Central Electronics, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 3, 1969

179 N.L.R.B. 833 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

CENTRAL ELECTRONICS, INC.
Central Electronics, Inc. and Central Illinois
Laborers District Council . Case 14-CA-4899
December 3, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH' AND MEMBERS
ZAGORIA AND JENKINS
On May 5, 1969, Trial Examiner Arthur M.
Goldberg issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom,
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in
the attached Trial Examiner's 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
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
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 and the entire record in this
case, including the Respondent's exceptions and
brief, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, only
to the extent consistent herewith.
The Trial Examiner concluded that Respondent's
refusal to rehire Jeffrey Stuck, and subsequent
discharge of Mrs. Dale Stuck, were discriminatorily
motivated in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act. We find merit in the Respondent's
exceptions to these findings.
About September 18, 1968, Jeffrey Stuck applied
for employment at Respondent's plant after reading
an advertisement in the company publication. He
had voluntarily left Respondent's employ on two
previous occasions. At the time of his application,
he was employed elsewhere as a color-TV
technician, earning $1.85 per hour. On his
application form, Stuck indicated that he sought
wages of $3 per hour. He testified that during the
course of his interview, he made three lower wage
proposals. However, his lowest proposed wage,
$2.40 per hour, was 15 cents above the maximum
wage paid by Respondent to employees with
comparable qualifications. Respondent did not offer
employment to Stuck.
Mrs. Dale Stuck, Jeffrey's mother, was
discharged from Respondent's employ on September
27, 1968, after a series of personality clashes with
other employees. After the second such incident, her
supervisor warned her that she would be fired if she
caused another disturbance on the production line.
Three days later, Mrs. Stuck became involved in
another dispute. She was summoned to the
personnel manager's office and discharged at the
833
recommendation of her supervisor.
The Trial Examiner found that at Jeffrey Stuck's
reemployment interview, personnel manager Gehrke
said to him, "about the only reason you want to
come back here is so you can go around and talk to
everybody and organize the union." The Trial
Examiner also found that on September 3, at a
bowling alley, Gehrke told Mrs. Stuck "You are
always looking to have things your way, organize
things your way, including the Union," and that at
Mrs. Dale Stuck's exit interview, Gehrke told her,
"You brought that union in here," that she denied
it, and that Gehrke accused her of lying. Gehrke
denied making these statements
On the record here, we find the General Counsel
has not sustained his burden of proving
discriminatory motivation for the Stucks' discharge.
There had been little union activity at the plant
since 1966, when the Molders were defeated in a
representation election. During the course of the
Molders' active campaign, Respondent committed
no known violations of Section 8(a)(3) or (1). More
recent activity by Laborers' in 1968 was limited to
sporadic handbilling, which was suspended during
the summer and resumed on September 4. Although
both Stucks had been active in the Molders'
campaign, Mrs. Stuck's involvement in the
Laborers' effort was limited to the signing of an
authorization card. The Trial Examiner specifically
found that a conversation between Mrs. Stuck and a
union organizer could not be overheard.
In light of the absence of violations during the
previous organizing campaign, and the insignificant
amount of subsequent union activity, we have some
doubt that Respondent's personnel manager would
have uttered statements so blatantly violative of the
Act as those which the Trial Examiner credited to
him. However, even if Gehrke made the statements,
they are not entitled to conclusive weight here. A
determination of discriminatory motivation is based
on an evaluation of all the circumstances
surrounding the allegedly discriminatory practice.
The record herein supports Respondent's
contentions that Jeffrey Stuck sought excessive
wages, and that Mrs. Stuck could not get along with
her coworkers. Jeffrey Stuck never offered to work
at a rate low enough to permit a finding that he
would have been hired had it not been for his
suspected union affiliation. Mrs. Stuck was involved
in three disruptive incidents within a 2-month
period. Without overturning the Trial Examiner's
credibility findings as to the innocence of her
behavior in some of the incidents, we find the very
fact of her repeated involvements to be an adequate
explanation for her discharge.
Accordingly, as we find the General Counsel has
not sustained his burden of proving discriminatory
motivation for the discharges, we shall dismiss the
complaint.'
The Trial Examine, found that the above-quoted statements made by
179 NLRB No. 145
834 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the complaint
herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
MEMBER JENKINS, dissenting:
In dismissing the alleged acts of discrimination
here, my colleagues have accorded little or no
weight to credited coercive statements directed by
Respondent to the alleged discriminatees in the
immediate context of the adverse personnel actions
in question. Moreover, my colleagues have implied
in footnote 1, supra, that the credited coercive
statements in such circumstances are too isolated to
warrant a cease-and-desist order. I disagree, and
would affirm the Trial Examiner's Decision.
Respondent to each of the Stucks violated Section 8 (a)(I) of the Act In
view of our doubts that the statements were made , the fact that, if made,
they were not shown to have been communicated to other employees, and
the fact that we find no other remarks of the Employer to have been in
violation of the Act, we find that it will not effectuate the purposes of the
Act to issue a cease-and -desist order
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ARTHUR M. GOLDBERG, Trial Examiner: Upon an
amended charge' filed on January 7, 1969, by the Central
Illinois Laborers District Council (herein called the
Laborers or the Charging Party) the complaint herein
issued on January 7, 1969, alleging that Central
Electronics, Inc (herein called the Company or the
Respondent), violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein called
the Act) The alleged Section 8(a)(1) conduct consisted of
threats not to rehire an employee because of his suspected
union activity, accusations against an employee that she
was engaging in union activity; and, interrogation and the
creation of the impression of surveillance of union
activity The putative Section 8(a)(3) violations consisted
of the refusal to rehire Jeffrey Stuck and the discharge of
Dale Stuck. Respondent admitted the refusal to rehire
Jeffrey Stuck and the discharge of Dale Stuck but denied
all other material allegations of the complaint.
All parties participated in the hearing in Paris, Illinois,
on March 4, 1969, and were afforded full opportunity to
be heard, to introduce evidence, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, to present oral argument, and to
file briefs Oral argument was waived and briefs were filed
by the Respondent and General Counsel.
Upon the entire record,' my observation of the
witnesses and their demeanor, and my reading of the
briefs, I make the following-
'The original charge was filed on November 18, 1968 Unless otherwise
noted all dates herein were in 1968
'On or about March 28, 1969, the General Counsel filed a Motion to
Correct the Transcript of the hearing, and, on April 7, 1969, I issued an
Order to Show Cause why the transcript should not be corrected in
specified respects , some but not all of which corrections were contemplated
by the General Counsel's motion No good cause to the contrary having
been shown , the corrections indicated in the Order to Show Cause (which
is received in the record as TX Exh. I) are hereby ordered made The
General Counsel's Motion to Correct the Transcript is hereby granted
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The complaint alleged, the answer admitted, and I find
that Central Electronics, Inc., an Illinois corporation with
its principal office and place of business located in Paris,
Illinois, is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and
distribution of components for electronic equipment and
related products. Respondent's Paris, Illinois, plant is the
only facility involved in this proceeding.
During a representative 12-month period ending
November 25, Respondent, in the course and conduct of
its business operations, purchased and caused to be
transported and delivered to its Paris, Illinois, plant goods
and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from
points outside the State of Illinois. During the same
representative 12-month period Respondent shipped from
its Paris, Illinois, plant products valued in excess of
$50,000 directly to points outside the State of Illinois.
The Respondent is, and has been at all times material
herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and meets the
Board's standards for the assertion of its jurisdiction
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Central Illinois Laborers District Council, Common
Laborers Local 573, AFL-CIO, and the International
Molders' and Allied Workers' Union of North America,
AFL-CIO (herein called the Molders'), are and have been
at all times material herein labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act
Ill. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
I The Stucks' union activity
Jeffrey Stuck worked for the Company from June 1964
to July 1966 and again from October through November
1966. During this second period of employment the
Molders' conducted an organizing campaign among
Respondent's employees. Jeffrey Stuck served on the
Molders' organizing committee, secured employee
signatures to Molders' authorization cards, and talked for
the Union among the employees. During that period
Jeffrey Stuck wore two union buttons, one a Molders' pin
and the other designating him a member of its committee
Jeffrey Stuck was the only employee to wear a committee
button.
In November 1966 a Molders' delegation consisting of
Jeffrey Stuck, Molders' Organizer Earl Witesell, and one
other union official visited the Company's plant in an
effort to present the Molders' authorization cards to Louis
J. Scinto, company vice president. Witesell informed the
receptionist who they were and why they were there
When the receptionist advised that Scinto was busy,
Witesell informed her that they would wait. The
receptionist asked Jeffrey Stuck if he was with the union
representative and he replied that he was. While the
Molders' delegation waited a call went out over the plant
public address system for all supervisors to report to
Scinto's office. Jeffrey Stuck testified that he could see
some of the supervisors through the receptionist's window.
During this period Fred Gehrke, the Company's personnel
manager, passed through the outer office and, as Jeffrey
CENTRAL ELECTRONICS, INC.
Stuck testified, "he sort of nodded at me and I nodded
back."'
Jeffrey Stuck left Respondent's employ in November
1966 right after the Molders' were defeated in a
representation election.
During the Molders' 1966 campaign Dale Stuck,
Jeffrey's mother, solicited employee signatures to
Molders' authorization cards, talked for the Union to
other employees, and wore a Molders' button everyday.
Dale Stuck testified that on one occasion her then
supervisor commented on the Molders' button which Mrs.
Stuck was wearing. Gehrke testified that he recalled Dale
Stuck wearing a union button during the Molders'
campaign but stated that he had observed several dozen
employees wearing similar insignia during that time, that
some of these employees were still on the Company's
payroll and while some had gone, none had been
discharged.
2. The Laborers organizational activities
The Laborers began their organizing campaign among
the Company's employees some time in the late spring of
1968. Although not fully developed in the record it
appears that this campaign consisted solely of handbilling
by Laborers representatives and that no employee
meetings were attempted by that Union. The Laborers did
not distribute buttons among the employees. Dale Stuck's
only activity during the Laborers campaign was to sign an
authorization card.
On September 4, the Laborers resumed handbilling at
Respondent 's plant following a vacation break. Dale
Stuck testified that she was usually the last employee to
leave the Company's parking lot. She recalled that on that
occasion she stopped her car with the motor running and
all windows open to talk to Laborers Organizer Wierman
who approached her on the left or driver's side of the car.
At that time a company guard was standing
approximately 3, feet to the right of the car, away from
the driver's side. Dale Stuck testified that she leaned out
on her side of the car and asked Wierman where he had
been. Wierman replied that the union organizers had been
on vacation whereupon Dale Stuck said, "Well, I hope
you are back to fight," and when Wierman replied that
they were, she added, "Get in there and do all you can,
because we need one out there ." She then took a handbill
from Wierman and drove away. There is no evidence in
the record to indicate that Dale Stuck's stopping to talk
to the union organizer and to take a handbill from him
was unusual among employees. Additionally, in view of
the physical positions of Wierman, Dale Stuck, and the
company guard, and the fact that the car motor was
running, I am unable to infer that the guard overheard
Dale Stuck 's expression of support for the organizing
campaign.
One day in the fall of 1968' Dale Stuck was talking to
fellow employee Hazel Falls about 7 a.m. The plant day
starts at 7:30 a.m. Dale Stuck testified that she and Falls
were talking about bad coils and she stated her feeling
that if the Union were successful in organizing the plant it
would help to straighten out the coil problem. Falls noted
her agreement. Dale Stuck testified that at this point
Connie Kindred, a supervisor, came up behind them and
said "Oh, I caught you, didn't 1?" However, Mrs Stuck
'While Gehrke and Scmto - both testified neither referred to this visit to
the plant by Molders' representatives Accordingly. I credit Jeffrey Stuck's
uncontradicted testimony
8 35
was uncertain as to how long Kindred had been present
and whether the supervisor had overheard any part of
their conversation.
Kindred testified that it was her practice to arrive at
the plant between 7:20 and 7.25 a.m. and denied that she
had ever overheard any conversation between Falls and
Mrs. Stuck Under examination by the Company's
attorney Kindred denied ever having stated to either Falls
or Mrs. Stuck, "I caught you." When Respondent's
counsel pressed the point asking, "could you have" made
such a statement Kindred replied that she might have "but
not in that sense." While I credit Mrs. Stuck as against
Kindred both upon their demeanor while testifying and
Kindred's unreliability hereinafter discussed in section III,
D, 3, below, because Mrs. Stuck was unable to place
Kindred near Falls and Mrs Stuck when the latter
expressed her prounion feelings, I draw no inference that
Kindred's remark was directed toward Mrs Stuck's
support for the Union
B. The Bowling Alley Incident
Dale Stuck and Fred Gehrke were members of the
same bowling league but were not on the same team Both
were members of the bowling league's rules committee,
Gehrke serving as secretary of that body . Dale Stuck had
initiated and was responsible for the rules committee
adopting a rule that bowlers would maintain their previous
year's average for the first 4 weeks of the new bowling
season . As a result , Gehrke's standing was, in Mrs.
Stuck's word, "hurting "
Mrs. Stuck testified that on September 3 she and
Gehrke were sitting side by side in a bowling alley near
Paris, Illinois, keeping score for their respective teams. As
they sat keeping score Gehrke remarked , " You are always
looking to have things your way, organize things your
way, including the Union."
Gehrke testified but beyond admitting that both bowled
in the same league he merely denied having had the
conversation set forth above Based upon my observation
of Gehrke as a witness at the hearing herein I am not
persuaded of his reliability as a witness . Accordingly, I do
not credit his testimony except insofar as it is
corroborated by credible witnesses or constitutes
admissions contrary to his own or Respondent's interests.
Mrs. Stuck on the other hand impressed me generally as a
truthful witness. I find therefore that Gehrke made the
statement attributed to him by Dale Stuck.
I find further that Gehrke ' s remark to Mrs. Stuck
indicated his concern about the Union's organizing
campaign. Moreover , his accusation that she was
organizing the Union created an impression that
Respondent was keeping the union activities of its
employees under surveillance and such conduct violates
Section 8(a)(I) of the Act Polyurethane Products
Company. Inc, 168 NLRB No 20, enfd . 70 LRRM 3262
(C.A. 7)
C. Jeffrey Stuck Applies to the Company for
Reemployment
1. The application
As earlier noted Jeffrey Stuck was employed by
Respondent on two occasions, from June 1964 to July
'Dale Stuck was uncertain as to the date of this incident being able only
to place it at "about [the time off the first cold spell we had this fall "
836 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1966 and for several months in the latter part of 1966,
leaving after the Molders ' unsuccessful bid. On September
18,5 Jeffrey Stuck filed an application for reemployment
by Respondent The Company was engaged in a recruiting
program publicized in its plant newspaper under which
any employee bringing in a previously trained person who
would remain in Respondent ' s employ for 6 months would
receive a $50 reward for his role in the recruiting process
Stuck saw this announcement in the plant paper and was
moved thereby to apply to the Company.
Stuck testified that after he completed the application
form Gehrke took him into the personnel manager's
office. After examining the application Gehrke noted that
Stuck was asking for a $3-an -hour wage and asked why
Stuck thought he was worth that much. Stuck replied,
listing his experience and schooling in electronics and
pointed out that he had been earning almost $2 an hour
when he last left the Company 's employ. The question and
answer were repeated whereupon , in Stuck ' s words,
"[Gehrke] sort of sat back in his chair and looked at my
card a minute or two, he turned the card over in his hand
a couple of times, sort of smiling and said, 'About the
only reason you want to come back in here is so you can
go around and talk to everybody and organize the
union .' " Stuck replied that he knew nothing about the
Union but did need a job. Stuck testified that during the
course of the interview he offered to work for less than his
initial request of $3 an hour , coming down first to $2.75,
then to $2.50 , and finally to $2.40 an hour. Stuck
explained that he had heard that company pay rates had
gone up considerably since he had left in November 1966
and that some employees were earning the wages he
asked . Gehrke did not offer Stuck a job at any wage scale
nor did he indicate that a job could be had for less money
Gehrke testified that he interviewed Stuck a few days
after the latter had applied for work . In the course of the
interview, the personnel manager stated , he asked Stuck
what type of work he was interested in and Stuck replied
that of an electronic technician . It was Gehrke's
recollection that he had asked why Stuck thought he was
worth $3 an hour and that the latter replied that he had
attended school since leaving Respondent ' s employ and
thought that he was worth that much money . Gehrke then
stated that he had no work available at the time that
would pay close to what Stuck was looking for and that
he did not believe that Stuck was worth $3 an hour to the
Respondent . Gehrke testified that he did not offer Stuck a
job at any rate of pay and denied that Stuck had offered
to work for less than his initial asking price of $3
At the time of his application to Respondent, Stuck
was working for a local television service company for less
than $2 an hour . Gehrke recalled that he had stated to
Stuck during the interview that he did not see how Stuck
could be worth $3 to Respondent when he was worth so
little to his current employer. Gehrke estimated that the
interview lasted less than 5 minutes..
'Stuck testified that he filed his application and was interviewed by
Gehrke in August but was uncertain as to the date Gehrke, who conducted
the interview and who is "human relations counselor" for the plant and
hires new personnel, testified to the September 18 date It appears
reasonable that Gehrke, who was concerned in part with recordkeeping,
would have a more certain recall of the date
'I credit Jeffrey Stuck ' s version of the interview Stuck impressed me as
a more reliable witness than Gehrke Nothing in Stuck ' s testimony
suggests that it was untruthful On crediting Stuck I note that at least one
detail in Stuck 's testimony (that Gehrke sat back in his chair, looked at
Stuck 's application card a minute or two, turned the card over in his hand
several times , sort of smiling , before accusing Stuck of seeking
2 Stuck's work history and training
During his two periods of employment by Respondent
Stuck performed work classified by the Company as
Labor Grade V, classification 503-Electric Repairman.'
During his second period of employment Stuck had
worked part time on the night shift while attending
electronics school during the day.
After leaving Respondent's employ Stuck completed a
51-week electronics training course at Mattoon, Illinois,
sponsored by the Federal Government and the Illinois
Manpower Division. After completion of that course
Stuck worked for the Magnavox Corporation as a
troubleshooter on products being manufactured for the
Government, including a computer, a missle warhead, and
a radio project. At Magnavox Stuck earned $2 46 an hour
but left because he found the cost of living too high in
Urbana, Illinois, where the Magnavox plant was located
Company records introduced during the hearing
indicate that in the period July, August, and September
the Company hired five employees in job classifications
503-Electric Repairman. The Company's wage scale for
Labor Grade V shows an initial hiring rate of $1.85 an
hour, provision for a merit increase after 3 months of
employment, and a job rate of $2 75 an hour after 6
months on the job
Gehrke testified that on July 16 Respondent hired
David Culver for job classification 503 at $1.95 per hour,
10 cents above the established starting rate It was
Gehrke's testimony that Culver had no experience in the
electronics industry but had recently completed the same
course at Mattoon, Illinois, which Stuck had taken.
On August 15 Respondent hired Elzie Justice as an
electronic repairman at the established starting rate of
$1.85 per hour. There is no indication in the record as to
Justice's work experience or educational background.
On August 19 Respondent hired Paul Reese as an
electric repairman (classification 503) at a starting wage
of $2.25 per hour, 40 cents above the established hiring
rate. Gehrke explained that Reese had been discharged
from the armed services with 4 years of experience as an
electronics technician.
On September 26 Respondent hired Stewart Freeman
as an electric repairman at $1.90 per hour, 5 cents above
the established hiring rate. Gehrke testified that Freeman
had several years of experience in the electrical line plus
some electronics experience while in service.
Finally, Respondent hired George Garver on August 19
as an electric repairman but there is no record evidence as
to Garver's starting rate or as to his prior work experience
or training.
Gehrke testified that Stuck's period of employment
with Magnavox would qualify as background experience
for the Electric Repairman position as would the course
he had taken sponsored by the Federal and State
Governments Thus, combining Stuck's work experience
with Respondent during his two periods of employment,
his electronics schooling during his second period of
employment in October and November 1966, the year he
spent in training under the Government sponsored
program and the unspecified length of time he was
employment with Respondent so that he could organize for the Union),
"indicated recollection of a total scene and not mere recitation of
disembodied statements [Stuck ] did not impress me as one likely to have
invented a detail of this kind " Louisville Chair Company, Inc , 161 NLRB
358, 373
'Gehrke's testimony
CENTRAL ELECTRONICS, INC.
employed by Magnavox, Stuck had accumulated well over
3 years of experience recognized by Respondent as
qualification for the Electric Repairman position.
D. The Discharge of Dale Stuck
The Respondent relies upon three incidents concerning
alleged altercations between Mrs. Stuck and other
employees to support its contention that she was
discharged because of "personal annoyance to other
employees, causing these people to be disturbed, upset,
disturbing their production."8 The evidence concerning
these incidents and resolution of the conflicting versions
given by the various witnesses thereto is presented and
resolved below:
1. The Hudson-Allen incident
On August 8, Mrs. Stuck was involved in a dispute
between Pauline Hudson, an analyzer, and Marynell Allen
who was primarily engaged in repairing traps at the time
of this episode. Mrs. Stuck testified that a dispute arose
when Allen claimed that Hudson could not properly
perform the analyzing task, stating that Hudson was not
fixing the right coils.
Mrs. Stuck testified that she defended Hudson based
upon her own knowledge of analyzing and her observation
of Hudson's job performance Thereafter, Betty Tyler,
who was then supervisor of the trap department, called
each of the three women to her desk and advised them
that if they could not get along with each other she would
have to dispense with their - services. Dale Stuck
specifically denied accusing any other peaker of cheating.
Allen testified that she had been accused by Hudson
and Mrs. Stuck of cheating and that they claimed that the
former analyzer had been involved in this dishonesty with
Allen. It was Allen's testimony that this accusation upset
her and that Tyler told her to go to the nurse and
restroom. Thereafter Allen as well as Mrs. Stuck and
Hudson were warned by Tyler that they had to get along
with one another as each person in the department fed
work to the other.
At the time of the hearing herein Hudson was no longer
in Respondent's employ and did not testify. Supervisor
Tyler testified that her understanding of the incident was
that Mrs. Stuck had sided with Hudson who was implying
that Allen was not doing her work. Allen brought the
dispute to Tyler's attention. Tyler testified that when she
spoke to Mrs. Stuck about the incident Mrs. Stuck did
not deny her role therein and that Tyler told Mrs. Stuck,
as well as Hudson and Allen, that she "didn't have time
to babysit with a bunch of three-year-olds," and that they
were to work with each other in peace and harmony. If
they couldn't get along, Tyler warned, she would probably
wind up firing all three of them.
On the day of the incident Tyler entered a report of the
episode on Dale Stuck's permanent record. Tyler
explained that a permanent record for each employee is
maintained by the supervisor to whom the employee is
assigned. Tyler testified that this record is used by the
supervisor to enter notations whenever a work or
attendance reprimand is given to an employee and that the
permanent record accompanies the employee to her next
supervisor in the event of a transfer in lobs Mrs. Stuck's
record, which was submitted as an exhibit by the
Respondent, contains notations of her production
'Statement of company counsel during the course of the hearing herein
8 37
efficiency, a record of her transfer to the day shift, the
fact that she had been commended for her work and good
attendance, and an entry concerning a restriction on her
work assignment in that she was not to be put on
soldering or in close contact with a soldering operator.
The notation Tyler made concerning the instant episode
states in part "talked to Dale today as she got involved
with a disagreement between Pauline Hudson and
Marynell Allen." Thereafter the written report details
Tyler's admonition to each of the women involved that
she had no intention of being a babysitter and that they
were to stop their bickering
There is no mention in either Tyler's testimony or in
the contemporaneous writeup she made of the incident of
an accusation by Mrs. Stuck and Hudson that Allen had
been cheating nor does Tyler corroborate Allen's claim
that the incident so upset her that she had to leave the
production area to visit the nurse and restroom
In essence, Tyler's testimony corroborates Mrs. Stuck's
straightforward account of the incident. Essentially the
matter involved a dispute between Hudson and Allen with
Mrs. Stuck's role being a secondary one in that she sided
with Hudson. The significance attached to the incident by
the supervisor concerned is best summed by her
characterization of her own role in the matter as that of
"babysitter "
2. The Boren incident
On September 24, Dale Stuck was assigned by her
supervisor, Connie Kindred, to train Nola (Bit) Boren on
the trap peaking job. The trap, or trap filter assembly, is
a box 2 1/2 or 3 inches long and about I inch high, open
at the top and at either end, containing four coils. The
trap serves to filter out extraneous noises in a television
set. The job involves peaking the coils on an oscilloscope
If the coil does not reach the desired reading on the
oscilloscope it is split with a knife by the "peaker "
Mrs. Stuck testified that she was first introduced to
Boren on the day in question and that Boren, who had
recently undergone surgery, sat on a pillow which she
brought with her. Mrs. Stuck testified that Boren stated
"I am a nervous wreck already," to which Mrs Stuck
replied that a new job always made a person nervous, she
herself had been nervous when she started peaking, and
that Boren would get over it in time Boren then asked
what the required production rate was and Mrs. Stuck
informed her of the requirement that a peaker process 158
units per hour Boren replied "I will never get that, it is
too much," adding, "I suppose I better put my glasses
on." Mrs. Stuck then said, "If you are used to wearing
them you had better, because this is hard on your eyes. I
never had to wear them until I started work, looking at
this scope all day don't do any good for your eyes." After
Boren put on her glasses she asked if Mrs. Stuck received
a production bonus to which Mrs. Stuck replied that she
was lucky if she made a dollar or two, five at the most if
the coils were running good, noting that at that time she
was having difficulty making the required production half
the time. At this point, Mrs. Stuck testified Boren
announced, "I don't think that I am going to like this job
I am going to see the nurse and get transferred to
something else " This was about 9:10 a m
Dale Stuck testified that after the morning break Boren
peaked a few traps under Mrs. Stuck's direction. Shortly
thereafter Supervisor Kindred came to where they were
working, assigned Boren to work on the other side of the
trapline, and took Mrs. Stuck up to Kindred's desk. There
838 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Kindred asked what Mrs. Stuck had said to make a
nervous wreck out of Boren Mrs. Stuck denied saying
anything that should have had such an effect and Kindred
replied that Mrs. Stuck was not telling the truth, that she
had told Boren things to discourage her Mrs. Stuck
replied that she had only told Boren the truth and didn't
see any reason to lie, that the peakers could not make the
required rate, the coils were running bad, and Mrs Stuck
didn't see why she should tell Boren that she could make
the rate Thereupon, Kindred stated that if Mr, Stuck
caused one more disturbance on the line she would be
fired and that she would have to reach the required rate
plus 50 an hour in excess thereof by Fridav of that week.
Boren testified that after she had been introduced to
Mrs. Stuck the latter asked why Boren had been
transferred from the television line to peaking. After
Boren explained that her doctor had suggested the transfer
because of her physical condition, Mrs. Stuck told Boren
that if she couldn't work on the television line she
certainly couldn't work on peaking because the work
made one awfully nervous and was hard on the eyes.
Boren claimed that it was Mrs. Stuck's suggestion that
she go to see the nurse immediately. Boren testified that
she had asked Mrs. Stuck whether the peakers made
bonus and that Mrs. Stuck replied that bonus was made
very seldom. Boren testified that she staved with Mrs.
Stuck until the morning break and that thereafter Kindred
transferred Boren to the other side of the trapline Boren
explained that when she had gone to the nurse and told
her what had happened the nurse had advised Boren to
stay in the trap department and learn the work because
Boren learned easily. Boren claimed that the nurse had
stated that she now knew that the reason they couldn't
keep anyone in the trap department was because Mrs.
Stuck was discouraging new employees' Boren's entire
assignment in the trap department lasted for about a week
after which she went back to her old lob on the televison
line.
Kindred testified that she first learned of a problem in
the trap department when she received a call to report to
Dorothy Hex, the plant's general floor lady, who asked if
Kindred knew that she had a problem in trap peaking.
Hex asked Kindred to investigate the matter and that
Boren was in the nurse's office very upset and crying.
When Kindred, accompanied by the assistant floor lady,
arrived in the trap department Boren was back working
on the line Kindred testified that she informed the
assistant floor lady that she would confront Mrs. Stuck
about what the latter had told Boren . To that point
Kindred had not talked to any other employee. Kindred
then "confronted Dale with what Dorothy [Hex] had told
me that Bit had told the nurse in the nurse's office." The
purported statement with which Kindred confronted Mrs.
Stuck was "that it made a person a nervous wreck to sit
there and never make rate. It is hard on your eves. If you
couldn't make it on the line, you couldn't make it here."
Mrs. Stuck denied having said the quoted material to
Boren.
Kindred testified that after this "confrontation" with
Mrs. Stuck she then spoke to each of the peakers at her
desk. Carol Stark told Kindred that she had heard
nothing. Janet Campbell, no longer employed by
Respondent, in Kindred's words, said "She had heard part
of it and that's what Dale had said to Boren to upset her
with." Kindred then spoke to Mrs Stuck again, at which
time, according to Kindred, Mrs. Stuck agreed that she
'The nurse was not called as a witness
might have said the things alleged but that she didn't
know how people could get things so mixed up and that
she was not being quoted exactly. Kindred then accused
Mrs. Stuck of not telling the truth stating that she would
have no more of this in her department and that Mrs
Stuck would be discharged if she caused any other
disturbances in the work force Thereafter, Kindred wrote
up a report of the incident in Mrs Stuck's permanent
record In that written report Kindred noted that she had
warned Mrs. Stuck to raise her production to 130 percent
of efficiency by Fridav of that week or she would be
transferred out of the trap department and if no other
openings existed in the plant Mrs. Stuck would be fired "
Several other employees testified concerning this
incident. Joyce Brown testified that she had observed
nothing of what occurred between Mrs. Stuck and Boren.
Later in the morning Boren was transferred to Brown's
side of the trapline and Brown was asked to comfort
Boren and to help her on the job. Brown testified that on
the day of the incident Kindred had asked Brown if she
knew anything concerning the episode and that Brown
replied that she knew of nothing that could have upset
Boren . However, after Brown talked to Boren she then
repeated to Kindred what Boren had said to her.
Employee Jane Eslinger, Boren 's sister, a former trap
peaker, testified that she had gone to help her sister on
the trap peaking lob and after speaking to Boren repeated
to Kindred what her sister had told her of the earlier
conversation with Mrs. Stuck.
Employee Carol Stark testified that she had seen and
heard nothing but that Boren had stopped at Stark's
station on her way to the nurse and said, "Carol, I can't
do this It is going to be too hard on me."
Finally, employee Nettie Hale was called by General
Counsel on rebuttal and testified that on the day in
question she had been sitting alongside Boren while the
latter was being trained by Mrs. Stuck. Hale testified that
she had not heard Mrs Stuck say that the work would
make Boren a nervous wreck or that it would ruin her
eyes or that the required production rate could not be
attained. However, it developed that when she was
working Hale could not hear any of the conversation of
the people about her and her failure to hear the matters in
question is evidence of nothing.
Hale's testimony is of a piece with the entire incident.
Boren 's testimony as to what Mrs Stuck had said to her
on the day in question is clearly no more than pieces lifted
out of context of a conversation. Mrs. Stuck's account of
the exchange with Boren is more credible as "it indicates
recollection of a total scene and not mere recitation of
disembodied statements." Louisville Chair Company, Inc.,
161 NLRB 358, 373 One could credit all of the testimony
concerning this incident and still dismiss it as a mere
tempest in the teapot were it not for the tact that
Respondent's defense to Mrs. Stuck's discharge is based
in part on her conversation with Boren . It is my ultimate
conclusion, as more fully discussed below, that
Respondent discharged Mrs. Stuck because Gehrke
believed her to be an organizer for the Union. The Boren
incident was blown out of proportion to serve as a basis
for Mrs Stuck's termination Kindred first confronted
Mrs. Stuck concerning the Boren incident on the basis of
hearsay twice removed, i.e., what Hex told Kindred the
nurse had reported to Hex as having been told to the
nurse by Boren Kindred made the first entry in Mrs.
"Kindred made three separate entries in Mrs Stuck's record concerning
the Boren incident, all dated September 24
CENTRAL ELECTRONICS, INC.
Stuck's permanenti_ record _ based on this first
confrontation.
Only after this confrontation and making of an entry in
the record did Kindred speak to Boren and other
employees on the trapline to determine who might have
witnessed the incident and to solicit their versions of the
episode. Boren's out-oft-context account of the
conversation is set forth above. Kindred could cite only
Campbell, no longer in Respondent's employ and
unavailable as a witness, in support of her version of Mrs
Stuck' s remarks . No employee called as a witness by
Respondent was able to give other than a hearsay report
of the Stuck- Boren conversation and those questioned by
Kindred testified that they had so informed her. Despite
this lack of evidence, and the innocuous nature of even
Boren ' s version of the conversation , Kindred put Mrs.
Stuck on notice that she would be discharged in the event
of further harassment of employees and in fact the Boren
incident was used by the Company as a predicate to Mrs.
Stuck's discharge later that week. Coupled with this
warning, Kindred advised Mrs. Stuck, the most productive
of the trap peakers, that she would be reassigned or
discharged if she did not reach 130 percent of efficiency
within 4 days." I view this as another element in
Respondent's program to be rid of Mrs. Stuck. During
the month of September, up to the time of this warning
by Kindred, 12 the three peakers had achieved an average
efficiency of 82.5 percent." Thus, Kindred was demanding
that in 4 days Mrs. Stuck achieve a level of efficiency
approximately 47 percent above that which the peakers
had put forth in September. As to Mrs. Stuck alone, the
efficiency level of 130 percent represented an increase in
productivity approximately 30 percent above her
individual September efficiency average of 100.2 percent.
3. The Campbell incident
The third and final incident on which Respondent relies
in defense of its discharge of Mrs. Stuck occurred during
the afternoon of Friday, September 27. Shortly after 3
p m. as Connie Kindred, the trapline supervisor, was
distributing" paychecks to the employees, peaker Janet
Campbell left her work position in tears. Campbell sat
between Mrs. Stuck and Stark on the trapline. Mrs Stuck
and Carol Stark alerted Kindred to Campbell's condition
Kindred testified that she followed Campbell to the
restroom where she asked what had caused Campbell's
outburst to which Campbell replied that she couldn't take
it any longer and was going to quit . When Kindred asked
what Campbell meant the latter, replied that Mrs. Stuck
talked back and forth all day with Stark, made fun of
Campbell and of Campbell's clothes, and that when Mrs.
Stuck would leave her seat to secure a supply of traps she
would whisper into Stark' s ears and both would giggle. At
approximately 3:30 p.m. that afternoon Kindred called
Mrs. Stuck to her desk and "confronted her with Janet
Campbell being very much upset and at the point of
quitting " Thereafter Kindred called Personnel Manager
Gehrke to inform him of the situation and took Campbell
"Kindred spoke to peaker Carol Stark about increasing her production
However, Kindred did not warn Stark to reach a required level of
efficiency or face discharge. From September I through 23, Stuck's
average efficiency was 76 percent.
"September 3 through 2-3.
''This figure is based on an average of the daily percentages of efficiency
listed in Resp . Exh 2. As an average of averages this figure may vary a
small amount , up or down from an average computed on the basic
production figures
8 39
to Gehrke's office. After telling her story in Gehrke's
office Campbell was sent back to work and Kindred
returned to the plant to bring Mrs. Stuck to Gehrke's
office Before any discussion with Mrs. Stuck about the
events leading to Campbell's upset Kindred instructed
Mrs Stuck to pick up her timecard and tools and come to
Kindred's desk. I conclude that the decision to discharge
Mrs Stuck had been made at this point and before any
explanation of her role in the events had been solicited
from Mrs Stuck. Kindred testified that at this point she
told Mrs. Stuck that Campbell's upset was caused by
Mrs. Stuck having said "that silly bitch didn't know one
side of her knife from the other when she came here" and
by Kindred talking about Campbell's clothing including a
sweat shirt which she wore to work. Kindred testified that
after she advised Mrs. Stuck of Campbell's accusation
against her, because she "had warned Dale previously . .
if she done it again I would fire her, so she had done it
again so I was taking her into Gehrke's office."
Mrs. Stuck denied making the statements attributed to
her by Campbell and claimed that the reference to the
silly employee who didn't know one side of her knife from
the other had been made by Stark in reference to an
employee named Griffith who Stark had unsuccessfully
attempted to train as a peaker. Campbell was called back
into Gehrke's office after Mrs. Stuck arrived there. It was
Mrs. Stuck's testimony, which I credit, that Campbell
refused to discuss the basis for her emotional condition.
Mrs. Stuck testified that after Campbell left Gehrke
leaned back in his chair and said, "You brought that
union in here" Surprised by the remark, Mrs. Stuck
denied knowing who had brought the Union in Gehrke
then accused Mrs. Stuck of lying, saying, "You got a big
mouth, you are always lying. Your big mouth will get you
in trouble."" Thereafter Gehrke asked Kindred what
action she wished to take in connection with the matter
and Kindred recommended Mrs Stuck's discharge.
Neither Gehrke nor Kindred talked to Carol Stark
about the events leading to Campbell's outburst until after
Mrs. Stuck's discharge had been effectuated.
During the course of the proceedings employees Joyce
Brown and Carol Stark testified about the events of
September 27. Janet Campbell who was no longer in
Respondent's employ and had moved from the Paris,
Illinois, area was not called as a witness. After her
departure from the Company's employ Campbell had
requested and had sent her her income tax withholding
statement. This document was not returned to the
Company as undeliverable. However, no effort was made
by Respondent or General Counsel to locate Campbell, a
seemingly essential witness, so that she could give
testimony herein.
In concluding that the Campbell incident was seized
upon by Respondent as a pretext to effectuate Mrs.
Stuck's discharge I do not deem it necessary to attempt to
divine the ultimate truth as to the events of September 27
Sufficient for my conclusion herein is the manner in which
Kindred proceeded in her handling of the matter Thus,
she instructed Mrs. Stuck to pick up her timecard and
tools before advising Mrs Stuck of Campbell's
accusation. Further, after giving Mrs Stuck her version of
"Gehrke and Kindred denied that there was any reference to the Union
during this session in Gehrke 's office As noted I do not credit Gehrke
unless corroborated by reliable witnesses As demonstrated by her
testimony concerning the effect of Mrs Stuck' s discharge on trap peaking
production (section III, D, 4) Kindred was not a reliable witness I credit
Mrs Stuck's claim that Gehrke berated her concerning the Union's
organizational campaign
840 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Campbell's story Kindred said "I had warned Dale
previously. . . if she done it again I would fire her, and
she had done it again, so I was taking her into Gehrke's
office." The precipitous manner in which the decision to
discharge was made becomes more suspect when coupled
with Respondent's total failure to secure corroboration for
either Campbell or Mrs. Stuck from the employees who
worked in close proximity to them.
4 Trap peaking production
Although company counsel agreed that Mrs. Stuck's
production as a peaker was not an element leading to her
discharge the Company introduced into the record
summaries of trap peaking production and the basic daily
reports for a considerable period of time on which those
summaries were based. Additionally a number of
empl, veer called by the Company testified that Mrs.
Stuck had importuned them to hold their production down
so that the timestudy man would lower the required
production rate. As earlier noted, when Kindred on
September 24 warned Mrs. Stuck to raise her production
or face transfer or possible discharge on Friday,
September 27, Mrs Stuck was the most productive of the
three peakers then employed. This situation had been true
in July and August as well. Respondent's Exhibit 2 covers
production figures for the period July 16 through 31, 11
working days. During that period Stark did not achieve
the required production level on any day and Eslinger
reached 100 percent efficiency or more (a maximum of
114 percent) on 3 of the 7 days she worked. Mrs. Stuck
on the other hand exceeded the production requirements
every day she worked, reaching as high as 163 percent
efficiency and a low in July of 110 percent.
The results for August were somewhat similar Stark
again failed to reach 100 percent of efficiency on any of
the days she worked. Janet Campbell, a new peaker,
similarly failed to reach the production quota. Mrs Stuck
reached 100 percent of efficiency or more on 13 of the 23
days she worked in August
In September Campbell reached 100 percent of
efficiency on I of the 14 days she worked. Stark again
failed to meet the production quota and Mrs Stuck was
above the required production quota on 13 of the 19 days
she worked in that month prior to her discharge on
September 27
It should be noted that had Respondent not based Mrs.
Stuck's discharge on September 27 on the Campbell
incident, Kindred had prepared other grounds for Mrs.
Stuck's transfer or discharge when on September 24 she
set a required level for Mrs. Stuck of 130 percent of
efficiency by September 27. Although Mrs. Stuck reached
efficiency of 140 percent on September 25, 100 percent on
September 26, and I i I percent on September 27, Kindred
had the ammunition to rid herself of Mrs Stuck because
the average production for these 3 days was only 117
percent of efficiency.
The production information introduced by Respondent
serves also to cast doubt on Kindred's credibility. For
example, Kindred testified that in the week following Mrs.
Stuck's discharge Carol Stark was up to 100 percent
efficiency. However, Respondent's own Exhibit 2
establishes that during the 5 days of the week beginning
September 30 Stark bettered the 100 percent efficiency
mark on only I day and the average of her efficiency
ratings for that week was 91 percent. Kindred further
testified "that as of now Carol Stark is 100 percent
efficient practically every day, never under 100 percent "
The hearing herein was held on March 4, 1969. The latest
production figures submitted by the Respondent were for
the month of December and for the 12 production days
listed in that month Stark met the production
requirements on only 50 percent of the days."
As to the testimony by certain employees that Mrs.
Stuck had asked them to hold their peaking production
down so that the production quota would be lowered, her
own consistently high production efforts belie such a
campaign on her part. Additionally, Joyce Brown, a
witness called by Respondent, testified that she had
overheard Mrs. Stuck remark to Stark that it was Mrs.
Stuck's hope that she made the required production quota.
Finally, Respondent's effort to drape around Mrs Stuck's
shoulders its production problems in trap peaking is
refuted by the poor production of Campbell and Stark
following Mrs. Stuck's discharge. This is highlighted by a
handwritten note on the trap department efficiency report
of October 8 from D. Hex to Kindred asking "What are
you doing on low eff."
E. Findings and Conclusions
1. Jeffrey Stuck
"Under the Act an Employer must consider a request
for employment in a lawful, nondiscriminatory
manner. " Shawnee Industries, Inc., 140 NLRB
1451, 1452-53. 1 find that Respondent's treatment of
Jeffrey Stuck's employment application failed to meet
that test
Stuck had been active in the Molders' 1966 organizing
campaign, serving on that Union's organizing committee,
soliciting authorization cards, and he alone among the
employees wore an organizing committee badge. When a
Molders' delegation visited the Company in an effort to
present to management proof of employee support for the
Molders' Stuck accompanied the union representatives
and Gehrke observed Stuck with them in the outer office
as Respondent's supervisors were assembled in response to
the union visitation
At the time Stuck filed his application for
reemployment Respondent was engaged in a campaign to
recruit trained personnel. During the immediate period
before and after Stuck applied the Company hired five
employees as electric repairmen, the position to which
Stuck aspired. The prior experience of only one among
these five, Paul Reese, was demonstrably equal to that of
Stuck, who had satisfactorily performed as an electric
repairman during his more than 2 years of prior
employment with the Company. One of the new electric
repairmen, Freeman, was hired only I week after Stuck's
application was rejected.
Respondent contended that Stuck was not hired
because he wanted too much money. In light of
Respondent's wage scale Stuck's initial request for $3 per
hour was clearly unrealistic. However, when Stuck
reduced his request to $2.40 during the course of his
interview with Gehrke his wage demands were no longer
out of line with the starting wage of $2.25 which the
Company had paid Reese. Yet Gehrke did not offer work
to Stuck at any price. In view of Stuck's willingness to
substantially lower his wage sights to a figure
commensurate with his training and experience, in light of
Respondent's general efforts to recruit trained employees,
and in the context of the Company's employment of five
"Stark testified that since September 27 she met the production standard
of 158 per hour , achieving 100 percent efficiency.
CENTRAL ELECTRONICS, INC.
electric repairmen, at least four of whom were less
qualified than Stuck, "[t] he record is devoid of any
credible nondiscriminatory explanation for Respondent's
failure to hire" him. Shawnee Industries, supra
The one credible- explanation remaining for Gehrke's
refusal to offer work to Stuck at any price was his stated
belief that Stuck was seeking employment with the
Company to "go around and talk to everybody and
organize the union." Under these circumstances I
conclude the Respondent rejected Stuck's application
because of reasons proscribed by the Act and that
Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act.
2. Dale Stuck
Dale Stuck ' s discharge followed close upon the
rejection of her son's application for employment which I
have found was occasioned by Gehrke's fear that Stuck
was seeking entry into the plant for the purpose of
organizing for the Union Gehrke ' s remarks to Mrs
Stuck at the bowling alley earlier in September had
displayed his concern that she too was connected with the
Laborers organizational effort . The nexus between Mrs.
Stuck's discharge and Respondent ' s belief that she was a
moving force for the Union was further shown on the day
of the Campbell incident when Gehrke accused Mrs.
Stuck of having brought the Union to the company plant.
All things considered , I am led to the conclusion that
Mrs. Stuck ' s discharge was engineered to remove from
company ranks a feared union leader. Gehrke clearly
demonstrated that he believed mother and son to be
responsible for the Laborers campaign . Other factors
leading to this determination are the fatuous nature of the
evidence adduced to support Respondent ' s defense that
Mrs. Stuck was guilty of annoying other employees,
causing them to be upset and disturbing their production,
and the specious accusation that Mrs. Stuck had been
responsible for the failure of other employees to meet
production requirements The spurious nature of this
claim is evidenced by the continuing inability of the trap
peckers to reach required levels of efficiency and
Kindred ' s unfounded claim that after Mrs. Stuck's
discharge Stark reached the required level of production
and production problems generally were solved in the trap
peaking section . Moreover , Kindred's warning to Mrs
Stuck on September 24 that she increase her production
30 percent within 3 days further evidences a design to rid
the Company of - the suspected union ringleader.
Accordingly , I find that the Company seized upon a series
of incidents in which Mrs . Stuck played a small or
unproven part to justify her discharge and that
Respondent thereby violated Section 8 ( a)(1) and ( 3) of the
Act.'
"Employee Nettie Hale testified that in November , Supervisor Smithley
approached Hale at her work station and opened a conversation by saying,
"I hear there is a union meeting tomorrow night" Hale testified that she
disclaimed any knowledge of the subject Smithley did not testify and
Hale's testimony stands unrebutted in the record The complaint alleged
that Smithley 's statement constituted unlawful interrogation and created
the impression of surveillance of union activity I so find United Stater
Mobile Homes, Inc, 174 NLRB No 118. King Chrvcler-Plvmouth, Inc,
174 NLRB No 80
iV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
841
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the Respondent's
operations described in section 1, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act,
I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
purposes of the Act
Having found that Respondent unlawfully discharged
Dale Stuck, I shall recommend that Respondent be
ordered to reinstate her to her former or a substantially
equivalent position of employment without prejudice to
her seniority and other rights and privileges and to make
her whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered as a
result of Respondent ' s unlawful conduct . As to Jeffrey
Stuck, having found that Respondent unlawfully
discriminated against him with respect to his application
for employment , I shall recommend that Respondent be
ordered to offer him immediate employment in the same
or substantially equivalent position at which he would
have been employed absent the discrimination against him
and to make him whole for any loss of earnings suffered
as a result of the discrimination against him by payment
to him of the sum of money equal to what he would have
earned had the discrimination not been practiced against
him until the date of such offer, less his net earnings
during the period . Backpay for both Dale Stuck and
Jeffrey Stuck shall be computed in the manner set forth in
F W Woolworth Company. 90 NLRB 289, with interest
added thereto in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co ., 138 NLRB 716
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I Central Electronics , Inc., is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act
2. Central Illinois Laborers District Council , Common
Laborers Local 573, AFL-CIO, and the International
Molders' and Allied Workers ' Union of North America,
AFL-CIO , are labor organizations within the meaning of
the Act.
3. By threatening not to consider an employee for
reemployment because of his union activity, by accusing
an employee of union activity , by interrogation and
creating the impression of surveillance of union activity,
by the discharge of Dale Stuck because of her suspected
union activity, and by refusing to consider Jeffrey Stuck's
application for employment for discriminatory reasons,
the Respondent engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Sections 8 ( a)(I) and (3) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]