D. H. Baldwin Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 7, 1973

207 N.L.R.B. 25 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

D. H. BALDWIN COMPANY 25
D. H. Baldwin Company and UBC, Southern Coun-
cil of Industrial Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC. Cases
26-CA--4406-2,26-CA-4435-2, and26-RC-42551
November 7, 1973
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF SECOND ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND PENELLO
On January 16, 1973, Administrative Law Judge
Phil Saunders ' issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed
exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Respon-
dent filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs, and finds merit in certain of the General
Counsel's exceptions. Accordingly, the Board has
decided to affirm the rulings, findings,2 and conclu-
sions of the Administrative Law Judge to the extent
they are consistent herewith, and to adopt his
recommended Order as modified herein.
The complaint alleges, inter alia, that Respondent
discriminatorily denied employee Dorothy Shadell a
downgrade in work assignment and thereafter
discharged her because of her union activities in
violation, of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
Respondent contends that Shadell's discharge was
for cause and thus not violative of the Act. The
Administrative Law Judge found that General
Counsel had failed to establish that Shadell was
discharged because of her union activities. We
disagree. The facts surrounding Shadell's discharge
can be summarized as follows:
Respondent is engaged in the manufacture of
pianos at two plants in Conway, Arkansas. On
October 4, 1971, Shadell was hired in labor grade 1,
at a rate of $1.80 per hour. Her initial job assignment
was punching, drilling, and pinning bridges in
department 317, termed the "pin and bridge depart-
ment." During her first 5 months of employment,
there were no complaints about her work and she
received a satisfactory job rating from her group
leader, Glynn Free. She was accordingly advanced in
1 The case caption appears as corrected by Board Order of January 26,
1973.
2 Contrary to our dissenting colleague, we do not find the evidence to be
uncontradicted as to what Plant Manager Cornwell told employees during
his June 2 speech Cornwell testified that he'read his remarks from a
prepared text and the Administrative Law Judge so found. Having reviewed
pay to the top rate of $2.05 per hour for her labor
grade.
The Union began organizing Respondent's Con-
way plants in late 1971 or early 1972. Shadell was an
active union supporter from the beginning of union
activity. She signed a card in January and distributed
union cards to other employees. She openly solicited
signatures for the Union in the eating and break
areas of Respondent's plant. Both before and after
her transfer in March 1972, Shadell placed a
keychain with a union emblem on the outside strap
of her handbag and routinely placed the handbag in
an area where both the bag and union emblem could
be easily seen by supervisors and other employees.
On May 5 she openly distributed union handbills in
front of the plant, and Personnel Manager Black
observed her soliciting employees for the Union.
Shortly before her discharge Respondent Production
Manager Thines conceded knowledge of her union
activity in stating to employee Sullivan, who had
threatened to get a union card from Dorothy Shadell
if she did not get a raise, "they knew that Dorothy
had union cards." On the basis of this evidence we
find, contrary to the Administrative Law Judge, that
Respondent clearly knew of Shadell's union activity
before and after her transfer to falls assembly. In
early February 1972, Respondent began expressing
its opposition to the Union through speeches
delivered to employees by Plant Manager Cornwell.
In March 1972, Production Manager Thines
transferred employee Dorothy Shadell from its pin
and bridge department, to its upfitting department,
where she was placed in labor grade 2. Shadell
agreed to the transfer but informed Thines that she
wanted to return to her present job if she could not
meet the production standards. Shadell was then
assigned to making falls, which are components to
cover piano keyboards. Approximately 1 week or 10
days after her initial transfer, Shadell was reassigned
to the job of assembling falls,and lower frames to
pianos in the same department. The assembling job
was admittedly more difficult, as demonstrated by
the fact that other employees had difficulty perform-
ing it satisfactorily. On the day after her reassign-
ment, Thines and Cornwell asked Shadell how she
liked her new job. She replied that she did not,like it.
Thereafter, until her discharge on May 26, she
continued to make known her dissatisfaction with
her new job, and, as other employees had done in the
past, requested a voluntary downgrade to her old
department. Both Cornwell and Thines denied
the prepared text, we find that it did not contain any threats of reprisals if
the employees voted for the Union. At most it was an expression of the
Employer's opposition to the Union. Accordingly, we do not find that the
Employer's June 2 speech constituted an independent violation of Sec
8(a)(I).
207 NLRB No. 34
26 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Shadell's request, stating they felt she could make
out. However, on April 6, Thines complained to
Shadell about her slow progress and poor quality
work. Thines repeated his complaints on April 27
and May 3 and threatened her with discharge if she
failed to reach the 100-percent production standard
by May 12.
At this time, according to Free's uncontradicted
testimony, there were openings in his department
(labor grade 1) and in another department. When
Free suggested to Thines that Shadell could fill such
vacancy, Thines agreed that it looked like Shadell
would come back to her old department. However,
sometime in May Thines decided not to follow
Respondent's regular practice and on May 12 again
informed Shadell that she would be discharged if she
did not meet 100-percent production by May 26.
On May 26, approximately 4 weeks before the
scheduled representation election, Thines informed
Shadell that, inasmuch as she failed" to reach 100
percent, she was being terminated. Thines gave
Shadell no other reason for her discharge. However,
during the course of the hearing, additional reasons
were advanced by Respondent, including Shadell's
poor quality work, and continual and excessive
visiting and talking with other employees on her post.
In these circumstances we find contrary to the
Administrative Law Judge, that in discharging
Shadell instead of allowing her to return to her
former job and labor grade, the Respondent accord-
ed her disparate treatment in comparison with other
employees because of her union activity, and used
her failure to achieve 100-percent production and its
belatedly advanced other reasons as pretexts to cloak
its discriminatory motive for her discharge.
In finding that Shadell failed to make 100-percent
production, the Administrative Law Judge relied on
documentary evidence showing Shadell's production
performance over 12 weeks from March 6, 1972, to
May 26, 1972, which establishes a weekly perform-
ance range for her of from 31 to 76 percent, or an
average over the entire period of about 49 percent.
However, when Shadell's performance is compared
to the performance of five other employees, whose
performances were regarded by Respondent as
satisfactory, in the same job over comparable
periods, the record reveals that two of them only
reached the 100-percent weekly production quota
once, one of the five reached it but twice, and the
remaining two employees, like Shadell, never
achieved the required weekly production goal.
Furthermore, Shadell's performance range as de-
scribed above, is not markedly different from the
performance of employee Anthony, one of the five
whose performance is compared to hers, whose
weekly performance ranged from 23 to 87 percent for
an average of 60 percent over the. period he was in
the job.
Respondent's personnel records also reveal that
two employees, Havens and Fortner, were placed in
labor grade 2, falls assembly, on March 3, and that,
after experiencing learning difficulties, they were
downgraded to a labor grade I job. The disparity in
Shadell's treatment from that of Havens and Fortner,
who were retained in Respondent's employ, is even
more obvious considering Shadell's repeated requests
for downgrading to her old department and the
availability of such work.
As the Administrative Law Judge found, during
Shadell's initial 6-week period on falls assembly, she
made repeated requests for a voluntary downgrade,
each of which was denied by her superiors on the
grounds that they "knew" she could make it. This
expression of confidence by Thines and Cornwell
was consistent with their continuous praising of
Shadell, even though the record now reveals that
they were making unfavorable entries in her person-
nel file. Further, Free's uncontradicted testimony
reveals that, approximately 4 weeks prior to Shadell's
discharge, a labor grade I vacancy occurred in his
department^and that job remained unfilled except for
Respondent's "pulling different operators off differ-
ent jobs in order to make sure that the work
functions of the job were performed." When on
several occasions, Free asked Thines to return
Shadell to this position, Thines told him to "just hold
on" because he, Thines, thought Shadell would be
transferred back to Free's department.
In our view, the above uncontradicted evidence
showing disparate treatment of an unabashed union
supporter, was not adequately considered by the
Administrative Law Judge in arriving at his decision
that Shadell's discharge and Respondent's failure to
transfer her back to a lower labor grade, were
consistent with Respondent's past practice. Respon-
dent's awareness of Shadell's union activity and its
opposition to the Union, as expressed in speeches of
Plant Manager Cornwell to employees, prior to and
after Shadell's transfer, show that Respondent, in
refusing to transfer Shadell from a job which was
admittedly difficult to perform and in making
contradictory personnel file entries, was preparing a
case for discharging her because' of her union
activities.
In reaching this conclusion we do not rely solely on
the disparate treatment accorded Shadell compared
to other employees similarly situated who were
permitted to accept a lower job assignment rather
than be discharged-an option denied Shadell.
Rather, our findings are based on the entire record in
this case, which shows Shadell's open and vigorous
activity on behalf of the Union, Respondent's
D. H. BALDWIN COMPANY
obvious opposition to the Union, its knowledge of
her efforts for the Union, the inconsistency of its
behavior toward her in relation to other employees,
its disregard in Shadell's case of a long-established
business practice or reassigning employees perform-
ing unsatisfactorily without discharging them, and
the shifting and contradictory reasons advanced
subsequent to her discharge.
Accordingly, we find that Shadell was not dis-
charged for the reasons advanced by the Respon-
dent, but that her discharge would not have occurred
absent her union activities, and thus violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. In so finding, we also
conclude that Respondent's failure to honor Sha-
dell's request to be returned to her old job which was
then available, and in which she had performed
satisfactorily, constituted additional violations of
those sections of the Act.
Objections to the Election3
As the discharge of Shadell, which was alleged by
the Union to be objectionable conduct, occurred
during the preelection critical period, we find that the
discharge interfered with the conduct of the election.
Therefore, we shall also set aside the election
conducted on June 29, 1972, and direct that a second
election be held in Case 26-RC-4255.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Consistent with our findings herein, we shall add
the following conclusions of law and renumber the
Administrative Law Judge's conclusion of law
numbered 5 as 7, while adopting his conclusions of
law numbered I through 4.
"5. By discharging employee Dorothy Shadell
because of her union activities, and refusing to,let her
return to her old job as she requested for the same
reason, Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act.
"6. Objection IX to the election of June 29, 1972,
is sustained."
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in
certain additional unfair labor practices, we shall
order that it cease and desist therefrom and that it
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the purposes and policies of the Act besides that
already set forth in the remedy section of the
Administrative Law Judge's Decision.
In addition to adopting the Administrative Law
Judge's recommended remedy in - all other respects,
3 The representation case was consolidated with the unfair labor practice
cases after the Board directed a hearing on the objections to the election.
27
we shall order Respondent to offer Dorothy Shadell
immediate and full reinstatement to her former job in
labor grade 2 or, if she so requests, to her former job
in labor grade 1, or, if such jobs no longer exist, to a
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice
to her seniority or other rights and privileges and
make her whole for any loss of earnings she may
have suffered by reason of the discrimination against
her in the manner set forth in the section of the
Administrative Law Judge's decision entitled "The
Remedy" with interest thereon at 6 percent per
annum.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the- National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as
modified herein, and hereby orders that Respondent,
D. H. Baldwin Company, Conway, Arkansas, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order, as so
modified:
1. Insert the following paragraph as paragraph
2(a) and reletter the remaining paragraphs accord-
ingly:
"(a) Offer to Dorothy Shadell immediate and full
reinstatement to her former job or, upon her request,
to the job to which she would have been transferred
back to, absent the unlawful discrimination against
her, or, if such jobs no longer exist, to a substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniori-
ty or other rights and privileges, and make her whole
for any loss of earnings she may have suffered by
reason of the discrimination against her in the
manner set forth in this Decision, with interest
thereon at 6 percent per annum."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election held on
June 29, 1972, in Case 26-RC-4255 be, and it hereby
is, set aside.
[Direction of Second Election and Excelsior foot-
note omitted from publication.]
MEMBER FANNING, concurring and dissenting in
part:
I agree with the reversal of the Administrative Law
Judge's conclusion concerning the discharge of
Dorothy Shadell and that a second election should
be held, and join fully with my colleagues in their
disposition of these issues.
I dissent, however, from the majority's affirmance
of the Administrative Law Judge's, finding that
28 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent in its speech of June 2 did not threaten
employees with discharge because of their support
for the Union. Eight employees testified without
contradiction that Plant Manager Cornwell said
during the course of that speech that Respondent
would get rid of the "union pushers" and "trouble-
makers" after the election of June 29. Although
Cornwell testified that he read from a prepared text,
he did not deny that he answered questions nor did
he deny the statements attributed to him by these
employees. One employee testified that Cornwell
added, in response to a question, that there were a lot
of employees at Baldwin "that couldn't afford to be
out of work." Another employee testified that when
Cornwell mentioned troublemakers he added that
the employees could look around and see who they
were. Two employees testified that Cornwell said
that Respondent would replace or get "union
pushers" out of there. In the face of this consistent
and overwhelming evidence the Administrative Law
Judge found, and the majority agrees, that Cornwell
was referring only to union outsiders, not employees,
even when he admittedly told the employees that
after the election, if the Union lost, they would "run
the union troublemakers out of here once and for
all." In my opinion, this finding is clearly erroneous.
The evidence shows, and I would find, that Cornwell
in his June 2 speech threatened to get rid of union
supporters and this threat included Respondent's
prounion employees. Accordingly, I dissent from the
finding that such conduct was not violative of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
suffered by reason of our discrimination against
him together with interest thereon at 6 percent per
annum.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees as to their
feelings about the Union or as to union activity.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discrimi-
nate in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment or any term or condition of employment of
our employees because of their membership in
and activities on behalf of the Union herein or of
any other labor organization of their choice.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise
of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or
assist labor organizations, including the Union
herein, to bargain collectively through a bargain-
ing agent chosen by our employees, to engage in
concerted activities for the purposes of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or
to refrain from any such activities.
D. H. BALDWIN
COMPANY
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions may be directed to the Board's
Office, 3511 Federal Building, 700 West Capitol
Avenue, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201, Telephone
501-375-5512.
DECISION
WE WILL offer to Dorothy Shadell immediate
and full reinstatement to her former job or, upon
her request, to the job to which she would have
been transferred back to, absent the unlawful
discrimination against her, or, if such jobs no
longer exist, to a substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to her seniority or other rights
and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of
earnings she may have suffered by reason of the
discrimination against her, with interest thereon
at 6 percent per annum.
WE WILL offer Glynn Free his former overtime
job or, if such job no longer exists, a substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights and privileges, and we
will pay him .for any loss of pay he may have
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
PHIL SAUNDERS , Administrative Judge: Based on charges
filed by UBC, Southern Council of Industrial Workers,
AFL-CIO-CLC,1 herein referred to as the Union, a
complaint against D. H. Baldwin Company, herein the
Company or Respondent, was issued on August 25, 1972,2
alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Respondent
filed an answer to the complaint denying it had engaged in
the alleged unfair labor practices. A hearing in this
proceeding was held before me, and both the General
Counsel and Respondent filed briefs.
1 The charge in Case 26-CA-4406-2 was filed by the Union on July 7,
1972, and the charge in Case 26-CA-4435-2 was filed by the Union on
August 1, 1972.
2 All dates are 1972 unless specifically stated otherwise.
D. H. BALDWIN COMPANY 29
Upon the entire record in this case, and from my
observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make
the following: 3
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is a corporation with an office and plants
located at Conway, Arkansas, where it is engaged' in the
manufacture of pianos. During the past 12 months,
Respondent received at its Conway, Arkansas, location
goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000, directly
from points outside the State of Arkansas, and during the
same period Respondent sold and shipped from its
Conway, Arkansas, plant goods and materials valued in
excess of $50,000 directly to points located outside the
State of Arkansas.
The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The issues in this case are the following: Whether the
Respondent discriminated against Glynn Free because of
his union activities; whether the Respondent discharged
Dorothy Shadell on May, 26 because of her union
activities; whether the Respondent threatened employees
with discharge in a speech given on or about June 2; and
whether Respondent coercively interrogated an employee
concerning union activity.
The Respondent operates two plants, one designated as
plant A and the other plant B in Conway, Arkansas. Both
plants are engaged in the assembly of pianos and have a
combined complement of approximately 250 employees.
The Union began an organizing campaign among employ-
ees at the two Conway locations in late 1971 or early 1972,
and on May 15 filed a petition seeking a unit of production
and maintenance employees. In accordance with a Stipula-
tion for Certification Upon Consent Election, an election
was held among employees in the unit on June 29. The
Union failed to receive a majority and thereafter filed
numerous objections to the election. In due course, all of
the objections except three were overruled, and these three
objections now constitute part of the allegations in the
instant complaint before me.
It is alleged that the Respondent's personnel manager,
Milmo Black, interrogated an employee as to her union
activity. Employee Voye Davidson testified that sometime
in March she had a conversation with Black at a doctor's
office, and credibly testified that during this conversation
Black asked her how she felt about the Union.4
Plant ^ Manager John Cornwell made speeches to the
employees on February 9, June 2, and June 28. The
3 All credibility resolutions made herein are based on a composite
evaluation of the demeanor of the witnesses and the probabilities of the
evidence as a whole,
4 Manager Black recalled driving Voye Davidson to the doctor for
complaint alleges that in his second talk or speech on June
2 he threatened employees with discharge. Cornwell
testified that all three speeches, including the June 2
speech, were prepared ahead of time, typed out on index
cards, reviewed prior to being given, and then were given
in front of employees of both plants with the use of a
podium. He said that all the speeches were read as written
and without any deviations. Cornwell stated that he
attempted to give his reading the appearance of spontanei-
ty by looking up at his audience, and that he was able to
pursue a degree of direct contact with his audience and still
follow the text because he made extensive prior reviews of
the speech. Glynn Free testified that during the June 2
speech Cornwell said that "he would, after this election, get
rid of all union pushers and troublemakers," and in
response to further questions testified that Cornwell also
told employees that "there was a lot of employees out here
at Baldwin that couldn't afford to be out of work." Martha
Bunch said that, at the second speech on June 2, Cornwell
told employees that "as soon as it was all over they were
going to get rid of the union pushers and the troublemak-
ers." Edith Robertson testified that at the second speech
Cornwell said that "he didn't like unions and he didn't
want one, and he would get rid of the Union and the union
pushers and the troublemakers after June the 29th."
William Spears related that Cornwell told them that "all
the union pushers would be replaced," and also said that
Cornwell was talking about "troublemakers" on the
occasion and that the employees could look around and
see who they were. Martha Clements testified she recalled
Cornwell stating he wanted the employees to vote no in the
election, and, if the Union lost the election, "... we would
get rid of these union pushers and all of these troublemak-
ers." Clements also testified she recalled Cornwell looked
directly at her at the time he made the latter statement, and
said that she had been active along with Shadell in
promoting the Union. Othelia Barnett remembers Corn-
well stating in his speech on June 2 that he thought it best
to have the election before vacation and then he could "get
rid of all the union pushers and trouble makers." Doncella
Percell said that in early June Cornwell told them that "if
they voted no they wouldn't have to worry about strikes,
and if they voted no they'd get rid of the union pushers and
troublemakers once and for all." Pat Hall remembers that
on the occasion here in question Cornwell told the
employees that "after the ' election all the union pushers
and troublemakers would be gotten rid of." Wanda
Williams said she recalled that Cornwell stated during the
course of the second speech that "they would get the union
pushers out of there if didn't go , in." According to Tom
Waller, Cornwell told plant A employees during his June 2
speech to vote no in the election and "We'll get rid of these
union pushers and troublemakers, once and,for all:'
Cornwell's written speech on June 2 contained several
statements as to the upcoming election, and then he
admittedly went on to say: "This is a serious question and I
want you to give it a lot of serious thought. Personally, I
removal of a foreign body from her eye. Black admitted talking with
Davidson on numerous occasions , but denied talking or inquiring about
union activity.
30 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
believe an overwhelming majority of you will vote No on
June 29th and run the union troublemakers out of here
once and for all."5 This appears to be the language in
question, and the basis of the controversy.
Even when testifying on direct examination as to what
Cornwell said on June 2, several of the witnesses for the
General Counsel gave, somewhat conflicting testimony, as
aforestated, but, when further asked on cross-examination
as to whether Cornwell said or used the above admitted
words in his speech of June 2, several employee witnesses
responded as follows: "Similar to that"-"I don't re-
call"-"The best I can remember he said something like
that." Eldon Spears admitted that Cornwell had papers in
his hand but was not looking at his notes "all the time."
Martha Bunch agreed that "at times" Cornwell was
reading from his notes, and Edith Robertson remembered
that Cornwell had "some papers" on the stand before him.
On cross-examination, Doncella Percell believed that
Cornwell looked down from "time to time" while making
his speech. Pat Hall also recalled that Cornwell had papers
with him, as did Othelia Barnett.
From a detailed review of this record and the testimony
in relation thereto, it appears obvious to me that Cornwell
delivered his June speech as written and without devia-
tions, and that the speech contained no threat to discharge
employees. To find otherwise, I would have to interpret the
phrase "union troublemakers," as admittedly used by
Cornwell, as applying to Respondent's employees support-
ing the Union. Yet, in other parts of his June 2 speech,
Cornwell makes specific references to troublemakers as
being "union outsiders," and General Counsel's witness,
Glynn Free, even agreed that Cornwell had used the
phrase "union outsiders and troublemakers" in an earlier
portion of his speech on June 2. From all the reliable
evidence, there are clear indications that Cornwell was
specifically speaking of people directly connected in a full-
time capacity and agents of the Union when mentioning
and discussing troublemakers, and there were no refer-
ences whatsoever classifying employee union supporters as
the troublemakers, but on the contrary specific references
to outsiders as the troublemakers. A conclusion and finding
to the contrary would virtually eliminate the free-speech
provisions. In accordance with the above, this allegation is
hereby dismissed.
Dorothy Shadell was employed in plant A on October 4,
1971, and her initial assignment was to department 317,
which houses the subassemblers and small machine
operators. The specific job that she performed was
punching, drilling, and pinning bodges, and this job was
rated as a labor grade 1 position, the lowest job rating in
Respondent's Conway operations, and her starting rate of
pay was $1.80 per hour. On November,8, 1971, Shadell's
rate was increased to $1.84 per hour and on January 24 it
was increased to $2.05 per hour, the top rate on this job.
During the period of time that she was assigned to the pin
and bridge department, about 6 months, she worked under
the direction of Group Leader Glynn Free. Shadell's work
was evaluated as "good' by Free, and he stated he never
received any complaint concerning her workmanship from
other employees in his department. It appears-that Shadell
was never issued a written or oral reprimand while under
Free's supervision.
In March, Production Manager John Thines told Glynn
Free that he needed an employee in the plant's upfitting
department and asked him who he had for a transfer. Free
initially suggested Dorothy Morgan, but then told Thines
he did not think Morgan could make the production goals
or standards in the upfitting department. Thines then
inquired about Shadell and Free replied that she was a
good worker, but commented that he didn't know whether
Shadell could "make it or not, either," but, nevertheless,
Thines informed Shadell that she would be transferred to a
labor grade 2-a higher paid job-in the upfitting
department .6
According to the testimony of both Shadell and Free,
Shadell told Thines that she would "try anything once"
and asked Thines if she would be permitted to return to
Free's department if she was unable to make production in
upfitting. Free testified that Thines replied, "Don't worry
about it .... You can make it." Thines stated that he was
undermanned in the upfitting department, and that Shadell
was selected because he had a "slight surplus" of help in
department 317 and she was the "senior girl" in this
department.
Upon her transfer to the upfitting department on March
6, Shadell was assigned to the job of making falls,
components used to cover keyboards, but about a week
and a half later she was transferred from this original job in
upfitting to the job of assembling falls and lower frames
also in the upfitting department. Shadell testified that one
of the girls, assembling lower frames, Laura Fortner, was
not "making production," and the department foreman at
this particular time, William Spears, asked Shadell to take
over this job, which she did, but on the following day
Shadell told Thines and Cornwell that she did not like this
work and wanted to return to her old department- even
though she would make less money. Shadell testified that
the lower frames she had to fit on the pianos as they came
through the upfitting department were "warped and beui,"
and that she mentioned this fact to Manager Thines and
others about a week after assuming her new job.
Eldon Spears, who served as foreman in the upfitting
department from early 1971 until May, testified that prior
to Shadell's transfer Thines told him` he was going to assign
someone to upfitting who had previous experience in the
plant, and by doing so this employee might stay on this job
for a longer period of time. Spears said there had been two
or three employees doing this work who did not stay very
long at it. Spears explained that the lower frame is a piece
of wood covering a portion of a piano, and if the piece is
bowed or warped you have to put a pin in the middle of it,
and many pieces also had to be sanded. Spears stated that
when Shadell was in his department all of the lower frames
were warped and before they could be properly fitted each
5 See Resp. Exh. 1(b). and posting the tabulated results on the board. An average learning cycle,
6 Manager Thanes updated the learning cycles for the plant's production on the upfstter I job to which Shadell was assigned, is 8 weeks, and by the
jobs, but standards have been set on production for many years. Employees end of the eighth or ninth week an employee is expected to reach 100
are advised how their production is progressing by tabulating their percent of the production standard applying to this particular job.
production standard reports, which the employees themselves make out,
D. H. BALDWIN COMPANY 31
had to be sanded-and this operation would take an extra
3 to 5 minutes. He said that on several. occasions before
Shadell was transferred he explained these conditions to
Thines. Spears stated that during the year and a half he
was in the upfitting department no one had' been
discharged for inability to make production, and that
Lucille Smith had been permitted to transfer from
polishing to finishing . He said that within a few weeks after
Shadell assumed her new job she asked Cornwell or Thines
if she could be returned to her old department, but she had
received the reply that she would do all right. Spears also
testified that, from the condition of the falls and lower
frames, he was of the opinion that the Company's
production standard of 42 pianos a day could not be met.
Diana Hensley worked in the upfitting department with
Shadell. Hensley agreed that at the time Shadell came into
upfitting department the lower frame pieces were warped
and bent, but said that they "always are." " Hensley testified
that most of the time she made 100-percent production
when working on falls, that Laura Fortner was put on
subassembly falls after she had problems making prod-
uction on falls assembly, and that an employee by the
name of Delois was transferred . Hensley also said that she
did not know of any employee other than Shadell who was
discharged from falls assembly because of not making
production standards.
The General Counsel also produced testimony through
upfitting department employee Edith Robertson to the
effect that she did not know of anyone other than Shadell
who was fired - because of failure to make production
percentages . She further stated that there were employees
who were permitted to transfer following their inability to
make production goals and named James Haven and
Laura Fortner.
Dorothy Sullivan testified that a week or so before
Shadell was discharged she asked Thines for a pay raise
and said that Thines then told her he would give the
request some thought. Sullivan said that approximately 20
minutes later her line leader , Mary Johnson, approached
her and told her that Thines had asked her to tell Sullivan
that he probably couldn't give her a raise unless her
production standard come up, but that he would try to give
her a raise the next Monday if she brought her production
up that week . Sullivan said she told Johnson in response,
"Well, if you don't give me my top pay , I'll go get a union
card from Dorothy Shadell," and testified that Johnson
replied, "Well, IT go tell him," and that Johnson then left
to talk with Thines. Sullivan testified that shortly thereafter
she went to the office , where Thines asked her what she
meant about a union card . She said she replied, "Well, I
meant just that, that if he couldn't give me my top pay, I'd
get me one and sign it." Sullivan also testified that,
although it was not the Company's policy to grant an
incentive-type increase to employees in her department
unless they held their production standards for 15
consecutive days, she received her increase the Monday
following her conversation with Thins, and Mary Johnson
without meeting ' this requirement . Thines acknowledged
the above incident with Dorothy Sullivan, but said he
merely told her he would prefer it if she not sign a card, but
it had no effect as to her pay raise and that Sullivan
received her wage increase because she consistantly made
100 percent on her production . There is no allegation in the
complaint that this incident was violative of the Act.
The Respondent maintains that Shadell was terminated
for substandard performance and poor quality of work in
the assembly of falls, and for no other reasons. This record
reveals that on April 6 Manager Thines talked directly to
Shadell about her slow progress and the poor quality of her
work. Thines stated that she was well below her training
cycle and that he had also previously mentioned this fact to
Supervisor Junior Jackson . On April 27 , Thines again
talked with Shadell, and insisted upon improvement in her
work performance and also complained about her continu-
al and excessive visiting and talking : Thines said it was a
daily occurrence for Shadell to ask him repeated questions
about tools and other matters. On May 3, Thines
complained about her excessive absenteeism and contin-
ued slow progress and Shadell was then told to improve her
production rate by May 12 or she would be replaced. On or
about May 12, Shadell was told that her progress was
unacceptable and that she must make the 100-percent
production standard by May 26 or be discharged. On May
26, Thines had her worksheet calculated, and it was
verified that her percentages had not improved and as a
result she was terminated.
Shadell was already working in the upfitting department
when Junior Jackson took over this department . Jackson
stated that it seemed to him Shadell was "awful slow" in
learning and did not have "her heart in it." Jackson
explained the meetings he and Thines had with Shadell,
stated that her "visiting" slowed her production , and said
that she did "real lousy work"-leaving screws out of the
fall rods and things of this nature . Both Thines and
Jackson maintained that they have always had trouble with
warped wood-a common and continual problem in wood
working, but no worse in 1972 than in other years. Jackson
concluded his testimony by stating that Shadell was
"forever hollering" at him, and was constantly complaining
all the time about things that "didn't amount to anything."
Thomas Lunsford makes final inspection of pianos at the
Respondent's plant and testified that almost daily Shadell
was leaving two screws out of the fall adjustments , that the
lower frames she put on the pianos were not adjusted, that
the quality of her work did not improve , and said that her
work was "the worst" he had seen.
Shadell admits having talks with Thines wherein he
inquired about her low production and then informed her
that she had to make 100-percent production. She said that
in early May her production increased from 52 to 71
percent, but admitted that due to a foot injury she also
missed several days of work in May . Shadell testified that
the pump-type screwdriver she used in assembling the falls
and lower frames to the pianos broke , that she showed the
screwdriver to Junior Jackson, but he could do nothing
about it, and that she then gave the broken screwdriver to
Darrell Duke, who took it to the Company's maintenance
department for repair, but in the meantime she was forced
to use a "homemade" screwdriver for about a day . Darrell
Duke testified that when Shadell complained about 'her
broken screwdriver he replaced it within 15 minutes, and he
never saw Shadell using a homemade one.
32 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
There is no question that the Company had knowledge
of Shadell's union activity a few weeks prior to her
discharge and management openly admits such knowledge.
In late January, Shadell signed a card for the Union and at
the same time was given additional cards which she passed
out to some of the employees at the plant. Shadell testified
that she handed one card to an employee in the break area
of the plant a short time after she signed her own card, and
said that on the following day she recalled handing out
another card to an employee near the plant's loading dock,
an area where employees routinely gathered for lunch, and
said that thereafter, "every three or four days," she handed
out additional cards to employees at the plant in areas
frequented by Thines. It also appears that sometime in
February Shadell placed a union keychain on the outside
strap of her handbag and thereafter took the handbag and
chain to work with her, and said that she routinely placed
the bag, with the chain and union emblem in an exposed
position, on a shelf near her work station. Whether or not
the Respondent had specific knowledge of these union
activities by Shadell in January and February is, of course,
somewhat problematical, but in early May Shadell handed
out union handbills and Manager Cornwell admittedly
learned through a supervisor that she had done so, and
Thines also knew of this incident. Shortly after this
handbilling incident, Shadell saw Respondent's personnel
manager, Milmo Black, in the plant parking lot, and told
him that all her employee friends had signed a union card
and then asked Black if he too wanted to sign one.
In its total aspects, this record clearly reveals that
Shadell was not doing a satisfactory job in the upfitting
department. Shadell even admitted leaving screws out of
the lower frames and having to refit frames on several
occasions, and she also admitted that some pianos had to
even be returned to her for additional work on them
because of oversights. Shadell further admits several
conferences with Thines and Jackson pertaining to her
shortcomings, as aforestated.7
It appears to be part of Shadell's contentions that
Respondent had substandard materials such as screwdriv-
ers which didn't work, warped lower frames, warped falls,
unposted production schedules, too short training periods,
unresponsive group leaders, and days or periods when no
pianos were scheduled to be worked on. However, the
Company established that the wood frames were in about
the same conditions as always, as previously noted herein.
Shadell said there were spells without any pianos to work
on, but Diana Hensley testified that when there wasn't
enough work for the two of them on falls assembly and
lower frames, she would do other things and Shadell
remained full time on the work she was doing. Thines
reported that the plant assembled 914 pianos in April,
1,019 in March, 1,078 in May, and 945 in June, and that
each piano had to go to falls assembly and have lower
frame installation. Shadell claims that she did not have a
7 During the first week in the upfitting department Shadell had an
average weekly percentage performance of 34; her second week showed 31;
third week 32, fourth week 35; fifth week 37; sixth week 42; seventh week
42, eighth week 55; nmth week 65; 10th week 70; 11th week 75; and her last
and 12th week 65. Cornwell explained that he would consider 100 percent as
any figure between 100 and 106, and that employees in the upfitting
department doing the work in question were expected to reach 100 percent
screwdriver to work with for some time, but this seems
highly unlikely in view of the testimony given by Darrell
Duke, and, , even if Shadell was required to use a
homemade screwdriver for a short period of time, there is
no showing that this seriously hampered her production.
There also appears to be some claim by Shadell that she
did not know her production figures, yet, as pointed out,
since each operator makes up their own daily timesheets,
she must have had an idea as to how she was doing. In
answer to any contention Shadell may have had about
inattentive trainers, it is clear from this record that Spears,
Hensely, Jackson, and others were helpful when she called
upon them-and obviously this happened quite often.
Additionally, it is undisputed that several other upfitters
had trained to full production within the general limits of
the established training periods. Thins also testified that
he has discharged six employees in the last 9 months for
failure to make production goals, and said that he would
probably have discharged other employees if it were not
for counseling techniques which tend to weed out marginal
employees.
As I have specifically indicated, the Respondent had
adequate and justifiable reasons for terminating Shadell
because she was not making production goals and had
poor quality work. There is a further contention by the
General Counsel, however, that the Company would have
reassigned or transferred Shadell to her old job or to
another job had it not been for her union activity.
Plant Manager Cornwell stated that the Company had
no actual policy dictating the transfer of employees to
lower-level jobs, but that it was dependent on circum-
stances . Cornwell acknowledged that in the past such
transfers have been made when there was a job open, but
he said that at the time Shadell was terminated there were
no job openings in any of the departments. Thines testified
that in the early part of May he gave some thought to
putting Shadell on another kind of job, but felt she could
do her work in the upfitting department if she would try.
Thines stated that he also discussed this matter of
reassignment with Glynn Free-group leader in the
department Shadell had previously worked in-and said
Free told him that, because of her talking and the quality
of her work, he did not "particularly" want Shadell back.
As a rebuttal witness, Free denied making any statement to
Thines that he did not want Shadell back, but earlier, on
cross-examination, he said that he was "nearly sure" he
had not made such a statement .8
Glynn Free testified that approximately 3 or 4 weeks
after Shadell was transferred into Witting (which would
be in late March or early April), he had a labor grade 1
vacancy in his department, and said that on two or three
occasions he kept "pressing" Thines to hire someone to fill
this vacancy, but that every time he mentioned it Thines
would merely tell him to "hold on" because Shadell might
be returning to him as he did not think she could make the
at the end of their eighth week.
8 If Free had not encountered some problems dealing with Shadell while
she was in his department, then it is highly peculiar that Shadell would
make a statement as she did upon being transferred to upfitting. She stated
to Free, "I guess you can thank the good Lord now that you've got rid of
me."
D. H. BALDWIN COMPANY 33
production standards in the upfitting department. Free
stated that this vacancy was finally filled after Shadell had
been terminated, but that before it was filled he had to pull
employees off their regular work to do this job that was
vacant, and he said there was also a vacancy in a position
known as "material handler," but Thines had told Free
that he did not want to assign Shadell to this job.
In efforts to further substantiate his position that absent
union activity Shadell would have been transferred to
another job subsequent to indicating her displeasure with
work in the upfitting department, the General Counsel
points to various instances wherein other employees,
experiencing difficulties in performing their assigned work,
were permitted to accept downgrades to lower labor grades
and thus gain assignments they considered to be more
desirable. The General Counsel points to the circumstances
involving William Spears and argues that Spears was
permitted to give up the job of working foreman in the
upfitting department and resume his lower-grade job as a
stringer. He also points out that Willie Havens began work
in a labor grade 1 job on January 6, progressed to the top
rate of $2.05 per hour in the labor grade on March 27, was
upgraded to the labor grade 2 of falls assembly on March
28, and was demoted as a result of "learning difficulties" to
her old labor grade 1 job on April 17, and further argues
that Laura Fortner was hired for the falls assembly job
(labor grade 2) on March 3, and after 3 weeks of learning
difficulties was downgraded to a labor grade I job within
the upfitting department effective March 20. The General
Counsel also mentions the situation of Mary Trousdale
and points out that her personnel records reveal that she
was hired in September 1968 at a labor grade 1 position in
the pin and bridge department at a starting rate of $1.60
per hour, and by January 1969, after a period of good
progression, she received the top rate in her classification,
but was later downgraded after experiencing some difficul-
ty in making satisfactory progress.
There is no question that Shadell continued to make
known her dissatisfaction with the assembler's job and
made request for reassignment to a lower level position, as
aforestated, and it is also clear that from time to time the
Company had permitted the transfer of employees to a
lower grade job depending on various circumstances.
However, in the , instant case Thines made the initial
selection in promoting Shadell to the upfitting department
on the basis that management was having considerable
difficulty keeping people in this department, and in efforts
to solve this problem picked someone who had previous
plant experience, and it is quite understandable, therefore,
why Thines was not amenable or anxious to grant Shadell's
requests for a transfer back to her old job or to another
department. Moreover, Shadell was making some improve-
ment in her new job, and, in fact, ' her percentage of
production increased from an initial 32 percent to 76
percent 1 'week prior to 'her discharge-the last week it
slipped back to 65 percent-and although management
considered this slow progress, there was nevertheless at
least some showing or promise that she might eventually
make the 100 percent category-so again there is a
reasonable basis for denying her request for transfer.9
Other than some personnel records and limited testimo-
ny hearing on the same-we do not know the full
circumstances surrounding the transfer or reassignments of
the employees referred to previously herein by the General
Counsel. There is no showing, unlike Shadell, that the
Company had an urgent need in retaining them in the jobs
they transferred from, and in several instances there was
no showing that they were not doing satisfactory work in
the jobs they were transferred from, but in the instant case
the General Counsel is endeavoring to establish that even
though an employee is not performing satisfactorily in a
present job-that employee, nevertheless, is entitled to be
transferred to a lower grade job. I do not believe there is an
adequate showing in this record that such was always the
policy of the Company, and most certainly management
should not be required to, retain or transfer an employee
who admits certain glaring ommissions in her work, and
who was also continually guilty of poor quality work even
after several warnings, conferences, and attempts by
management to correct her errors. This situation is also
highlighted by the open reluctance of Glynn Free in having
Shadell returned to him as communicated to Thines, and
further by the testimony of immediate supervisors who
could readily observe Shadell's working habits, and from
such observations either characterized her job performance
as the "worst" ever seen, or, in the words of Junior Jackson
"real lousy work." While other employees were occasional-
ly transferred because of slowness in their work or
discontent with a job-no such characterization of their
efforts, insofar as this record is concerned, was ever
attached to their work performances.
In essence, when the Company showed and established it
had encountered repeated instances of careless and bad
quality work by Shadell "over and over," " the contention
and argument by the General Counsel that Shadell was
entitled to be transferred pretty much falls by its own
weight. Moreover, Shadell was replaced in Fred's depart-
ment by Sue Rowlett within a few weeks after Shadell was
assigned to upfitting, and there was no other vacancy in
her old department. From the testimony given by Free in
these respects, it is apparent to me that he was totally
mistaken and confused in his statement that there was a
vacancy in his department after Shadell was terminated.
At the hearing before me, I had the opportunity to
closely observe Shadell, and from her testimony, general
demeanor, and otherwise, it can be readily noticed that she
is an extraordinarily outgoing individual in some respects,
and takes great delight in engaging in conversations and in
just plain talking to anyone at most anytime. Therefore, I
have no hesitation in believing witnesses for the Respon-
dent who testified in this respect, and also I have no
hesitation in believing that her compulsory talking hin-
dered her production, From the demeanor and the testimo-
ny of Respondents supervisors and group leaders, it' was
also obvious to me that those who had worked with' Shadell
were constantly annoyed and upset with her tremendous
9 In penods material herein, Thines received an increase in his day. Thines said that unlike the year before, he was unable to meet this
production schedule. In March, his schedule called for a daily output of 49 schedule.
pianos, but in April and May his production called for a 52 or 53 pianos a
34 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
propensity and natural inclination for repeated and endless
verbosity, and I think it a reasonable inference that this
fact was made known to other department heads and
group leaders, and which, in turn, most probably played a
considerable part in any and all transfer refusals. More-
over, it is, of course, well established that union activity will
not insulate or protect employees from justifiable discharg-
es, and the Act cannot be used as a cloak for incompeten-
cy. The allegation that Dorothy Shadell was discharged in
violation of the Act is hereby dismissed.
It is alleged that on or about July 31, the Respondent
eliminated the overtime and changed the duties of its
employee Glynn Free because of his union activities. Free
is employed by the Respondent as a group leader in
departments 301, 317, and 321 of plant A, and has been
with the Company for about 13 years. For a period of 8 or
9 years prior to the end of July, Free was also assigned the
part-time job of mixing glue for three departments, and to
do this job he reported to work at 6:30 a.m. each workday,
one-half hour prior to his regular starting time, and mixed
the glue in a mixer located in one of his departments. Free
was compensated for this extra half hour of work by being
paid overtime pay at the rate of one and a half times his
regularly hourly rate. Approximately three-fourths of the
glue he mixed each morning was used in the departments
301, 317, and 321, and the remaining glue was used in a
department located on the second floor of the plant which
was supervised by Group Leader Lunsford.
Free served as an observer for the Union in the election
held on June 29, and at the end of the following month the
Respondent reassigned the part-time job of making glue to
Lunsford. Free testified he was informed of the reassign-
ment and loss of overtime by Thines who told him to
report to work at 7 o'clock the following Monday morning
and that in the future "Tom Lunsford would be making the
glue." He testified that when he asked Thines why the
reassignment was being made, Thines said, "Well, if for no
other reason, let someone else do it for awhile."
Cornwell testified that in the period here in question they
were having problems starting the air compressors at the
plant, and when he inquired about the matter was told that
whoever turned them on was using the wrong "sequence."
Upon further inquiry, Cornwell learned that,Free had
turned the compressors on when maintenance people had
failed to do so, and then testified he could not understand
this arrangement because the air compressors were a
"maintenance function." Cornwell stated that he wanted
the situation corrected, and wanted the compressors to be
turned on by the maintenance men in the future. Cornwell
said he also inquired as to what else Free was doing in the
morning, and was told that he also mixed glue. Cornwell's
response was that someone else should be mixing the glue.
Cornwell went on to say that the Company was experienc-
ing problems with the air compressors, a bomb threat, and
various other matters that were causing concern about
access to the plant , and management was in the process of
trying to curb the excess issuing of keys to hourly rated
personnel, and the feeling was that salaried supervisors
should be responsible for opening and closing the plant.
Cornwell acknowledged that he was aware that on the date
of the election Free served as the Union's observer.
Since there appears to be no starting time change in the
job of mixing glue, still 6:30 a.m., it is difficult for me to
understand how the switch from Free to Lunsford would
curb any excess keys to hourly rated personnel since both
Free and Lunsford are hourly rated group leaders.
Cornwell finally agreed that the only reason Free's glue-
mixing job was reassigned was because of the problem with
the air compressors, but there is no explanation as to why
Free could not be instructed as to the proper procedures
or, if Cornwell wanted only maintenance people to turn the
compressors on, why Free was not so informed. Without
additional instructions and arrangements, the mere chang-
ing of the glue mixer from one group leader to another
would certainly not alleviate the complaint as to the
compressors. It is most obvious from this record that
Respondent's motivating reason for reassigning the part-
time job of mixing glue, and thereby changing the duties
and eliminating the overtime of Glynn Free, was to show
its dissatisfaction with Free for engaging in union activity
and serving as the Union's observer. It has long been
established that it is a violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act for an employer to deprive employees of overtime
benefits because of their union activity.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. A broad
cease-and-desist order is warranted in view of Respon-
dent's discriminatory conduct and other violations.
It has been found that Respondent unlawfully changed
the duties and eliminated the overtime job of Glynn Free
on July 31, 1972, and it will therefore be recommended
that Respondent offer him immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former overtime position or, if such position no
longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and
make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have
suffered as a result of the discrimination against him by
payment of a sum equal to that which he would normally
have earned, absent the discrimination, from the date of
the discrimination to the date of Respondent's offer of
reinstatement, with backpay and interest computed in
accordance with the Board's established standards.'° It will
be further recommended that Respondent preserve and
make available to the Board, upon request, all payroll
records, social security payment records, timecards, per-
sonnel records and reports, and all other records necessary
and useful to determine the amount of backpay and the
right to reinstatement under the terms of these recommen-
dations.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire
record in the case, I make the following:
10 F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289; Isis Plumbing & Heating
Co., 138 NLRB 716.
D. H. BALDWIN COMPANY 35
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By changing the duties and eliminating the overtime
of Glynn Free on July 31, 1972, the Respondent had
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
4. By interrogation of an employee as to her feelings
about the Union , the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(1) of the
Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the above findings of fact , conclusions of law, and
the entire record in the case , and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 11
The Respondent, D. H. Baldwin Company, Conway,
Arkansas, its officers , agents , successors , and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating employees as to their feelings towards
the Union.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations,
including the above-named organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or
to refrain from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
11 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions , and Order , and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
(a) Offer to Glynn Free immediate and full reinstatement
to his former overtime job or, if such job no longer exists,
to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to
his seniority or other rights and privileges and make him
whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by
reason of the discrimination against him in the manner set
forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The
Remedy," with interest thereon at 6 percent per annum.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to said
Board or its agents , for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records
required or useful in analyzing the amount of backpay due.
(c) Post at its plants in Conway, Arkansas, and at all
other places where notices to employees are usually posted
by Respondent, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 12 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 26, shall, after being duly
signed by Respondent's duly. authorized representative, be
posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by Respondent to ensure that such notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be
dismissed insofar as it alleges violations which have not
been found.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that, unless on or before 20
days from the date of receipt of this Decision, Respondent
notified said Regional Director that it will comply with the
foregoing recommendations, the Board issue an Order
requiring Respondent to take the action aforesaid.
12 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading -Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."