliciting a union opponent
to take and wear a union button. I note that Hecht offered no
explanation for having a report that Hill solicited this one
employee, and investigated only this one incident, yet admit-
tedly accused Hill of soliciting people on company time.
Employee Hill denied that she passed out any union but-
tons to anyone after 7:30. When she was called as a rebuttal
witness, after company witnesses had identified employee
Gates as the one she was accused of soliciting on company
time, she testified that she was absolutely positive she did not
talk with Gates that morning, because "Hazel had informed
us some weeks earlier that she had changed her mind about
the union activities, and she just stopped associating with us.
... So therefore, I stopped talking to her." Employee Nancy
Johnson, who worked at a table about 10 or 12 feet away,
facing Hill, testified that she did not see Hill passing out any
union buttons after the 7:30 buzzer rang. (Both Hill and
Johnson impressed me as honest, forthright witnesses.) John-
son also gave undisputed testimony that later that day, she
asked President Booth "could we get a petition for Evelyn to
come back to work, the same as we did for Gene Crocker. He
told me no, that he had already turned it over to his lawyer
and that he couldn't get Evelyn back to work."
The General Counsel contends that employees Hill and
Johnson should be credited; that the evidence is clear, upon
close review, "that Frank Cooper did not see what was going
on and that his house note was only a figment of his imagina-
tion or a deliberate scheme to endear himself to manage-
ment"; that the "alleged investigation" the Company con-
ducted in this matter "can be no more than a sham"; and that
Hill did not violate the no-solicitation rule. The Company
argues that the evidence is clear that Hill "actively solicited"
Gates to wear a union button during working time, that "this
was observed by other employees," and that Hill would natu-
rally "deny this from the witness stand since her employment
depended on it." The company brief does not mention em-
ployee Johnson's corroborative testimony. Also ignoring
Hill's account of what transpired at the discharge interview,
the Company contends that when Hecht confronted her with
the accusation, Hill "did not deny the solicitation, but only
offered to bring in `affidavits' from other employees that she
had not solicited them."
After weighing all the evidence, I credit employee Hill's
and Johnson's accounts of what happened, and find that Hill
did not talk to Gates that morning and did not violate the
no-solicitation rule. I further find that when the Company
learned that Mrs. Hill had brought union buttons into the
plant and was disturbing them before work-a month after
a large majority of the employees had signed the antiunion
petition-Vice President Hecht and section leader Cooper
(whose promotion to Assistant Plant Superintendent became
effective the following week) sought out antiunion employee
Gates and began fabricating evidence that Hill was passing
out the union buttons on company time. Accordingly, I find
that Hill's discharge was discriminatorily motivated, to dis-
courage union activity and membership at the plant, and
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
3 Discharge of Rammey Washington
a. Accused of solicitation
Washington worked in what Treasurer Hall referred to as
the "specialty department." He built, or installed different
parts on, various kinds of ice machines. As an experienced
employee (hired in 1965), he had given instructions both to
selection leader Cooper and to a helper, Bobby Gilmore, on
how to perform this work.
On August 21, the same day employee Hill was discharged,
Washington began wearing a union button. That morning, as
he credibly testified, several persons spoke to him about the
button. One of them was Vice President Hecht, who stopped
him in the plant, said something about the button, and com-
mented, "I see you're for the union." (Although Hecht denied
that he discussed the Union with Washington or made any
comment to him about the button, Washington impressed me
as a more trustworthy witness, and I discredit the denials.)
Another one was Ray Fuller, the director of research engi-
neering, who 5 days later played a role in Washington's dis-
charge. Still another was Washington's helper, employee Gil-
more. Explaining what happened that morning, Washington
testified that when Gilmore asked him what he had on, Wash-
ington did not give a direct answer. "He was trying to make
me say that it was a union button ... It was out that anyone
that was talking about the union on company time would be
fired, and that is what they all did. The ones that was against
the union would go around and pester the ones that was for
the union, trying to get them to talk about it. And nobody
wanted to talk to them. And they just wanted to make you
mad and say it out. Ray Fuller would come by and ask me
what was that I had on and ask me to read it to him so that
he could tell one of the upperheads that I had been talking
about the union ." (Whether or not Washington was correct
in his conclusions, I have considered this testimony in deter-
mining whether Washington asked employees on company
time if they wanted union buttons. I note that when Fuller
testified, he did not deny talking to Washington about the
button Washington was wearing.)
Some time that day, August 21, Vice President Hecht
called Washington to his office. In the presence of Treasurer
Hall, Hecht told Washington that it had been reported that
he was trying to get employee Gilmore to wear a union badge
(or, as testified by Hecht, was soliciting "other employees" to
wear union buttons during working hours). Although there
is much conflict in the testimony given by Washington,
Hecht, and Hall about what was said, the three witnesses
agreed that Washington denied the accusation, and the com-
pany officials said they would investigate it further.
At the trial, Vice President Hecht and Treasurer Hall gave
diametrically opposite versions of what the investigation re-
vealed. Hecht testified that he continued the investigation and
"came up with what he felt was sufficient evidence that he had
solicited." When asked why he did not discharge Washington
then, Hecht testified, "we discharge very few employeees. We
certainly don't like to discharge anybody, especially anybody
who has been there as long as Rammey. I was letting the
matter honestly slide; and if no other incident had arisen, I
probably would have kept it in suspension." (Emphasis sup-
plied.) However, according to Hecht, another matter arose on
BOOTH, INC.
August 26, and "We fired him for both reasons ... There
were two reasons. What brought it to a head that particular
morning was that he left his work station, and that was the
specific thing, but also he was told that we had investigated
further and that even though he had denied it, that Bobby
Gilmore with Frank Cooper as a witness said there had been
solicitation." (Emphasis supplied.)
Treasurer Hall, on the other hand, testified that "Mr.
Hecht did as much investigating as we could" on the August
21 solicitation charge, "and we couldn't find enough evi-
dence, in our opinion, to say that we had a definite violation
... and this is what we told Rammey" at the beginning of the
conference with him on August 26. (Emphasis supplied.)
Despite this admission, that there was insufficient evidence
of a violation, the Company thereafter introduced testimony
by employee Bobby Gilmore and line leader Crocker that
Washington did violate the no-solicitation rule. Gilmore tes-
tified that the conversation was very short-Washington ask-
ing him if he would like an IUE button, and stating that
Washington would give him one then or get him one after
work, and then walking away. When asked what was the gext
thing that happened, Gilmore testified, "Frank Cooper came
up and asked me what Rammey said to me, and I told him.
Then I went on about my work." Next, line leader Crocker
testified, claiming that he also was watching. But instead of
it being a short conversation, as Gilmore testified, Crocker
testified that he saw Washington leave his own station, go to
Gilmore's station, and talk to Gilmore for about 10 minutes.
Thereafter at the trial, when Crocker was on cross-examina-
tion, the company counsel took the position that Washington
was not discharged for violating the no-solicitation rule.
Later, when section leader Cooper was testifying, he went a
step further than either Gilmore or Crocker, claiming on
cross-examination that he saw Washington with the union pin
in his hand, offering it to Gilmore. (Cooper, as well as Gil-
more and Crocker, wrote house letters to support the Com-
pany's accusation against Washington for violating the no-
solicitation rule. However, only Gilmore's and Crocker's
letters were introduced into evidence by the Company.)
Reviving the accusation against Washington in its brief, the
Company contends that "Rammey Washington left his work
station and approached Robert Gilmore, soliciting Gilmore
to wear a union button." (I note, in passing, that Gilmore's
given name appears as "Bobby" in both the transcript and on
the July 23 antiunion petition.) Making no mention of either
Treasurer Hall's admission that the Company could not find
enough evidence of a definite violation of the no-solicitation
rule, or the company counsel's admission at the trial that
Washington was not discharged for such a violation, the
Company's brief further cites Hecht's testimony that he in-
tended to let it slide. Inasmuch as these statements in the brief
at least imply that Washington's discharge was based in part
on a violation of the no-solicitation rule, I shall make the
necessary credibility findings concerning what occurred.
Washington denied that he asked Gilmore to wear a union
button. According to Washington, he was at his own work
station, wearing the button, when Gilmore saw it, asked
"What is that you got on," and (in Washington's words),
"was trying to make me say that it was a union button."
Washington impressed me as an honest witness, doing his
best to recall accurately what had happened, and I credit this
version, rather than the accounts given by employee Gilmore
and the previously discredited company witnesses, section
leader Cooper and line leader Crocker. I further discredit
Vice President Hecht, who testified (contrary to Treasurer
Hall) that the Company found sufficient evidence of a viola-
tion and that Washington was told this at the time of his
August 26 discharge, and (contrary to the company counsel's
679
admission at the trial) that Washington was discharged in
part because of the August 21 violation of the no-solicitation
rule. (A number of times while Hecht was testifying on the
stand , he took long pauses before answering , and appeared to
be fabricating testimony as he proceeded, in an effort to con-
ceal facts and to strengthen the Company's defenses.)
Concerning the Company's motivation, it is undisputed
that a few days earlier, President Booth had talked to Wash-
ington in the lunchroom. (Washington had not signed the
July 23 antiunion petition.) After first asking if he could trust
Washington, Booth said, "This is what I want you to do. I
want you to get them [presumably the other Negro em-
ployees] together and talk to them-I know you can do it-
and tell them that you don't want a union, and they don't
need a union ." Booth then gave reasons for not having a
union in the plant. Thereafter, though, instead of joining in
the campaign against the Union, Washington began wearing
a union button.
After considering all the foregoing, I find that Vice Presi-
dent Hecht was attempting to fabricate evidence against
Washington in order to discharge him for his union support.
b. Discharge
Five daysjafter Washington was falsely accused of leaving
his work station and soliciting for the Union, Vice President
Hecht called him again into his office (in the presence of
Treasurer Hall, Plant Superintendent Hope, and section
leader Cooper), accused him of being away from his station
for 12 minutes, and discharged him. (Neither Hope nor
Cooper testified about what was said in this conference.)
Just as the Company took shifting positions on whether or
not Washington was discharged in part for violating the no-
solicitation rule on August 21, the Company took shifting
positions on whether Washington was discharged for leaving
his station without authority, or for leaving his station at all,
for any length of time, with or without authonty.
The first question is whether or not Washington was away
from his work station for 12 minutes-as claimed by Re-
search Engineering Director Fuller. On August 26, Fuller
(who had questioned Washington about his union button)
wrote and gave to Hecht a house letter which stated: "At 2:27
p.m., today, I saw Rammey Washington begin talking to
. Nancy [Johnson] ... I noted the exact time, realizing
that he was far from his work station. At 2:39 p.m., he went
back to his station ... " (Emphasis supplied.) At the trial,
Fuller first gave testimony, indicating that he had not timed
Washington for exactly 12 minutes-testifying that he did
have occasion to time or observe Washington, and that "It
was in excess of ten minutes and not more than fifteen mi-
nutes." Thereafter, he gave further inconsistent testimony,
when explaining how he happened to be timing Washington's
actions. Despite his statement in the letter that he saw Wash-
ington "begin" talking to Johnson, Fuller testified that "at
first, I was only vaguely aware of him even being there," that
after "a couple of minutes I did become aware of his being
there," and started timing him "because of the length of time
that he was there ... I only gradually became aware of his
being there." On cross-examination, Fuller further con-
tradicted himself by testifying that Washington "could have
been there twenty minutes. I only know the time I timed him
being there. He was there actually in excess of that time." (He
did not impress me as a candid witness.) Mrs. Johnson tes-
tified that Washington was at her station only a minute or two
at the most: "He wanted to know when would I have some
carbonator tops, and I told him that we were out of orifice
plugs, and I told him that as soon as we got those in, I would
fix him some carbonator tops ... He also asked me could he
get a ride home with me, and I told him yes." Washington
680 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
testified that he was away from his station about a minute and
a half, and that as he explained to Hecht and Hall, "I went
to Nancy Johnson to get me some carbonator tops, which I
needed to fill an order ," and "while I was there, I also asked
her about a ride, and she said yes." (As previously found,
both Washington and Johnson impressed me as credible wit-
nesses.) Having considered the conflicts between Fuller's tes-
timony and his house letter, as well as the demeanor of the
three witnesses while testifying , I find that Fuller 's statement
in the letter (that he timed Washington away from his station
12 minutes on August 26) was a fabrication. Before discuss-
ing Fuller 's motivation for writing the letter , I shall consider
the Company's shifting positions on why it discharged Wash-
ington on that date.
At one point in its brief, the Company (relying on Treas-
urer Hall's testimony ) contends that Washington had not
only been warned in the previous August 21 conference about
soliciting on company time, but "was further warned that he
should not be leaving his work station without permission or
without being on company business ." (Emphasis supplied.)
Thus, according to this contention , Washington was allowed
to leave his work station if he had his leader 's permission to
be away on company business . (Washington credibly testified
that his job included the securing of different parts, materials,
and equipment , such as ice machines , cabinets , cold plates,
lines, belts, and carbonator tops; that sometimes when a
necessary part was not available in the stockroom or at an
assembly line, he would build the part himself in order to
complete his work , that he was sometimes away from his
station 20 or 30 minutes or longer; that he would sometimes
have to operate the forklift himself; and that he had never
been questioned about being away from his station. I note
that when the company counsel asked Vice President Hecht
if Washington was authorized to use the forklift, he answered,
"I won't say that he never was asked to do it, but it is certainly
not anything near one of his primary functions.") Washing-
ton's testimony about the August 21 conference agrees in part
with Hall's. Washington credibly testified that he explained
to Hecht in that conference, "I'll have to leave [my station],
because I have to get equipment," whereupon Hecht "told me
to go back to my station and not to talk to anyone about the
union and to stay on my station and not leave , unless I had
to on business." (Emphasis supplied.)
However, after making this contention , the Company does
not contend, as further claimed by Treasurer Hall, that
Washington was discharged for leaving his work station with-
out permission. (Hall testified that on August 26, Hecht "spe-
cifically told him that he was being discharged for leaving his
work station without authority dunng the time that he was
supposed to be working." [Emphasis supplied.]) The appar-
ent reason for the Company's shifting from Hall's position is
the undisputed evidence that Washington had been specifi-
cally authorized by section leader Cooper to obtain equip-
ment whenever needed. On the last afternoon of the trial,
Washington credibly testified that he had had a conversation
with his leader, Frank Cooper, about the Company's new
policy for obtaining parts. (Earlier that afternoon, Cooper
had testified that Washington was one of the approximately
15 employees working in his section under him , and that on
August 4, he had "told the people working under me that
they were not to go to the stock room, or anywhere for that
matter [to get parts], without my permission.") Concerning
the personal conversation with Cooper, Washington credibly
testified : "Frank wasn 't acquainted with everything that went
on in my work ... He had his hands full ... And he just told
me if I needed anything , to go, and get it, and he would give
me permission to go anywhere in the the plant that I needed
to go and get my equipment." It is clear that the Company
noted this testimony, because its counsel asked Washington
on cross-examination if Cooper gave him "permission to go
anywhere in that plant" he wanted to, and Washington an-
swered, "Provided that I was getting parts for my station,
right " Although thereafter recalling another of its witnesses,
the Company did not recall Cooper to deny this testimony.
The Company's new position, adopted for the first time in
its brief, is that section leader Cooper "had no authority" to
permit Washington to leave his work station. In taking this
position, the Company relies on Vice President Hecht's tes-
timony (which clearly conflicts with Treasurer Hall's) that on
August 21, both Hecht and Hall warned Washington that
"there is no reason for you to leave your station any more,"
that his leader would get him all needed parts, and that "Bill
Hall and myself are telling you right now that if you leave
your work station from this time on, there will be no excuse."
Referring to this testimony, the company brief argues: "Even
if Washington were to be believed about what Cooper told
him (that he could leave his department at will), Hecht, the
vice president, clearly warned him not to. Cooper had no
authority, and Washington knew this. Hecht did have the
authority, but Washington ignored it." Thus, the Company
is contending that Hecht discharged Washington for disobey-
ing Hecht 's clear warning on August 21 never to go himself
after needed parts or equipment. I find that this contention
has no merit. The evidence is clear that Hall, Cooper, and
Washington were unaware of such a warning. Furthermore
a company witness, employee Gilmore, testified that after the
August 21 conference (in which Washington denied soliciting
Gilmore), Washington continued to leave his work station,
and was gone 15 to 20 minutes each time . Assuming this to
be true, it would appear that if Gilmore, line leader Crocker,
or section leader Cooper (each of whom wrote a house letter
against Washington for soliciting Gilmore on August 21) had
known at the time about any order from Hecht that Washing-
ton was never to leave his station , Washington 's absences
would have been reported to Hecht before August 26.
Another company witness, employee Jimmie Fields, testified
that she saw Washington about two or three times a day going
to different departments to get different items that he needed
to work with. (I also note that Hecht claimed that line leader
Crocker was Washington's leader, not Cooper. This conflicts
with the testimony by Plant Superintendent Hope, as well as
that of Cooper and Washington.) Having considered all the
evidence , and having observed Hecht 's demeanor on the
stand (as heretofore mentioned), I discredit his testimony that
he and Hall gave Washington a warning on August 21 against
ever leaving his work station to get parts. I find this testimony
to be mere afterthought.
Testifying how the matter arose on August 26, Vice Presi-
dent Hecht claimed that "one of our employees [Research
Engineering Director Fuller] told me that he had been out in
the plant and observed Rammey Washington away from his
work station for 12 minutes. He wrote me a note ... and I
had written confirmation at this time from the people who
had been solicited by Rammey [on August 21]; so in the
presence of Douglas Hope and Frank Cooper, we terminated
Rammey then for soliciting and being away from his work
station ." Having found that Hecht was seeking a way to
discharge Washington discriminatorily, and that Fuller fab-
ricated the report on seeing Washington away from his sta-
tion for 12 minutes, I draw the inference that Hecht and
Fuller were working together to fabricate evidence to support
Washington's pretextual discharge. Quite likely, when Fuller
saw Washington talking to employee Nancy Johnson, who
had not signed the July 23 antiunion petition, he suspected
that Washington was talking to her about the Union. (Fuller
was concerned enough about the organizing campaign to
BOOTH, INC.
have gone to Washington on the morning of August 21, and
have asked him about the union button he was wearing.)
Then Fuller exaggerated the length of time Washington was
talking to Johnson, and thereafter revealed the fabrication
when he was attempting to explain on the stand why he
happened to be timing Washington's actions.
However, whether or not Vice President Hecht plotted
with Fuller to discharge Washington (as he plotted with sec-
tion leader Cooper and employee Gates to discharge em-
ployee Hill discriminatorily), I find from the Company's
shifting positions, Hecht's fabricated testimony, and the
Company's union animus, that Washington's discharge was
discriminatorily motivated. Accordingly, I find that the dis-
charge was to discourage union activity and membership at
the plant, and violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
C. Alleged Section 8(a)(1) Violations
1. No-solicitation rule
The General Counsel contends that the July 30 no-solicita-
tion rule, prohibiting "solicitations of any kind during work-
ing time," was discriminatorily promulgated and enforced.
The Company contends that there "is nothing unlawful on
the face of the notice," that the notice was posted to help
"bring production back to normal," that the rule was not an
"unreasonable impediment" to the Union's organizational
efforts. Concerning the General Counsel's efforts to prove
that "the rule was enforced, but only to pro-union solicitors,"
the Company's brief states that with two exceptions (in which
remedial actions were taken), the employees' selling of vari-
ous items during working time were not shown to have been
brought to the management's attention, and that the solicita-
tions for the United Fund and to support President Nixon's
Vietnam policy were lawful despite the no-solicitation.
The General Counsel does not dispute that the Company's
production was down when the no-solicitation rule was
posted. However, he contends that the Company's own cam-
paign against the Union (see the discussion above, under
Background) was responsible for the drop in production; that
the rule was not posted until after President Booth "had in
his possession the signatures of 80 employees [on the July 23
petition] indicating that they did not want the Union"; that
the Company "had gotten what it wanted and this was no
more than an attempt to close the door behind it ... to make
sure that the Union would not receive any more cards, espe-
cially if they had to be signed on company time at its plant."
The evidence, though, shows that employees were permitted
in July to express their opinions in favor of the Union as well
as against it during the working time discussions , and that the
July 30 rule applied to both prounion and antiunion solicita-
tions (I discredit the testimony by two of General Counsel's
witnesses that line leader Crocker continued to call em-
ployees into Plant Superintendent Hope's office after the post-
ing of the July 30 notice) Furthermore, the evidence shows
that all or virtually all the union cards were signed outside
of working hours, and that the Company placed no restric-
tions on the employees discussing and soliciting for the Union
before work, at lunch, and at breaks. The evidence also shows
that the no-solicitation rule was enforced fairly against both
union and antiunion solicitation for the first 3 weeks after
July 30, and that it was effective in bringing up production.
There is no evidence that any solicitations for other purposes
were brought to the Company's attention during this 3-week
period. I therefore find that the General Counsel has failed
to provide that at the time the validly-worded, broad, no-
solicitation rule was posted, the Company's purpose was to
prevent its employees from engaging in union activity.
681
This picture changed on August 21, when the first union
buttons were brought into the plant. As previously detailed,
the Company permitted solicitation against the wearing of
the buttons, while falsely accusing two union supporters (Hill
and Washington) of passing them out on company time, and
discharging one of the two. Shortly thereafter, the Company
acknowledged that one or more other employees (besides
these two union supporters) had been found violating the
no-solicitation rule, by posting a notice to employees that
"Unfortunately, one employee [Evelyn Hill] has been dis-
charged and others have been warned because of violation of
this rule." (Emphasis supplied.) The notice concluded, "It
should be understood by all employees that this rule will be
strictly and fairly enforced regardless of union or anti-union
feelings." (Even if this second notice was fairly enforced-
which appears doubtful, from Washington's credited tes-
timony about antiunion employees questioning union sup-
porters about the buttons they were wearing-it did not
remedy the Company's discriminatory actions on August 21.)
There is evidence that the no-solicitation rule was violated
after August 21, when employees sold various items on com-
pany time. However , in the two instances where this was
shown to have been brought to the Company's attention, the
Company took remedial action. In one case, the Company
denied a leave of absence to the employee 2 weeks after the
solicitations were brought to its attention, and the employee
was terminated. In the other case, the supervisor cautioned
the employee. Although the Company took less severe action
in these instances, where the solicitations were not for the
Union (further showing disparate treatment of employee Hill,
who was discharged after being falsely accused of attempting
to pass out one union button on working time), the company
did take action to enforce the no-solicitation rule. Concerning
the annual solicitation for the United Fund and the single
instances of the Company encouraging solicitation of signa-
tures on petitions for prayer in the schools and to support
President Nixon's Vietnam speech, I find that these were
narrowly-confined exceptions to the rule, and fall short of
establishing forbidden discrimination."Serv-Air, Inc., 175
NLRB No. 128 (1969).
Accordingly, I find that the Company unlawfully inter-
fered with its employees' Section 7 rights, in violation of
Section 8(a)(1), by discriminatorily enforcing its no-solicita-
tion rule against union solicitation while permitting antiunion
solicitation on working time.
2 Alleged racial appeal
The complaint alleges that the Company, through Presi-
dent Booth, "made oral appeals to the racial pride or preju-
dice of its employees for the purpose or foreseeable affect of
deterring them from joining or remaining members of the
Union or giving any assistance or support to it."
According to Jeanne Hite (a white employee), President
Booth was talking to her about the union campaign on July
19, and commented something about the "stupid" or "igno-
rant" Negroes following anybody. He pronounced the word
as if were spelled "Nigras," and she thought he was saying
"Niggers." (President Booth denied making such a statement
to Hite, but I discredit the denial.) After line leader Ragsdale
heard about this, she complained to Booth, who immediately
called a meeting of the eight or nine female Negro employees.
As credibly testified by Ragsdale, Booth denied to the group
that he used the word, "Nigger," and said, "Anybody can be
ignorant or stupid." The employees agreed that he had been
using the pronounciation, "Nigra." (Booth did not testify
about this meeting.)
682 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The General Counsel has not cited any applicable case to
support a holding that Booth's derogatory remarks about the
Negro employees should constitute a violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. I shall recommend dismissal of the allega-
tion. I also deny the General Counsel's motion to reconsider
my rulings at the trial, rejecting testimony concerning the
Company's hiring practices, which were not alleged to be
violative of the Act.
3. Impression of surveillance
As credibly testified by employee Hite, President Booth
spoke to employee Gates in an employee meeting on July 17,
telling her, "I know that you have been to at least one of the
union meetings . Someone could even be sitting here at this
table, someone very close to all of you who you do not know
has been coming back to me and giving me the name of
everybody that has been to these union meeting ." Mrs. Gates,
who later turned against the Union and signed the July 23
antiunion petition , testified (when called as a defense witness)
that in that meeting , Booth "first told us he knew who had
attended union meetings " because "different people in the
plant had been coming to him and giving him information."
Earlier that same morning , before work, President Booth
approached line leader Ragsdale (who was standing by
another employeee) and told her "that he knew that I had
been attending union meetings , that someone very close to
him had told him that I had been attending union meetings,
and he said that it was someone very close to me , that he
knew everyone that had been attending these union meet-
ings." (Booth did not deny making these statements.)
In its brief, the Company concedes that "Booth did inform
the employees that he was being notified of who was attend-
ing and warned the employees that it was someone very close
to them.
I find that in making these undisputed statements to the
employees , President Booth clearly created the impression
that he was keeping their union activity under surveillance,
as alleged in the complaint . I further find that, particularly
in view of Booth 's further statements that he would do every-
thing in his power legally (or legally and morally) to keep the
Union out, and the subsequent discriminatory enforcement of
the no-solicitation rule, Booth 's surveillance statements
tended to intimidate the employees in the exercise of their
Section 7 rights-even though he also told them that they
should go the the union meetings to find out both sides, and
that they would not be fired for attending . The statements
about "somebody very close" to them doing the reporting,
and about his knowledge of everyone who attended, could
have had no legitimate purpose, and would tend to induce
them to avoid reprisal by signing one of the antiunion cards
or the antiunion petition which were thereafter circulated
during working time . Accordingly, I find that this creation of
the impression of surveillance violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act
4. Solicitation to withdraw support
The complaint alleges that about July 31, President Booth
"orally solicited its employees to withdraw their membership
in and support of the Union." As acknowledged in the Com-
pany's brief, "Apparently this makes reference to the tes-
timony of Emma Moore and Rammey Washington."
Employee Moore wa:, the only employee who testified that
a company official personally handed out some of the index
cards, which line leaders circulated for employees to sign to
indicate opposition to the Union. She claimed that President
Booth gave her some of the cards to give to her friends to sign
either for or against the Union, and asked her to talk to some
of her friends "and get them to no longer attend meetings."
She did not impress me as a credible witness , and I discredit
this testimony.
Concerning the other part of the allegation, the Company's
brief merely states that "Washington testified that Booth
asked him on one occasion to gather the employees together
and talk to them and tell them that they did not need a
union," citing the transcript page number. There is no discus-
sion of the incident.
As previously mentioned, Washington credibly testified
that a few days before his discharge, "President Booth had
the conversation with me." Booth asked him in the lunch-
room if Booth could trust him, and then said, "This is what
I want you to do. I want you to get them together and talk
to them-I know you can do it-and tell them that you don't
want a union, and they don't need a union, because I couldn't
come out and talk to you no more. You'd have to go through
somebody before you'd even get to see me.... " Thereafter,
instead of agreeing to join in Booth 's antiunion campaign,
Washington began wearing a union button. As previously
found, Washington was first falsely accused of attempting,
during working time, to get another employee to wear a
button, and then discharged discriminatorily.
Under these circumstances, I find that Booth's request that
Washington withdraw or withhold support from the Union
and campaign against it, followed by repeated acts of dis-
crimination against him when he declined, tended to coerce
Washington and any other employee who may have heard
about Booth's solicitation of Washington. I therefore find
that Booth's solicitation infringed on the employees' rights to
support or not support the Union without intimidation, and
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. In view of this finding, I
do not deem it necessary to rule on whether or not such
solicitation, absent subsequent discrimination, would still
tend to be coercive, or would otherwise interfere with the
employees' Section 7 rights
The General Counsel further contends, with regard to
Washington, that when Vice President Hecht questioned him
on August 21 about the union button he was wearing, this
constituted unlawful interrogation. However, in view of the
fact that Washington was not able to recall clearly what
Hecht asked him, when commenting, "I see you're for the
union," I find that the General Counsel has failed to prove
that this conversation violated the Act.
5. Promise of benefits
Line leader Ragsdale testified that one of the many times
President Booth talked to her, attempting to persuade her to
oppose the Union, was on July 17, after he met with em-
ployees in the lunchroom all day, until after 5 p.m. Just as she
and employee Hill were getting ready to leave the plant,
Booth grabbed their hands, started talking to them about
helping him oppose the Union, and said to Ragsdale:
I have great plans for you here at this company. I know
that you have the intelligence. I know you know how to
deal with people, but because of this union mess going
on, I can't tell you everything that I would really like to
tell you, because my lawyers had informed me, "Jack, be
careful, because you don't know who you're talking to.
You don't know who is your friend and who is not your
friend." And because of this union mess I just can't tell
you, but there are great plans here for you [Emphasis
supplied.]
Hill was not questioned about this incident. Although Booth
denies this conversation, and Mrs. Hite credibly testified that
earlier that day, Booth had told employees in a meeting that
he could not and would not promise them anything, I do not
believe Mrs. Ragsdale (who impressed me as an honest wit-
ness) was fabricating this incident. I credit her testimony.
BOOTH, INC. 683
I agree with the General Counsel that.in making the above-
quoted statement to Ragsdale, after urging her to help him
oppose the Union, Booth "made it clear that he had plans for
her if she would help him to get rid of the Union, that those
plans would be executed." Accordingly I find, as alleged in
the complaint, that President Booth was promising undis-
closed economic benefits from refraining from supporting the
Union, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By discriminatorily discharging Evelyn Hill on August
21 and Rammey Washington on August 26, 1969, to discour-
age union activity and membership, the Company engaged in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. By discriminatorily enforcing a no-solicitation rule, by
creating the impression of surveillance of union activity, by
soliciting the withdrawal of union support, and by promising
benefits for refraining from union activity, the Company vi-
olated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. The General Counsel failed to prove the allegations of
discriminatory motivation for promulgating the no-solicita-
tion rule, of threats to close the plant, and of coercive interro-
gation.
4. The General Counsel failed to prove that the Company's
derogatory remarks about its Negro employees constituted
unlawful racial appeal in violation of the Act.
THE REMEDY
I shall recommend that the Respondent be ordered to cease
and desist from the unfair labor practices found and from like
or related invasions of the employees' Section 7 rights; to offer
reinstatement to Evelyn Hill and Rammey Washington, with
backpay computed in the manner set forth in F. W. Wool-
worth Company, 90 NLRB 289, plus interest at 6 percent per
annum as prescribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716; and to post appropriate notices.
Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing findings and
conclusions, and on the entire record, I recommend pursuant
to Section 10(c) of the Act, issuance of the following recom-
mended:
ORDER
Respondent, Booth, Inc. & Balcar Aluminum Foundry, a
Division of Booth, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any
employee because of his membership in or activity on behalf
of International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine
Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC, District 10, or any other labor
organization.
(b) Discriminatorily enforcing any no-solicitation rule by
prohibiting union solicitations on working time while permit-
ting employees to solicit and talk against a union on working
time.
(c) Making any statements designed to give its employees
the impression that it is keeping their union activities under
surveillance.
(d) Coercively soliciting any employee to withdraw his
union support.
(e) Promising benefits to any employee for refraining from
union activity or for opposing a union.
(f) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights
under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.:
(a) Offer Evelyn Hill and Rammey Washington full rein-
statement to their former or substantially equivalent posi-
tions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges, and make them whole in the manner set forth in
the section of the Trial Examiner's Decision entitled "The
Remedy."
(b) Notify the above-named employees if presently serving
in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full
reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selec-
tive Service Act and Universal Military Training and Service
Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board, or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll
records, social security payment records, timecards, person-
nel records and reports, and all records necessary to analyze
the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its Dallas, Texas, plant copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 16, after being
duly signed by an authorized representative of the Respond-
ent, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.`
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed inso-
far as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found.
' In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, recommendations, and Recommended Order herin shall, as
provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the
Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections
thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes . In the event that the
Board's Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States Court of Ap-
peals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National
Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."
' In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this
provision shall be modified to read: "Notify the Regional Director for Re-
gion 16, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL offer Mrs. Evelyn Hill and Mr. Rammey
Washington full reinstatement, and pay them for the
earnings lost as a result of their August 1969 discharge,
plus 6 percent interest.
WE WILL NOT discharge or discriminate against any
employee for supporting International Union of Electri-
cal, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC, Dis-
trict 10, or any other union.
WE WILL NOT enforce any rule against union solicita-
tions on working time while permitting employees to
solicit and talk against a union on working time.
684 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT make any statements designed to give
our employees the impression we are keeping their union
activities under surveillance.
WE WILL NOT coercively solicit any employee to stop
supporting a union.
WE WILL NOT promise any employee benefits for op-
posing or campaigning against a union.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully interfere with our em-
ployees' union activities.
BOOTH, INC. &
BALCAR ALUMINUM
FOUNDRY, A
DIVISION OF BOOTH,
INC.
(Employer)
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 application , in accordance
with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act, as amended , after discharge from
the Armed Forces.
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by any-
one.
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.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board 's Office, 8A24
Federal Office Bldg., 819 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, Texas
76102, Telephone 817-334-2921.
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)