Chrysler Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 1, 1977

228 N.L.R.B. 486 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Chrysler Corporation and Patrick J. LeBlanc. Cases
7-CA-11791 and 7-CA-12032
March 1, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On October 26, 1976, Administrative Law Judge
Thomas D. Johnston issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, on December 6, 1976,
Respondent filed exceptions 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
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
brief 1 and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,2
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified
herein.3
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge as
modified below and hereby orders that the Respon-
dent, Chrysler Corporation, Trenton, Michigan, its
officers, agents , successors , and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order, as so
modified:
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(b):
"(b) In any other manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their
rights under Section 7 of the Act."
2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(b):
"(b) Make Patrick LeBlanc whole for any loss of
pay or other compensation he may have suffered by
reason of the discrimination against him, to the extent
it has not already been done, in the manner set forth
in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950),
with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per
annum , as set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co.,
138 NLRB 716 (1962)."
3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
I Respondent 's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record,
exceptions , and Respondent's brief adequately present the issues and
positions of the parties
2 Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge It is the Board 's established policy not to overrule
an Administrative Law Judge 's resolutions with respect to credibility unless
the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the
resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544
228 NLRB No. 61
(1950), enfd. 188 F 2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefully examined the
record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
3 In par 1(b) of his recommended Order, the Administrative Law Judge
uses the narrow cease-and-desist language , "in any Ue or related manner"
rather than the broad injunctive language "in any other manner," that the
Board has long held to be proper in cases involving 8(a)(3) violations
Springfield Dodge, Inc, 218 NLRB 1429 (1975) Accordmgly, we shall modify
the recommended Order to require Respondent to cease and desist from in
any other manner infringing upon employee rights.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT give our employees disciplinary
layoffs because of their union or protected con-
certed activities.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the
exercise of their rights to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist any labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, to engage in concerted
activities for the purposes of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain
from any or all such activities, except to the extent
that such rights may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment as authorized in Section
8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended.
WE WILL expunge from our records the disci-
plinary layoff unlawfully given to Patrick Le-
Blanc, and WE WILL make him whole for any loss
of earnings or other compensation because we
discriminatorily laid him off, plus interest at 6
percent per annum.
CHRYSLER CORPORATION
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS D. JOHNSTON, Administrative Law Judge: These
consolidated cases were heard at Detroit, Michigan, on July
22, 1976, pursuant to charges filed by Patrick J. LeBlanc, an
individual, in Case 7-CA-11791, on February 13, 1975, and
in Case 7-CA-12032, on May 19, 1975, and an amended
complaint issued on June 23, 1976.
The amended complaint, which was further amended at
the hearing, alleges that Chrysler Corporation (herein
referred to as Respondent) violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein
referred to as the Act) by meting out two 30-day disciplin-
ary suspensions to Patrick LeBlanc because he engaged in
activities on behalf of Local Union No. 372, International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, (UAW) (herein referred to
CHRYSLER CORPORATION
as the Union) and other related concerted activities
protected under the Act.
Respondent in its answer filed on July 6, denies having
violated the Act as alleged.
The issues involved are whether Respondent gave two
disciplinary suspensions to Patrick LeBlanc because of his
union or protected concerted activities in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. An additional issue is
whether proceedings under the grievance provisions of the
collective-bargaining agreement between Respondent and
the Union involving these suspensions precludes finding a
violation under the Act.
Upon the entire record in these cases and from my
observation of the witnesses and after due consideration of
the brief filed by Respondent,) I hereby make the follow-
ing:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent, a Delaware corporation, with plants located
throughout the United States including the State of
Michigan and a plant located at Trenton, Michigan, which
is the only plant involved in this proceeding, is engaged in
the manufacture, sale, and distribution of automobile and
related products. During 1975, a representative period,
Respondent in the course of its operations, purchased and
received goods and materials valued in excess of $1 million
which were delivered directly to its facilities located in the
State of Michigan, from points located outside the State of
Michigan. It also manufactured, sold, and distributed
products, valued in excess of $1 million, which were
shipped directly from its facilities located in the State of
Michigan to points located outside the State of Michigan.
Based upon the foregoing evidence, which is admitted in
Respondent's answer, I find that Respondent is an employ-
er engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and I find that Local Union No.
372, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, (UAW),
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
A. Background
Respondent operates a plant located at Trenton, Michi-
gan, where it is engaged in the manufacture of 6- and 8-
cylinder engines for use in Chrysler automobiles. Included
among its supervisory personnel are Superintendent James
i The General Counsel did not submit a brief.
2 Prior to January 6, 1976, Blair held the position of labor relations
supervisor.
3 The parties stipulated and I find that each of these individuals are
supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
4 Unless otherwise indicated the findings are based upon undisputed
evidence contained in the record which I credit
5 The temperature was approximately 60 degrees
6 Labor Relations Supervisor Blair could not recall who brought the heat
problem to his attention or being contacted more than once . Based upon his
487
DeKeyser, Employment Labor Relations Supervisor Art-
hur Blair,2 Industrial Relations Supervisor Lloyd Andre,
General Foreman John Corwin, and Foreman Charles
Sawicki 3
Respondent employs approximately 4,300 employees at
the Trenton plant. Its production and maintenance employ-
ees are represented by the Union with which it has a
collective-bargaining agreement.
Patrick LeBlanc, who has been employed by Respondent
since 1964, is presently employed in Department 528, which
assembles 6-cylinder engines.
He served as the Union's chief steward from about May
1973 until May 6, 1975, when he was elected as a union
committeeman. As chief steward his duties were to repre-
sent the employees in Department 528.
These proceedings arose out of disciplinary layoffs given
to LeBlanc in November 1974 and May 1975.
B. The November Layoff
The evidence establishes4 on November 12, 1974, em-
ployees in the head assembly section of Department 528
complained to Chief Steward LeBlanc about the lack of
heat in their area .5 LeBlanc reported their complaints to
both General Foreman Corwin, who was over the depart-
ment, and to Labor Relations Supervisor Blair. They
informed LeBlanc they would take care of it .6 Blair
contacted Plant Maintenance Supervisor Marke Bonde
concerning the problem and it was his impression it would
be corrected. LeBlanc's complaint to Corwin about the lack
of heat was the first step in the grievance procedure.?
During the next 2 days the employees continued to
complain to LeBlanc about the lack of heat in their area,
whereupon LeBlanc each day talked to both General
Foreman Corwin and Labor Relations Supervisor Blair,
who informed him they would get it corrected.
On the morning of November 15 when the employees
again complained to LeBlanc about the lack of heats he
again talked to both Corwin and Blair who assured him it
would be corrected.
That same morning after talking to Ted Laflure, who was
one of the employees that took care of heating problems,
LeBlanc told Blair they did not have anyone working on the
heat problem in Department 528 because he knew Laflure
was the man who took care of it and Laflure had told him
that to his knowledge that no one was working on the heat
problem in that area .9
After talking to Blair, LeBlanc returned to the work line
and asked the employees whether they would be willing to
accompany him to the labor relations office to protest the
lack of heat in their area.i° Approximately 12 or 13 of the
female employees he talked to agreed. While complaining
mabihty to recall these matters and absent denials by him I credit LeBlanc's
testimony concerning his discussions with Blair about this problem
r The collective-bargaining agreement contains a grievance procedure
consisting of three steps and an appeal board
s The temperature was approximately 63 degrees.
8 The evidence does not establish what, if any, action was being taken to
correct the heating problem
io LeBlanc's explanation for not filing a written grievance was because it
would prolong getting the problem corrected.
488 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
about the lack of heat in their work area some of the
employees had worn coats and sweaters while working.
During their break period that day from I to 1:11 p.m.,
approximately 10 to 12 employees, along with Chief
Steward LeBlanc, walked together in a group directly from
their work area to the labor relations office carrying signs
captioned, "We Want Heat," which were furnished to them
by LeBlanc. Their walk to the office which lasted about 4
minutes took them through other departments including
some where employees were working. Whenever other
employees asked them what they wanted LeBlanc and the
other employees with him would respond they wanted heat
or would show them their signs. However, none of them
stopped to talk to the other employees who continued
working.
Upon reaching the labor relations office, which was
located apart from the production area, they entered and
LeBlanc showed his sign to Blair and told him the
employees were from the production area and they were
suffering from the cold, wanted heat and were tired of
waiting. According to both LeBlanc and one of the
employees in the group, Lawanda Smith, other employees
also told Blair they wanted heat . Blair's version was after
hearing some noise outside his closed door the group came
into his office at which time there was about 10 seconds of
unintelligible discussion among them ,[[ some quite loud,
before LeBlanc spoke up about their wanting heat.
Blair made no response to their statements and after
about 30 seconds they left Blair's office and proceeded back
to their work area in the same manner they came arriving
there before their break period ended. During the period of
a few minutes that the group was in the area of the labor
relations office some employees who worked in the insur-
ance 12 and personnel offices located across from Blair's
office were not working but observing the group.
Shortly after the employees returned to their area and
resumed work the heating problem was corrected.
Later that same day General Foreman Corwin informed
LeBlanc he was being put on notice for disciplinary action
because of what they had done.
LeBlanc was subsequently given a disciplinary layoff
from November 22, 1974, to December 23, 1974, with the
period from November 30 to December 22 being waived.
The written reasons given for the suspension were as
follows: "Leading, taking part in a disruptive and disorder-
ly demonstration and failure to follow the grievance
procedure."
11 Smith also stated the employees were talking among themselves
12 Three employees worked in insurance
13 Included among Respondent 's plant rules for which disciplinary action
may be taken are as follows: "7 Leading, instigating, supporting, or taking
part in any strike, work stoppage or picketing in violation of the collective-
bargaining agreement or in any slowdown or other improper interference
with or restriction of operations. . . 14. Fighting , horseplay, or other
disorderly, disruptive, or unduly conduct "
14 Sec. 5 of the collective -bargaining agreement which Andre contends
LeBlanc violated by picketing provides in pertinent part as follows:
The Union will not cause or permit its members to cause , nor will any
member of the Umon take part in, any sit-down, stay-in or slow-down in
any plant of the Corporation, or any curtailment of work or restriction
of production or interference with production of the Corporation. The
Union will not cause or permit its members to cause nor trill any
The disciplinary layoff was also based in part upon
LeBlanc's past disciplinary record, specifically, two prior
written warnings, one verbal warning and one disciplinary
layoff. LeBlanc was given the disciplinary layoff by
Industrial Relations Supervisor Andre in the presence of
Labor Relations Supervisor Blair, General Foreman Cor-
win, and either the Union's Committeemen Harry West or
Steward Ollie Foster. LeBlanc denied to them that they had
done anything outside of their legal rights.
According to Industrial Relations Supervisor Andre, who
assessed the discipline against LeBlanc, he was disciplined
for leading and participating in a disruptive demonstra-
tion,13 circumventing the grievance procedure and picket-
ing14 through the plant to the labor relations office. Andre
denied LeBlanc's position as chief steward had anything to
do with his discipline or that he was treated differently than
the other six employees they were able to identify who had
participated in the demonstration. While he directed that
the other employees involved be issued verbal warnings
LeBlanc's discipline, as theirs, was also based upon his past
record.15
However, no evidence was presented to show that the
verbal warnings were actually given to those employees and
one of the participants, Lawanda Smith, denied she was
ever disciplined or told by Respondent that she should not
have done it.
LeBlanc's disciplinary layoff was the subject of a griev-
ance which was settled at the appeal board level between
the Union and Respondent whereby LeBlanc received 40
hours' pay with the suspension remaining on his record.
LeBlanc was never consulted about the terms of the
settlement and upon being informed of the results by Union
International Representative Jolly, he told Jolly that he was
not satisfied and would not accept it.
C. The May Layoff
Chief Steward LeBlanc was a candidate for the position
of committeeman in the union election held on May 6,
1975. As part of his campaign he distributed leaflets to
employees.
According to LeBlanc in April 1975, Superintendent
DeKeyser who was over Department 528 informed him in
the presence of acting Committeeman Ollie Foster that he
was being put on notice if he passed out any literature
during work hours he would be suspended. The leaflet
referred to by DeKeyser was one which had been distribut-
ed by LeBlanc and which not only appealed to employees
member of the Union take part in any strike or stoppage of any of the
Corporation's operations or picket any of the Corporations's plants or
premises until all the grievance procedure as outlined in this agreement
has been exhausted , and in no case over a matter on which the Appeal
Board has power and authority to rule, and in no other case until the
International Umon, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, within sixty (60) days after receiving
the Plant Manager 's decision, has notified the Manager of Labor
Relations of the Corporation in writing that it has authorized a strike,
specifying the grievances that are involved in the proposed strike, and
negotiations have continued for at least seven (7) separate days on
which meetings have been held after the Corporation has received such
notice.
15 The work records of the other six participants reflect they previously
had less, if any, disciplinary action taken against them than LeBlanc's
records indicate.
CHRYSLER CORPORATION 489
to support LeBlanc in the election but also made references
to the ruthlessness of Superintendent DeKeyser and fore-
men in Department 528 and Department 88 which would
continue to be grieved and challenged. Under cross-exami-
nation LeBlanc acknowledged the warning given him was
not to distribute the leaflets to people while they were
working.16
That same day Industrial Relations Supervisor Andre
informed LeBlanc in the presence of the Union President
Bob Smith that he would not be allowed to pass the leaflets
out, whereupon LeBlanc informed Andre he would con-
tinue campaigning in the same manner . Later that day
Andre informed LeBlanc he had just read the leaflet and
they were not going to allow him to pass them out anywhere
in the plant or on their property.
About April 24, 1975, LeBlanc filed a grievance with
Respondent alleging that Foreman Sawicki was interfering
with internal local union affairs by campaigning for the
reelection of his opponent Harry West for committeeman.
LeBlanc also discussed this matter with both General
Foreman Corwin and Labor Relations Supervisor Blair.
His grievance against Sawicki was subsequently granted.
LeBlanc testified that on April 23 Foreman Sawicki,
pursuant to his inquiry, denied he was campaigning for
West and on April 24, he informed Sawicki he had filed a
written grievance about his campaigning for West. Sawicki
could not recall whether LeBlanc had talked to him before
April 24 concerning his campaigning for West. However,
on the morning of April 24 he was aware of the grievance
and General Foreman Corwin had gotten on him about
campaigning.17
Foreman Sawicki testified on April 24 about 2 p.m. he
observed LeBlanc walk through his area. As LeBlanc
approached the crib area where he was working, LeBlanc
using profanity told him he had better watch his mouth
because they were still taking off V-8 foremen. Shortly
thereafter while talking on the telephone he observed
LeBlanc who was about 15 yards away talking to a couple
of other individuals.18 About a minute later he saw LeBlanc
bend over some freshly poured cement in the area and
using a push rod 19 write or mark something in the wet
cement. When LeBlanc noticed Sawicki watching him
LeBlanc quit writing, dropped the push rod in a garbage
can, and left the area. After completing his telephone
conversation Sawicki went over to the area where he had
observed LeBlanc, and saw written in 4-inch letters in the
wet cement the words "Vote For Pat." Sawicki then got
Foreman Dodt from another department as a witness to the
words in the cement . Sawicki got the push rod which had
wet cement on one end out of the garbage can,20 and also
got the contractor who had returned to pick up his tools to
resurface the area. Supervisor Dodt corroborated Sawicki's
testimony.
Sawicki also testified that LeBlanc subsequently asked
him why he had the area resurfaced. Upon explaining he
16
Rule 18 of Respondent 's work rules provides as follows: "18 . Unautho-
rized distribution of literature except such distribution during nonworking
time in nonworking areas as is protected by the National Labor Relations
Act."
17 Sawicki 's explanation of the campaigning was when employee John
Davis had asked him who he thought should win the election between
LeBlanc and West , he expressed his opinion that he thought West would win.
did not want the area defaced, LeBlanc's response was
Sawicki knew he was going to deny it.
LeBlanc denied either writing in the cement or talking to
Foreman Sawicki about it.
I credit the testimony of Foreman Sawicki which was
partially corroborated by Foreman Dodt and find that
LeBlanc, contrary to his denials, did write in the wet
cement . Apart from my observations of the witnesses in
crediting Sawicki rather than LeBlanc, LeBlanc on occa-
sions contradicted his own testimony.
On April 25, Industrial Relations Supervisor Andre
informed LeBlanc in the presence of Willie Mays, who was
the chairman of the shop committee, and General Foreman
Corwin that he was being put on notice of being suspended
for defacing company property and being given a 30-day
disciplinary layoff. When LeBlanc denied any knowledge
of the matter he was informed it was because he wrote in
some wet cement.
On May 5, Industrial Relations Supervisor Andre in the
presence of Labor Relations Supervisor Blair and Chair-
man Mays read a report informing LeBlanc he was being
given a 30-day disciplinary layoff for defacing company
property and throwing away the push rod. The written
reasons given for the disciplinary layoff which was also
based upon his past record contained the following state-
ment : "Defacing company property and throwing away of
other company property." 21 The disciplinary layoff was
effective from May 7, 1975, to June 5, 1975. Andre
informed LeBlanc that the layoff was scheduled to start on
May 7 in order not to interfere with LeBlanc's opportunity
to campaign in the Union's election.
A grievance filed over LeBlanc's disciplinary layoff was
subsequently withdrawn by the Union at the appeal board
level. LeBlanc who was not consulted by the Union
informed International Representative Jolly he was not
concurring with his office's opinion about the grievance.
LeBlanc further testified about the time he received his
disciplinary layoffs in November 1974 and May 1975 that
Industrial Relations Supervisor Andre made statements to
him about they were going to get him. Andre denied
making such statements and I credit him rather than
LeBlanc for reasons previously stated.
D. Analysis and Conclusions
The General Counsel contends contrary to Respondent's
denials that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act by giving Chief Steward LeBlanc two disciplinary
suspensions because of his union and protected concerted
activities.
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act prohibits an employer from
interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in
the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act. Section 8(a)(3) of the Act provides in pertinent part:
"It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer . . . by
18 These individuals did not testify.
19 A push rod is a part used on the 6-cylinder engine.
20 The push rod was a usable part.
21 Respondent's plant rule 9 prohibits "Negligent or deliberate damage or
destruction of property owned or held by the corporation or any employee,
or the abuse or misuse or unauthorized use of any such property."
490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
discrimination in regard to hire and tenure of employment
or any tern or condition of employment to encourage or
discourage membership in any labor organization...."
To discriminate against an employee for engaging in
activities as a union steward violates Section 8 (a)(1) and (3)
of the Act. See Star Expansion Industries Corporation, 164
NLRB 563, 565 ( 1967), enfd . 409 F .2d 150 (C.A. D.C.,
1969).
The evidence supra with respect to LeBlanc 's November
disciplinary layoff establishes it was based upon his
conduct in initiating and participating in accompanying a
group of employees in a walk to and from their work area to
the labor relations office carrying signs captioned "We
Want Heat" to protest the lack of heat in their work area
where LeBlanc was chief steward after the employees had
repeatedly complained to him for several days about the
lack of heat and Respondent, despite the filing of a
grievance by LeBlanc and its own repeated assurances to
correct the problem , Respondent had failed to do so.
Respondent 's asserted reasons for laying off LeBlanc
were for his taking part in a disruptive and disorderly
demonstration, failing to follow the grievance procedure,
and engaging in picketing while on the way to labor
relations office . Respondent in its brief argues that Le-
Blanc's conduct was unprotected under the Act and his
layoff was therefore lawful , citing as authority such cases as
Emporium Capwell Co. v. Western Addition Community
Organization, 420 U .S. 50 (1975), and United Parcel
Service, Inc., 205 NLRB 991 (1973).
Contrary to those reasons given by Respondent for laying
off LeBlanc , the evidence failed to establish that his
conduct was either disruptive or disorderly ; that he
engaged in picketing ; or that he violated the collective-
bargaining agreement by failing to follow the grievance
procedure.
Except for some loud talking among the group of
employees during the few minutes they were in the labor
relations office area, which was located apart from the
production area , and that an unspecified number of
insurance and personnel employees observed them for a
few minutes rather than working, no evidence was prof-
fered by Respondent to show that their walk to and from
their work area to the labor relations office was either
disruptive or disorderly . Not only do I find such conduct
was insufficient to establish they were either disruptive or
disorderly but the evidence establishes their walk was
orderly and did not interfere with production.
Concerning the contention that LeBlanc was engaged in
picketing , I do not find that LeBlanc or the other employees
by merely carrying signs as they walked directly to and
from their production area to the labor relations office
during their I1-minute break period or by showing their
signs to other employees in response to their questions
about what they wanted constituted picketing as prohibited
by the collective -bargaining agreement.
Insofar as it was contended that LeBlanc failed to follow
the grievance procedure the evidence did establish that
LeBlanc filed a grievance concerning the lack of heat in
accordance with step I of the grievance procedure . Respon-
dent initially granted the grievance by promising that the
problem would be corrected and repeatedly reassured
LeBlanc over a period of several days it would be corrected.
Only after its failure to comply with its promises did
LeBlanc and the employees go to the labor relations office
for the purpose of pressing Respondent to correct the
heating problem as promised. Under these limited circum-
stances, I do not find that LeBlanc's action which was
consistent with his duties and responsibilities as chief
steward violated the grievance procedures of the collective-
bargaining agreement.
Additional evidence disproving Respondent's alleged
reasons for laying off LeBlanc was the failure to establish
that the other participants were also actually disciplined.
Rather as the undisputed testimony of Lawanda Smith
established, she was never disciplined for her part in the
incident. Having rejected Respondent's defenses I find that
LeBlanc, acting in his capacity as chief steward, by pressing
the grievance to get the heat problem corrected as promised
by Respondent, was engaged in both union and protected
concerted activities and Respondent by giving him a 30-day
disciplinary layoff effective from November 22, 1974, for
engaging in such conduct thereby violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act.
The cases relied on by Respondent in support of its
position, which unlike the instant case, involved conduct
violative of collective-bargaining agreements removing
employees from the Act's protection, are clearly distin-
guishable.
Further, although LeBlanc's November disciplinary
layoff was the subject of a grievance that was subsequently
resolved between the Union and Respondent absent as here
any showing that the requirements of Spielberg22 were met,
I do not find any basis for honoring that decision 23
The remaining issue is whether LeBlanc's disciplinary
layoff in May was also unlawful. Having credited Foreman
Sawicki and finding contrary to LeBlanc's denials that
LeBlanc did in fact deface and throw away company
property in violation of the plant rules, I find that the
General Counsel has not proven by a preponderance of the
evidence as is his burden that LeBlanc was given the May
layoff because of his union or protected concerted activi-
ties.
IV. THE EFFECT OF TILE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, found to constitute unfair labor practices occurring
in connection with the operations of Respondent described
in section I, 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 thereof.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Chrysler Corporation is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
22 Spielberg Manufacturing Company, 112 NLRB 1080 (1955). for the period he was discriminatorily laid off in November 1974 this amount
23 To the extent LeBlanc under that decision was actually paid his wages would be deducted from any backpay due.
CHRYSLER CORPORATION 491
2. Local Union No. 372, International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Work-
ers of America, (UAW), is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By giving Patrick LeBlanc a 30-day disciplinary
layoff effective from November 22, 1974, because of his
union and protected concerted activities, Respondent has
engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action to
effectuate the policies of the Act. Accordingly, Respondent
shall be ordered to expunge from its records the disciplinary
layoff given to Patrick LeBlanc in November 1974 which
was herein found to be unlawful and to make him whole, to
the extent it has not already done so, for any loss of
earnings or other compensation he may have suffered
because of such discrimination against him with the
payment of 6-percent interest per annum which shall be
computed in the manner prescribed by the Board in Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER24
The Respondent, Chrysler Corporation, Trenton, Michi-
gan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Giving employees disciplinary layoffs because of their
union or protected concerted activities.
24 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 , and recommended Order herein 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.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their
rights under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Expunge from its records the disciplinary layoff given
to Patrick LeBlanc in November 1974 which was herein
found to be unlawful.
(b) Make Patrick LeBlanc whole for any loss of pay or
other compensation he may have suffered by reason of the
discrimination against him, to the extent it has not already
been done, in the manner set forth in that portion of this
Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents , for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary to analyze and determine the amount of backpay,
if any, due under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its Trenton, Michigan, facilities copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 25 Copies of said
notice on forms furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 7 shall, after being duly signed by Respondent's
authorized representative, be posted immediately upon
receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the amended complaint be,
and hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges unfair labor
practices not specifically found herein.
25 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."