Crane Packing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 23, 1967

165 N.L.R.B. 1003 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

CRANE PACKING CO.
Crane Packing Co. and International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricul-
tural Implement Workers of America,
AFL-CIO. Cases 13-CA-7345 and 13-CA-7553
June 23, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN
AND JENKINS
On April 13, 1967, Trial Examiner Alba B. Martin
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in
the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter,
the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and a brief in support thereof,
and the General Counsel filed a brief in support of
the Trial Examiner's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner, as modified herein.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Crane Packing
Co., Morton Grove, Illinois, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
I We reject the defense based on the Respondent's March 23
letter and later communications, purportedly disavowing all
threats or promises in connection with the employees' exercise of
statutory rights, and we set aside the settlement agreement
approved by the Regional Director on March 25, in view of the
continuing violations engaged in by the Respondent
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ALBA B. MARTIN, Trial Examiner: This consolidated
proceeding, with all parties represented by counsel was
heard before me, in Chicago, Illinois, on December 19 and
20, 1966, on complaint of the General Counsel and answer
165 NLRB No. 125
1003
of Crane Packing Co., Respondent herein.' The issues
litigated were whether from December 1965 until May
1966, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec.
151, et seq., herein called the Act, by threats, promises,
interrogations, fostering the impression of surveillance,
electioneering to defeat the Union, and isolating two
employees from their fellow employees. The proceeding
involves alleged violations both before and after a
settlement agreement in Case 13-CA-7345, executed by
the parties on March 22, 1966. After the hearing the
General Counsel and Respondent filed helpful briefs
which have been carefully considered.2
Upon the entire record and my observation of the
witnesses, I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent, Crane Packing Co., an Illinois corporation
maintaining an office and place of business in Morton
Grove, Illinois, the only plant involved herein (and herein
called the plant), is there engaged in the business of
manufacturing sealants, lapping products, and other
related products. During the year 1965, a representative
period, Respondent processed, sold, and distributed at its
Morton Grove plant, products valued in excess of
$500,000, of which products valued in excess of $500,000
were shipped from said plant directly to States other than
the State of Illinois. Respondent is, and at all times
material herein has been, engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace &
Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO,
herein called UAW and the Union, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Setting
The employees of the plant have never been
represented by an exclusive bargaining agent. The UAW's
efforts to organize the plant began in late 1965, and
Respondent's efforts to defeat it began soon thereafter
with the activities of Foreman Wucki and DeLamar seen
below. About February a group sprang up in the plant
called the Positive Workers Group. It was opposed to
unionization of the employees and its literature showed
that its purpose was to defeat the UAW's organizational
drive. It never sought recognition or to handle grievances
and was not a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act. UAW buttons and the "I am for
Crane" buttons of the Positive Workers were worn freely
in the plant by adherents of the two groups. Both groups,
with the at least implied permission of the Respondent,
passed out their literature at the timeclock as employees
were entering the plant to go to work. In addition
Respondent, through- its superintendents and foreman,
' The Union filed the charge in Case 13 -CA-7345 on
February 9, 1966 . The Union filed the charge in Case 13-CA-7553
on August 4, 1966
2 Errors in the transcript have been noted and corrected
1004 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
passed out some company literature opposing the Union to
employees as they entered or left the plant; and also the
Company mailed at least one letter opposing the Vmon to
employees to their homes.
Pursuant to a union petition filed April 13, 1966, in Case
13-RC-10865, the Regional Director conducted an
election on May 12, which the Union lost by a wide margin.
The Union filed objections to the election on several
grounds including Respondent's refusal to furnish a list of
eligible voters' names and addresses. The Regional
Director set aside the election because of Respondent's
failure to comply with the Board's Excelstor3 rule.
Respondent excepted and on June 12 the Board directed a
second election. At the time of the hearing herein, the
second election had not been held because Respondent
had not submitted the list. The Board issued a subpena for
the list, and I take official notice that on January 11, 1967,
a United States district court granted enforcement of the
subpena. [N.L.R.B. v. Karl Rohlen (Crane Packing Co.),
274 F.Supp. 715 (D.C. I11.).]
B. Violations Prior to the Settlement
1. Foreman Wucki's undenied threats, interrogations,
creating impression of surveillance
Two days after Mary June Robinson signed an
authorization card at a union meeting in December 1965,
her foreman, Roger Wucki, came up to her and told her
that yesterday he really "shook up" Arlene Alkire, another
woman in the department, that "I told her that you and she
were at the union meeting , and I said how she would like to
look for another job. She was really shook."
In the course of the ensuing conversation, Wucki asked
Robinson why she wanted a union . Robinson's testimony
was credible and undenied. By indicating his knowledge
that Alkire and Robinson had attended the union meeting,
Foreman Wucki created the impression of surveillance of
the meeting . By relating to Mrs. Robinson that he had
asked Alkire how she would like to look for another job
and that Alkire was really shaken by it, Foreman Wucki
impliedly threatened Robinson with loss of her job
because of the Union. In the context of the entire
conversation, Wucki's interrogation as to why Robinson
wanted a union reasonably tended to interfere with,
restrain , and coerce employees in the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act. By creating the impression of
surveillance , by impliedly threatening Robinson with job
loss because of the Union, and by unlawfully interrogating
Robinson, and by each of these acts, Respondent through
Wucki violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The following day Foreman Wucki talked about the
Union in three conversations with Mrs. Robinson. Early in
the morning , Wucki told Robinson and two other women
employees who were wearing UAW buttons for the first
time in the plant , that he did not know that they were
against him , and that that really hurt him. Shortly after he
left the other two women removed their union buttons.
Suggesting that wearing union buttons indicated lack of
loyalty to him and thus, to the Employer (disloyalty
possibly warranting punitive action) tended to interfere
with the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
Respondent thereby further violating Section 8(a)(1). Cf.
Nello'L. Teer Co., 143 NLRB 787, 791.
After lunch that day, as Wucki was telling Mrs.
Robinson the good points of the Company, Foreman
George DeLamar came up and remarked that he was glad
Mrs. Robinson was wearing a button, that he wished that
all who were for the Union would wear buttons so that he
could have a talk with them and find out what they were
mad about. Robinson replied that one did not have to be
mad to want better benefits. He asked Robinson if she
liked her work there. She replied in the affirmative and
added that she liked the Union' s retirement and insurance
plan better than the Company's . During a prolonged
discussion of whether Mrs. Robinson could qualify for a
pension under the Company's plan because of her age,
DeLamer suggested she talk with top management to see
if she could qualify as an exception under the plan. Then
he told her that unions can cause strikes and take your
dues, that the Company has such good benefits that they
could not be improved; and that she should think it over;
that she should "stop and think." She replied that she had
thought it over before she signed her union card. DeLamar
said, "at your age it is not easy to get a job, so you should
think." Mrs. Robinson credibly testified that Foreman
DeLamer had never theretofore discussed with her how
she felt about her job, or any of the above subject matter.
On the witness stand Foreman DeLamar admitted that he
probably said to Mrs. Robinson that at her age it is not
easy to get a job. Upon the preponderance of the evidence,
I credit Robinson's testimony and find that Foreman
DeLamar told her that "at your age it is not easy to get a
job, so you should think." His clear meaning to her in the
context of the conversation was that her continued
sympathy for and assistance to the Union could cost her
her job and that she would then be in a difficult position
economically. By this implied threat, Respondent further
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The General Counsel contended that suggesting that
Mrs. Robinson could be an, exception under the
Company's, existing retirement plan and inviting her to see
top management, amounted to a promise of benefit and a
further violation of the Act. I find that DeLamar's remarks
fall short of a promise of benefit. He made no express or
implied promise that she would be an exception and get a
pension from the Company; he merely suggested the
possibility. I find this suggestion was not a violation of the
Act.
After DeLamar left Foreman Wucki returned. Among
other things he asked Mrs. Robinson if she did not think
the Company had good benefits and whether she liked her
job. She replied that she liked her job, that she was "not
against Crane. I want to know is Crane for me." Foreman
Wucki then said that if the Union got in "Crane could put a
lock on the door. He could be a real s.o.b. He could put me
on a job where I could not make production, and, then, he
could let me go" that "I could have the production raised
until you couldn 't get it ." Wucki added that if the Union
got in, there would be no more overtime, and that they
would work harder. Mrs. Robinson testified that both
Foreman Wucki and Foreman DeLamar told her that if the
Union got in , "they would take the profit sharing away."
Robinson testified further that in a number of
conversations during the first several months of 1966,
Wucki expressed substantially the same thoughts to her:
About my age, how hard it is to get a job, pay dues,
strikes. You will have to work harder. Production will
be up. You will be fired. It will be a hard thing for you
to get a job.
The record does not contain the date on which Wucki
' Excelsior Underwear, Inc, 156 NLRB 1236.
CRANE PACKING CO.
stopped talking to Mrs. Robinson this way, but her best
recollection, stated at least twice in her testimony, was
that he continued talking this way into the month of April.
At some point Wucki left Respondent's employ but the
record does not reveal when this was. In a question to
Robinson , counsel for Respondent used a date as the
alleged time of Wucki's departure, but Robinson was
unable to confirm this date and the record contains no
evidence of the date. The date in counsel's question is not
evidence. Under these circumstances, and as Robinson,
by her demeanor impressed me as a credible witness, I
credit her testimony that Wucki continued talking this way
to her until sometime in April, which was after the
settlement of March 22, 1966, approved by the Regional
Director on March 25.
Wucki was not called to testify, and the record contains
no explanation as to his whereabouts or why he was not
called as a witness. Thus, Mrs. Robinson's testimony as to
Wucki's remarks to her stands undenied and
unchallenged. Upon the preponderance of the testimony in
the entire record, I credit her testimony. Wucki's
statements that if the Union got in, Respondent could put a
lock on the door, that he could be "a real s.o.b.," that he
could put Robinson on a job where she could not make
production and then discharge her, that he would have
production raised to the point that she could not make
production, that there would be no more overtime and that
they would work harder, that the Company would take
away the profit sharing, his reference to Robinson's age,
and that she would be fired and would have difficulty
getting another job, each amounted to a threat and a
further violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
On March 23, during the period Wucki was threatening
Mrs. Robinson, Respondent's president wrote employees
that Respondent "never has and never will threaten any
employee or promise any employee any benefits
depending on or in connection with their exercising their
rights under and law. If anyone representing Crane has
said anything which you consider to be such a threat or
promise, forget it, because it will not be carried out." This
theme was continued in later communications from
Respondent to employees, and also in a speech the
president gave employees 2 days before the election, on
May 10. Mrs. Robinson testified that President Rohlen
also said that no one had ever been laid off by Respondent
and she knew someone who had been, and that she
"thought it was a known fact" that management was
"pushing her around." So, she testified in substance, she
did not believe President Rohlen's statement that any
threats would not be carried out. Of note also is that none
of Respondent's statements disavowed specific prior
conduct of Wucki, DeLamar and other supervisors, or
prevented their future unlawful conduct found in this
Decision. Upon all the circumstances of this proceeding, I
find that these written and oral statements of Respondent
to employees were not a defense to the violations of the
Act found in this Decision. Cf. Louisiana Television
Broadcasting Corporation, 142 NLRB 55, 64.
2. Additional violation by Foreman DeLamar
Shortly after employee Tommy Ray Lester began
wearing his UAW button toward the end of January 1966,
his foreman, DeLamar, came up to his machine during
working time, asked him how everything was going, looked
at his UAW button, and said, according to Lester, "You
remember what the Company did for you one time. .
You think about it." DeLamar testified he reminded
1005
Lester what he, DeLamar, had done for Lester. Foreman
DeLamar was referring to an incident which had occurred
about a year and a half before, when DeLamar had saved
Lester's job for him. DeLamar had spoken up for Lester
before a superintendent, reporting that Lester had been a
good worker, when Lester was summoned before the
superintendent for accidentally breaking a fire lock a few
days before and not reporting it. Now, a year and a half
later, DeLamar threw this back at him in connection with
wearing the UAW button. By reminding him of the earlier
incident and instructing him to "think about it ," DeLamar
was obviously warning Lester that his job was dependent
upon his continuing in the good graces of DeLamar and the
Company and that his good graces were in jeopardy
because of his expressed sympathy for the Union. Thus,
this was a thinly disguised implied threat of economic
reprisal because of his union activity; Respondent thereby
further violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. Violations by Foreman Rudd and Krueger
Employee Travis Kizzire was on the UAW organizing
committee in the plant and was actively promoting the
Union. He passed out UAW leaflets and authorization
cards, talked to employees about joining, and wore an
organizing committee badge.
About the middle of February 1966, Foreman Harlan
Rudd asked him one day in the plant what he thought he
would get out of the Union. Kizzire replied he thought that
they would get better insurance, that other benefits would
be better, and that "we would have our profit sharing tied
down in the union contract." According to the credible and
credited testimony of Kizzire, who by his demeanor
impressed me as a credible witness, Rudd
... then said I was dreaming; that Crane Packing
would not go for any such thing as that. He told me if I
did not pull off my union button and quit messing
around with the Union, that I was going to get kicked
out the door.
Although Foreman Rudd denied uttering the threat
contained in the last sentence quoted above, I do not credit
his denial. Kizzire impressed me as the more credible
witness.
Upon the above testimony and the preponderance of the
evidence in the entire record, I find that Foreman Rudd
threatened employee Kizzire, an active supporter of the
Union, that if he did not remove his union button and did
not cease helping the Union, he would be discharged. By
this threat of economic reprisal Respondent further
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The General Counsel contended that by telling Kizzire
that he was dreaming, and that the Company would not go
for anything such as Kizzire had dust mentioned,
Respondent further violated the Act by seeking to convey
the idea that support for the Union and its program was a
futile gesture . Foreman Rudd 's remark appears to me as a
view, argument, or opinion protected by Section 8(c) of the
Act, and I do not find it was a violation.
C. Violations After the Settlement
1. Informing employee he was discriminated against
because he wore a union button
In April 1966, after the settlement of Case 13-CA-7345,
Kizzire worked over 4 hours one night. When he started to
go on a coffeebreak, the night superintendent , Harry,
Schnur, prohibited him from doing so, although Kizzire
1006 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
noted that others were turning off their machines
preparative to taking a break. The following morning
Kizzire protested to his regular daytime foreman, Paul
Krueger, that Schnur had permitted others to take a break
the night before, but not Kizzire; and asked Krueger why
this was. According to the credited testimony of Kizzire,
Foreman Krueger replied, "Travis, let's face it, you are
wearing a UAW button."
Foreman Krueger denied this last statement attributed
to him, and testified that he replied to Kizzire that Kizzire
was not entitled to a coffeebreak because he was working
only 4 hours' overtime. On cross-examination Krueger
admitted that Kizzire asked him how come the others
could take the coffeebreak and Kizzire could not. Krueger
admitted further that at that time he did not know how
many hours the others Kizzire was talking about were
working the night before, and that, for all Krueger knew,
they were working only 4 hours. In these circumstances it
seems unlikely to me that Krueger would have replied to
Kizzire as he testified he did, because, as he admitted, he
had no knowledge of the facts as to the hours employees
on the night shift had worked the night before. In view of
this, and as Kizzire was a credible witness, I find as
testified by Kizzire, that Krueger told him that he had been
deprived of a coffeebreak because he was wearing a UAW
button. By telling an employee he was discriminated
against on a coffeebreak because he was wearing at union
button, which was a discriminatory reason, Respondent
further interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act; Respondent thereby further violating Section
8(a)(1).
2. Unlawful interrogation by Foreman Krueger
Several days before election day, May 12, Foreman
Krueger asked Travis Kizzire if he was going to work on
Thursday (election day). Kizzire replied that he expected
to be working. Krueger replied that he thought Kizzire
"would be up there with the election. `4 Kizzire replied
that he would not be. Krueger asked him who would be
assisting in the election and Kizzire replied that he did not
know, that insofar as he knew nobody had been selected.
This testimony, and other answers by both Krueger and
Kizzire, shows that both men understood that they were
talking about whether Kizzire would be serving as an
observer for the Union at the election, and if not, who
would be. As Krueger had only a few weeks before he told
Kizzire he was discriminated against on the night shift
because he was wearing a UAW button, his interrogation
of Kizzire as to whether he was going to serve as a union
observer at the election, and as to who would serve, may
well have caused Kizzire to believe that he would serve as
union observer, or fail to identify who would, at the peril of
further discrimination against him. Under these
circumstances and all the circumstances of this
proceeding, Foreman Krueger's interrogations reasonably
tended to interfere, restain, and coerce employees in the
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act; Respondent
thereby further violating Section 8(a)(1).
3. Unlawful interrogations by Works Manager Swanson
According to the undenied and credited testimony of
Kizzire and another employee, Cleveland Justus, in late
" The transcript of the hearing , p. 22, 11. 18-19, is hereby
corrected to read: . and he said "I figured you would be up
there helping with the election;" To be noted is that the corrected
April, after the settlement of the first case, Works
Manager Kenneth Swanson approached each of them
individually and asked Kizzire how he expected the Union
to benefit him, and asked Justus why he wanted a union.
Swanson was talking to employees about the benefits
already given the employees by the Company. Swanson
testified he talked with about 75 percent of the working
force during the election campaign . Although Swanson
testified he did not remember interrogating employees
concerning their union activities, he did not deny the
testimony of Kizzire and Justus. Kizzire and Justus
impressed me as credible witnesses. I credit their
testimony. Upon the preponderance of the evidence and
the entire record in the case, I believe and find that these
interrogations of Kizzire and Justus reasonably tended to
interfere with, restrain, and coerce employees in the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act; Respondent thereby
further violating Section 8(a)(1).
4. Alleged unlawful withdrawal of coffee privilege from
Mr. and Mrs. Justus
After Cleveland Justus was transferred at his own
request (and it meant a raise to him) to the automatic
machines in his same department (the lapping
department) about April 1, Respondent prohibited his
wife, Rosetta Justus, an employee in another department,
from continuing her custom of drinking her "break" coffee
near him in his department while he was working. They
both had coffeebreaks in the mornings , but at different
times, and only she had a break in the afternoon.
Superintendent Dooley told Cleveland's foreman, Paul
Krueger, that in the interest of Rosetta's safety, she should
not have coffee with Cleveland after the transfer.
The General Counsel contended that Superintendent
Dooley gave this order to discriminate against Mr. and
Mrs. Justus because of their union activities. It is true that
both were actively promoting the Union in the plant. On
the other hand, Cleveland's new job was in a congested
area of the department with machines operating all around
him close together and no clearly free space where his wife
could safely stand. Prior to the transfer, while drinking her
coffee she was able to stand out of the aisle and out of the
way of any moving maGhinery because at that time her
husband's work was in a less congested area with no
machines packed and operating closely around him.
Krueger credibly testified that Dooley's reason for his
decision, as Dooley stated it to Krueger, was "mainly due
to machinery. The traffic ... power trucks going through,
hand trucks, it was for her own safety." There is no direct
testimony that Dooley intended to discriminate against the
Justuses because of their union activity and the entire
record does not support an inference that Dooley was so
motivated. Under the circumstances, I do not find that the
Justuses were unlawfully discriminated against in this
regard.
5. The supervisory status of Mary O'Brien and her
antiunion stance
Mary O'Brien was classified by Respondent as a section
leader and her job description, prepared by the Company,
provided that among her duties was to direct employees
and to assign work. According to the undenied,
version resembles the wording of the question asked by
Respondent's counsel on cross-examination at p 32 of the
transcript, 11.3 and 4.
CRANE PACKING CO.
uncontradicted , and credible testimony of Rosetta Justus,
who worked under Mary O'Brien , when Rosetta was hired
about 1960 , the foreman to whom she was assigned, Mike
Ottalino, introduced O'Brien to her as her supervisor and
told her that O'Brien would explain the job to her and give
her her orders. At all times of concern herein, O'Brien's
duties have been the same . She works at a desk near
Ottalino, who occupies another desk . They have a
department of about 40 women employees . O'Brien
assigns employees to work stations , and upon occasion
takes them from what they are doing and puts them on
another assignment . When Foreman Ottalino is absent,
O'Brien is in charge of the department . The record
established that in or about 1964 , O'Brien effectively
recommended higher wages for Rosetta Justus and that
Mrs. Justus received higher wages. O'Brien authorizes
employees to take time off from work ; when they request
time off, she acts upon the request without first checking
with Ottalino or anybody else. O ' Brien assists employees
who need help in some work they are performing . O'Brien
responsibly directs employees in their work. In December
1965, O'Brien called Rosetta over to her desk and told her
not to discuss "the night shift with the day girls"; that
morning Rosetta had complained to another in the
department that the night girls were not doing their work
properly and that she could do her work if they would do
theirs.
As a "section leader" O'Brien punched a timeclock and
received overtime pay when she worked overtime.
Foremen did not. O ' Brien did not attend foremen's
meeting or meetings at which the company attorneys
instructed foremen how to conduct themselves towards
the union campaign . O'Brien did not receive the written
"do's and don 't's" concerning the union campaign which
Respondent passed out to foremen.
Although Respondent may have regarded, and evidently
did regard , O'Brien as something less than its idea of a
supervisor , nevertheless , her duties and her performance
of her duties established her as a supervisor within the
definition of Section 2(11) of the Act. She had authority in
the interest of Respondent responsibly to direct
employees , to assign employees as to where they shall
work , and to reward employees by effectively
recommending wage increases ; the exercise of such
authority requiring the use of independent judgment. In
addition, she must have exercised supervisory power when
she substituted for the foreman running a department of
40 employees in his absence. It follows upon the
preponderance of the evidence , and I find, that O'Brien
was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, for whose
actions Respondent was responsible.
Supervisor O'Brien was an active member of the
Positive Workers Group . She wore its "I am for Crane"
button and passed out its literature at the timeclock. Her
strong feelings concerning the UAW' s organizing
campaign were shown by her treatment of Rosetta Justus,
the only employee out of 40 in the department where both
worked who wore a UAW button . One day in February or
March 1966 , Rosetta found on her table one of the
cardboard "chips" they used in their work , upon which
had been written , "I am for Crane ," upon which had been
pasted a UAW "sticker." O'Brien came over and told Mrs.
Justus, referring to the cardboard "chip ," "I want you to
give this to your friends .... They are your friends. They
are plastered all over the place here and you are breaking
the law . You are destroying Crane's property." Mrs.
Justus replied that she did not know anything about it.
1007
O'Brien repeated , "They are your friends and you tell
them ." About 3 weeks or a month later , Supervisor
O'Brien brought the same "chip " or another like it over to
Rosetta, threw it on the table in the presence of other
women employees , and said , "Take this and give it to your
goddamn friends.... You know what I mean , they are all
over the place here. You are an organizer . You are wearing
the button and they are your friends, and everytime I find
one I am going to bring it to you."
6. Discriminatory treatment of Rosetta Justus and Mary
June Robinson
As has been seen , Mrs. Justus was the only one wearing
a UAW button in her department of 40 employees. She
began wearing the UAW button , in fact two UAW buttons,
in March . Mary O'Brien was her supervisor . The "biggest
majority" of the employees in that department wore "I am
for Crane" buttons. Mrs. Robinson was 1 of 6 of 40
employees in her department under Foreman DeLamar
who wore a UAW button. As has been seen above, Mrs.
Robinson was much threatened by Wucki and also
threatened by DeLamar, and Mrs. Justus was addressed
twice by Supervisor O'Brien as though Justus was solely
responsible for organizing employees in her department.
The General Counsel undertook , successfully , to prove
that these two employees were discriminated against in a
similar manner because of their union activities to
discourage further support for the Union . In each case the
employee's assignment was changed in such a way as to
make it clear to her and others in her department that she
was being discriminated against , subtly but surely.
According to the undenied and credited testimony of
Mrs. Justus , who impressed me as a very credible witness,
certain jobs in her department were typically two-girl
operations: A team of two would assemble, inspect, and
pack particular seals. Prior to her wearing the UAW
buttons beginning in March , Mrs. Justus worked on these
jobs and almost always had a partner who customarily sat
directly opposite her across a table 3 feet wide. Until she
began wearing the UAW buttons , Mrs. Justus never
worked alone without a partner on these jobs for longer
than a day or two occasionally . After Rosetta began
wearing the UAW buttons , and continuing from March
until May (after the settlement of Case 17-CA-7435), she
was assigned to work alone without a partner on these jobs
for "sometimes it was a week, sometimes 2 weeks,
sometimes 3 weeks." During this period no other girl doing
that work did so without a partner for more than "a couple
of days." When Mrs. Justus worked alone, which she
considered " isolation ," there were other employees
working at other tables in the area and two at the other end
of the long table on which she spread out her material and
worked ; but there was no one facing her just across her
table with whom she could have easy conversation as she
worked . As foreman Ottalino and Supervisor O'Brien were
responsible for assignments, I infer that they made or
ratified these long "isolation" assignments of Mrs. Justus,
and that they discriminated against her thusly because of
her union activities , because O'Brien , at least, considered
her an "organizer" for the UAW, and to discourage further
activity in the department in behalf of the UAW. To be
noted in this connection is that at least three times just
before the election Foreman Ottalino, as well as other
foremen , passed out company literature reading: Vote
"Neither" for "No" Union ; "Neither" means "No" Union.
Vote "Neither"; and "Neither" means "No" Union. Vote
"Neither."
1008 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Similarly, in another department, Mrs. Robinson was
isolated while doing assembly work, which work she had
been doing for 6 or 8 months working with other people.
During this long period prior to the union campaign she
worked alone only "for a part of the day a couple of times."
From late February until April, as Foreman Wucki was
threatening and interrogating Robinson in violation of the
Act, as seen above, he also assigned her to do assembly
work at a table totally by herself on at least four occasions
for a period of 2 to 4 days each time. During this period,
some others in the department worked alone for a few
hours, between jobs, but never anywhere nearly as long as
2 or 4 days. When Robinson worked alone, she was so
placed that other people at nearby tables worked with
their backs to her; the only ones who faced her were on the
far side of the other tables. As Mrs. Robinson credibly
explained it on cross-examination:
... the times he took me to those jobs, the first time I
was working on a glue machine, automatic machine;
and it takes three people. There is two machines, and
one to put washers on; and we had been on this job
almost daily for weeks; and, in fact, the production
was 5,000 or 6,000; and we run it up to see; and we did
9,500 on it; and Mr. DeLamar and Wucki both
commended us for it and said, "What a good job"; but
this one day he was talking to me about the Union-
against it; and, of course, I didn't agree with his
thoughts; and I felt that it was my right that I should
say what I thought and right in the middle of the job I
had been doing for days; and he comes; and he says,
"Go over to that table to work. I am putting someone
in your place." And, then, the remarks. Everybody
was laughing. "You are getting punished." He made it
so obvious. This was the first time; and after that
when he would discuss with me; and, then, he would
walk away; and, then, he wouldn't come back; and the
next morning I would be put in a place to work by
myself at a table alone, which I don't mind; but the
way it was done; and at the time it was done like I
didn't have my right to think what I wanted to think.
Upon the above facts and considerations and upon the
preponderance of the evidence in the entire record, I
believe and find that Mrs. Justus and Mrs. Robinson were
discriminated against in job assignments because of their
union sympathies and activities and in order to discourage
further support for the Union by employees, Respondent
thereby violating Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
7. Taking moving pictures of union activities
One morning a few days before the May 12 election,
Supervisor O'Brien took moving pictures of employees as
they were being offered Positive Workers' literature as
they entered the plant to go to work. Thus, through its
supervisor, Respondent was recording on moving pictures
whether employees were accepting or rejecting the
proposed literature and their reactions as they did so.
Photographing employees' acceptance or rejection and
their reactions while doing so was a form of surveillance of
employees engaged in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act; engaged in assisting
the Union by rejecting the proffered Positive Workers'
literature or engaged in refraining from assisting the Union
5 Republic Aviation Corp , 51 NLRB 1186, 1188, enfd 142 F 2d
193 (C.A 2), affd. 324 U.S. 793, 802, National Container Corp , 57•
NLRB 565, 584, Caterpillar Tractor Co , 113 NLRB 553, Boeing
Airplane Co , 103 NLRB 1025, 1026-27, Murphy Diesel Co, 120
by accepting the Positive Workers' literature . By engaging
in this surveillance Respondent violated Section 8 (a)(1) of
the Act.
8. The Positive Workers' literature
Through Supervisor O'Brien, Respondent circulated
Positive Workers' literature to employees. Although there
was no showing of any threat of a strike by the Union or
any insistence by the Union on a union-security clause
(indeed the Union has never ever become the bargaining
agent), the Positive Workers' literature talked against
strikes and the wage losses involved in strikes, and in
favor of retaining Section 14(b) in the Act. It presented
union leaders as greedy and as seeking the repeal of 14(b)
so that they can continue to raise their own wages out of
compulsory union dues from the workers. The circulation
of this literature disclosed Respondent's as well as the
Positive Workers' point of view, but the literature
contained no threats or promises and consisted of views,
arguments, or opinions protected under Section 8(c) of the
Act. Under these circumstances the circulation of this
literature by Respondent's supervisor was not a violation
of the Act.
9. Instructions to remove buttons after election
Within a few days after the defeat of the Union at the
election and within the period that objections to conduct
affecting the election could be filed, Respondent, through
its president, works manager, foremen, and Supervisor
O'Brien, instructed, ordered, and requested that
employees remove their union buttons. This applied to all
buttons, the UAW buttons and the "Crane" buttons.
Although President Rohlen testified that he spoke to four
employees who he knew were wearing UAW buttons, and
only those four, and merely suggested that they should
remove their buttons now that the election was over, a
suggestion of the corporate president in such a matter
clearly carried an implied note of compulsion to
employees. The works manager also testified that he
merely asked a few employees to remove their insignia.
Regardless of how the president and works manager
addressed themselves to employees on this subject, it is
clear that some supervisors under them were not so
careful. Thus, Foreman Paul Krueger told an employee
that President Rohlen had instructed him to tell employees
to remove their UAW badges. And Supervisor O'Brien
carried a little box around her department to collect
buttons and told employees to take off the buttons, that "it
was all over, and she didn't want to hear anything about
it.,,
The law is well settled that employees have the
protected right to wear union insignia in the plant free of
employer interference except where such interference is
necessary because of "special circumstances," such as to
maintain production or discipline.5 Here, there was no
claim and no proof of "special circumstances," that there
would have been any production or discipline problem if
the handfull of employees told to remove their buttons (in a
plant of some 600 employees) had not been so instructed
and nothing had been said about removing the buttons.
Nor was there any claim or any proof that the removal of
NLRB 917, 919-920, Kimble Glass Co, 113 NLRB 577, 579-581,
Standard Fittings Co., 133 NLRB 928, Floridan Hotel of Tampa,
Inc, 137 NLRB 1484
CRANE PACKING CO.
the insignia was necessary to maintain production or
discipline or of other "special circumstances." Works
Manager Swanson testified that after the election the plant
got down to good production even though 12 to 15
employees continued to wear their buttons.
Upon the above facts, considerations, and law, I hold
that by interfering in the right of employees to wear
insignia showing they were for or against the Union, when
such interference was not necessary to maintain
production or discipline, or because of any other "special
circumstances," Respondent further interfered with,
restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby
further violated Section 8(a)(1).
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with Respondent's
operations 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 of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in the unfair
labor practices set forth above, I shall recommend that it
cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
The violations of the Act committed by the Respondent
are presuasively related to other unfair labor practices
proscribed by the Act, and the danger of their commission
in the future is to be anticipated from the course of the
Respondent's conduct in the past. The preventive
purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless the order is
coextensive with the threat. In order, therefore, to make
more effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7,
to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices, and
thereby minimize industrial strife which burdens and
obstructs commerce, and thus effectuate the policies of
the Act, I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to
cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and the
entire record in this case, I hereby make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Crane Packing Co. is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
& Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. At various times from December 1965 to May 1966,
Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
unlawfully interrogating employees concerning their union
sympathies and activities; by creating the impression of
and engaging in surveillance of employee union activities;
by suggesting that wearing union buttons indicated lack of
loyalty to the Company; by threatening employees with job
loss because of their union sympathies and activities; by
1009
threatening that if the Union got into the plant Respondent
could put a lock on the door, Respondent could put an
employee on a job where she could not make production
and then discharge her, Respondent would raise
production to the point that an employee could not make
it, there would be no more overtime and employees would
work harder, Respondent would take away profit sharing
from employees, and an older employee would be fired and
have difficulty getting another job; by impliedly
threatening an employee with economic reprisal because
of his union activity; by threatening discharge if an
employee did not remove his union button and cease
helping the Union; by instructing employees to remove
their UAW and "I am for Crane" buttons after the
election ; and by other acts.
4. At various times from April to May 1966, Respondent
discriminated against Rosetta Justus and Mary June
Robinson in job assignments because of their union
sympathies and activities and in order to discourage
further membership and activity in the Union, Respondent
thereby violating Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon
the preponderance of the evidence in the entire record
considered as a whole, I recommend that Crane Packing
Co., Morton Grove, Illinois, its officers, agents,
successors , and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Unlawfully interrogating employees concerning their
union sympathies and activities.
(b) Creating the impression of, and engaging in,
surveillance of employees' union activities.
(c) Suggesting to employees that wearing union buttons
indicated lack of loyalty to the Company.
(d) Threatening employees with job loss because of
their union sympathies and activities.
(e) Threatening that if the Union gets into the plant,
Respondent could put a lock on the door, Respondent
could put an employee on a job where she could not make
production and then discharge her, Respondent would
raise production to the point that an employee could not
make it, there would be no more overtime and employees
would work harder, Respondent would take away profit
sharing from employees, and an older employee would be
discharged and have difficulty getting another job.
(f) Impliedly threatening an employee with economic
reprisal because of his union activity.
(g) Threatening discharge if an employee did not
remove his union button and cease helping the Union.
(h) Instructing employees to remove their UAW and "I
am for Crane" buttons after an election.
(i) Discriminating against employees in job assignments
because of their union sympathies and activities and to
discourage further membership and activity in the Union.
(j) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to
self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or
assist the above Union or any other labor organization, 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, or to refrain from any and all such activities,
1010 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
except to the extent that such right might be affected by an
agreement conforming to the provision of Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its place of business in Morton Grove,
Illinois, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix."6 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for Region 13, after being duly signed by
Respondent's representative, shall be posted by
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
all employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.7
6 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for
the words "the 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 "
' 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 Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
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
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT unlawfully interrogate employees
concerning their union sympathies and activities.
WE WILL NOT create the impression of, or engage
in, surveillance of employees' union activities.
WE WILL NOT suggest to employees that wearing
union buttons indicates lack of loyalty to the
Company.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss of their
jobs because of their union sympathies and activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten that if International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization, gets into the plant,
Respondent could put a lock on the door, could put an
employee on a job where she could not make
production and then discharge her, that the Company
would raise production to the point that an employee
could not make it, that there would be no more
overtime and that employees would work harder, that
the Company would take away profit sharing from the
employees, and that an older employer would be fired
and have difficulty getting another job.
WE WILL NOT impliedly threaten an employee with
economic reprisal because of his union activity.
WE WILL NOT threaten discharge if an employee
does not remove his union button and cease helping
the Union.
WE WILL NOT instruct employees to remove their
UAW and "I am for Crane" buttons so long as the
wearing of these buttons and other insignia causes no
discipline or production problems.
WE WILL NOT discriminate against employees in
job assignments because of their union sympathies
and activities and in order to discourage further
membership and activity in the above-named
Union.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the
rights to self-organization, to form labor organizations,
to join International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any
and all such activities, except to the extent that such
right might be affected by an agreement conforming
to the provisions of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or
refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the
above-named Union, or any other labor organization,
except to the extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement conforming to the provisions of Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act.
CRANE PACKING 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 provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 881 U.S.
Courthouse and Federal Office Building, 219 South
Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604, Telephone
353-7597.