Cramco, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 6, 1967

162 N.L.R.B. 1442 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

1442 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
our employees in the unit heretofore found appropriate for bargaining pur-
poses concerning their wage rate changes and/or changes in the method of
computing their wages.
WE WILL make whole our employees for loss of pay, if any, they may have
suffered as a result of our unilateral change in computing their wages from a
piecework basis to an hourly rate basis.
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain , or coerce our employees in the exer-
cise of their guaranteed statutory rights by interrogating them concerning their
reports or communications to the above -named Union regarding the terms and
conditions of their employment.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form, join, or
assist International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing , or to engage in any other concerted activities for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any
and all such activities.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or
remaining , members of the labor organization.
PHIL-MODES, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
BERLIN COAT MANUFACTURING CO.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Room
8A24, Federal Office Building, 819 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76102, Tele-
phone 334-2921.
Cramco, Inc . and United Rubber , Cork , Linoleum and Plastic
Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Cases 26-CA-2344 and 2428.
February 6, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 9, 1966, Trial Examiner Jerry B. Stone issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examin-
er's Decision. He further found that Respondent had not engaged in
certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and he
recommended dismissal as to them. 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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members Jenkins and Zagoria].
162 NLRB No. 142.
CRAMCO, INC. 1443
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the
entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.]
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge (Case 26-CA-2344) filed on March 8, 1966, by United Rubber,
Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO (herein sometimes
called the Charging Party or Union), the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, by the Regional Director of Region 26 (Memphis, Tennessee),
issued his complaint dated April 19, 1966, against Chamco, Inc. (herein sometimes
called Respondent, Employer, or Company). The aforesaid complaint alleged viola-
tions of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by the Respondent. On April 26, 1966,
the Respondent duly filed an answer to the aforesaid complaint, admitting some of
the facts, denying other facts, and denying the commission of unfair labor practices.
Upon a charge (Case 26-CA-2428) filed on May 17, 1966, by the Union, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director
of Region 26 (Memphis, Tennessee), issued his complaint dated May 27, 1966,
against the Respondent. The aforesaid complaint alleged violations of Section 8(a)
(3) and (1) of the Act by the Respondent. On May 27, 1966, the aforesaid
Regional Director duly and appropriately issued an order consolidating Cases 26-
CA-2344 and 26-CA-2428 for purposes of hearing. The Respondent on June 2,
1966, duly filed an answer to the May 27, 1966, complaint, admitting some of the
facts, denying other facts, and denying the commission of unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to appropriate notice, a hearing in this matter was held on June 14 and
15, 1966, before Trial Examiner Jerry B. Stone. All parties were represented at and
participated in the hearing and were afforded the right to present evidence, to exam-
ine and cross-examine witnesses, to offer oral arguments, and to file briefs. Briefs
were filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent and have been considered.
The principal issues are whether (1) George Sargent was a supervisor within the
meaning of the Act, (2) Respondent constituted Guy R. Pickle and Oneal Richard-
son as its agents, for certain alleged conduct, (3) Respondent violated Section 8(a)
(1) of the Act by interrogation of employees as to their union activities, by solici-
tation of employees to turn union cards over to the Respondent, by promising
employees benefits or cessation of reprisals if said union cards were turned over to
the Respondent, and by threatening employees with reprisals because of their union
activities, and (4) Respondent discriminatorily (in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act) discharged Ivy C. Tubb (on March 2, 1966), Larry Chism (on March 7,
1966), and James C. Jones (on May 13, 1966).
Upon the entire record in this case and from my observation of the witnesses, the
following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations are made.'
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER INVOLVED
The facts pertaining to the business of the Employer are based upon the plead-
ings and the admissions therein.
Cramco, Inc., the Respondent, is now, and has been at all times material herein,
a Mississippi corporation with an office and place of business located at Amory,
Mississippi, where it is engaged in the business of manufacturing zinc die castings
for automobile accessories, commercial refrigeration, hardware, and similar items.
During the 12 months ending on May 27, 1966, the Respondent, in the course
and conduct of its business operations, sold and shipped products valued in excess
1 All credibility resolutions made herein are based on a composite evaluation of demeanor
of the witnesses and the probabilities of the evidence as a whole.
1444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of $50,000 from its Amory , Mississippi , plant directly to points located outside the
State of Mississippi , and, during the same period of time , purchased and received
products valued in excess of $50,000 at its Arnory , Mississippi , plant directly from
points outside the State of Mississippi.
As conceded by the Respondent , it is concluded and found from the foregoing
facts that the Respondent is and has been an "employer ," as defined in Section 2(2)
of the Act , engaged in commerce and in operations "affecting commerce" as defined
in Section 2(6) and ( 7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Based upon the pleadings and admissions therein, it is found and concluded that
United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is
now, and has been at all times material herein , a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The agency issue
The facts , as found and set out in detail in section III, C, of this Decision, reveal
that Personnel Manager Jack Jones on March 2, 1966, constituted Guy R. Pickle
and Oneal Richardson as Respondent 's agents for the purpose of stopping Ivy
Tabb's union activity . The facts also reveal that the circumstances of such contem-
plated acts of the agents were coupled with an understanding that a conference
would ensue where Tubb and Jack Jones would be present , such conference did
ensue on March 3, 1966, and with a person named D. C. "Doc" Howell being pres-
ent, and Jack Jones in no way exhibited any disavowal of the actions of Pickle,
Howell, or Richardson Based upon the foregoing and the facts as set forth in detail
in section III, C, of this Decision , I conclude and find that Guy R. Pickle, Doc
Howell , and Oneal Richardson acted as agents (within the meaning of the Act) for
the Respondent in attempting to stop Ivy Tubb from engaging in union activity at
Respondent's plant.
B. Supervisory status issue 2
The General Counsel's complaint alleges that George Sargent , Ray Conway, Rex
Leach, and Billy Harbison are supervisors within the meaning of the Act. The
Respondent 's answer denies that the foregoing named persons are supervisors within
the meaning of the Act . The Respondent's answer admits however that George Sar-
gent had the title of "Foreman ," that Ray Conway had the title of "Supervisor-
Buffing and Polishing ," that Rex Leach had the title "Foreman-Buffing and Polish-
ing," and that Billy Harbison had the title "Foreman-Second Shift-Buffing and
Polishing."
Night Superintendent Posthumus credibly testified to the effect that Respondent
had regular foremen and working foremen. Posthumus also credibly testified to the
effect that regular foremen had full responsibility to discipline help and to fire a
person if needed. The facts are thus overwhelming and undisputed that regular fore-
men are supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
Construing Respondent's answer in view of the foregoing undisputed facts, it is
clear then that Respondent contends the persons described as foremen and denied as
being supervisors within the meaning of the Act are in the category of working
foremen.
The facts as to George Sargent reveal that prior to March 2 , 1966 , he was a lead-
man, that shortly before or on March 11, 1966, Sargent was made working fore-
man, that as a working foreman he directed the work of employees in the toolroom,
told employees to leave their work to go to polish dies in the die room, granted
employees time off, and assigned employees overtime work.
Night Superintendent Posthumus credibly testified to the effect that the duties of
the working foremen were basically similar. Personnel Manager Jack Jones credibly
testified that Rex Leach was a working foreman, that Leach could effectively rec-
ommend that an employee be disciplined , and that Leach could effectively recom-
mend that an employee be discharged if there were a violation of a rule.
Night Superintendent Posthumus also credibly testified to the effect that Sargent
did not have authority to hire, transfer employees, suspend employees, lay off
2 The facts are based upon a composite of the credited testimony of Jack Jones, Ray
Posthumus , Wigginton, Tubb , and James C. Jones.
CRAMCO, INC. 1445
employees, recall employees, promote employees, discharge employees, assign
employees to various departments, reward or discipline employees in any way, or
adjust major grievances. Posthumus' answers, however, reveal in effect that he was
not disputing the fact that Sargent could assign work in his own department and
that Sargent could adjust grievances on a small plane in his own department.
Posthumus' testimony is not credited to the extent that it may be said to support
a finding that Sargent lacked the authority to effectively recommend action relating
to hiring, transfer, layoff, recall, promotion, discharge, assignment, rewarding, or
discipline of employees. Posthumus was asked a general and leading question as
follows: "Can he effectively recommend any of these actions I just mentioned, and,
by that, I mean, would you, as his boss, take action solely upon his recommenda-
tion, or would you investigate the matter reported to you?" Posthumus' reply to this
question was "I believe I would check into it." Considering the general nature of
Posthumus' testimony and the questions asked as compared with Personnel Man-
ager Jones' testimony as to Leach's duties as a working foreman, I find Personnel
Manager Jones' testimony more reliable and discredit Posthumus' testimony as indi-
cated in the preceding paragraph and credit Personnel Manager Jones' testimony as
indicated in the preceding paragraphs.
Considering all of the foregoing, I am convinced that the evidence preponderates
for a finding that Sargent, Leach, and the other working foreman (Harbison-until
March 31, 1966) are supervisors within the meaning of the Act.3 I so conclude and
find.
C. Events primarily concerning Ivy Tubb; initial union activity 4
Ivy Carroll Tubb commenced working for the Respondent around September
1965. Knowing that his brother was working with Ray Smithhart (of the Union) in
attempting to organize for a union at a plant in Aberdeen, Mississippi, Tubb asked
his brother to have Smithhart to contact him. On February 22, 1966, Smithhart (for
the Union) contacted Tubb and the two discussed the question of organizing a
union at Respondent's plant. Tubb, on February 22, 1966, signed a union card and
took some union cards for the purpose of getting employees at the Respondent's
plant to sign said cards. Thereafter, during lunchtime, breaktime, and in the rest-
room Tubb attempted to get employees to sign these union cards.5
1. Events of March 1, 1966 6
On March 1, 1966, at apparently 9 p.m., Tubb decided that it would be in his
best interests to let the Respondent know, in the presence of witnesses, that he was
engaged in union activity and getting union cards signed. On March 1, 1966, around
9 p.m., Tubb asked two employees to approach him to hear what he was going to
tell Night Superintendent Posthumus.? Tubb then asked Night Superintendent Post-
humus to come to where he was. Tubb told Posthumus that he and others were
trying to organize a union at the plant, several employees had told him that they
had been threatened that if the Company learned of their activity they would be
fired, that he wanted_Posthumus to know he (Tubb) was for the Union, he had
worked under a union for 2 years, that here was a union card (and handed a union
card to Posthumus), and that he had union cards. Tubb asked Posthumus what he
thought of a union. Posthumus told Tubb he didn't think much of a union, that he
thought two people could work better together than if a third person were there.
8 The evidence is insufficient to establish Ray Conway^s status. However, the facts in this
case reveal no necessity for a determination in any event.
4 The facts are based upon Tuhb's credited testimony.
5 Larry White Chism, an employee at Respondent's plant, signed a union card for Tubb
on February 24, 1966
6 Based upon a composite of the credited testimony of Tubb and Posthumus. The facts
are relatively without dispute Tubb impressed we as a truthful and objective witness I
was not impressed that Posthumus accurately, recalled the event in its entirety. As an
example there is no evidence that any union adherent had been fired or laid off prior to
March 2, 1966 I am convinced that Posthumus did not accurately remember the conversa-
tion concerning threats and that his testimony (to the effect that Tubb asked if it were
true that the Company had -fired a man for being for the Union, and that he answered
that he hadn't heard anything and didn't believe they would) is unreliable. I, do not credit
such testimony
4 The employees were, George Sargent. and Douglas Stephens Sargent at the time had
not been made a working foreman • ' . 1 , ,
1446 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Events of March 2, 1966 8
On March 2, 1966, around 4 p.m., Night Superintendent Posthumus saw Person-
nel Manager Jack Jones and asked Jack Jones if he knew that Ivy Tubb had given
him (Posthumus) a union card the night before and told him he (Tubb) wanted
Posthumus to know he (Tubb) was organizing for the Union and didn't want to do
it behind anybody's back.
Personnel Manager Jack Jones and Night Superintendent Posthumus thereupon
went in to see Plant Manager J. E. Scott and Vice President and General Manager
W. B. Jones. Personnel Manager Jack Jones asked Scott and W. B. Jones it they
had heard of Tubb's conversation (about the Union and union cards) with Posthu-
mus. The evidence does not reveal whether or not Scott and W. B. Jones had so
heard. In any event Personnel Manager Jack Jones and Posthumus related the
details and circumstances of Tubb's March 1, 1966, conversation (about the Union
and union cards) with Posthumus. There was also discussed the fact that what
Tubb had done had been done in the presence of witnesses. Personnel Manager
Jack Jones told J. E. Scott and W. B. Jones that Tubb's father-in-law worked for Guy
Pickle, that Pickle had recommended Tubb for employment by the Respondent,
and he was going to telephone Pickle to see if Pickle could curb Tubb's union
activity in any way. J. E. Scott and W. B. Jones indicated agreement to such action.°
Personnel Manager Jack Jones then telephoned Guy R. Pickle at the Pickle
Funeral Home and told him the Respondent was having union trouble; Ivy Tubb
had made known his union activity and was possibly leading the union activity, and
asked Pickle if he could talk to Tubb and if he could do anything to stop the union
activity. Jack Jones told Pickle Respondent did not want any union in its plant and
whatever he could do would be greatly appreciated. Pickle stated he would talk to
Tubb and suggested that after doing so, there be a conference with Jack Jones and
Tubb present. Jack Jones told Pickle that he would attend such a conference if it
could be arranged.
Pickle turned from where he had answered the telephone and spoke to Oneal
Richardson who worked at the Pickle Funeral Home for Pickle. Pickle told Rich-
ardson that Personnel Manager Jack Jones had telephoned him, there was an
attempt to get a union in at the Respondent, and Richardson's son-in-law, Tubb,
was involved in it. Pickle asked Richardson if he would go to see his son-in-law
and talk with him and see if Tubb would be willing to talk with Jack Jones.
Richardson thereupon went to Tubb's home but was unable to see Tubb because
Tubb had already gone to work. Richardson, however, apparently spoke to Tubb's
wife about the matter.
3. March 2, 1966, interrogation of Tubb 10
Around 4:30 p.m., Personnel Manager Jones and Night Superintendent Post-
humus spoke to Ivy Tubb as Tubb was about to punch in for work. Personnel
Manager Jones asked Tubb if he were getting union cards signed on company
time. Tubb told Jack Jones that he was not getting union cards signed on com-
pany time. Personnel Manager Jones told Tubb that if he signed union cards on
company time it meant an automatic discharge."
8 The facts, unless otherwise indicated, as to the events of March 2, 1966, are based upon
a composite of the credited testimony of Posthumus, Jack Jones, Pickle, Richardson, and
Tubb.
Jack Jones' testimony was contradictory as to whether he was told to call Pickle by
Scott and W. B Jones. In my opinion it makes no difference whether he was told to do so by
Scott and W. B Jones or told them that he was going to do so and they acquiesced therein
It is clear that W. B. Jones and Scott knew of the proposed action. Their failure to stoli
such proposed action constituted acquiescence thereto.
10 The facts as to the March 2, 1966, interrogation of Tubb by Posthumus and Jack Jones
are based upon Tubb's credited testimony. Posthumus' testimony was very generalized and
was to the effect that he and Jack Jones talked to Tubb about hindering other employees
and about a penalty for such hindering. Jack Jones' testimony was limited and to the effect
that he did not question Tubb about the union cards and did not tell Tubb that the signing
of union cards on company time would mean an automatic discharge. I found Tubb, as a
witness, to appear more objective and complete in his testimony than Posthumus or Jones.
I credit Tubb's testimony and discredit Posthumus' and Jack Jones' testimony inconsistent
with the facts found.
u It is noted that none of the Respondent's written rules providing for discharge upon
violation of said rules remotely touch the situation of an employee obtaining signatures to
union cards on company time.
CRAMCO, INC. 1447
Considering the foregoing, it is clear that the Respondent, by Posthumus and
Jack Jones, revealed that in addition to its written rules that there were unwritten
and harsher rules as to solicitation for union cards than there were for solicitation
for other purposes."
Posthumus' and Jack Jones' questioning of Tubb as to the signing of union cards
on company time and the accompanying threat of automatic discharge for such
signing of union cards on company time constituted interrogation as to the union
activity of Tubb in a manner constituting interference, restraint, and coercion
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. Personnel Manager Jones' conversation with Richardson-March 2, 1966 13
Around 7 p.m., on March 2, 1966, Personnel Manager Jack Jones was at the
Pickle Funeral Home.14 Jack Jones told the hostess that he would like to see
Oneal Richardson. When Personnel Manager Jack Jones contacted Oneal Richard-
son, he asked Richardson to talk to him for a few moments and the latter stated
that he could do so. Jack Jones and Richardson thereupon met in the funeral home
and talked to each other. Personnel Manager Jack Jones told Richardson that
Tubb was involved in the Union, was going to get in trouble, and was passing out
union cards. Jack Jones showed Richardson a union card. Jack Jones told Richard-
son that he would appreciate it if Richardson would see Tubb and see if Richard-
son could get Tubb to stop his union activity. Richardson told Jack Jones that he
would talk to Tubb the next morning, that Tubb was at work, and that he had
told his daughter to tell Tubb to come to see him.15 Jack Jones told Richardson
that Mrs. Tubb had telephoned Respondent's plant and wanted to talk to Tubb,
that he (Jack Jones ) had received Mrs. Tubb's telephone call and had not allowed
her to talk to Tubb. Richardson told Jack Jones that, in any event, he would see
Tubb the next morning.
a. Richardson's telephone call to Mrs. Tubb 16
Richardson, apparently a short time after 7 p.m., telephoned Tubb's wife and
told her to tell Tubb to come to the Pickle Funeral Home the next morning and
that they wished to talk to him about the union problem.
b. Richardson -Pickle conversation 17
Apparently a short time after 7 p.m., Richardson asked Pickle if it would be
all right to have his friend , "Doc" Howell, participate in the discussions with
Tubb. Pickle told Richardson that it would be all right to do so.
12 The company rule as to solicitation without permission was set forth as a category III
rule. The company rules set forth in effect that a first offense violation of a category III
rule provided a first warning notice, that a second offense violation of a rule under category
III (not necessarily the same specific rule ) provided for a second warning notice, that a
third offense violation of a rule under category III (not necessarily the same specific rule)
provided for a 3 -day layoff , and that a fourth offense violation of a rule under category III
(not necessarily the same specific rule ) provided for discharge . It is noted also that the
company rule as to interference with another employee 's work during the workday was set
forth as a category II rule. The company rules set forth in effect that a first offense viola-
tion of a category II rule provided for a 3-day layoff without warning, that a second
offense violation of a category II rule (not necessarily the same specific rule) provided for
discharge . There is no contention and the facts do not support any consideration of other
rules for the point involved herein
'- The facts as to Jack Jones' and Richardson 's conversation are based upon a composite
of the credited testimony of Jack Jones and Richardson I credit Richardson's testimony to
the effect that Jack Jones said that Tubb was in trouble and discredit Jack Jones' denial
that he so said. Richardson impressed me as an honest , forthright, and objective witness.
I am convinced that the events were of such a nature that Jack Jones did not recall all
that was said . I am convinced from the overall facts and from Richardson ' s demeanor
that his version of the event is more reliable.
is During this period of time the funeral home was handling the funeral of the mother-in-
law of one of Jack Jones ' cousins.
15 It is apparent from the total testimony and a fair inference therefrom that Richardson
told Jones of Richardson 's prior telephone call to his daughter ( Tubb's wife).
16 The facts are based upon Richardson 's credited testimony.
17 The facts are based upon a composite of Richardson 's and Pickle 's credited testimony.
1448 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
c. Posthumus' telephone call to Personnel Manager Jones 18
Around 9 p.m. on March 2, 1966, Night Superintendent Posthumus telephoned
Personnel Manager Jones and told him he had ascertained that Tubb had gotten
some of the union cards signed on company time. Posthumus asked Jack Jones to
tell him what he should do. Personnel Manager Jones told Posthumus to send
Tubb home and to tell Tubb to come in to see him (Jack Jones) at 10 o'clock the
next morning.
d. Tubb's layoff 19
Night Superintendent Posthumus thereupon went to where Tubb was working
and spoke to him. Posthumus told Tubb that Tubb knew what they had talked
about at the beginning of the shift, that Tubb had lied at the time, and that Tubb
in fact had been getting union cards signed on company time. Tubb told Post-
humus in reply that he had not been getting union cards signed on company time.
Posthumus thereupon told Tubb the ones that he had gotten signed were signed
on company time. Tubb told Posthumus the cards were not signed on company
time, they were signed in the "break" room, outside the building, in the bath-
room, or at the clock. Posthumus told Tubb he was going to have to send him
home. Tubb thereupon went to put his tools up. As Tubb went to the timeclock to
punch out, Posthumus told Tubb to come back to see Personnel Manager Jones
in the plant at 10 a.m. on the next morning. Tubb told Posthumus that if he were
fired he would see him at the Labor Board.
e. Tubb's conversation with his wife 20
Tubb, thereupon, went home and his wife told him that her father (Richard-
son) had called and wanted him to come to the Pickle Funeral Home the next
morning to talk about the union problem.
5. Events of March 3, 1966, 8 a.m.21
On March 3, 1966, around 8 a.m., Tubb arrived at the Pickle Funeral Home
where he met Guy R. Pickle, Oneal Richardson, and "Doc" Howell outside the
funeral home. Pickle, Richardson, and Howell told Tubb that they wanted to talk
to him about the Union he was involved with at Cramco, Inc., and that they
should go inside the funeral home to talk about the matter.
la The facts are based upon the credited aspects of Personnel Manager Jones' and Pos-
thumus' testimony and a fair inference from all the facts. Considering the totality of all
the evidence, I am convinced that neither Posthumus nor Jack Jones were concerned over
the violation of the rule concerning interfering with another employee's work I-lad they
been, and had they so discussed with each other or with Tubb, I am convinced that
Posthumus would have completed a reprimand slip on March 2, 1966, to such an effect.
I am also convinced that Jack Jones would have so stated to Pickle, Richardson, Rowell,
and Tubb on March 3, 1966, and would have made it clear that all that was involved was
a penalty of a 3-day layoff. I don't believe and don't credit Posthumus' or Jack Jones'
testimony relating to discussions of work interference or hindering of others, or as to
reports concerning the same . I am convinced that Posthumus and Jack Jones were only
concerned about Tubb's union activity and finding out whether he had signed union cards
on company time
19 The facts are based upon a composite of the credited testimony of Tubb and Posthumus.
As indicated previously, I do not believe that Posthumus was concerned over a violation
of a rule concerning interfering with another employee's work during the workday, nor do
I believe that Posthumus told Tubb that Tubb was "hindering" other employees at work.
Had Posthumus been so concerned or had Posthumus told Tubb that the problem was
"hindering other employees ," I find no reason to reveal why Posthumus did not simply
prepare a reprimand slip and let Tubb know that he was being laid off for 3 days as a
result of violation of said rule. I discredit Posthumus' testimony inconsistent with the
facts found herein.
2a Based upon Tubb's credited testimony.
21 The facts are based upon a composite -of, the credited testimony of Tubb, Richardson,
and Pickle. Tubb and Richardson impressed me as fully frank, truthful,,and objective
witnesses. Pickle impressed me as a basically truthful person -wlio, however, was uncom-
fortable because of being-in an unpleasant situation and was reluctant to tell more than
he felt lie had to. I believe Pickle's testimony to the extent that It is consistent with the
facts set forth herein. 1 ,
CRAMCO; 1 c. 1449
Pickle, Richardson , Howell , and Tubb thereupon went inside the funeral home
and continued discussing the union problem at Cramco . Pickle, Richardson, and
Howell told Tubb that the Respondent was putting pressure upon Richardson and
Pickle because Tubb was active in organizing the Union at Respondent 's plant.
Tubb told Pickle , Richardson , and Howell he had been sent home because of get-
ting union cards signed ; if he were hurting anybody he, would quit his union
activity ; and all he wanted was to stay on the job a few days longer until he
could get another job. Apparently about this time Pickle stepped out of the room
temporarily . Richardson and Howell told Tubb that if he kept helping the Union
at Respondent he would be blacklisted for employment . After the foregoing
remarks Pickle returned to the room and again engaged in the discussion . Pickle
told Tubb that he thought Tubb's employment situation could be patched up if
Tubb quit the Union and turned the union cards over to the Respondent. Tubb
told Richardson , Pickle, and Howell that he could not do that , that he might burn
the cards but he would not give the cards to anyone , and that he had promised
the employees who had signed the cards that no one would see them.
Pickle then suggested that a telephone call be made to Personnel Manager Jones
to get Jones to come out to the funeral home. Pickle and Richardson left the room
to make the telephone call to Personnel Manager Jack Jones. Pickle telephoned
Jack Jones and asked him whether Jack Jones wanted the group (Tubb, Pickle,
and Richardson ) to come out to the plant or whether he wanted to come to the
funeral home for the conference as originally suggested, and stated that he thought
that they had Tubb's problem settled . 22 Jack Jones told Pickle that he would come
to the funeral home in about 15 or 20 minutes . Pickle told Jack Jones he would
have someone meet him in front of the funeral home when he (Jack Jones)
arrived.
6. Events of March 3, 1966, 8.30 a:m.23
Personnel Manager Jack Jones arrived at the Pickle Funeral Home some time
around 8:30 a.m. on March 3, 1966. Oneal Richardson met Jack Jones outside
the funeral home and told Jack Jones that he thought things were worked out and
they should go in and see about the matter . Jack Jones and Richardson thereupon
joined Pickle, Howell, and Tubb in the funeral home.
22 Both Pickle and Richardson testified to the effect that each telephoned Personnel
Manager Jones . Personnel Manager Jones testified to the effect that Pickle telephoned
him. Pickle testified to the effect that he left Richardson , Rowell , and Tubb talking when
he placed the telephone call I find no reason to believe that either Pickle, Richardson, or
Jones were not telling the truth as to this incident Tubb testified that Richardson returned
to the room and related the effect of the telephone call I am convinced that Pickle placed
the telephone call and was a principal speaker. I am convinced also that Richardson was
present at least part of the time while Pickle talked and possibly said a few words in the
telephone conversation I note that Pickle at one place in his testimony alluded to "we"
when he referred to making the telephone call.
zrt The facts are based upon a composite of the credited testimony of Tubb, Richardson,
Pickle, and Personnel Manager Jack Jones I discredit Jack Jones ' testimony to the effect
that he did not tell Tubb in effect that he would be fired I also discredit Pickle's testimony
to the extent that it was to the effect that Jones did not tell Tubb that he would be fired.
As to the facts relating to Jack Jones ' indicating that Tubb was going to be fired , I found
Richardson 's and Tubb ' s testimony straightforward and objective Pickle ' s testimony was to
the effect that he did not recall such statement Considering all of the testimony , the logical
consistency of the evidence and Tubb 's and Richardson's demeanor as being mote frank,
objective , and persuasive than that of Pickle 's and Jack Jones ', I credit Tubb ' s and Rich-
ardson's version and discredit Jones ' and Pickle ' s testimony in denial of the statements
concerning the possibility of firing As to the remarks about blacklisting , I am convinced
that Tubb did not recall the whole conversation or testify to the complete conversation.
I found Jones ' version thereto more complete and credit it insofar as consistent with the
facts found I am convinced however that Jack Jones did ask about the turning over to
Respondent of the union cards, and credit Tubb's, Pickle 's, and Richardson 's testimony
thereto and discredit Jack Jones ' denial thereof . The testimony of the witnesses to the
March 3, 19G6 , event was generally fragmentary . Considering the logical consistency of the
facts and the frank and objective demeanor of Richardson and Tubb, I am convinced that
their versions are basically more reliable than the inconsistent version of Jack Jones or
the several inconsistent testimonial statements of Pickle To the extent that the testimony
of anyiwitness is contradictory ' of the facts found; it is discredited because of unreliability
when considered with the logical consistency of all the facts
1450 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Richardson started the discussion in the funeral home by stating that "they"
thought they had the thing worked out, if Tubb could keep his job for 3 or 4 days
or until he could find another job in the near future Tubb would stop all of his
union activity, burn the union cards, get another job, and leave Cramco, Inc.
Tubb told Jack Jones that if he were hurting anybody he would stop his union
activity if the Respondent would give him time to work a little while and get a job.
Jack Jones asked Tubb if he had been passing union cards. Tubb told Jack Jones
that he had been passing union cards. Jack Jones asked Tubb if he had been passing
union cards on company time. Tubb replied that he had not been passing union
cards on company time. Jack Jones told Tubb that Tubb had been passing union
cards on company time and should not have done so. Tubb continued to deny that
he had passed union cards on company time. Jack Jones asked Tubb if he had 35
percent of the employees signed up. Tubb told Jack Jones that he had enough cards
for an election.
Tubb asked Jack Jones if the Respondent was going to fire him. Personnel Man-
ager Jack Jones told Tubb that it looked that way and asked Tubb, "What do you
think?" Tubb told Jack Jones that if Respondent fired him he could not get another
job, that if they let him work a while he could get a job and drop all of his union
activity. Tubb told Jack Jones that the Respondent was making it hard on him. Tubb
asked Jack Jones if he were being blacklisted by Cramco, Inc. Jack Jones told Tubb
there was no blacklist but Tubb's union activity was open in the plant, everyone
knew it, and he could not control what people said, and he could not say that
Tubb's union activity would not hurt him in Monroe County. Tubb then asked Jack
Jones what could be done to keep him from getting hurt by a blacklist in Monroe
County. Jack Jones said to Tubb, in effect, if Respondent lets you do as you say (to
let Tubb work a while, get a job, and drop his union activity) will you turn over
the union cards to the Respondent? Tubb told Jack Jones that he would not turn
the union cards over to the Respondent, he had the union cards, there were enough
cards for an election, there were enough cards to stop an election, he might go
home and burn them, he would not give them to anyone, and he had promised the
employees who signed the cards that no one would see them.
Tubb asked Jack Jones what would be the effect on his job and the blacklist if he
burned the union cards and went on and worked with the Company and the Com-
pany beat the Union. Jack Jones told Tubb he was not authorized to make any
deals, that he would take the proposition (about Tubb working for a few days,
burning the union cards, stopping his union activity, and finding a new job) to his
superiors and let him know their decision in 15 or 20 minutes. Jack Jones started
to leave and then turned and asked Tubb where he got his information about the
Union. Tubb told Jack Jones that he had already known about the union; he had
worked for H. K. Porter for 8 years, both before and after H. K. Porter had been
organized. Jack Jones asked Tubb whether he had ever helped organize a union.
Tubb told Jack Jones he had helped at the end of one organizing campaign and had
helped organize a union at one other time. Jack Jones asked Tubb if anyone was
helping him organize the plant. Tubb told Jack Jones he (Jones) was not getting
anything from him about the Union, that he was getting advice from the union
organizer. Jack Jones asked Tubb if he were getting any money out of his union
organizing. Tubb told Jones that he was not getting any money for union organiz-
ing. Jones told Tubb he (Tubb) had been taken advantage of. Jack Jones asked
Tubb why he was pushing the Union and what his grievances against the Company
were. Tubb told Jack Jones that the working conditions were not good. Jones asked
Tubb why he had not come to the office with the grievance. Jack Jones then told
Tubb he would go back to his superiors with Tubb's proposition (to be allowed to
work a few days, to quit his union activity, to burn the union cards, and to get
another job) and let him know in a little while what the decision was.
Considering all of the foregoing, I am convinced and conclude and find that the
facts establish that (1) Personnel Manager Jack Jones on March 3, 1966, interro-
gated employee Tubb about his and other employees' union activities in a manner
constituting interference, restraint, and coercion within the meaning of Section 8(a)
(1) of the Act; (2) Respondent's agents, Pickle, Richardson, and Howell, on
March 3, 1966, around 8 a.m., solicited Tubb to turn over union authorization cards
to Respondent in a manner constituting interference, restraint, and coercion within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act; (3) Personnel Manager Jack Jones, on
March 3, 1966, around 8:30 a.m. interrogated Tubb as to whether he would turn
over union authorization cards in a manner constituting interference, restraint, and
CRAMCO, INC. 1451
coercion within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act;24 (4) Respondent's
agents, Richardson and Howell, on March 3, 1966, around 8 a.m., threatened
employee Tubb that Respondent would discharge employees who engaged in union
activity, and that such employees would be discharged into a status of discharged
known union adherents blackballed by other employers without probability of
employment elsewhere (such conduct of Respondent is violative of Section 8(a) (1)
of the Act); and (5) Respondent's Personnel Manager Jack Jones, by his conduct
on March 3, 1966, around 8:30 a.m., reiterated to employee Tubb that Respondent
would discharge employees if they engaged in union activity, and would discharge
such employees into a status of discharged known union adherents blackballed by
other employers without probability of employment elsewhere 25 Such conduct of
Respondent is violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
7. Events of March 3, 1966-11 a.m.
Around 11 a.m. on March 3, 1966, Personnel Manager Jack Jones telephoned
Tubb (at the funeral home ), told Tubb that a decision had not been reached and
that he would be in touch with him later.
8. Events of March 4, 1966 26
On Friday, March 4, 1966, Tubb went to Respondent's plant and saw Personnel
Manager Jack Jones. Tubb asked Jones for his check (pay). Jack Jones secured a
check for Tubb and gave it to him. Tubb told Jack Jones the Respondent owed him
another check, that this was not all of the pay owed him. Tubb asked Jack Jones if
he were fired. Jack Jones told Tubb he would not say that he was fired right then,
that he (Tubb) was under suspension and he would not give him the rest of his pay.
9. Events March 8-11, 1966 27
On March 8, 1966, the Union filed unfair labor practice charges in Case 26-CA-
7344 which were received by the Respondent on March 9, 1966. The aforesaid
charges alleged in effect, in part, that the Respondent had, in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act, discriminatorily terminated the employment of Tubb on
March 2, 1966.
Thereafter on March 9, 1966, Personnel Manager Jack Jones attempted to con-
tact Oneal Richardson with reference to notifying Tubb to return to work. Jones
actually contacted Richardson on March 10, 1966, and told Richardson to tell Tubb
to return to work and report to Jones' office. Richardson telephoned Tubb's wife at
Tubb's home and relayed Jack Jones' message.
Tubb reported to Jack Jones' office on March 11, 1966. At the time George Sar-
gent, who had been made .a working foreman, was present in the office. Jack Jones
told Tubb that the Company was not making a deal; he was to work like he had
always worked, would be treated like any other employee, and that George Sargent
would be his foreman. Jack Jones handed Tubb a reprimand slip and asked him to
sign it. The reprimand slip contained language under the remarks section as follows:
"Interfering with another employee's work during the work day-3 day lay-off."
The slip had a place for signature of foreman or supervisor. Such space was not
completed as to signature. The reprimand slip also had a place for official signature.
Such place contained the signature of R. L. Posthumus. There was no designated
place for the reprimanded employee's signature.
21 I find it more proper from the facts found to word the finding as indicated rather than
to described such conduct as illegal solicitation therein.
23 The facts reveal that Respondent's agents, Richardson and Howell, threatened Tubb
that employees would be discriminatorily discharged and blacklisted for employment. A
few minutes later Personnel Manager Jack Jones denied that Respondent would blacklist
or cause to be blacklisted such employees Personnel Manager Jack Jones, however, re-
vealed that such discriminatorily discharged employees would be in a precarious employable
status as regards other employers because of their known union activity. The finding made
herein is applicable either to the "blacklist" situation or to the hopeless status situation,
and I find it accurate to describe the thrust of the unfair labor practices as indicated.
28 The facts are based upon Tubb 's credited testimony.
21 The facts are based upon a composite of the exhibits in the record and the credited
testimony of Jack Jones and Ivy Tubb.
1452 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Tubb told Jack Jones that he would not sign the reprimand slip. Jack Jones told
Tubb that he had to sign the reprimand slip before he went back to work. Tubb
looked at George Sargent. Sargent told Tubb that it would be all right to sign the
reprimand slip. Tubb thereupon signed the reprimand slip.
The General Counsel contends that Tubb was laid off on March 2, 1966, because
of his union activity.
The Respondent contends that Tubb was not laid off because of his union activ-
ity, but was laid off on March 2, 1966, because he was in violation of its rule pro-
hibiting an employee's interference with another employee's work during the work-
day. The Respondent contends and Personnel Manager Jack Jones testified that on
March 3, 1966, he contacted Respondent's home office in Grand Rapids, Michigan,
and that it was decided that Tubb would receive a 3-day layoff for failure to report
on March 3, 1966, as told to do so by his supervisor. The Respondent contends and
Personnel Manager Jack Jones testified that the Respondent decided to combine the
two offenses because if considered separately the second offense warranted a
discharge.
I reject Respondent's defense and discredit Personnel Manager Jack Jones' testi-
mony as above indicated. Had Respondent's actions on March 2 and 3, 1966, been
motivated because of a violation of the rule prohibiting an employee's interference
with another employee's work during the workday, I am convinced that Posthumus
would have prepared a reprimand slip accordingly and would have told Tubb that
he was being laid off for 3 days. I am also convinced that Personnel Manager Jack
Jones on March 3, 1966, would have simply told Tubb, Pickle, Richardson, and
Howell that Tubb was not being considered for discharge or other reprisals but was
simply being laid oft for 3 days for violation of the company rule regarding inter-
ference with other employees' work during the workday.
As to the alleged motivation to suspend Tubb because of his failure to report to
the personnel manager's office at 10 a.m. on March 3, 1966, I am convinced that
the total evidence reveals that Respondent could not have been legitimately moti-
vated in such regard. The facts clearly reveal that, with Personnel Manager Jack
Jones' approval, the conference with Tubb at the funeral home occurred between
8.30 and 9 a.m. Considering Personnel Manager Jack Jones' statement to Tubb at
that time that he would call Tubb and let him know the "decision," I find it impos-
sible to believe the Respondent would consider Tubb's failure to report to the plant
at 10 a.m. constituted a violation of a rule. I further note that no mention of such
violation was made on the March 11, 1966, reprimand that Respondent required
Tubb to sign. I further note that if on March 3, 1966, a decision was made to lay
off Tubb for 6 days, then I am convinced that Personnel Manager Jack Jones would
have told Tubb on Friday (March 4, 1966) when Tubb received his pay that he
was laid off for 6 days and to report to work on March 10 or 11, 1966, instead of
waiting until Wednesday, March 9, 1966, to attempt to notify Tubb to report back
to work.
Considering all of the foregoing, I am convinced, conclude, and find that the
Respondent discriminatorily discharged Tubb on March 2, 1966, because of his
union activity. Thus the facts reveal knowledge of Tubb's union activity, threats to
discharge Tubb if he got union cards signed on company time, and Posthumus'
sending Tubb home after telling Tubb the Respondent had found that Tubb had
gotten cards signed on company time, and reminding Tubb of the threat of auto-
matic discharge for such conduct. I find nothing in Respondent's conduct until
March 4, 1966, to reveal in any way that Tubb was not a permanently discharged
employee. Even on March 4, 1966, Personnel Manager Jones did not clear up the
matter but conveyed to Tubb that he was suspended but without telling Tubb how
long he was suspended for. Considering all of the foregoing, I am convinced, con-
clude, and find that the Respondent discriminatorily discharged Tubb on March 2,
1966, that on March 4, 1966, the Respondent decided to refer to Tubb's status as
that of being suspended, and on March 9 or 10, 1966, decided to handle Tubb's
status as that of being suspended. The Respondent's conduct, as set forth above,
reveals that the Respondent by its discharge of Tubb on March 2, 1966, violated
Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act. I so conclude and find 28
28 However, even if the facts were assumed to reveal a "layoff" on March 2, 1966, the
facts would require, a finding of a discriminatoiy layoff within the meaning of Section
8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
CRAivICO, INC. 1453
D. Events concerning Larry Chism
Chism's discharge-March 7, 1966 29
Larry Chism commenced working for the Respondent on September 28, 1965. On
February 24, 1966, Chism talked with Ivy Tubb about the Union and signed a
union card.
On March 2, 1966, Chism became sick at work around 10 30 or 11 a.m. and
went to the restroom because of his sickness. Thinking he would get better, he soon
returned to work from the restroom. Shortly before 12, Chism looked at Working
Foreman Leach 30 and asked him to come to his work station. Leach told Chism
that he would be over there after a while. As of 12 noon, Leach had been unable to
get by to see Chism.
Around 12 noon when the employees left work for lunch, Chism looked for Con-
way 31 and Working Foreman Leach, but was unable to locate them. Chism told an
employee, Inspector Gilmore, that he was going home-going to -a doctor and then
going home, and that Gilmore should tell Leach that he would not be back.
Chism left the plant and drove by a doctor's office in Amory, Mississippi. Chism
found that the doctor's office was closed and drove on home. Chism remained at
home the rest of the day, primarily staying in bed and taking aspirin for his illness.
On March 3, 1966, Thursday morning, Chism drove a short distance from his
home to his sister's home. There Chism used the telephone and called the Respond-
ent's plant . Chism told an unidentified girl who answered his telephone call that
he was sick and would not be in for work. The unidentified girl replied to Chism,
"Okay." Chism then went back home and remained there that day and Friday
"lying around" the house and taking aspirin.
On March 5, 1966, Chism went to the plant to pick up his paycheck. Chism saw
Personnel Manager Jack Jones in Jack Jones' office and secured his pay check.32
Chism, as he was leaving the plant, saw Roy Conway.33 Conway and Chism had
previously discussed a pickup truck that Chism had, and Conway had indicated that
he would like to see it. Chism showed Conway the pickup truck. Conway told
Chism that he liked the truck. Chasm told Conway that he would see him on Mon-
day. Conway said, "All right."
On Sunday, March 6, 1966, Chism and Ivy Tubb went to see three employees
about signing union cards. One of the employees signed a union card and two of
the employees refused to sign a union card.
On Monday, March 7, 1966, Chism reported to work at the plant. Chasm asked
Working Foreman Leach what he wanted him to do. Leach told Chasm that he
thought Chism had quit, that he had marked him down as "quit." Chism told Leach
that he had not quit. Leach told Chism to hang around and see Personnel Manager
Jack Jones.
Chism went to the lunchroom and waited a while until he saw Personnel Man-,
ager Jack Jones . Personnel Manager Jack Jones spoke to Chism and asked him
what he was doing. Chasm told Jack Jones that Leach had sent him to see Jack
Jones, that Leach had discharged him. Jack Jones told Chasm that they should go to
Jones' office. Jones and Chism went to Jones' office. Jack Jones asked Chism why
Leach had discharged him. Chism told Jack Jones that Leach had discharged him
The facts are based upon a composite of the credited testimony of Chism and Jack
Jones
30 Found elsewhere herein to be a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
31 Conway ' s job title is that of supervisor in the buffing department . The evidence is in-
sufficient to establish that he is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
33 Chism confusedly testified to the effect that Jones on Saturday asked him where he
had been and that he told Jones he had been sick , and Jack Jones told him he would see hint
on Monday . Chism also testified that on Monday Jack Jones asked him where he had been.
Jack Jones denied seeing Chism on Saturday . I am convinced that Chism has confused the
Monday conversations with the Saturday conversations . I am also convinced that Jack
Jones has forgotten about giving Chism his check on Saturday . I do not believe that Jack
Jones asked Chism on Saturday where he had been or that a conversation about illness
occurred on that date The testimony of Jack Jones and Chism inconsistent with the facts
found is discredited as being unreliable under the circumstances.
33 As indicated , the facts do not establish that Conway is a supervisor within the meaning
of the Act.
1454 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for being out 3 days without reporting to Leach. Personnel Manager Jack Jones
asked Chism where he had been. Chism told Jack Jones that he had been sick.
Personnel Manager Jack Jones told Chism to wait a minute until he spoke to
Leach. Jack Jones went out and spoke to Leach. Leach told Jack Jones that he had
told Chism to wait to see Jack Jones, that the reason was because Chism had been
out 3 days without reporting, which in the rules called for an automatic discharge.
Jack Jones returned to where Chism was and told Chism that because of the viola-
tion of the rule that he had no alternative but to discharge Chism. Chism said to
Jack Jones that "in other words, that means for me to look for another job." Jack
Jones told Chism, "Yes."
Chism, after his discharge, went to the door of the maintenance tool room at the
back dock and passed out a few union cards to some employees.34
The General Counsel contends that Chism was discharged because of his union
activity. The General Counsel contends that from the totality of the circumstances
that it must be inferred that the reason for Chism's discharge was his union activity.
The Respondent contends that Chism was not discharged because of his union
activity, that it had no knowledge of Chism's union activity, and it was not discrim-
inatorily motivated against Chism because of his union activity.
Considering all of the foregoing and all of the evidence in the case, the evidence,
at most, presents a suspicion that Respondent may have discriminatorily discharged
Chism. I conclude and find that the preponderance of all the evidence in this case
does not reveal sufficiently persuasive facts from which either to infer company
knowledge of Chism's union activity or to infer that Respondent was illegally
motivated in the discharge of Chism. I thus conclude and find that the evidence
does not establish that the Respondent discriminatorily discharged Chism in viola-
tion of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act 35
E. Events concerning James C. Jones
1. Jones' discharge-May 13, 1966 36
James C. Jones was initially employed by the Respondent on March 28, 1966,
and worked thereafter until May 13, 1966.
On the night of March 29, 1966, Ivy Tubb, who on that date was working on the
first shift,37 approached James C. Jones during a period of time that the first-shift
and second-shift employment overlapped, 4 to 5:30 p.m., and asked James C. Jones
(at Jones' work station) what James C. Jones thought about the Union.38 James C.
Jones told Tubb that he thought the Union was a good thing, he had always worked
under a union, that this was the first place that he had ever worked where there was
not a union, and he would keep working for a union. Tubb told James C. Jones
3s Chism's testimony on direct-and-cross examination as to this appears contradictory.
The questions and answers on cross-examination were more precise and I find it clearly to
the effect that the passing of cards occurred after he was discharged by Personnel Manager
Jones.
as The foregoing reasoning and findings would follow even if all aspects of Jack Jones'
testimony were considered in the light most unfavorable to the Respondent, and if all
aspects of Chism's testimony were considered in the light most favorable to the 'General
Counsel's contentions.
30 The facts are based upon a composite of the credited testimony of James C. Jones, Tubb,
Wigginton, Jack Jones, and Posthumus
37 Tubb had been shifted to the first shift after March 11, 1966, or was temporarily work-
ing at this time on the first shift
38 James C Jones' testimony on direct examination related to only this conversation
with Tubb On cross-examination Jones was confronted with his affidavits of May 19
and 25, 1966, which included reference to only one conversation with Tubb, substantially
similar to the one testified to, but to the effect as having occurred on "break" time. Jones
testified then that there were more than one substantially similar conversations. Jones'
testimony to this was not delivered in convincing fashion. I am persuaded that Jones, in
his affidavit, did not want to make it appear that the conversation about the Union
occurred during work time. I am persuaded and convinced that only one such conversa-
tion occurred as indicated and set forth in the facts herein. I discredit James C. Jones'
testimony to the effect that there were two substantially similar conversations. By this
I do not mean that I do not believe that Tubb and Jones later talked about the Union
or the signing of union cards but merely that the conversation set out herein did not occur
twice.
CRAMCO, INC. 1455
that the Company had fired him for trying to organize the Union and had recalled
him to work later.
2. Events of March 29 or 30, 1966
Sargent's Threat
Either on the night of March 29 or 30, 1966, James C. Jones was talking to
Working Foreman Sargent 39 In some manner the conversation turned into a discus-
sion of the Union 40 During the discussion Working Foreman Sargent told James C.
Jones that if he wanted to hold a job or stay there that he (James C. Jones) had
better not have anything to do with the Union.
Considering the foregoing, I conclude and find that Respondent, by its Supervisor
Sargent, on March 29 or 30, 1966, engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(a) (1)
of the Act.
3. Events-March 29 to May 3, 1966
On occasion between March 29 and May 3, 1966, Tubb and James C. Jones
spoke again concerning the Union. On May 3, 1966, James C. Jones signed a union
card.41 Thereafter between May 3 and 13, 1966, James C. Jones gave out simi-
lar union cards to three fellow employees in the machine shop.
4. Events of May 11 or 12, 1966
Sargent's Threat
On May 11 or 12, 1966, around the time of the first- and second-shift changing
time (around 4 to 5:30), Working Foreman Sargent told employee Wigginton, at
the plant, that the Respondent was going to lay off James C. Jones because he was
connected with the Union.
Considering the foregoing, I conclude and find that Respondent, by Supervisor
Sargent, on May 11 or 12, 1966, engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
5. Jones' discharge
After May 11 or 12, 1966, Wigginton told several of Respondent's employees
what Sargent had told him about Respondent's intention to lay off James C. Jones
because James C. Jones was connected with the Union.
Immediately after James C. Jones reported to his work station on May 13, 1966,
Tubb told James C. Jones what he had heard Sargeant had told Wigginton about
the Respondent's intention to lay off James C. Jones because he was connected with
the Union. James C. Jones, thereafter, went and spoke to employees Tackett, Kel-
ough, and Wigginton about Sargent's and Wigginton's conversation concerning the
foregoing. James C. Jones then went to Sargent and told Sargent he wanted to know
what this was about-his (Sargent) telling Wigginton that he (Jones) was going to
be laid off because of pushing union cards. Sargent told James C. Jones that he
had not told Wigginton that; that he had to lay James C. Jones off this evening
because work was slack. James C. Jones asked Sargent where Personnel Manager
Jack Jones was. James C. Jones told Sargent he wanted to talk to Personnel Man-
ager Jones. Apparently Sargent told James C. Jones that it was all right for him to
see Personnel Manager Jack Jones. James C. Jones thereupon went to the office to
see Personnel Manager Jack Jones.
James C. Jones, when he went to the office, discovered that Personnel Manager
Jack Jones was not there. On his way back to his work station, James C. Jones met
Superintendent Ray Posthumus and told Posthumus that Sargent had said he (James
C. Jones) was going to be laid off. James C. Jones asked Posthumus if this were
true. Posthumus told Jones that it was true. James C. Jones asked if it were true
that he was being laid off because of the Union. Posthumus told James C. Jones
that he was not being laid off because of the Union, but, because of a production
cutback, that the Respondent was cutting back to 8 hours a day, and that his
(James C. Jones) layoff could be 4 days, a week, or a month, that you never knew
how long.
30 Found elsewhere herein to be a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
40 There is no indication that Sargent brought up the union question It appears that
James C. Jones was the initiator of the union discussion
41 Whether the card represented an application for membership or was one designed to
merely authorize union representation is not clear.
1456 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
James C. Jones started walking away from Posthumus and toward the timeclock.
Posthumus asked James C. Jones what he was going to do. James C. Jones told
Posthumus that he was going to punch out. Posthumus told James C. Jones that he
did not have to punch out, that he was supposed to work the rest of the night.
James C. Jones told Posthumus that if he were laid off that he would "just quit
now."
James C. Jones punched out and then went to where Sargent was. James C. Jones
told Saigent that if he were going to be laid off or fired that he would just go.
James C. Jones asked Sargent to get his check. Sargent, thereupon, went and
secured James C. Jones' check and gave it to him. James C. Jones thereupon left
but returned shortly to get his toolbox which he had forgotten. James C. Jones then
left the plant for good.
Tne General Counsel contends that the Respondent discriminatorily discharged
James C. Jones because of his union activity. The Respondent contends that Jones
was not discharged because of his union activity but was laid off and quit because
of economic reasons.
The facts 42 are virtually undisputed that because of engineering changes and
shipment of dies elsewhere , Respondent had an economic basis for ' its produc-
tion cutback in the toolroom. It does not 'necessarily follow, however, that the
Respondent would have laid off employees rather than transfer employees to other
operations or reduce hours.
The facts are virtually undisputed that the Respondent had been giving employ-
ees overtime work in the toolroom and did, around the time of James C. Jones' lay-
off, cut back production in the toolroom to 8 hours a day. The facts are also virtu-
ally undisputed that the Respondent transferred employees out of the toolroom,
around the time of James C. Jones' layoff, to other departments. The facts do not,
however, reveal that the Respondent laid off any employee except James C. Jones.43
Posthumus testified, but I do not credit his testimony, that the selection of James
C. Jones for layoff was not motivated in any way because of knowledge or suspi-
cion of James C. Jones' union activity 44
Considering all of the foregoing and all of the facts in this case, including Sar-
gent's statement to Wigginton that Respondent was going to lay off James C. Jones
because of his union activity, Respondent's demonstrated motivation against the
Union and its adherents (as revealed by the discharge of Tubb and the activities in
connection therewith) I am persuaded and conclude and find that the preponder-
ance of the evidence establishes that the Respondent on May 13, 1966, had a fixed
intention to discriminatorily lay off James C. Jones at the end of the work shift.
Under such circumstances it is clear that the Respondent knew that James C. Jones'
statement that if he were going to be laid off ' or fired that he would just quit now
and his actions therewith were caused by the Respondent 's fixed intention to so
discriminate against James C. Jones. The Respondent 's failute at that time to cease
its fixed intention to discriminate against James C. Jones and its failure to tell him
that he would not be laid off constituted in effect a constructive discharge of James
C. Jones at the time that Respondent allegedly accepted Jones' "quitting ." I, thus,
conclude, and find that the Respondent , by such conduct , on May 13, 1966, discrimina-
torily discharged James C. Jones in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act.
42 Based upon the credited aspects of the testimony of Posthumus , Wigginton, and James
C. Jones
4" Respondent 's questioning of Wigginton on cross -examination appeared directed to an
attempt to elicit that other employees were laid off. In answer to a question limited to
whether there had been "layoffs," Wigginton stated "Yes , there had been several trans-
ferred out ." A later question was as follows • "And there had been a number of employees
either laid off or transferred to other departments ?" Wigginton answered to this question
"Yes, sir " I am convinced that Wigginton 's testimony was to the effect that employees had
been transferred around the time of James C Jones' layoff , and that Wigginton 's testimony
was to the effect that he was not saying that other employees had been laid off.
u I do not credit Posthumus ' testimony as indicated . Considering Sargent's statement to
Wigginton as to the reason for James C. Jones ' contemplated layoff, the lack of evidence
to reveal other layoffs to meet the economic problems , and Respondent 's propensity for
prete^tuous discriminatory action as revealed by its actions against Tubb, I am persuaded
that the evidence preponderates for a finding that Posthumus was discriminatorily moti-
vated in his selection of Jones for layoff.
CRAMCO, INC.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
1457
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the 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 lend to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it is rec-
ommended that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative
action of the type which is conventionally ordered in such cases, as provided in the
Recommended Order below, which is found necessary to remedy and to remove the
effects of the unfair labor practices and to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act by
the discriminatory discharge of Ivy Tubb on March 2, 1966, and by the discrimina-
tory discharge of James C. Jones on May 13, 1966, it is recommended that
Respondent offer James C. Jones 45 immediate and full reinstatement to his former
position, or to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority
and other rights and privileges , and make James C. Jones and Ivy Tubb whole for
any loss of pay each may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against each
of them, by payment to each of a sum of money equal to the difference, if any,
between the wages each would have earned, absent the discrimination against each
of them, and the amount each would have actually earned from the date of the
commencement of discrimination against each 46 until March 11, 1966, as to Tubb,
and until the date of Respondent's offer of reinstatement to Jones as recommended
herein. Such backpay shall be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner estab-
lished by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289, 291-294, and with
interest thereon as prescribed by the Board in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 176.
As the unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent were of a character
which go to the very heart of the Act, it is recommended that the Respondent cease
and desist therefrom and cease and desist from infringing in any other manner upon
the rights of employees guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO,
is now, and has been at all times material herein , a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7).
3. By interfering with , restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is en-
gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of employ-
ees thereby discouraging membership in or activities on behalf of a labor organiza-
tion, Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the. meaning of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. The evidence does not establish that the Respondent , in connection with its
illegal solicitation for employees to turn over union authorization cards,47 promised
that discriminatory discharges and blacklisting would cease if such cards were
turned over to it.
-m Tubb was reinstated to his job within the meaning of the Act on March 11, 1966.
" In Tubb's case-March 2, 1966. In Jones' case-May 13, 1966.
47 Such Illegal solicitation found elsewhere herein to constitute violation of Section
8(a) (1) of the Act and covered by Conclusion of Law 3.
264-047-67-vol. 162-93
1458 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in this case, it is recommended that Respondent, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in or activities on behalf of United Rubber, Cork,
Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza-
tion of its employees by discharging, laying off, or otherwise discriminating in
regard to the hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employ-
ment of any of its employees.
(b) Interrogating its employees concerning their or other employees' union affil-
iation or activities in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion
within the meaning of Section 8 (a)( I) of the Act.
_(c) Soliciting employees to turn union authorization cards over to it in a man-
ner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion within the meaning of Section
8 (a)( I) of the Act.
(d) Threatening its employees with discharge, layoffs, discharge and the proba-
bility of blacklisting by other employers, or other reprisals because of their activ-
ity on behalf of United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of its employees.
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor
organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and to refrain
from any and all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Offer James C. Jones immediate and full reinstatement to his former posi-
tion, or to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or
other rights and privileges.
(b) Notify James C. Jones if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the
United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with
the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as
amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
(c) Make whole James C. Jones and Ivy Tubb for any loss of pay suffered by
reason of the discrimination against them in the manner set forth in the section of
this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(d) Preserve and make available to the Board and its agents, upon request, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records relevant or necessary to
the determination of the amount of backpay due and to the reinstatement and
related rights provided under the terms of this Recommended Order.
(e) Post at its premises in Amory, Mississippi, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." 48 Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 26, after being signed by the Respondent's representative, shall be
posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 26, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of this Recommended Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to com-
ply herewith.ie
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint (Case 26-CA-2344) be dis-
missed as to (1) the allegations relating to violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act
as pertains to Larry Chism and (2) the allegations relating to violation of
48 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree
of a United States Court of Appeals, the words, "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order."
49 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
QUALITY PRODUCTION CO . 1459
Section 8(a) (1) of the Act as pertains to promises that discharges and blacklisting
would cease if union cards were turned over to the Respondent.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activities on behalf of United
Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization of our employees by discharging, laying off, or other-
wise discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any
terms or conditions of employment.
WE WILL offer James C. Jones immediate and full reinstatement to his for-
mer position, or to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights and privileges.
WE WILL notify James C. Jones, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of
the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accord-
ance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and
Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
WE WILL make whole James C. Jones and Ivy Tubb for any loss of pay suf-
fered by reason of the discrimination against them in the manner set forth in
the section (in the Decision in this matter) entitled "The Remedy."
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their or other employ-
ees' union affiliation or activities in a manner constituting interference,
restraint, or coercion within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT solicit employees to turn union authorization cards over to us
in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with discharge, layoff, discharge and
the probability of blacklisting by other employers, or other reprisals because of
their activity on behalf of United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Work-
ers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other Tabor organization of our employees.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or
assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, or to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed by Section
7 of the Act, or to refrain from any or all such activities.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or
remaining members of United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
CRAMCO, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 746 Fed-
eral Office Building, 167 North Main Street, Memphis, Tennessee 38103, Telephone
534-3161.
Quality Production Company and International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW), AFL-CIO. Case 7-CA-5475. February 7, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 5, 1966, Trial Examiner Abraham H. Mailer issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
162 NLRB No. 141.