East Texas Steel Castings Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 25, 1965

150 N.L.R.B. 1232 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

1232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 1831
Nissen Building, 310 West Fourth Street, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Telephone
No. 724-8356 , if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions.
East Texas Steel Castings Company, Inc. and United Steel-
workers of America , AFL-CIO. Case No. 16-CA-1945. Janu-
ary 25, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 2, 1964, Trial Examiner Leo F. Lightner issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Exam-
iner's Decision. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent
had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices, -and recom-
mended that the allegations of the complaint pertaining thereto be
dismissed. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel
filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision together with sup-
porting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and
Jenkins]. .
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
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 this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts, as its
Order, the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and orders
that Respondent, East Texas Steel Castings Company, Inc., its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
i The Trial Examiner found the transfer of employees from one department to another
and assignment of additional duties to certain employees were not discriminatorily
motivated , but were made to meet the demands of these employees . The Trial Examiner
further found , based on credibility resolutions , that the Respondent had not made various
statements alleged to be violative of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act Absent exceptions
thereto, we adopt pro forma the Trial Examiner 's findings and conclusions regarding
these alleged violations. -
150 NLRB No. 121. -
EAST TEXAS STEEL CASTINGS. COMPANY, INC. 1233
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding was heard before Trial Examiner Leo F. Lightner in Longview,
Texas, on March 24, 25, 26, and 27, 1964, on the complaint of the General Counsel,
as amended, and the answer of East Texas Steel Castings Company, Inc., herein
referred to as Respondent.' The issues litigated were whether the Respondent violated
Section 8(a) (1) and (3) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Labor Management Rela-
tions Act, 1947, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. The parties waived
oral argument and briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respondent have been
carefully considered. During the hearing the Trial Examiner reserved rulings on
several motions, including Respondent's motions to dismiss the complaint. These
motions are disposed of in accordance with Findings and Conclusions herein set forth.
Upon the entire record and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the
following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is a Delaware corporation, having its principal office and place of
,business in Longview, Texas, where it is engaged in the manufacture of rough steel
castings. During the 12 months preceding the issuance of the complaint, a repre-
sentative period, -Respondent shipped products valued in excess of $50,000 directly
to points located outside the State of Texas. During the same period of time,
Respondent sold and distributed products, the gross value which exceeded $500,000.
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that Respondent is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
-United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The issues
The principal issues raised by the pleadings, as amended, and litigated at the hear-
ing are whether the Respondent: (a) discriminatorily transferred W. J. Parker and
C. C. Easley on August 19, 1963, and Gayle Campbell and Jessie O'Quinn on
August 16, 1963, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act; or (b) inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) in August, September, October,
and November, 1963, and January and February 1964, by interrogation, threats,
maintenance of an invalid distribution rule, granting a wage increase, reduction of
time permitted for coffee breaks, threatening a transfer to a more.menial job, or
requiring an employee to participate in an antiunion speech. Respondent generally
denied the commission of any unfair labor practices?
B. Background and sequence of events
Except as noted there is no dispute as to the sequence of events herein set forth,
including the circumstances leading to the transfers of Parker and O'Quinn, and the
assignment of additional duties to Easley. It is undisputed that all four transferees
were subsequently separated for cause, under circumstances set forth infra.
All four alleged discriminatees were employed in the coreroom, a department in
Respondent's plant. The coreroom was under the direct supervision of Huckabee,
coreroom foreman, who, in turn, was under the supervision of Williams, works man-
ager and production manager, and Rice, assistant general manager. Five employees,
identified as Easley, Steele, Harris, Parker, and McHenry, comprise the coreroom
direct labor crew. They were classified either as coremakers or core blower operators
'A charge was filed on October 17 and an amended charge was filed, on November 8,
1963. A second amended charge was filed on February 12 and a third amended charge
was filed on February 24, 1964. A complaint was issued on February 24 and amended
on March 13, 1964, and amended again during the hearing.
2The allegations of paragraph 9(i) of the complaint were withdrawn, on motion by
General Counsel , during the hearing.
1234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and operated various table and floor machinery, including a jolt machine and two
core blowers. The direct labor crew worked on individual incentives. There is also
an indirect labor crew, who furnish various services, such as running a sand machine,
cutting rods, etc., for the direct labor crew, of whom O'Quinn was one. Campbell
was a working foreman, without supervisory authority as defined in the Act, prior
to his demotion, effective August 16, 1963, to the indirect crew.
Commencing approximately in 1956 Respondent started using a process known as
CO2 in processing its cores and the incentive plan was projected on an "average
ratio." About November 1962, Rice replaced Nance as general manager of the
Longview plant. In February and March 1963, the standards were reevaluated and
each CO2 core was alloted a specific incentive time.
It appears that during 1963 the coreroom was working only 5 to 6 hours a day
and the direct labor crew were not happy with the standards established. It is undis-
puted that it was Campbell who advised Huckabee that the direct labor crew were
unhappy and wanted to meet with Rice. The complaint was that they did not have
sufficient take-home pay. They requested that the standards be reexamined. A
meeting was held on July 18. Rice advised the group that he would have to hear
the complaint, investigate it, and have a subsequent meeting in order to answer them.
The standards and the number of hours being worked were the principal source of
the complaint. • The principal office of Respondent is located in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
As a result of the complaint, Rice had two industrial engineers come from Tulsa to
Longview to reevaluate the standards, Rohemiller and Smith. It appears from the
testimony of Parker that Rohemiller conducted at least some of his evaluation work
in the coreroom.
A subsequent meeting was held on July 25 or 26. This meeting was attended by
all of the direct labor crew and Campbell as well as Williams, Rice, Huckabee, Rohe-
miller, Smith, and Machen. Rice had Rohemiller explain how the determinations
were made as to the appropriate standards, in detail. Rohemiller's remarks were
supplemented by Smith and Machen, head of the Longview standards department.
Rice related that the employees' questions were fully answered satisfactorily .3
Rice explained to the assembled employees that while some minor modifications
would be made in the standards, it boiled down to a proposition of where the employ-
ees were not receiving the same amount of take-home pay as they had formerly
received because there were not sufficient hours of work for the number of employees
in the coreroom. Rice asserted that neither the employer nor the employees were
naive and that they knew that this was their basic complaint. Rice related that
Respondent had two alternatives, one was to see that the work was distributed among
the men and the alternative would be a reduction in the number of personnel. Rice
related that it was Parker who asserted that they would go along as they were.
1. Transfer of Parker and McHenry-additional duties assigned to Easley
It appears undisputed that prior to August 19, 1963, Easley, Steele, and Harris
performed the bulk of the floor and table work, and the first two operated a jolt
machine, where-some of the heavier cores were made. Easley was classified as a
coremaker A. Parker and McHenry were classified as core blower operators and
their duties were primarily as core blower operators, producing cores for what is
identified as a Webb wheel, although both also worked on the table work,4 McHenry
performed more work in this latter category than Parker. The base rate of Parker
and McHenry was identical; $1.62 per hour. Easley's rate of pay of $1.74 an hour
was the highest rate in the coreroom, below supervision.
It is undisputed that on August 14, 1963, President Fleeger visited Longview and
initiated the changes which are the source of the complaint herein. Fleeger instructed
Williams to transfer two men from the direct labor force in the coreroom in the order
of seniority.5 It is also undisputed that in late July or early August, because of orders
for wheels, a second shift had been added in the molding department and furnace
31 find of no consequence Campbell's statement that at the meeting he advised -Rice
that it was much easier to factor a box (determine standards) in an air-conditioned
office than it was to run in a hot foundry. It appears undisputed that Rohemiller did
visit Parker's machine in determining some of the standards. .
4 The testimony of Huckabee that Parker spent 95 percent of his time on the core blower
while McHenry had worked at every station all over the coreroom stands undisputed and
is credited.
5It is undisputed that the seniority was Easley (1946) ; Harris (1952) ; Steele (1952)
Parker (1955) ; and McHenry (1956).
EAST TEXAS STEEL CASTINGS COMPANY, INC. 1235
department, but not in the coreroom. Respondent's testimony that the coreroom
could produce sufficient wheel cores in substantially less time than the molding depart-
ment could use the number produced stands undisputed. The bulk, if not all, of the
Webb wheel cores were produced on the core blower machines. The order of mag-
nitude of Respondent's production of castings for Webb wheels out of its total pro-
duction of castings is reflected in the testimony of Lee, production manager. In the
period of May to November 1963, both inclusive, Respondent's total production in
pounds was 4,158,431, of which 2,132,685 pounds represented Webb wheel castings.
The production of the Webb wheel castings were relatively simple. Parker related
that some types of cores he made could be produced at the rate of 300 an hour and
others at the rate of 3,000 an hour. Parker also asserted that the core blower would
produce 10 cores of a given type each time that he blew the sand in.
On August 16, Friday, Works Manager Williams, in separate interviews, advised
Parker and McHenry that they were being transferred to the molding department
effective Monday, August 19. It is undisputed that Williams advised Parker that he
had to move some people out of the coreroom and that Parker was one of them.
Williams advised Parker there was an opening on the night shift in the moldmg
department and inquired if Parker was willing to take it. Parker responded that he
had never done that type of work but, admittedly, did not object to the transfer.6
Parker's new classification was green sand finisher on the roll-over machine. Effec-
tive the same date McHenry was transferred as a green sand finisher on the sand
slinger on the day shift.
Parker acknowledged, and it is patent, that any transfer of Parker within the core-
room would have been to the indirect labor crew at a substantial reduction in pay.
Parker acknowledged that a short time after his transfer to the molding department
his rate was raised 5 cents an hour, to $1.67 per hour. This raise went into effect
prior to the discharge of Easley, some 9 days after these transfers were effectuated.
Parker acknowledged that subsequent to the raise he was offered a higher classifica-
tion, with more responsibility, which he declined.
While it is undisputed that Parker had more seniority than McHenry, there is no
evidence in this record which would support ^a finding that seniority alone was fol-
lowed by Respondent in assigning employees to the day shift as distinguished from
assignments to the night shift. Respondent's undisputed evidence does establish that
Respondent had considerable difficulty in obtaining a satisfactory and steady crew
for the night-shift molding department operation, and this was a factor in the decision
to transfer Parker to the night shift. Throughout, Respondent acknowledges that
Parker was an excellent and most satisfactory employee, both in the coreroom and
molding department. A fact evidenced by the raise.
Parker continued on the night shift in the molding department through Wednesday,
October 23, when the second shift was discontinued. Parker was then retransferred
to his former job in the coreroom at his former rate. Meanwhile, at the end of
August, Easley was separated and McHenry, at that time, had been retransferred to
the coreroom. General Counsel contends that the failure to retransfer Parker, rather
than McHenry, was discriminatorily motivated. Works Manager Williams asserted
that he made the decision to retransfer McHenry. Williams predicated his decision
on the fact that McHenry had worked on a bench blower machine more than Parker,
while Parker had worked mainly on the core blower and, in addition, that Parker
was doing such an excellent job in the molding department. In any event, since
Parker was receiving 5 cents per hour more for his work in the molding department
than he received in the coreroom, or later received upon retransfer to the coreroom,
it would appear that the only consequence of a finding of discrimination at the end
of August would be the resultant inference of an attitude of union animus on the
part of the Respondent. This question is further considered infra.
Parker was retransferred to the coreroom on October 24. On or about October 28,
Parker was given a warning slip reprimanding him for being absent from his work
station. The work slip was issued by Foreman Huckabee who requested Parker to
sign the same.' It is undisputed that Parker was away from his work station, during
worktime, talking to other employees in another area. Parker refused to sign the slip
6I find no merit in Parker's assertion that at an unspecified time, inferentially a year
or two previously, Parker had advised Huckabee, coreroom foreman, that Parker did not
wish to work the night shift because his wife was working elsewhere during the daytime
It is clear' Parker expressed no such objection to Williams The record is *silent as to
Williams having any knowledge of Parker' s assertion , and Huckabee had no memory
of it.
1236 DECISIONS'OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS' BOARD
and was reminded of a company rule which required his signature. Parker admit-
tedly refused to sign the warning slip and his employment was terminated. It is not
contended that this termination was discriminatory. After Parker was separated he
was not replaced and the coreroom continued to operate with three employees in the
direct labor force, at all times up to the hearing herein.
It is undisputed that on August 19, 1963, simultaneously with the transfer of
Parker and McHenry, Easley, Steele, and Harris were advised that the available addi-
tional hours and work would be distributed among them. Huckabee asserted that
after the transfers Easley and Steele worked on the blower machines. Huckabee
tried to rotate the work. Both Easley and Steele were assigned work on the jolt
machine as they had been previously. General Counsel contends that the decision
to assign these additional duties to Easley was discrimmatorily motivated.
Easley asserted that in the 18 years that he was employed by Respondent his work
was principally on the jolt machine, floor molding, and table molding. Easley
acknowledged that he had worked on the core blowers, but asserted that in his entire
employment his work on the core blowers had totaled perhaps a week. I find it
unnecessary to evaluate Respondent's conflicting testimony. It is undisputed that
Easley was drawing the highest pay in the coreroom and the core blower operation
was a lower rated job, although Easley was paid his full rate while working on the
core blower machine.8 Easley acknowledged that after Parker and McHenry were
transferred Easley did operate the core blowers. Easley asserted he had some diffi-
culty relative to operating the core blowers. Easley's assertion that he did remark
to one of the employees that they should slow up their work a little in order to get
Parker and McHenry transferred back to the coreroom is of no consequence. Easley
acknowledged that, on August 28, Works Manager Williams talked to Easley, Steele,
and Harris advising the employees that they were falling down and that to hold
their jobs they would have to come up with an average of 100 percent or more.a
It is undisputed that on August 28, 1963, Easley was given a written warning slip
advising him that on several previous days his ratio was under 100 percent and that
if his ratio did not improve he would be reclassified to coremaker B at $1.62 per
hour. Easley refused to sign the warning slip and was advised that under company
rules it was necessary for him to sign the warning slip in order to continue his
employment. Easley elected not to sign the warning slip and his employment was
terminated on that date. There is no contention that Easley's separation was dis-
criminatorily motivated.10 _
2. The demotion of Campbell-transfer of O'Quinn
Gayle Campbell was employed by Respondent approximately 71/z years, until his
discharge in the later part of August 1963. We are concerned here only with a
demotion which occurred on August 16, 1963.
Campbell was hired in February 1956, as a checker trainee and became a checker
2 or 3 weeks thereafter. His duties were keeping records of castings made. About
.1 year after he was hired Campbell was transferred to the classification of expeditor,
which he described as following through on special orders for castings. He performed
the job of expeditor for approximately 6 months and then became an inspector,
remaining in this position from the middle of 1957 until the middle of 1959. His
7 A copy of the company rules, which had been furnished Parker when he was first em-
ployed, and when he returned from military duty in 1900, .and was still in effect at the
time of his separation, provides in part: the violation of any one of the following rules
will be cause for "immediate discharge." Rule 42 specifies "failure to sign warning
slips
81 likewise find it unnecessary to evaluate the testimony of various witnesses to the
effect that Easley sought to initiate a slowdown. Similarly, I find of no consequence
Respondent's evidence that an employee from the, molding department wa's taught in a
matter of an hour how to operate the core blower machine in order to produce 140 percent
of the assigned quota We are not here concerned with whether or not Easley did or
did not produce an assigned quota. The sole question is whether the assignment of
additional work was discriminatorily motivated.
8 Easley's assei tion that they were working 12 or 13 hours a day was admitted by him
to be an exaggeration. Easley then asserted they were working 10 or 101/2 hours a day,
then acknowledged there were only a few times that they worked 10 or 101/.2 hours a day,
then asserted this was on two or three occasions and that most of the time it was around
8 hours.
1o However , it is noted that Easley admitted that immediately prior to his discharge
there were several days in succession that he did not make standards.
EAST TEXAS STEEL CASTINGS COMPANY, INC. 1237
duties as an inspector, were to examine castings to see if they needed welding or
grinding. He became a trainee for working foreman during the summer of 1959
and-remained in that-position until the demotion, 4 years later, with which we are
here concerned. Campbell's hourly rate at the time of his demotion was $1.74. It
is undisputed that when Campbell was demoted no one else replaced him as working
foreman and Foreman Huckabee assumed his previous duties.
I have found supra that prior to July 18, 1963, it was Campbell who advised Fore-
man Huckabee of the dissatisfaction of the direct labor crew in the coreroom with the
existing st:,ndards, leading to the subsequent meetings on July 18 and 26 between
the employees and management. Thereafter, on August 14, President Fleeger, as
the result of a number of conferences with Williams during the spring and summer
of 1963, decided to demote Campbell and transfer him into the indirect labor crew.
At the same time Fleeger advised Williams to advise Campbell that he would be
guaranteed his present hourly rate for a period of 90 days, and would be paid any
incentives he earned in the interim which exceeded the rate guaranteed.
Fleeger assigned a number of reasons as the motivation for his decision . Fleeger
asserted that he first learned of Campbell in September or October 1962, when he
received an expense account for travel with Campbell's name on it, which had been
approved by Works Manager Nance. Fleeger asserted that the expense account
indicated entertainment of a customer.- Nance was subsequently dismissed in Novem-
ber 1962, and it is obvious from Fleeger's own testimony that he did not hold Camp-
bell responsible for this matter. Fleeger then related that several times, inferentially
in the spring of 1963, it came to his attention that Campbell's name appeared on the
overtime list. On two or three occasions he' requested Williams to check in to this
and advise him. Works Manager Williams corroborated the testimony of Fleeger.
Williams asserted there were two or three occasions when he talked to Foreman
Huckabee about Campbell's overtime being in excess of the rest of the men in the
department.- Williams asserted that he was, dissatisfied with the performance of
Campbell as a working foreman and so advised Fleeger. Williams asserted that' on
a number of occasions Huckabee had complained to Williams that he was not-satis-
fied with Campbell's performance. Fleeger and Williams both acknowledged they
had no discussion directly with Campbell relative to these matters.
Foreman Huckabee described Campbell's duties as a working foreman as includ-
ing the marking of core boxes, 'and pursuant to instructions -from Huckabee the
assignment of work. Huckabee asserted that he had problems with Campbell report-
ing late for work, and failing to report, and that he made a personnel report on
Campbell in the early part of the year and had given Campbell a warning slip and
required him to sign it. Huckabee related that he advised Campbell that it seemed
like Campbell was not interested in his job. Huckabee acknowledged advising
Williams during a discussion of different complaints that Campbell was not satis-
factory. Huckabee related that on several occasions he had 'given Campbell verbal
reprimands about being late and on one occasion had talked to him about riding the
clock (unnecessary overtime) and being out there so late in the afternoon." Huck-
abee related that a month prior to Campbell's demotion he had advised Campbell
"that I was going to have to ask him to work a reasonable amount of hours, ever
what was needed but no more, that I just couldn't allow him to roam around the
plant, punched in, drawing time."
Fleeger acknowledged that the decision to demote Campbell was part of the effort
of Respondent to straighten out the "sore spot" in the coreroom. Williams asserted
that he had explored the possibility of transferring Campbell to one of the positions
that he had formerly held and had been advised by Campbell's former supervisors
that they did not wish him transferred back to their supervision.
It is undisputed that on August 14 Williams advised Campbell that he was being
demoted to the indirect labor crew, that his new rate would be $1.42 an hour with
group incentive, that he would be guaranteed his existing rate of $1.74 per hour for
90 days, and would be paid any earnings in excess thereof in the interim. Campbell
asserted that he did not know why he was being transferred and was advised by
Williams that management did not consider him to be supervisory material. Camp-
bell then inquired if Williams thought he had any supervisor "out there." Williams
responded that was not any of Campbell's concern. Williams asserted that Campbell
responded that he considered his transfer a promotion stating, "I can make more
"Campbell's denial that anyone had eves discussed his work defi ciencies with him is
not credited.
1238 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
money out there than I am making here ." Campbell 's demotion was effective Au-
gust 16 , 1963 . 12 Campbell acknowledged ' that the Respondent did not have need for
both a working foreman and a foreman , asserting that he had been doing the larger
portion of the work while Huckabee loafed . Campbell acknowledged advising Hucka-
bee that Huckabee was looking out for himself and did not care about the men.
However, Campbell was uncertain whether this conversation was in the second or third
week in August , and whether it occurred before or after he was advised of his
demotion.
It is undisputed that the warning slip given to Campbell in May 1963 read, "I
warned this man about being off from work too much and about being late for work
and that I expected him to do better." Campbell acknowledged that he signed this
warning slip because the facts stated were true . It is undisputed that on August 21,
1963, Campbell was given a written warning slip that he should not wander about the
plant during working hours which he refused to sign . Because of his refusal, Camp-
bell was laid off for 5 or 6 days with a warning that he would be separated if he
persisted in his refusal . Campbell acknowledged telling Huckabee what he could do
with the second warning slip . When Campbell refused to sign the warning slip he
was separated from Respondent 's employment . General Counsel does not contend
that Campbell 's discharge was discriminatorily motivated.
When Campbell was transferred to the indirect labor crew it became necessary for
Respondent to transfer a member of that crew to make room for Campbell . O'Quinn,
the individual with the least seniority in the indirect crew, was transferred to the
furnace department as a ladle man. O'Quinn continued at his rate of $1.36. Thus
the transfer of O'Quinn was a direct result of and caused by the demotion of Campbell.
Louis Rabalais, furnace department foreman, related that he gave O'Quinn verbal
warnings about coming in late after O'Quinn's transfer . Then Rabalais issued a
written warning which O'Quinn refused to sign . O'Quinn was given a week off, with
notice he would be separated if he persisted in this refusal . He was separated for
that reason about August 28 , 1963. General Counsel does not contend the separation
was discriminatorily motivated.13
3. Employees' union activities
Sometime after the meeting of the coreroom employees and management of July 26,
1963 , Parker and Campbell went to the home of Harold J. Saster , a pattern-
maker in Respondent 's plant, to obtain Caster's aid in contacting a union representa-
tive.14 As a result, a meeting of seven of Respondent's employees was held at the
Labor Temple in Longview, Texas, on Saturday, August 3, 1963. Parker, Campbell,
O'Quinn , Moore, Barberee , and Caster were among those present . Inferentially all
signed union cards at that time. Parker asserted that he, Campbell, O'Quinn, Caster,
Barberee, and Glaspie later obtained signatures of other employees on cards. Parker
asserted that 42 such cards were turned in to Anglin, identified as president of the
Union at Lone Star, who was acting as a representative, on Monday, August 5, 1963.
Parker asserted that additional cards were obtained during the following week. Parker
asserted that the solicitation was done at employees' home, and that he did not sign
one man at the plant and did all of his solicitation away from the plant.
It is undisputed that the Union filed a petition for an election, inferentially with-
out having previously contacted Respondent relative to the Union's representation,
on August 19, 1963. It is undisputed that the Company was served with a copy of
the petition on August 20, 1963. There were approximately 113 in the unit eligible
to vote at the time of the election. The election was held on October 18, 1963. The
Union was certified on October 28, 1963. Meanwhile, after the election petition had
been filed, there was a distribution of literature, outside the gate of Respondent's plant,
in the latter part of August 1963. Parker placed the time of this distribution as on
August 26 or 27. The hearing relative to the representation case was held approx-
imately September 13, 1963. Parker and Campbell were among those present for
the employees . Respondent was represented by its attorneys , McLaughlin and Rice.
12 Campbell testified variously that he was advised of his demotion on August 8, effec-
tive August 15, also that he was advised of the demotion on August 15. Where Camp-
bell's testimony is in conflict with that of Iluckabee and Williams, I credit the latter,
on the basis of demeanor and for other reasons explicated herein
11 O'Quinn did not testify
14 Parker and Campbell set the time as approximately July 26, while Caster asserted
- It was in early August
EAST TEXAS STEEL CASTINGS COMPANY, INC. 1239
C. Interference, restraint, and coercion
There are 15 specifications of conduct allegedly violative of Section 8(a)(1) set
forth in the complaint and amendments thereto. However, only two of these events
are alleged to have occurred prior to August 20, when Respondent acknowledges it
had notice of the union activity by the employees, by reason of the filing of the
petition for an election . This record is silent as to any knowledge of union activity
by the Respondent , except for the evidence related to these two incidents . Each of
the allegations are considered seriatim, as they relate to the particular supervisor
allegedly involved.
1. Ed Huckabee
It is undisputed that Ed Huckabee , foreman of the coreroom , is a supervisor within
the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. In the complaint it was alleged that on
or about August 5, 1963, Bowie Sellers (patternmaker foreman) told employees they
would suffer in their working conditions because of their union activities. At the
outset of the hearing, General Counsel moved to amend this allegation by substitut-
ing the name of Ed Huckabee.
The evidence relative to this specification was supplied by Parker and Campbell,
and said evidence was denied by Huckabee.'5 Parker related that he had been out by
reason of illness, that he, Campbell, Huckabee, and another employee were in the
coffeeshop. Parker asserted that the event could have occurred on Wednesday or
Thursday, August 7 or 8, or August 14 or 15. Parker related that he was absent 2 days
because of illness I week and a day and a half in the succeeding week, although he was
not certain as to which week it was that he was absent 2 days. It thus appears that his
absences were on August 5 and 6 and August 12 and 13. Campbell asserted that he
"believed that the incident occurred before he was notified of his transfer." The
record establishes that Campbell was notified of his transfer on August 14. Later
Campbell asserted that the conversation took place in the second or third week in
August. These dates would be August 14 or 15 or August 21 or 22. Parker related
that he had a conversation with an employee named Slater and that Huckabee was
present. There appears to have been no discussion between Huckabee and the others
until Huckabee was ready to leave . Parker and Campbell quoted Huckabee as stating,
"As soon as you boys get that trade union you can all take a vacation." Huckabee
then left the coffeeshop. Parker acknowledged there had been no prior conversation
relative to a union . Huckabee denied making any such statement . I credit Huckabee,
on the basis of demeanor , as well as the evidence in this record . I find it implausible
that Huckabee would have made such a statement out of a clear sky when the Union
had not been discussed. There is no showing, other than this incident, that Huckabee
engaged in any antiunion activity at any time during the period with which we are
here concerned. Accordingly , I will recommend dismissal of the allegations of
paragraph 9(a) of the complaint.rs
18I find it unecessary to pass upon the assertion of Parker that he advised Rohemiller,
when Rohemiller was conducting a study of the standards in the coreroom ( between
July 18 and 26 ), that if the standards were not raised the only alternative Parker saw
was to get a union representative or to try to form a union among the employees. Rohemil-
ler was not called as a witness There is no evidence that Rohemiller is a supervisor.
Assuming Parker made the statement as he testified , there is no evidence that manage-
ment was apprised of it. Huckabee denied that Rohemiller ever advised him of the
statement by Parker . I credit IIuckabee.
1e I have found supra, from the testimony of Parker, that the solicitation of union cards
was away from the plant and largely at employees' homes. Campbell asserted that he
carried union authorization cards in his shirt pocket which were visible. Campbell
acknowledged that Huckabee never made any remarks to Campbell about the cards lie
was carrying in his pocket . This effort to establish a basis for implying knowledge of
the existence of union activity by the Respondent I find incredible.
Campbell asserted that he had a discussion with Huckabee relative to the Union, prior
to his demotion , in the core department. Campbell related that the conversation started
about the money they were making and the fact that it was not enough money to live
on. Campbell asserted that he told Huckabee that all the men in the core department
were interested in the Union , except one or two, and that they were going to have an
organization . Campbell asserted that it was mentioned ( presumably by Huckabee) that
it would not be right and they would not gain anything but trouble . Campbell did
not recall anything else being said relative to the Union by Huckabee at that time.
[Footnote continued on following page]
1240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Bowie Sellers
Bowie Sellers has been pattern shop foreman for 17'/2 years. It is undisputed that
he is a supervisor within the meaning of the provisions of Section 2 (11) of the Act.
Of the 15 specifications of alleged Section 8(a)( I) conduct Sellers was allegedly the
offender in eight instances. Sellers had four patternmakers working under him,
Hancock, Caster, Moore, and Barberee. After the Union won the election, Caster
became president of the Union, Hancock became vice president, and Barberee became
recording secretary. Of the events allegedly involving Sellers: on August 8 and
October 30 Hancock was the sole witness; on September 29, October 28, and Novem-
ber 6 and 7 Moore was the sole witnes'; on February 5, 1964, Caster was the sole
witness; the events of January 14, 1964, were related by several witnesses.
It is alleged that on August 8, 1963, Sellers interrogated an employee about said
employees' union activities and the activities of other employees. Hancock related
that during the week following the first union meeting, which he did not attend, he had
a conversation with Sellers about August 8, 1963. Hancock related that the conversa-
tion was after work and that everyone else had left. Hancock asserted, "He asked me
if I was in it and told me he knew a couple of us was in it and asked me if Jerry Moore
was in it." Hancock then asserted that Sellers never came out and used the sword
union but just used the word "it." Hancock asserted that he responded that he was
studying about it and that he would not deny that he might be interested in it, that
he did not know whether or not Jerry Moore was. Sellers denied ever asking
Hancock if he was in the Union and denied asking Hancock if Moore was in the Union.
Sellers also denied that Hancock ever told him that Hancock was studying about being
in the Union and did not know about Moore. Sellers asserted that he first learned of
the Union after a petition for representation was filed, being so advised by Williams.
I credit Sellers. Accordingly, I will recommend dismissal of the allegations of para-
graph 9(b) of the complaint.
It is alleged that on or about October 28, 1963, Sellers questioned an employee about
another employee's union activities. J. Patrick Moore related that on October 28
Sellers talked to him about Hancock. Moore asserted that Sellers wanted to know how
Hancock felt about the Union and the Company. Moore responded that he did not
know. Moore quoted Sellers as saying that he would like to talk to Hancock "but he
didn't know if John would talk to him or not." -Moore related that Sellers" asked
Moore if Moore would ask Hancock if he would be willing to talk to Sellers and
Moore responded that he would ask Hancock and did so. Moore-asserted this con-
versation occurred in Sellers' office, during working hours, but could not recall if -it
was in the morning or afternoon. Sellers was convincing in stating that he felt close
to Hancock through the years, that they talked to.each other about Hancock's personal
life and Sellers' personal life and personal things about their families. There is no
denial of his by Hancock. Sellers asserted that he had a deep regard for Hancock.
Sellers denied ever asking Moore if Hancock was in the Union, and denied ever telling
Moore that Sellers could not talk to Hancock and would like to talk to him. I credit
Sellers. Accordingly, I will recommend dismissal of the allegations of paragraph-9(f)
of the complaint.
It is alleged that on or about October 30, 1963, Sellers threatened an employee that
if he was involved in a union it could affect the job of said employee. Hancock related
that he had a conversation with Sellers on October 30 in'the first-aid office, a little
after 4 p.m. Hancock's version was that he met Sellers in the hall and Sellers asked
if he could talk to Hancock and Hancock responded he was always open for conversa-
General Counsel asserted these statements came within the purview of the allegations 'of
paragraph 9(a) of the complaint. Huckabee asserted that he first learned of union
activity in the plant when President Fleeger called a meeting, after the petition for an
election was filed on August 19. Huckabee specifically denied that Campbell ever said
anything to him about all of the men in the core department being interested in the
Union except one or two. Huckabee denied ever having any discussion with any of his
employees about the Union asserting, "This was never discussed." I credit Huckabee
S. L. Darden, a member of the indirect labor crew in the coreroom, asserted that,
after O'Quinn was transferred (O'Quinn was transferred August 16), Huckabee advised
Darden that he was to help O'Quinn "make plans but I wanted to talk to him and he was
transferred for a reason." It is obvious that they weie making sand not plans and the
witness meant to say that he was not to talk to him The record incorrectly identifies
Darden as S. L. Gordon in the testimony of Huckabee. Huckabee acknowledged that the
two employees were laughing and cutting up and that he advised Darden that he was
to help O'Quinn to make sand but that he was not there to entertain him. Huckabee
denied asserting that O'Quinn was transferred for a reason . There is no allgeation in
the complaint relative to this incident I credit Huckabee.
EAST TEXAS STEEL CASTINGS COMPANY,, INC. 1241
tion. Hancock related that Sellers told him that he did not think that Hancock was
part of the Union "and hoped that I would be [sic] and told me that I had a very nice
job there and he would like to see it stay that way." Hancock related that he
responded that maybe there were "some things the Union could do for us out there
but that he was still studying about it and that he was about half way in it." Hancock
asserted that he reminded Sellers that the Company had cut out a 20-minute paid
lunch and given a 3-percent raise as an offset and that Hancock thought that was just
a way of getting around a raise granted by the minimum wage law. (Hancock
acknowledged his hourly rate was $2.09). Hancock asknowledged he was the highest
paid hourly employee in the pattern shop. Sellers acknowledged having a conversa-
tion with Hancock, about November 1, in the first-aid room. Sellers related that he
advised Hancock that he wanted to talk to him not as a foreman but as a friend.
Sellers' version was that he told Hancock, "I didn't know whether he was involved'in
the union activities or not and I didn't care whether he told me or not, that I hated
to see him get involved because we had gone through the situation in the past and that
was just about the extent of the conversation." Sellers, and other foremen, related that
they attended a meeting of foremen, shortly after the petition for election was served
on the Company on August 20, 1963, and that they were instructed not to mention or
discuss any union activities with any of the employees that that was their organization
they were working with and we were to stay out of it entirely and by all means "not
to threaten any of the men." Sellers asserted he followed these instructions to the best
of his knowledge. Sellers specifically denied ever telling any employee that the
employees becoming involved with the Union might affect his 'job. It is patent this
conversation followed certification of the Union. I credit Sellers. Accordingly, I will
recommend dismissal of the allegations of paragraph 9(g) of the complaint.
It is alleged that on November 6, 1963, Sellers warned an employee that another
employee's participation in union activities had hurt said other employees' chances for
future promotions. It is also alleged that on November 7, 1963, Sellers threatened an
employee that the Company's rules would be used to punish him because of his union
support. These allegations are considered together since they relate to a series of
conversations Moore asserts he had with Sellers. Moore asserted that he had attended
a union meeting where nominations for officers were made on November 1, 1963.
Moore said that he discussed the union meeting with Sellers on November 4, that
Sellers asked him if he had attended the meeting and Moore responded in the affirma-
tive, that Sellers asked him what went on and who was nominated and Moore so
advised him; i.e.; that Caster had been elected president and Barberee had been elected
secretary (actually these were nominations only). Moore asserted that Sellers stated
that he had heard that Hancock was vice president and Moore responded that this was
true. Moore quoted Sellers as expressing surprise that Hancock was going along with
the Union- "that .he, had really thought that John was going to side with the Com-
pany and be against the Union." Moore asserted there was a further conver-
sation-with Sellers on November 5 or 6 in Sellers' office. Moore quoted Sellers as
saying that Hancock had really hurt his future with the Company by going along with
the Union, that Hancock had been in a very good position to succeed Sellers if some-
thing should happen to Sellers, but that Hancock now had no future with the Com-
pany with respect to promotions. Moore asserted that Sellers advised Moore that
Sellers had been instructed by Respondent to watch the boys in the shop and all of the
union members to keep them from talking to one another on the job, to keep them
from visiting among themselves, and to keep them from visiting anyone else on com-
pany property, that the Company was not going to allow any union talk whatsoever.
Moore asserted Sellers "gave an example of saying if the Union got in-he didn't
want any men going up to another man saying we are going to have a union meeting
tonight, why don't you come on down (Moore did not explain his meaning of "if the
Union got in, since the Union was previously certified). Moore then asserted that
Sellers had told him on several occasions before that there would be a cutback' in
work, possibly go below a 40-hour week and that there would probably be a layoff in
the shop and that Sellers knew who would be laid off. Moore asserted that Sellers had
stated that Caster and Barberee would be laid off. Moore asserted he had a further
conversation with Sellers on November 7, "it was close to quitting time and ,the rest
of the boys had already left." Moore quoted Sellers as saying there had been reports
to the Company that Moore had been attending union meetings and the Company
had begun to wonder about him and wanted to know exactly where he stood, that he
could not stand on the fence. Moore quoted Sellers as advising him to make a choice
and either go with the Union or go with the Company, that the company officials had
asked Sellers to find out exactly where Moore stood.17 Moore asserted that he advised
1T This stands in contrast to Moore's assertion that at an earlier date (September)
Sellers had urged him to attend union meetings, set forth infra.
1242 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sellers that he wanted to get along with the Union if he could and get along with the
Company also , that if the Union got a contract he was intending to go along with the
Union , but if it did not get a contract he was not going to fight the Company. Moore
asserted that he had another conversation with Sellers on November 8 at his bench in
the workshop . Moore asserted that he had advised the other patternmakers that he
was going to tell Sellers that he had decided to go along with the Union , and did so.
Moore related that Sellers responded that he had been suspecting for the last few days
that Moore was leaning in that direction , that Sellers was sorry to see him feel that
way. According to Moore , Sellers then advised him they had work to do, they had to
get the jobs out and they expected Moore to keep up with his work. Moore asserted
that Sellers reminded him that there were 42 rules on the bulletin board and that he
should not "stump " his toe on any of them , patted Moore on the shoulder , and walked
off. Moore related that on November 14 Sellers advised him that they were getting
behind on a particular job and were going to have to speed up to get the jobs out.
Moore asserted that he told Sellers it was hard to work under the pressure caused by
the Union and the Company. According to Moore, Sellers responded that he had not
told anyone in the Company that Moore had decided to go along with the Union, that
the Company thought Moore was leaning toward the Union but that Sellers could
straighten it out "and he offered me the opportunity to be forgiven and I could get out
of the Union ." Moore asserted that he advised Sellers that he had made his decision
and would stick with it. General Counsel advised that he was not attempting to
litigate the events of November 14 as a violation of Section 8 (a) (1).
On cross-examination Moore related that his conversation with Sellers on Novem-
ber 7 lasted 10 or 12 minutes , having started after the other patternmakers had left.
Respondent produced the timeclock cards of the four patternmaker employees on
November 7. Cards are punched out in the pattern shop , other cards are punched out
at the gate as an employee leaves the grounds . It is undisputed that Barberee and
Hancock punched out in the pattern shop at 4:30 p.m., that Moore and Caster punched
out in the pattern shop at 4:31 p .m., that all four punched their gate cards at 4:31
p.m., the gatehouse being about 200 feet from the pattern shop . It is thus patent that
Moore did not remain behind for a 10- or 12-minute conversation with Sellers on
November 7 . I find it unnecessary to set forth the detail of Moore's time of punching
out, in comparison to the other employees , on all dates commencing October 28
through November 8. Sellers specifically denied : telling Moore that he was surprised
about Hancock , that Hancock had hurt himself with the Company and hurt his future
with the Company and would never get anymore promotions ; that he had ever been
instructed or had ever told Moore that he had been instructed to watch the men and
keep them from visiting and talking or that the Company was not going to allow any
union talk at the plant ; telling Moore about any possible cutback or layoff in the
pattern shop or knowing that Caster and Barberee would be laid off; that Moore
should attend the union meetings and find out what was going on (infra ); asking
Moore if he attended a union meeting; asking Moore how he felt about the Union;
advising Moore that there had been reports about his attending the union meeting
and that he had to get on one side or the other , and that the Company wanted to know
where he stood ; advising Moore that he could not stradle the fence or anything
similar ; or making any reference to the 42 rules posted on the bulletin board . Sellers
acknowledged that Moore did advise Sellers that Moore was a member of the Union
and placed the time as about the middle of November. Sellers related, "One morning
I was at the shop with him and he told me that he had decided to sign a union card
and was then a member of the Union ." Sellers asserted that he responded that if
that was the way Moore felt he had his own privilege of believing the way he wanted
to believe , and all "we asked him to do, we had work to do, was to do his work, as far
as I was concerned , and we would get along fine." Sellers acknowledged having
reprimanded Moore on a couple of occasions for being slow in his work and not
keeping up. Sellers asserted this happened in the 90 days preceding Seller's testimony
in March 1964 . Sellers denied that Moore ever advised Sellers that there was too
much pressure caused by the Company and the Union and that that was the reason
Moore was behind . Sellers acknowledged Moore had described Sellers as "a slave
driver." Sellers denied ever telling Moore that Sellers had not told anyone Moore
was in the Union and could still get out if he wanted to, or saving anything like that.
Sellers denied ever asking Moore to get out of the Union . Sellers denied that Moore
ever told him that it was Moore's decision and he was going to stick with it. Sellers
denied ever advising Moore that the company rules would be used to punish Moore
because he joined the Union or because of his union activities . Sellers asserted he
did not feel as free to talk to other employees in the pattern shop as he did to Hancock
with whom he had worked approximately 12 years, while the others had been with
EAST TEXAS STEEL CASTINGS COMPANY, INC. 1243
him only approximately 3 years. (Actually Moore had 7 years' employment.) Sellers
credibly testified that Moore had come to his office on several occasions and started
talking to him about various things, his farm, his home, "and he would try to lead
around to union discussion and I always avoided this." Sellers asserted he tried to
change the subject and Moore was never successful in leading the discussion around
to the Union. On the basis of demeanor, to the extent the testimony of Moore is in
conflict with the testimony of Sellers, I credit Sellers. Sellers readily acknowledged
that he was aware of the fact that the Company was opposed to the Union coming into
the plant, and were exerting efforts to persuade the employees to vote against the
Union. However, these events were postelection and postcertification. Accordingly,
I will recommend dismissal of the allegations of paragraph 9(h) and (j) of the
complaint.
It is alleged that on or about September 29, 1963, Respondent granted a wage
increase to an employee so that he would not support the Union. Moore related that
he talked to Sellers, in the latter part of August, and advised Sellers that Moore
thought he ought to be able to get a raise. Moore quoted Sellers as responding that
Sellers did not know that Sellers' hands were tied, but that Sellers would check into it.
Moore then asserted that Sellers stated "that he knew that he couldn't give any of the
other boys a raise, that they had joined the Union and that it would be up to the Union
to get them a raise if they got one." Moore "believed" that Sellers mentioned Caster
and Barberee specifically. Moore related that he talked to Sellers again about 3 weeks
to a month later, in Sellers' office, and inquired about the raise. Moore asserted, "I had
asked him about my raise and wanted to know if he thought I was going to get it
or anything and he told me, or he might have said something to me about my raise was
going to go through he thought and he said that he had really had to go to bat for me
to get this raise for me and that he had really had to convince the Company that I
wasn't a member of the Union, that I was going along with the Company." "He said
that the only. way that he was able to get me the raise was the fact that I wasn't a
member of the Union and that if I had of been he couldn't have gotten me the raise at
all." 18 It is undisputed that Moore did receive a 5-cent raise in his paycheck of
October 13, 1963, covering the preceding 2-week period. Moore was self-contradictory
in asserting that Sellers advised him around September 1 that he would receive a raise
and that there was no further conversation relative to the raise between Moore and
Sellers prior to his receiving the raise. Sellers acknowledged having a conversation
with Moore about September 1, 1963, relative to a raise. Sellers asserted he had only
one conversation with Moore relative to the raise. Sellers' version was that Moore
inquired as to the possibility of an increase and Sellers responded that they would
review his record, that raises are granted on merit. .Sellers asserted that he recom-
mended the raise and it was granted. Sellers denied having any other conversation
with Moore about the raise, denied stating that he could not give the raise to others
because they had joined the Union, denied telling Moore that he thought Moore's raise
was going through but Sellers really had to go to bat for him and only got the raise
because Moore was not a member of the Union. Sellers denied saying anything along
the lines asserted by Moore. I credit Sellers. Accordingly, I will recommend dis-
missal of the allegations of paragraph 9 (1) of the complaint.
It is alleged that on or about January 14, 1964, Sellers reduced the time permitted
for coffee breaks for a group of employees because of their union activities. Caster
asserted that it had been the practice in the plant to allow employees to take a 15-
minute coffee break in the morning, and the same in the afternoon. Caster asserted
that on January 14, 1964, Sellers told Caster and Barberee "that we had to cut our
break to 10 minutes." Caster quoted Sellers as asserting that they were spending too
much time "in there" and that Williams had told Sellers to have them cut down on their
coffee break. The pattern shop is over 200 yards from the coffeeshop. Caster asserted
this would allow them 4 minutes to drink their coffee. Caster acknowledged that
nothing had been said since that date relative to coffee breaks. Caster acknowledged
he did not know of any other department being cut on coffee break time. Caster
asserted that he normally took his coffee break with Barberee, and when they
returned Moore and Hancock would take their coffee break. Moore corroborated
18 Moore later testified that he talked to Sellers shortly after September 1, that Sellers
asked Moore if he had attended the union meeting and Moore responded that he had not
According to Moore, Sellers "suggested that it might be a good idea for me to attend the
next meeting that the Union had, that it would be good experience for me to find out
what was going on and it would kind of help me know." This assertion stands in sharp
contrast with Moore's testimony that in November, Sellers advised him of the Com-
pany's suspicions relative to Moore, by reason of Mooie's having attended union meetings.
1244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Caster's statement that on January 14, 1963, Sellers advised the patternmakers that
he had been instructed to tell them that they were to cut their coffee breaks to a maxi-
mum of 10 minutes. Moore asserted that when he inquired of Sellers whether others
in the plant were going to be cut to the same 10-minute limit, Sellers responded that
most of the other men were on standards or an incentive system and did not punch off
the job when they took a coffee break. Moore asserted that it had been their practice
to take from 15 to 25 minutes, asserting "there was no specific time." 19 Sellers
acknowledged having a conversation with the patternmakers relative to the time they
were taking for coffee breaks. Sellers related that Works Manager Williams called his
attention to the fact that patternmakers were taking too much time for coffee breaks.
Sellers asserted that they were in fact taking 25 to 30 minutes for several weeks.
Sellers admitted that they had never been previously told that a particular time was
alloted. Sellers asserted, "I told them we felt they were taking too much time for
coffee breaks and asked them to cut down to about 10 minutes in the coffee shop. I
thought that was a sufficient time for coffee breaks." - Sellers credibly testified that
the 10 minutes did not include the time essential to go to and return from the coffee-
shop. Sellers acknowledged the employees were unhappy about the limitation on their
coffee time, and asserted that he explained that the other departments were on incen-
tives while the patternmakers were on straight time. To the extent the testimony
relative to this item is in conflict I credit Sellers. Under the circumstances, I do not
find Respondent's action was motivated by any intent to interfere with, restrain, or
coerce the patternmakers. It was, in fact, an effort to establish a reasonable amount of
time for a coffee break. Accordingly, I will recommend a dismissal of the allegations
of paragraph 9(n) of the complaint.
3. Ross Williams
Williams is work manager. It is undisputed that Williams is a supervisor within the
meaning of the provisions of Section 2(11) of the Act.
It is alleged that on October 4, 1963, Williams questioned an employee regarding his
union activities and threatened said employee with changes in his working conditions
for such union activities. W. D. Hall has been employed by Respondent for 14 years.
Hall related that he had a conversation with Williams about 2 weeks before the elec-
tion. Hall related "he (Williams) just asked me whether the Company was treating
me all right and I told him yes, it was. He asked me which way I was going and I
told him I wasn't going either way and that is all." Hall asserted that he was working
on the day shift at the time of the conversation and that it occurred a little before 4
p.m., when Hall was going to the office to obtain a gas book. Williams was unable to
recall any conversation with Hall occurring 2 weeks prior to the election. Williams
denied asking Hall how he was going, or if the Company was treating him all right.
Williams denied ever questioning any employee regarding his union activity, or
threatening an employee with a change in working conditions, based on his union
activity. There is no other instance reflecting union animus on the part of Williams.
Assuming the statement was made as Hall recited, no threat can be implied from what
was said. If the statement was made as Hall recited, it would at most constitute inter-
rogation. I was impressed with Williams' demeanor and credit his denial. Accord-
ingly, I will recommend dismissal of the allegations of paragraph 9(c) of the
complaint.
4. Edward E. Little
Little has been molding department foreman for 10 years. Frank White, another
molding department foreman, is under Little. It is undisputed that Little is a super-
visor within the meaning of the provisions of Section 2 (11) of the Act. -
19 Caster related that the four patternmakers, on January 20, 1964, timed another
employee, Kenneth Powell, who was working in another department. Caster asserted
that he remained in the coffeeshop, on January 20, 15 minutes and Powell was there
throughout that time Moore asserted that Powell was these all but 2 or 3' minutes of
the time that he and Hancock were in the coffeeshop on January 20, asserting that he
and Hancock spent 17 or 18 minutes in the coffeeshop that day. Molding Foreman
Little asserted that Powell was recuperating from an illness and was on straight time
in January 1964. Little was uncertain if Powell was working in the molding department
or in the storeroom at that particular time. Little asserted that those who are on incen-
tive do not ring out when they take a coffee break and are only hurting themselves if they
take excessive time. Little asserted that they allow a reasonable time for a man to get
coffee in the morning and afternoon. ,
'EAST TEXAS STEEL CASTINGS COMPANY, INC. 1245
It is alleged that on or about October 18, 1963, Little told an employee that they
would be sorry if the Union were voted into the plant. In the initial complaint the
date was stated as October 21. In the amendment to the complaint the date was
changed to August 18, and later amended to October 18. Caster related that he was a
union observer at the election on October 18. Caster asserted that as he was going to
the preelection conference, Little caught him by the arm and stated that in a couple of
hours they would know how things were and "we would, be sorry." Later Caster
asserted that Little had said "we would know, whether we would be sorry or not."
Caster then acknowledged that a pretrial statement which he had given to a Board
agent was correct and that what Little had actually said was "that we may be sorry."
Little related that the foreman had been instructed two or three times by Fleeger, Rice,
Williams, and Respondent's counsel , McLoughlin, "that we could make no threats, we
should not let this interfere with our work and go on with our business as usual."
Williams was not questioned and did not deny having made the statement quoted. In
the light of this total record, and in the absence of any showing of union animus on the
part of Little, I am unable to conclude'that the statement that the employees "may be
sorry" was anything more than an expression of an opinion by an individual. This is
particularly true in view of the Respondent's caution to its supervisors not to engage
in any threats. Accordingly, I will recommend a dismissal of the allegations of para-
graph 9(d) of the complaint.
It is alleged by amendment during the hearing that on November 4 Little inter-
rogated an employee regarding the number of employees who attended a union meet-
ing. Gaston Raul Mallory has been an employee in the molding department for 5
years. Mallory related that he had a conversation with Little. He was uncertain if it
was on November 14 or 18. Mallory later changed the date to November 4. The site
of the conversation was in the plant near Little's office. Mallory asserted "he walked
up and, asked me if there were very many people at the union meeting and I told him
there was quite a few there." Mallory asserted nothing else was said.20 Mallory
having initially placed his conversation on November 4, near Little's office, later
asserted that it occurred in the coreroom. Little did not recall ever asking any
employee about the number of men attending a union meeting. He asserted he did
not believe he had ever asked Mallory, asserting that he did not even know that Mallory
was a union member until his name appeared in a list for election of officers. (This
list is dated November 15,' 1963.) Mallory was unimpressive and unconvincing I
credit Little. Accordingly, I shall recommend dismissal of the allegations of para-
graph 9(p) of the complaint.
5. Frank White
White has been a molding department foreman for 11 years. It is undisputed that
White is a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2 (11) of the Act. -
It is alleged that on October 23, 1963,-White told an employee that the employees
would be hurt if they voted a union into the plant Parker related that he had a con-
versation.with White at the end of -the shift, about 11 p.m., on October 23. This was
the last night that Parker worked in the molding department before being retransferred
to the coreroom. Parker related that he advised White that it had been nice working
with him and that Parker appreciated the way White had treated him. Parker did not
know how the subject was brought up "that we were on different sides of the fence, but
that was neither here nor,there We worked together as a team and worked all right
and he (White) said that the -thing wasn't, over, that there would be people hurt. He
said that Mr. Fleeger was opposed to signing the contract and I think he was giving me
a fatherly talk, I don't know." Parker did not think the word "union" was mentioned.
Parker asserted that White did not explain what he meant when he said they would be
hurt. White denied talking to Parker about the Union and denied telling Parker that
employees would be hurt if they voted the Union into the plant. I credit White It is
noted that this conversation is alleged to have occurred between the date of the elec-
tion and the date of certification, thus before any obligation to negotiate, much less to
20 Mallory related that he had a conversation with Little around November 15,, in
which Little expressed surprise that Mallory was for the Union Mallory asserted that
he responded that he was for "what the most money is in " Mallory asserted that
Little responded that the Union could not help him any because Little had been in unions
himself and had seen people go hungry. Mallory asserted that he then did not carry
on any further conversation . General Counsel acknowledged this testimony was un-
related to any specification in the complaint and was inserted solely to indicate a pattern
of conduct
1246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sign a contract , arose. I find it unnecessary to determine whether White 's expression,
if it had been made, would constitute a statement of opinion or a threat. Accordingly,
I will recommend dismissal of the allegations of paragraph 9(e) of the complaint.21
It is alleged that on or about February 5,1964, Frank White and Bowie Sellers
threatened to transfer an employee to a more menial job because of his union activiti-
ties. Caster related that he had a conversation with Foreman White and Sellers on
February 5, 1964, about 3:30 or 4 p in., at Caster's work station. Caster related that
he was asked if he would like to go back in the foundry and advised that they needed
a man as a floor molder. Caster asserted that it was White who made the request.
Caster related that he responded that he did not care, if that was where Respondent
wanted him that was where he would go. Caster asserted that Sellers broke in on the
conversation and inquired of Caster if that was what Caster wanted. Caster asserted
he responded it was all right with him, and that Sellers then stated that it could be
arranged. Caster acknowledged that he was not transferred to the foundry. Caster
asserted that he understood White "by his tone of voice" wanted to transfer Caster.
Caster acknowledged that he had worked previously in the molding department as a
floor molder on the slinger. White related that Caster had formerly worked on the
clinger.. White related they had a "little flash on heavier work" that was to be made
on the floor. White asserted that he went to talk to Caster to inquire if he would come
back on the floor for a few days so "we could get our production up." White asserted
that Caster indicated that he was willing to be transferred. White asserted he did not
request Caster's transfer, but made the inquiry to find out if Caster was receptive,
before going to Caster's foreman, having previously cleared the matter with Little.
White erroneously placed the time of the event as being in July 1963. Sellers acknowl-
edged being aware of the fact that White talked to Caster about returning to the
molding department, and asserted that the event occurred about 6 weeks prior to the
testimony of Sellers on March 27, 1964. Sellers asserted that he walked up to find
out why White was there and heard White explain to Caster that they were over-
loaded with core work in the foundry and wanted to know if he would-consider coming
out and helping them out. Sellers asserted that he did not make any statement to
Caster, but that White inquired what Sellers thought of it and Sellers responded they
would discuss it later. Sellers asserted he had not talked -to White about the matter
since. Neither did Sellers talk to Little about the possible transfer. Sellers asserted
he needed Caster in the pattern shop and did not wish to lose him, that nothing else
was said to him relative to it. Foreman Little acknowledged that he knew that White
talked to Caster about coming to the molding department. Little asserted that White
was "getting tight" on floor molds and White suggested that they might bring Caster
over "until we get caught up on the floor molds " Little erroneously placed the time
as being prior to the filing of the Union's petition for an election on August 19, 1963.
21 Glenn Horne was employed from July 22 to October 23, 1963, in the molding depart-
ment on the second shift Horne related that White asked him if he liked his job, one
night when Horne had gone to the cleaning department, advising Horne that he was not
supposed to be over there According to Horne, White inquired why he had gone to the
cleaning department , and Horne responded that he went to see Virgil Moore ( distinguished'
from J. Patrick Moore) Horne asserted that White advised him that Moore had been
talking about the Union and White thought maybe Horne was talking about the Union,
that White just wanted to know. Horne asserted that he denied that they were discussing
the Union . Horne asserted that he then explained that he had previously worked at a
grocery where he opposed the organization of a union and inferentially lost his job
Horne then admitted the reason White had told him that he should not go to the welding
department was that he did not have ,goggles, a safety requirement . Horne acknowledged
that he volunteered the information about the Union to White . Horne acknowledged
that the first conversation was in the morning before work and nothing but the goggles
were mentioned It was after work that Horne renewed the conversation and Horne
brought up the matter of the Union. General Counsel asserted that Horne's testimony
constituted background only. White related that his conversation with Horne was con-
fined solely to existing instructions that employees are not to go into other departments
without proper safety equipment, and that this is a standard practice. White denied
having any particular memory relative to this incident. I do not credit'Horne's asser-
tion that White interrogated Horne as to whether he and Moore were talking about the
Union.
W. D. Hall asserted lie had a conversation with White about the same time as his
conversation with Williams, supra, section III, C, 3. Hall asserted that White advised
Hall to watch out because White was watching every step Parker made. General Counsel
asserted that this was not alleged as a violation but was inserted as background. White
denied having such a conversation . I credit White.
EAST TEXAS STEEL CASTINGS COMPANY, INC. 1247
Little acknowledged that they would have had to obtain clearance from Sellers before
such a transfer could be made, and that it would also require the approval of Williams.
I find that no threat to transfer an employee to a more menial job was in fact made.
At most, White made a preliminary inquiry to determine the attitude of Caster.
Accordingly, I will recommend dismissal of the allegations of paragraph 9(o) of the
complaint.
6. John B. Fleeger
Fleeger is president of Respondent . It is undisputed that Fleeger is a supervisor
within the meaning of Section 2(l 1) of the Act.
It is alleged that on October 16, 1963, Fleeger caused an employee to participate in
an antiunion speech which was being delivered to a group of Respondent's employees.
It may be inferred from the record that Fleeger held a number of meetings of
employees, by departments, during which he expressed opposition to the Union. How-
ever, there is no allegation that anything that Fleeger said constituted a violation of the
provisions of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
Parker described a meeting of molding department employees held about Octo-
ber 15, at which approximately 15 employees were present. Inferentially, this was a
meeting of the night shift in the molding department . Parker related that Fleeger had
some statistics which related to the Lone Star Steel Company, a profit-and-loss state-
ment for the prior year . Fleeger requested that Parker read , to the assembled
employees, the figures from the published statement, which Parker did. Fleeger
acknowledged making speeches to the employees. He acknowledged that he asked
Parker to read from an annual report for the year 1962 "inasmuch as the Union, in
one of their handout pieces of literature had made certain statements regarding the
financial condition of Lone Star Steel ." Fleeger explained that he felt if he read the
statement that it could be construed by the employees as a bunch of hot air so he at-
tempted to pick someone from the coreroom who would read the particular statement
out of the printed statement "so they wouldn't think I was reading something that
wasn't there." I specifically requested and cautioned General Counsel to furnish au-
thority for his contention that this conduct constituted a violation of Section 8(a) (1)
of the Act. In his brief, General Counsel refers to evidence which establishes that the
Company was aware of Parker's activity in the union campaign, prior to October 16,
1963. These facts are not disputed. I accept Fleeger's explanation as valid. Obvi-
ously,, no violation would attach had Fleeger read the statement. General Counsel's
brief is without authority for his contention. I am unaware of authority to support
General Counsel 's contention . Accordingly , I shall recommend dismissal of the al-
legations of paragraph 9(m) of the complaint.
7. No-distribution rule
It is alleged that since August 5, 1963, Respondent has promulgated and maintained
in effect an invalid no-distribution rule which prohibits the employees from• •
Posting or distributing of handbills, placards, posters or advertising matter or any
material in or about the plant without permission of the plant manager.
It is undisputed that this is the language contained in rule 3 of Respondent's posted
42 rules. Assistant General Manager Rice acknowledged that the 42 rules, including
the quoted rule, have been in existence since 1951 and are still in effect. The record
contains no explanation of the reason for the adoption of this particular rule.
8. Respondent's defenses
Respondent contends that the transfer of Parker to the molding department and the
assignment of additional duties to Easley, of which they were advised on August 16,
1963, effective August 19, 1963, were for business reasons, and without knowledge of
union activity. Respondent contends that these actions were not discriminatorily
motivated. Similarly, Respondent contends that the demotion of Campbell as a work-
ing foreman, and the resultant transfer of O'Quinn were for business reasons, and
were effectuated prior to any knowledge by Respondent of union activity. It is
established in the record that these actions affecting Campbell and O'Quinn were
taken and the employees were notified on August 14, 1963, effective August 16, 1963.
It is patent that while the transfer of Parker and McHenry were to a somewhat lower
rated job, the detail not being in the record, neither suffered any reduction in pay. In
fact, since both worked more hours than they had been working in the coreroom, a
take-home pay increase actually resulted. I have found, in addition, that Parker was
granted a 5-cent-per-hour increase, shortly after his transfer, as a merit increase.
775-692-65-vol. 150-80
1248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The credible evidence in the record establishes that the first notice Respondent had
of union activity was when it received a copy of the petition for an election on Au-
gust 20, 1963.
Fleeger credibly testified that a few days after he received notice of the filing of the
petition, he held a meeting of the foremen. Fleeger related that he advised the fore-
men that it was very imperative that the supervisors, since they were part of manage-
ment, stay out of the election and not make any statements that could be construed as
coercive or threatening. Fleeger advised the supervisors that he preferred that they
did not say anything, but they were free, if asked, to express their personal opinion. A
number of the supervisors, in testifying, recited these instructions and asserted that
they had adhered to them at all times. On the basis of demeanor and on the entire
record, I have found this testimony credible.
Concluding Findings
The testimony of Parker establishes the fact that substantially all of the card-signing
activity was done away from the plant, at employees' homes, prior to'the filing of the
petition for an election, on August 19, 1963., There is no evidence of probative value
of any union activity in the plant prior to that date. The sole assertion to the contrary
is contained in the recitation of Campbell that he had union cards in his shirt pocket.
Campbell does not contend that he was observed by any supervisor obtaining signa-
tures to union authorization cards at any time in the plant, if in fact he ever obtained
such signatures in the plant.22 It is undisputed that the transfers, which are the source
of the 8(a)(3) alleged violations were determined upon by Fleeger on August 14,
1963. While Respondent asserted that Campbell's demotion was under consideration
for a substantial period prior thereto, Respondent readily admits the date of the deci-
sion , which is the date that Campbell was notified of it.23 It is obvious that if
Respondent had no knowledge of union activity at the time the decision was made, it
cannot be found that such a decision was discriminatorily motivated by reason of such
activity, in order to discourage the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act. Only 2 of 15 specifications of alleged conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) are
alleged to have occurred prior to August 20, 1963. While I have found, supra, that
Huckabee did not make the statement attributed to him by Parker and Campbell,
Campbell set the time as the second or third week in August, with a resultant earliest
date of August 14, the date of Respondent's decisions, while Parker was uncertain if
the event was on August 7 or 8 or 14 or 15. The time of the other allegation, para-
graph 9(b) of the complaint, was August 8. I have credited Sellers denials, supra, of
the conversation testified to by Hancock. This is covered further infra. Accordingly,
I find the evidence does not establish that Respondent had knowledge of the union
activities of the employees on August 14, 1963. It follows that Respondent's decision
could not have been discriminatorily motivated for that reason.
General Counsel alternatively urges that Respondent's decisions on August 14, 1963,
were a "built-in" excuse to retaliate against the employees because of the concerted
complaints of the employees in July, and that Respondent's desire to alleviate these
complaints was a mere pretext . I do not agree.
General Counsel relies on one.prior Board decision, Anderson-Rooney Operating
Company and Ninth and Detroit Building Corporation, 134 NLRB 1480. In that case
the Board found an employee, Younger, was transferred from a maintenance position
he held at the Sunray Building, at a time when the employer knew an effort was
being made to organize the employees of the Sunray Building The Board found this
transfer discriminatorily motivated. The sole similarity with the instant case lies in
the fact that shortly thereafter Younger was discharged from the job to which he was
transferred , maintenance work at Mid-Continent Building, for cause. The Board
did not order his reinstatement to his position at Mid-Continent, rather it ordered
his reinstatement to his former job at Sunray. I find, on the basis of the facts herein,
that the Anderson case is inapposite.
In the instant case Parker was retransferred to his former position in the coreroom
prior to his discharge, and was discharged for reasons unrelated to his transfer. All'
four employees were discharged for failure to sign a warning slip, which specified
varied derelictions. Such refusal was patently violative of Respondent's rules., No
issue has been litigated relative to the validity of the discharges, or the validity of the
warning slips.
23 While Campbell testified he talked to employees about signing union authorization
cards in the plant,-he did not assert that he obtained any signatures there . In any event
I do not find Campbell's testimony, if such an inference was intended, credible.
23 The testimony of Rice that the decision to demote Campbell predated the meeting
of July 18 is obviously erroneous.
EAST TEXAS STEEL CASTINGS COMPANY, INC. 1249
There can be no doubt that Respondent was aware of the dissatisfaction of the
employees in the coreroom with the amount of their take -home pay. It was for this
reason that Respondent conducted a restudy of the standards established on what has
been identified as the COi cores. The record clearly establishes that Respondent, at
that time, was initiating a second shift in the molding department and availed itself
of an opportunity to transfer two of the coreroom employees , Parker and McHenry,
for the several reasons stated : i.e., it aided the Respondent in obtaining the admittedly
competent services of Parker with a new crew, on the night shift, with which Respond-
ent was experiencing difficulty ; it was done with Parker's consent ; it enabled Parker
and McHenry to obtain 8 hours' pay, or inferentially more pay than was available to
them had they remained in the coreroom ; and it enabled Respondent to give Easley,
Steele , and Harris the work formerly performed in the coreroom by Parker and
McHenry thereby providing them with more hours of work and more take -home pay,
as they had requested . To hold that an employer may not thus attempt to meet the
demands of employees , merely because they are collectively made, without the pos-
sibility of an accusation of discriminatory motivation , when nothing more has been
shown , I find implausible . 24 Similarly , I find no evidence to support General Coun-
sel's contention that the retransfer of McHenry on August 28, 1963, rather than
Parker, who had more seniority, was discriminatorily motivated . Parker had mean-
while been given a 5-cent -per-hour raise , by reason of his satisfactory efforts in the
molding department . Respondent 's evidence that McHenry did a wider variety of
work in the coreroom than Parker is unrebutted , see footnote 4, supra. Accordingly,
I will recommend dismissal of the allegations of paragraphs 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12 of the
complaint insofar as they relate to Parker and Easley.
It is unquestionably true that Campbell was active in alerting Respondent's manage-
ment, through Huckabee , as to the existence of dissatisfaction in the coreroom, on an
unstated date , prior to July 18, 1963. The record demonstrates that Campbell was
both caustic and vituperative in his comments to Buckabee , and to others during the
meeting of July 26, 1963 . While it may be urged that this conduct triggered the actual
timing of the decision to demote Campbell , it has little other value. Campbell's
penchant for being late and missing work culminated in his receiving a warning slip,
for those reasons, in May 1963, long before the incidents herein . Respondent pre-
sented credible testimony that Campbell 's demotion was under consideration before
the events which transpired in July. I find impressive Respondent 's admission that
the actual decision to demote Campbell did not occur until after the July meetings, on
August 14 , 1963. Accordingly , for reasons set forth supra, I find the demotion of
Campbell was not discriminatorily motivated . I similarly find that the transfer of
O'Quinn was solely the result of the demotion of Campbell . General Counsel has con-
ceded that there was nothing discriminatory about the transfer of O'Quinn , unless it is
found that the demotion of Campbell was discriminatory . I recommend the dismissal
of paragraphs 7, 8, 10 , 11, and 12 of the complaint insofar as they relate to Campbell
and O 'Quinn.
I have found supra that the allegations of paragraph 9 of the complaint are unsup-
ported by credible evidence and have indicated that I will recommend the dismissal of
each , except the allegations of subsection ( k). These determinations are based entirely
upon findings of credibility . In arriving at these findings I have considered all of the
testimony , the demeanor of the witnesses, the interest of each witness in the outcome
of the litigation , or lack of such interest, candor or lack thereof , plausibility or
implausibility of the testimony of each witness , and the failure to refute testimony.
Eight of the fifteen specifications of conduct violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act
are attributed to Sellers, supra . Hancock was the sole witness as to the alleged events
of August 8 and October 30, while Moore was the sole witness as to the events
of September 29, October 28, and November 6 and 7. Succinctly stated , Hancock
asserted that while he (Hancock ) had not attended the union meeting on August 3,
which Moore had attended , Sellers inquired of Hancock as to the union activity of both
Hancock and Moore . There is no other evidence - in this record to dispute Sellers'
assertion , which I have credited , that he had no knowledge of union activity prior to
August 20 . Moore, in contrast to the assertions of Hancock , asserted that on October
28, some 21/2 months later, Sellers told him that Sellers wanted to talk to Hancock
about the Union but did not know if Hancock would talk to him. This would appear
highly improbable if Sellers had, if fact, previously discussed the union activity with
u While not inserted in the record , General Counsel , in his brief , asserts that Respond-
ent "has a history of flagrant unfair labor practices " In support thereof, General
Counsel cites East Texas Steel Castings Company, Inc ., 99 NLRB 1339 , but does not
mention East Texas Steel Castings Company, Inc ., 108 NLRB 1078 In view of my
findings herein , I find both of these decisions are remote in 'tinie , relating the events in
1951 and 1952, and unpersuasive in the light 'of the credible evidence I have found herein
1250 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Hancock, as the latter asserted. Moore, on the one hand, related that Sellers urged
him to attend the union meetings in early September, and, on the other hand, advised
him of the Respondent's suspicions relative to Moore because he attended union meet-
ings in November. A highly inconsistent and unlikely sequence. Moore's recitation
of remaining after the others had left, on November 7, for a conference with Sellers,
was demolished by Respondent's evidence of the time the employees all punched out.
No rebuttal of this was offered by General Counsel.
Next considered are the allegations of paragraph 9(k) of the complaint.
The courts and Board have held in numerous cases that it is violative of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act for an employer to restrict the distribution of union literature by
employees on their free time, that is nonwork time, in nonwork areas of a plant,
except where the employer can demonstrate that such distribution is restricted to pre-
vent interference with production, or for reasons connected with safety, etc. The
Board in the Minneapolis-Honeywell case 25 held the presumption of invalidity was
unrebutted. The Board, in that case, distinguished between a rule which had applica-
tion limited to areas where the employees have their work stations. The Board
asserted that it unanimously adheres to the Walton view 26 that a ban on distribution of
literature was presumptively invalid, in normal circumstances, if and msofar as it pre-
cludes employees from distributing union literature when they are on nonworking time
and also in nonworking areas of *the employer's establishment.
This record is without explanation, by the Respondent, of the reason for the adop-
tion of the rule. While the rule was clearly adopted in what is commonly referred
to as the pre-10(b) period, is it undisputed that it was maintained during the entire
10(b) period, and is still in full force and effect. The penalty for a violation of this,
as well as other rules of the Respondent, is stated as "cause for immediate discharge."
Accordingly, for the reasons stated, I find Respondent's maintenance of its rule 3,
during the 10(b) period, constituted interference, restraint, and coercion in violation
of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE '
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connec-
tion with the Respondent's operations described in section I, above, have a close, inti-
mate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States, and, such of them as have been found to constitute unfair labor practices, tend
to lead to labor disputes obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair
labor practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It having been found that Respondent by maintaining a rule which prohibits
employees, during nonworking time, from distributing handbills, placards, posters, or
advertising matter in nonwork areas of the plant, without the permission of the plant
manager, and that said conduct interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees, I
recommend that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from in any like or related
manner infringing upon rights guaranteed to its employees by Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make
the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce ' within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. United Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By maintaining its rule 3 which prohibits employees , during nonworking time,
from distributing union literature in nonworking areas of the plant , without its con-
sent, the Respondent has interfered with , restrained, and coerced employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and has thereby engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. Respondent has not interrogated or threatened its employees or engaged in other
conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, constituting interference with,
restraint, or coercion , as alleged in the complaint, except as found in the preceding
paragraph.
25 Minneapolis -Honeywell Regulator Company, 139 NLRB 849, 851.
20Walton Manufacturing Company, 126 NLRB 697, enfd. 289 F. 2d 177 (C.A. 5). See
Southwire Company, 145 NLRB 1329.
EAST TEXAS STEEL CASTINGS COMPANY, INC. 1251
5. Respondent has not discriminated with respect to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of employees, or engaged in discriminatory conduct in the transfers of W. J.
Parker and Jessie O'Quinn, the assignment of additional work to C. C. Easley, or the
demotion of Gayle Campbell.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the
entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I recommend that
the Respondent , East Texas Steel Casting Company, Inc., its officers , agents, successors,
and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Maintaining any rule which prohibits its employees , during nonworking time,
from distributing handbills, placards, posters , advertising matter, or other literature,
on behalf of United Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO , or any other labor organiza-
tion , in nonworking areas of Respondent 's plant properties , without the permission of
the plant manager.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization , to join or assist the
aforementioned or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing , and to engage in or to refrain from engaging in any
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of
the Act:
(a) Post at its plant at Longview, Texas, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix ." 27 Copies of said notice , to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 16 , shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent 's representative , be posted
by the Respondent 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 insure that such notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in writing , within 20 days from
the date of the receipt of this Trial Examiner's Decision , what steps Respondent has
taken to comply with the foregoing Recommended Order. It is further recommended
that unless , within 20 days from the date of the receipt of the Trial Examiner 's Deci-
sion, the Respondent shall notify the said Regional Director , in writing , that it will
comply with the foregoing Recommended Order,28 the National Labor Relations
Board issue an order requiring Respondent to take the aforesaid action.
It is further recommended that the following allegations of the complaint be dis-
missed : paragraphs 7, 8, 9 (except subsection k), 10, 11, and 12, except as they may
apply to paragraph 9, subsection k.
' In the event this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision
and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Exam-
iner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be 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" will be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order."
21 In the event this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision shall
be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply therewith."
APPENDIX-
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT maintain any rule which prohibits our employees, during non-
work time, from distributing handbills, placards, posters, advertising matter, or
other literature, on behalf of United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization, in nonworking areas of our plant properties, without the
permission of the plant manager.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to join or assist
1252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the aforementioned or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in or to refrain from
engaging in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or
remaining , members of any labor organization.
EAST TEXAS STEEL CASTING COMPANY, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and
must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Sixth Floor,
Meacham Building, 110 West Fifth Street, Fort Worth, Texas, Telephone No. Edison
5-4211, Extension 2131, if they have any question concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions.
International Paper Company and Local No. 2, International
Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO. Case No. 14-CA-
3300. January 26, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 28, 1964, Trial Examiner James F. Foley issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices,
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take cer-
tain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision. Thereafter, Respondent and Intervenor, International
Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, AFL-CIO,
filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and supporting
briefs.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in
connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Mc-
Culloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins].
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, the briefs, and the entire
record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order the Order recom-
1Respondent and Intervenor, have requested oral argument. These requests are hereby
denied because the record, exceptions, and briefs adequately present the issues and posi-
tions of the parties.
150 NLRB No. 122.